The House passed the “SAVE” Act, a restrictive voting bill requiring in-person proof of citizenship for voter registration, a measure projected to disenfranchise millions, particularly women, minorities, and rural residents. The bill’s passage was along party lines, with four Democrats joining Republicans in support. While framed as combating non-citizen voting, critics argue it disproportionately impacts eligible voters lacking readily available citizenship documentation. The bill’s future remains uncertain, facing an uphill battle in the Senate where a filibuster is anticipated.
Read More
A lawsuit filed by the Democratic Party challenges President Trump’s executive order aiming to seize control of election administration from states. The Democrats argue the order is unconstitutional, exceeding the President’s authority and potentially disenfranchising voters. The order seeks to restrict mail-in voting, control the Election Assistance Commission, and mandate stricter voter registration requirements. Legal experts warn the order could significantly disrupt elections and suppress voter turnout. The lawsuit alleges the order stems from Trump’s unfounded claims of voter fraud.
Read More
Estonia’s Riigikogu passed a constitutional amendment, with 93 votes in favor and 7 against, revoking voting rights in local elections for Russian and Belarusian citizens. While stateless residents may vote in this year’s October elections, this privilege will be removed after the next election cycle. The amendment, passed via an expedited process, also removes voting rights for citizens of NATO member states, leaving only Estonian and EU citizens eligible to vote in future local elections. This change follows a proposed amendment to limit voting rights for third-country nationals, passed with 55 votes.
Read More
President Trump’s new executive order, imposing a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration and threatening penalties for states counting late ballots, has sparked immediate backlash from Democrats and voting rights advocates. Legal experts deem the order unlawful, an abuse of executive power potentially disenfranchising millions of voters, and a blatant attempt to reshape election administration. The ACLU and other prominent legal groups have pledged to challenge the order in court, anticipating extensive legal battles. Critics argue the order is an unconstitutional power grab designed to undermine the 2026 midterm elections.
Read More
President Trump’s sweeping executive order seeks to dramatically expand federal control over elections, potentially disenfranchising millions of voters. The order attempts to restrict voter registration, punish states allowing late-arriving ballots, and utilize federal databases to review state voter rolls, ostensibly to combat rare instances of non-citizen voting. This action is expected to face immediate legal challenges, with several Democratic officials already vowing to sue. The order also directs changes to voter registration procedures and voting system certifications, significantly altering the EAC’s role. Critics argue the order is a politically motivated attempt to suppress voter turnout.
Read More
President Trump’s expected takeover of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), involving the dismissal of the postal board, presents a deeply concerning scenario with far-reaching consequences. The sheer audacity of this potential move, stripping away the independence of a 250-year-old institution, is breathtaking. This action could fundamentally alter the way Americans receive mail and packages, affecting everything from personal correspondence to vital medication deliveries.
The implications extend beyond individual inconvenience. The USPS handles trillions of dollars in e-commerce transactions annually. Disrupting this system would send shockwaves through the economy, impacting businesses large and small. This isn’t simply a matter of inefficiency; it’s a potential catastrophe for the nation’s commercial infrastructure.… Continue reading
H.R.55, a bill introduced to repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), also known as the Motor Voter Act, is a deeply concerning piece of legislation. This act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, significantly simplified voter registration, aiming to increase participation, particularly among marginalized groups. The NVRA mandates that states offer voter registration opportunities at various locations, including driver’s license agencies and public assistance offices, making the process significantly more accessible. It also prohibits states from removing registered voters from the rolls unless specific criteria are met, aiming to maintain accurate and up-to-date voter lists.
H.R.55’s proposed repeal would directly contradict the NVRA’s core principles.… Continue reading
The 2024 election was marred by widespread voter suppression, disproportionately impacting voters of color. Millions of voters were purged from rolls, challenged by vigilante groups, or had their ballots disqualified due to minor errors. This suppression, estimated to have cost Kamala Harris at least 3,565,000 votes, likely changed the outcome in key swing states, resulting in a loss for Harris despite winning the popular vote. Without this suppression, Harris would have won the presidency with 286 electoral votes.
Read More
Despite his conviction for falsifying business records, Donald Trump received an unconditional discharge and faces no jail time, fines, or community service. This felony conviction, however, will impact some of his rights, including prohibiting him from owning firearms and potentially affecting certain business opportunities such as obtaining liquor licenses. He retains his right to vote in Florida and to travel internationally, although some countries may restrict entry for individuals with felony convictions. A presidential pardon is not applicable, as only the New York governor can pardon him for this state-level crime.
Read More
Chief Justice Roberts’ year-end report uses images of civil rights-era judges, like J. Waties Waring, to deflect criticism of contemporary judicial decisions. This tactic, also employed by Judge Edith Jones, falsely equates modern judicial opponents to those who faced violent backlash for upholding civil rights. Sherrilyn Ifill argues this comparison is ahistorical and inaccurate, highlighting the stark difference between judges who risked their safety and standing to advance justice and those facing criticism today. This appropriation of civil rights history ignores the systemic racism faced by civil rights advocates and minimizes the severity of the modern critiques. The comparison is ultimately a misguided attempt to shield controversial rulings from legitimate scrutiny.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood