SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
freedom to vote act
Watchdog Unveils Standards for Countermeasures to 'Authoritarian' GOP Gerrymandering
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," said the head of Common Cause.
Aug 12, 2025
As Republicans try to rig congressional maps in several states and Democrats threaten retaliatory measures, a pro-democracy watchdog on Tuesday unveiled new fairness standards underscoring that "independent redistricting commissions remain the gold standard for ending partisan gerrymandering."
Common Cause will hold an online media briefing Wednesday at noon Eastern time "to walk reporters though the six pieces of criteria the organization will use to evaluate any proposed maps."
The Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group said that "it will closely evaluate, but not automatically condemn, countermeasures" to Republican gerrymandering efforts—especially mid-decade redistricting not based on decennial censuses.
Amid the gerrymandering wars, we just launched 6 fairness criteria to hold all actors to the same principled standard: people first—not parties. Read our criteria here: www.commoncause.org/resources/po...
[image or embed]
— Common Cause (@commoncause.org) August 12, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Common Cause's six fairness criteria for mid-decade redistricting are:
- Proportionality: Any mid-decade redistricting should be a targeted response proportional to the threat posed by mid-decade gerrymanders in other states.
- Public participation: Any redistricting must include meaningful public participation, whether through ballot initiatives or open public processes.
- Racial equity: Redistricting must not further racial discrimination or dilute the political voice of Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian American, and Pacific Islander, or other communities of color.
- Federal reform: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, including provisions banning mid-decade redistricting and partisan gerrymandering.
- Endorsement of independent redistricting: Leaders pursuing mid-decade redistricting must publicly endorse citizen-led independent redistricting commissions as the long-term solution.
- Time-limited: Any new redistricting maps must expire following the 2030 Census, which counts all people in our country, and be replaced through the regular decennial redistricting process.
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said in a statement. "But neither will we call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarian tactics that undermine fair representation."
"We have established a fairness criteria that we will use to evaluate all countermeasures so we can respond to the most urgent threats to fair representation while holding all actors to the same principled standard: people—not parties—first," she added.
Common Cause's fairness criteria come amid the ongoing standoff between Republicans trying to gerrymander Texas' congressional map and Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in a bid to stymie a vote on the measure. Texas state senators on Tuesday approved the proposed map despite a walkout by most of their Democratic colleagues.
Leaders of several Democrat-controlled states, most notably California, have threatened retaliatory redistricting.
"This moment is about more than responding to a single threat—it's about building the movement for lasting reform," Kase Solomón asserted. "This is not an isolated political tactic; it is part of a broader march toward authoritarianism, dismantling people-powered democracy, and stripping away the people's ability to have a political voice and say in how they are governed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The 2024 Election Was Smothered in Dark Money—How Do We Turn on the Lights?
A new Brennan Center study found that dark money groups spent almost $2 billion on the 2024 election, roughly double the total spent in 2020.
May 08, 2025
Every day brings a new story about the outsized role of private wealth in American politics. Elon Musk slashing and burning his way through federal agencies. Billionaire campaign donors like Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon running cabinet departments. Other Trump patrons reportedly shaping policy on everything from crypto to the Middle East. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, a small group of major donors is organizing to fund the party’s 2026 push to retake Congress.
And these are only the donors we know about.
The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision ushered in the era of “dark money”—ballooning campaign spending by groups that do not disclose their funding sources. On Wednesday, the Brennan Center published a study by the journalist Anna Massoglia. She found that dark money groups spent almost $2 billion on the 2024 election, roughly double the total spent in 2020. And that’s the money Massoglia could identify—the real total is almost certainly higher, perhaps substantially so.
Voters are deeply unhappy about the role of money in politics, but years of inaction to address this issue have also left them understandably cynical.
The term “dark money” as we use it refers to election spending by groups that are not legally required to—and do not—disclose their donors. Most of this spending would have been illegal before Citizens United, which eviscerated many long-standing limits on campaign money and led to the creation of super PACs, political organizations that can raise and spend unlimited money on campaigns.
The justices got many things wrong in Citizens United. One of them was their assurance that all the new campaign spending they had just allowed would be transparent, allowing Americans to be fully informed about who was trying to influence their votes.
The justices seem not to have realized, however, that many of the new groups they were now permitting to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns were not subject to any disclosure rules. There have since been numerous efforts to fix this oversight and require all major campaign donors to be made public—most recently as part of the Freedom to Vote Act, which came within two votes of overcoming a Senate filibuster in 2022—but none of those bills have made it through Congress.
Meanwhile, dark money in federal elections has continued to rise—and become even harder to trace. In the years immediately after Citizens United, groups that didn’t reveal their donors tended to purchase their own campaign ads, which were at least reported to the Federal Election Commission if they ran in the weeks before the election and were therefore fairly easy to track. Even if the source of the money was opaque, we could see the spending itself.
Now, as our new analysis shows, reported campaign ads account for just a tiny fraction of dark money spending. Most of it now goes directly into the coffers of super PACs, and some of it pays for online ads and early-cycle TV and radio ads not subject to any legally required disclosure. We are able to track down some of that money due to voluntary disclosures and research using services that monitor TV advertising, but our overall tally of dark money spent in 2024 is an undercount, possibly by a large margin.
Both Republicans and Democrats benefited from significant dark money support in 2024, but the majority of traceable dark money backed Democrats. Most of those funds went toward enormous spending in the presidential race—$1 out of every $6 in dark money that we can track was funneled to Future Forward, the super PAC backing Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris. Trump’s dark money support that we know about was not as high, although it still amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars (including more than $35 million that paid for apparent “false flag” ads in swing states designed to look like they came from Harris).
Ultimately, neither party will have any incentive to curb reliance on secret spending absent a change in the law. To congressional Democrats’ credit, they included a fix in the Freedom to Vote Act. It was among the most popular provisions in the bill, enjoying broad public support among voters from both parties.
Voters are deeply unhappy about the role of money in politics, but years of inaction to address this issue have also left them understandably cynical. Regaining Americans’ trust must include concrete steps to make it easier for them to hold political leaders accountable. Providing the transparency that even Citizens United promised 15 years ago would be a good place to start.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The GOP Has Already Cheated in the 2024 House Race
A Brennan Center analysis found that gerrymandering in 2024 will give Republicans approximately 16 additional seats in the House of Representatives compared to fairly drawn maps.
Oct 03, 2024
Gerrymandering is as old as the republic. In the very first congressional election, Patrick Henry drew a map to try to keep James Madison from being elected to Congress. (That was before the word “gerrymandering” was even coined.) Today, both parties do it with gusto when they can.
And now gerrymandering may decide control of the House of Representatives.
Once, gerrymandering was an art. Phillip Burton, the legendary Democratic House member from San Francisco who served from the 1960s to the 1980s, used to draw the state’s maps on a tablecloth at a Sacramento restaurant. He proudly called one misshapen district “my contribution to modern art.” Now, however, it’s a science. Digital technology has reshaped the drawing of maps. Partisans can craft districts to quash competition in a way that lasts throughout a decade.
Gerrymandering may be as old as the republic, but so is the fight for fair maps.
Once, there was hope the courts would step in. In 2019, however, the Supreme Court ruled that federal judges were barred from policing partisan gerrymandering. And while it is still illegal to draw district lines to discriminate based on race, judges have often winked and allowed politicians to racially gerrymander so long as they shrug and say, “It’s not about race, it’s just politics.”
Rampant district rigging has blocked fair representation in many states, especially in the South. Nearly all the population growth in the United States over the past decade took place in the South and Southwest, and most of that came from communities of color—the very voters who should be represented and who are being shut out of power.
Now, we know that there are direct partisan consequences too. All the map drawing, all the lawsuits, are done for 2024. The dust has settled. And the Brennan Center’s experts have analyzed the effects of gerrymandering. Attorney Michael Li and political scientist Peter Miller have checked and rechecked the data.
Here’s what they found: Gerrymandering in 2024 will give Republicans approximately 16 additional seats in the House of Representatives compared to fairly drawn maps. That is well more than the margin of control in this Congress or in the one before it. There can be no question that this was done deliberately and with scientific precision—and comes especially at the expense of communities of color. In most of the gerrymandered states, there were hundreds or thousands of fair maps that could have been drawn.
What can be done about it?
One answer comes from Ohio. Seven times, the state supreme court there struck down unfair maps drawn by the Republicans. (The Brennan Center represented a broad coalition of Ohio voters.) Each time, partisan map drawers simply ignored the court. Then the state’s esteemed Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, a prominent Republican, retired due to term limits. Now she leads a statewide drive for a ballot measure to create a strong, independent, citizen-led redistricting commission. This conservative stalwart teamed up with the progressive grassroots Ohio Organizing Collaborative. It’s a buddy movie for the ages.
Republicans tried to change the number of votes needed to pass a measure like this, but citizens rejected that sneaky move. Then state officials rewrote the language to say that the initiative was designed to support gerrymandering. No matter. Polls look strong, and there is a good chance that in Ohio, voters will untilt the legislature and congressional maps. Ohio would join Arizona, California, Colorado, and Michigan with their independent commissions. It is a prime exhibit of why voters should be able to overrule politicians.
There’s a national solution too. The Freedom to Vote Act would ban partisan gerrymandering in congressional redistricting. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would strengthen that vital law against racially discriminatory rules. Both bills came achingly close to passing in the last Congress.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), at a Brennan Center event with Democracy SENTRY in Chicago this summer, announced that Democrats would make these voting rights bills the first order of business—and that they would change the filibuster rules so they could pass. The next night, Vice President Kamala Harris pledged to sign them (the only bills mentioned by name in her convention speech).
Gerrymandering may be as old as the republic, but so is the fight for fair maps. At the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787, James Madison insisted on the provision used to give Congress the power to override local politicians. It used “words of great latitude,” he explained, because “it was impossible to foresee all the abuses” that might come. “Whenever the State Legislatures had a favorite measure to carry, they would take care so to mould their regulations as to favor the candidates they wished to succeed.”
Meanwhile, voters will go to the polls to choose their representatives—but too often, the representatives will choose the voters. And the Congress that would consider reform will be one disfigured by biased rules and manipulative maps.
Keep ReadingShow Less
2024 Trifecta Imperative to Win Key Democracy Reforms
We must repair and revitalize the rules of our democracy in order to reflect our democratic values, to ensure the opportunity for every eligible citizen to vote, and to protect against political money corruption of our democracy.
Sep 06, 2024
On January 5, 2021, two Democrats won Senate runoff elections in Georgia. This flipped the Senate and resulted in an unexpected “trifecta”—Democratic control of the White House, the House, and the Senate.
Could a trifecta happen again in 2025?
The odds currently are against it, primarily because of the Senate races.
But if Democrats win the presidency, a trifecta is possible and, if that happens, historic democracy reforms that nearly passed in the last Congress would be on the doorstep for quick passage in 2025.
Whether the Democrats obtain a trifecta in November is in the hands of the voters, and possibly the courts if Trump refuses to accept the election results as he did in 2020.
The presidential race is currently close, with U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris inching ahead of former President Donald Trump in recent polls.
A Harris victory could provide down-ballot support, especially in key House races, including races in California and New York. Democrats need to pick up just four seats to flip the House.
Holding the Democrats’ two-vote majority in the Senate, which includes four Independents who caucus with them, is much more difficult—but not impossible.
Of the 34 Senate seats up for election in November, 23 are currently held by 19 Democrats and the four Independents, and just 11 by Republicans.
Senate Democrats and Independents currently hold a 51-49 edge over Republicans.
It’s widely expected that Democrats will lose the seat currently held by retiring Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.). To maintain control of the Senate, Democrats would need to hold all of their remaining seats that are up this year, along with a Harris win to preserve the vice president’s tie-breaking vote.
Democrats and Independents running for reelection generally are polling ahead of their challengers, except for Sen. John Tester in Montana, who currently trails Republican businessman Tim Sheehy.
There are two crosscurrents at work in the Senate races, which include a handful of Democratic incumbents running in red and purple states.
On the one hand, ticket-splitting for President and Congress has become increasingly rare, and there are Democratic Senators seeking reelection in Ohio and Montana, states where Trump is expected to win easily.
On the other hand, incumbents typically enjoy an edge. In 2022, all 29 Senate incumbents won reelection. In 2020, 84% of Senate incumbents won.
The Democratic trifecta in 2021 resulted in Congress coming close to passing historic democracy reforms dealing with voting rights, money in politics, partisan gerrymandering, and other core reform issues.
If Democrats beat the odds and obtain a trifecta in November, Congress is expected to move quickly to pass the democracy reform measures.
In 2021, after the House passed early versions of the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, Senate Democrats failed by just two votes to pass an exception to the filibuster rule that would have allowed the democracy reform legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority and go to President Joe Biden for his signature.
Ironically, the two Democrats who voted against the filibuster rule exception, Sens. Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, voted just weeks earlier for an exception to the filibuster rule in order to pass an increase in the debt ceiling. And both senators were supporters of the democracy reform legislation.
But for these two Senators opposing the filibuster exception, historic democracy reforms would be protecting our democracy and our elections today.
Both Manchin and Sinema are retiring this year.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently said, “One of the first things I want to do, should we have the presidency and keep the majority, is change the [filibuster] rules and enact both the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Act.” Schumer said the Democrats will have the votes needed to “change the rules,” should Democrats keep control of the Senate.
“This is vital to democracy,” Schumer said, “This is not just another extraneous issue. This is the wellspring of it all.”
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) also has indicated that the two democracy reform bills would be an early House priority if Democrats flip the House. Indicating its top priority status, Jeffries assigned H.R. 11 to the Freedom to Vote Act in this Congress, the lowest number he, as House Minority Leader, could give to a bill.
Vice President Harris is a longtime supporter of these core democracy measures. At last month’s Democratic convention, Harris said in her acceptance speech: “[T]he freedom that unlocks all the others [is] the freedom to vote. With this election, we finally have the opportunity to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act.”
For decades, there has been bipartisan leadership and support for numerous democracy reforms. They include the Watergate reforms of the 1970s; the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its regular reauthorizations and amendments in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006; and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
Since the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision in 2010, however, congressional Republicans have almost unanimously opposed democracy reforms, leaving Democrats to support them alone.
Polls have shown these democracy reforms have strong public support among both Democrats and Republicans.
The Freedom to Vote Act would be the most comprehensive pro-democracy law enacted in decades. It would:
>> Reverse voter suppression laws that have flooded red states since the 2020 presidential election, using as justification Trump’s continuing false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him.
- Increase access to the ballot, including early voting requirements in all states for federal elections.
- Require each state to provide for no-excuse vote by mail.
- Provide for accessible voting by individuals with disabilities.
- Provide for automatic voter registration.
- Establish nonpartisan standards to prevent extreme partisan gerrymandering.
- End secret “dark money” contributions from being spent in federal elections.
- Establish a voluntary system of matching small donations with public funds, but not taxpayer funds, for House races.
- Strengthen enforcement of federal campaign finance laws.
The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would strengthen the legal protections against discriminatory voting policies and practices by restoring the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and repairing the damage done by recent Supreme Court decisions. It would:
- Revitalize the Voting Right Act’s preclearance provisions, after the Supreme Court gutted these rules, to require preclearance for new voting laws in certain states and localities to ensure they are not discriminatory.
- Provide a new way for determining which states and localities are covered by the preclearance provisions.
- Repair Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, also gutted by the Supreme Court, to allow voters to sue to block voting rules that are discriminatory or will create discriminatory results.
- Provide an expedited means for covered states to “bail out” of coverage to be released from the preclearance requirement if they have not engaged in discriminatory behavior for a specified period of time.
Whether the Democrats obtain a trifecta in November is in the hands of the voters, and possibly the courts if Trump refuses to accept the election results as he did in 2020.
But one thing is clear—we must repair and revitalize the rules of our democracy in order to reflect our democratic values, to ensure the opportunity for every eligible citizen to vote, and to protect against political money corruption of our democracy.
This begins with the enactment of the two historic democracy reform bills, the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Right to Vote Is Under Attack' as House Republicans Pass SAVE Act
"Republicans want to throw up barriers because when people vote, they lose," said Congresswoman Summer Lee.
Jul 10, 2024
Democracy defenders on Wednesday said House Republicans' passage of a bill that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in federal elections is an attack on voting rights that underscores the need to pass comprehensive legislation to protect ballot access for all.
House lawmakers voted 221-198 in favor of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas). Every Republican present voted for the bill; all but five House Democrats rejected it.
Republicans claim the bill is meant to fix the virtually nonexistent "problem" of noncitizen voter fraud. Critics accused GOP lawmakers of ulterior motives.
"When we say that the right to vote is under attack, we're not talking about hypotheticals. It is under attack right here, right now with this bill," Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) said on the House floor before Wednesday's vote. "Republicans want to throw up barriers because when people vote, they lose."
"Let me be clear: They don't want you to vote," Lee added. "They don't want to hear Black voices, brown voices, LBGTQIA+ voices, young voices. Our fundamental access to our democracy is being politicized. And this xenophobic attack that we're debating today will make it harder for Americans to vote."
Lee highlighted her recently introduced Right to Vote Act, "which would establish the first-ever affirmative federal voting rights guarantee, ensuring every citizen may exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot."
"This bill would enshrine people's right to vote and prohibit governments on all levels from restricting that right with bills like this one," she explained. "This bill is part of the Democrats' Freedom to Vote Act. And along with the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, these are the types of bills we should be bringing to the floor, not this nonsense."
Referring to presumptive Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump's 2020 conspiracy theory, Jonah Minkoff-Zern, co-director of the democracy campaign at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "The SAVE Act is the Big Lie in legislative form."
Calling out the House speaker, a Louisiana Republican, Minkoff-Zern stressed that "extremist members of Congress like Mike Johnson are acting in bad faith to stop people from voting. The xenophobic election claims that underpin this bill are not based on factual evidence," he continued.
"If Congress is serious about protecting democracy, it will immediately prioritize the Freedom to Vote Act and John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act—as well as the Native American Voting Rights Act and [District of Columbia] Statehood—which would ensure that the voices and votes of all voters are heard in our elections," he added. "Next week, people will join more than 80 events around the country to honor the legacy of Rep. John Lewis [D-Ga.] by demanding action on these bills."
In a Tuesday
piece referring to the far-right conspiracy theory that global elites are intentionally driving the demographic demise of nonwhite people in Western nations, Washington Post columnist Phillip Bump called the SAVE Act "Great Replacement Theory, now in legislation form."
"There's no evidence that noncitizen voting is a significant problem, much less a regular occurrence," Bump wrote. "The Heritage Foundation, which has for years been adamantly promoting the idea that voter fraud is rampant, has a database of demonstrated fraud. It includes fewer than 100 cases of noncitizen voting or voter registrations since 2002—a period during which more than 678 million votes were cast in presidential elections alone."
The bill will "make it harder for citizens to vote," which is "a central reason the League of Women Voters opposes the legislation," Bump asserted. "Require people to have documentation when they register to vote, and people without that documentation won't register—even if they're otherwise allowed to."
"Who are those people? Research published in January found that those without a valid driver's license are more likely to be young as well as nonwhite," he wrote. "They are often, in other words, people who lean Democratic."
"Win-win-win. Demonize immigrants, amplify the idea that elections are riddled with fraud, and make it harder for people who vote Democratic to vote," Bump added. "The SAVE Act is a neat little package of Republican interests."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Democracy Defenders Applaud Fresh Push for 'Urgently Needed' Voting Rights Bill
"It will take passage of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to curb this new generation of assaults on the freedom to vote," said one campaigner.
Sep 19, 2023
Although it is nearly certain to go nowhere in a Republican-dominated U.S. House of Representatives, pro-democracy groups nationwide celebrated on Tuesday as Congresswoman Terri Sewell reintroduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
"Generations of Americans—many in my hometown of Selma, Alabama—marched, fought, and even died for the equal right of all Americans to vote," Sewell (D-Ala.) said in a statement. "But today, their legacy and our very democracy are under attack as MAGA extremists target voters with new laws to restrict voting access."
"The fight for voting rights has never been more urgent," she argued, explaining that the legislation—named for the late Democratic Georgia congressman and civil rights leader—aims to restore and modernize the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), which was gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court a decade ago in Shelby County v. Holder.
The bill is backed by every House Democrat but faces tough odds in both chambers. Early last year, Democratic right-wing Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), who switched from Democrat to Independent in December, worked with Republicans to block a megabill that included the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis legislation.
Still, U.S. advocacy groups on Tuesday applauded the lawmakers' renewed push for federal voting rights reforms—as they did in July, when Democratic leaders reintroduced the Freedom to Vote Act.
"The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is key in preserving democracy, full stop," declared Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert. "A decade after the Supreme Court gutted 'preclearance' protection in the Voting Rights Act, more than half of U.S. states have passed over 90 laws that make it harder to vote for communities of color, in particular."
"Without this legislation, we risk further entrenching anti-democratic, partisan forces that want to choose their own voters," Gilbert warned.
According to the Declaration for American Democracy coalition:
In the last decade since the Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court decision gutted key enforcement mechanisms in the Voting Rights Act, at least 29 states have passed 94 laws making it harder to vote, with at least 11 states enacting 13 restrictive voting laws in 2023 alone.
Attacks on our freedom to vote disproportionately impact Black, Latino, Asian, Native, and other voters of color. Since Shelby v. Holder, the racial turnout gap has grown significantly in 5 of the 6 states previously covered by the preclearance sections of the Voting Rights Act.
Sylvia Albert, Common Cause's director of voting and elections, stressed that "this ongoing effort to suppress the vote harkens back to the shameful Jim Crow era. At that time, it took the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and rigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice to curb the wholesale abuses and attacks on the freedom to vote."
"Today it will take passage of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to curb this new generation of assaults on the freedom to vote and to strengthen the ability of the Department of Justice to protect that sacred freedom with the tools it used for decades," she asserted, specifically calling out Republican-controlled state legislatures that have tried "to silence Black and Brown voters after they showed up to vote in record numbers during the 2020 election."
Noting that the VRA "has a long history of bipartisan support," Leslie Proll of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights said: "We applaud our elected officials who have responded to the call of the majority of people in this country who support new legislation to protect the vote. We need federal action now."
Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, also highlighted previous bipartisan support for the VRA, pointing out that "the last time the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized, in 2006, it gained 98 votes in the Senate." He called on Congress to swiftly pass the "urgently needed" John Lewis bill and the Freedom to Vote Act.
Organizations focused on key issues like abortion rights and the climate emergency also demanded action on the proposal.
"This legislation is long overdue," said a 15-member coalition that included Clean Water Action, Climate Hawks Vote, the Climate Reality Project, Earthjustice, EDF Action, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Greenpeace USA, Interfaith Power & Light, League of Conservation Voters, the National Wildlife Federation, NextGen America, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and Zero Hour.
"We cannot effectively tackle the critical issues our nation faces—like combating the climate crisis, advancing environmental justice, and protecting our air, lands, waters, biodiversity, wildlife, and oceans—without fixing the broken system that caters to corporate polluters and disenfranchises too many voters," the coalition argued.
Meanwhile, NARAL Pro-Choice America said on social media that "voting rights and reproductive freedom are deeply intertwined."
"Anti-abortion extremists attack voting rights knowing that it is critical to electing repro champions," the organization added. "Congress MUST pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Warns State Voter Purges Are a Growing Threat to Democracy
"We are facing an unprecedented assault on voting rights in this country, and purges that erroneously target eligible voters for removal are part of the problem," said one campaigner.
Aug 10, 2023
States removed more than 19 million people—or about 8.5% of the registered U.S. electorate—from voter rolls between the 2020 and 2022 electoral cycles, often via flawed practices that prevent many eligible persons from exercising their right to vote, a report released Thursday revealed.
The report—Protecting Voter Registration: An Assessment of Voter Purge Policies in 10 States—from the liberal think tank Dēmos, examines how voters are removed from electoral rolls in Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin.
"An inclusive democracy requires free and fair ballot access. But too many states are limiting this fundamental right."
"Between the close of registration for the 2020 general election and the close of registration for the 2022 general election, states reported removing 19,260,000 records from their voter registration rolls," the report notes. "This was equal to 8.5% of the total number of voters who were registered in the United States as of the close of registration for the 2022 general election."
"Of course, some removals are necessary for the proper maintenance of voter rolls, such as for persons who have died or have moved away from their voting jurisdiction," the authors acknowledged. "One of the most frequent reasons for purging, however, was 'inactivity,' or failure to respond to a confirmation notice and not voting in at least two consecutive federal general elections. This reason accounted for more than a quarter of all removals while 26.8% and 25.6% were for address change or death of the registrant, respectively."
The report continues:
Flawed voter purge practices—such as removals for inactivity or based on inaccurate identification of felony status or citizenship status—often disproportionately target voters of color, naturalized citizens, and other communities, and can prevent many eligible persons from exercising their right to vote. In addition, too many states lack readily available data on voter purges, which prevents advocates, organizers, and voters from stopping improper purges before they happen or correcting an erroneous purge in time for an election. As a result, tens of thousands of eligible voters who have taken all the necessary steps to exercise their right to vote are wrongly prevented from making their voices heard in our democracy.
"Protecting voting rights and fair elections includes equitable election administration and voter roll maintenance," Dēmos president Taifa Smith Butler said in a statement. "We are facing an unprecedented assault on voting rights in this country, and purges that erroneously target eligible voters for removal are part of the problem."
"The Supreme Court has spent the last decade systematically weakening the protections in the Voting Rights Act," she continued. "Extremist state legislatures are passing laws that disproportionately target Black and Brown voters. Voter suppression efforts are a direct threat to the basic rights of Black and Brown people, families, and communities, as well as young and rural voters. This analysis makes it clear that we must pass comprehensive, federal voting rights legislation.”
The 10 states in the report were selected "because their voter removal laws and safeguards, as well as the accessibility and transparency of their registration data, provide representative examples of the spectrum of laws and practices across the United States."
"Additionally, many of these state legislatures are either considering bills or have recently enacted laws that impact how voters are removed from the voter rolls," the report notes. "In the 2022 legislative session, state lawmakers introduced at least 43 bills that would allow or require problematic voter purges, and in 2023, as of the writing of this report, states are considering at least 28 additional bills."
Dēmos graded the states on a percentage-point scale in four categories: voter removal practices, safeguards against erroneous removal, data accessibility, and data transparency. In the removal practices category, Indiana received the highest score, earning a 76% rating, while Ohio, which scored 24%, ranking last. For safeguards, Wisconsin received a 90% rating, while six states tied for last with a 20% score. North Carolina and Ohio got perfect 100% scores for data accessibility, while Indiana received a 0% rating. North Carolina and Georgia received perfect scores for data transparency; Indiana got another 0% mark.
"All 10 states must modernize their removal practices to ensure that only ineligible voters are removed from the rolls, and all need better systems to ensure that erroneously removed eligible voters can re-register and vote in the current election," the report asserts.
"We know from work with partners in other states that the problems identified here are not confined to these 10 states."
"Additionally, almost all these states need improved policies to ensure that they collect and publish voter registration data in an accessible and transparent format," the publication adds. "While we examine only a subset of states, we know from work with partners in other states that the problems identified here are not confined to these 10 states but are likely representative of issues across the entire United States."
"Bottom line: Every examined state must improve its laws and practices to guard against improper voter registration purges," the authors stressed.
The report offers a lengthy list of recommendations for federal and state lawmakers, election officials, and advocates to improve the voter removal process and ensure a more inclusive democracy. At the federal level, the Freedom to Vote Act was reintroduced last month after narrowly failing to pass during the 117th Congress. However, the measure has little chance of making it to President Joe Biden's desk given Republican control of the House of Representatives.
The Dēmos report comes amid ongoing efforts by GOP-controlled state legislatures to restrict voting rights. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive public policy institute, at least 322 restrictive bills have been introduced in 45 states this year, with 13 laws enacted. The center said six of the introduced bills "would increase the risk of faulty voter purges."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Our Democracy Demands It': Rights Groups Cheer as Dems Revive Freedom to Vote Act
"We are in dangerous territory," warned one activist. "We must enshrine our democratic freedoms in federal legislation that would blunt the multipronged attacks on our democracy."
Jul 18, 2023
Democracy defenders on Tuesday applauded as Democratic leaders from both chambers of Congress came together to reintroduce the Freedom to Vote Act, which aims to improve voter access and electoral administration, boost election integrity, and increase civic participation and empowerment.
"Today’s introduction of the Freedom to Vote Act is the first step to injecting a renewed commitment to democratic principles," said Christine Wood and Allison Pulliam, co-directors of the Declaration for American Democracy coalition. "We believe every eligible voter should have their vote counted, every candidate should be able to run without caving in to big influence and big money, and every elected official should be beholden to constituents first."
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) joined the bill's sponsors—Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.)—and other Democrats for a Tuesday press conference, during which they condemned MAGA Republicans' attacks on U.S. democracy.
"These attacks demand a federal response," said Klobuchar. "The Freedom to Vote Act will set basic national standards to make sure all Americans can cast their ballots in the way that works best for them, regardless of what ZIP code they live in. This bill will ensure Americans can request a mail-in ballot and have access to drop boxes, have at least two weeks of early voting, and can register to vote on Election Day."
"It's past time for Congress to act and protect Americans' freedom to vote."
While the bill is unlikely to reach the desk of President Joe Biden—who is running for reelection—during this term, given the GOP-controlled House and divided Senate hamstrung by the filibuster, campaigners echoed Democrats' assertions of the need for the bill's reforms.
"It has been 10 years since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted voting rights, and two years since a president attempted to overturn the will of voters to remain in power," noted Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert—calling out former President Donald Trump, who is seeking the GOP's 2024 nomination despite inciting the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
"Between the Shelby v. Holder decision and extremists in Congress and state houses—supported by wealthy interests who don't want democracy—we are in dangerous territory," Gilbert warned. "We must enshrine our democratic freedoms in federal legislation that would blunt the multipronged attacks on our democracy."
Stand Up America founder and president Sean Eldridge agreed, declaring that "it's past time for Congress to act and protect Americans' freedom to vote. As MAGA Republicans continue to erect barriers to the ballot box, particularly for communities of color, we need national standards to ensure voting access for every American, no matter where they live."
Cliff Albright, co-founder and executive director of Black Voters Matter, said that "the reintroduction of the Freedom to Vote Act is essential to overcoming the obstacles of new voter suppression laws we see taking shape every day in states like Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. In addition to the wave of voter suppression laws seen in 2021 and 2022, this year has seen hundreds of additional voter suppression bills attempted, and at least 11 states have passed such restrictions."
"Just yesterday, lawmakers in Alabama voted to advance a new congressional map that does not include a second majority-Black district, completely ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that mandates the state's maps must include this majority-Black district," he pointed out. "The fight for our rights is playing out on the state level and continues to permeate our daily lives in the South. That is why national legislation that is pro-voter and anti-corruption is absolutely necessary at this moment in history."
A coalition of climate and environmental groups—Clean Water Action, Climate Hawks Vote, Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Greenpeace USA, Interfaith Power & Light, League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice—also celebrated the bill's reintroduction.
"While we recognize that our democracy has never truly worked for all Americans, the Freedom to Vote Act will help move us closer to the mountaintop, where every American has equitable access to the ballot, and a brighter light will shine on the fossil fuel billionaires and corporations who pour big money into anti-environmental politicians and misleading ads hampering our ability to combat the climate crisis," the coalition said.
Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center and a Republican former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, highlighted that "the aims of the Freedom to Vote Act—prohibiting partisan gerrymandering, protecting the freedom to vote, and increasing the transparency of money spent in federal elections—are supported by a significant majority of Americans, regardless of party."
While opposition to the Freedom to Vote Act has mostly come from GOP lawmakers, some Democrats have helped block it. Early last year, Democratic right-wing Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), who is suspected of considering a 2024 presidential run, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), who switched from Democrat to Independent in December, teamed up with Republicans to kill a proposed change to the Senate filibuster that would have cleared the way for passing a voting rights package.
At the time, lawmakers were fighting to pass a megabill that included not only the Freedom to Vote Act but also the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, legislation named for a late Democratic congressman and civil rights icon. Some campaigners also emphasized the importance of the latter on Tuesday.
"Along with the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act's protections against racial discrimination, the Freedom to Vote Act has the best solutions available to strengthen our democracy for all," asserted Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. "Congress must advance the Freedom to Vote Act. Our democracy demands it."
Leslie Proll, senior director of the voting rights program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, similarly stressed the importance of both bills.
"We urge both chambers of Congress to pass the Freedom to Vote Act so we can build a multiracial democracy that works for all of us," said Proll. "We also look forward to Congress reintroducing and passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act."
Common Cause interim co-president Marilyn Carpinteyro on Tuesday sent a letter to all members of Congress on behalf of her group and its more than 1.5 million members and supporters "in strong support of the Freedom to Vote Act and in strong opposition to the 'American Confidence in Elections' (ACE) Act," which was introduced by House Republicans earlier this month.
"The ACE Act is a giant step backward and would silence the voices of everyday Americans by putting up barriers to voting and by allowing millions of dollars more in secret money to infiltrate our political system," Carpinteyro wrote. "To strengthen free and fair elections and help get big, secret money out of politics, Congress must instead pass the Freedom to Vote Act."
Keep ReadingShow Less
10 Years After Supreme Court Gutted Voting Rights, Advocates Say Congress Must Reverse Damage
At least 29 of the voter suppression laws passed since the Shelby v. Holder County decision would have been subject to the preclearance provision that the ruling ended.
Jun 25, 2023
Since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Shelby County v. Holder exactly 10 years ago Sunday, at least 29 states have enacted nearly 100 restrictive laws including many that are racially discriminatory, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice.
The nonpartisan law and policy think tank said Friday that at least one-third of the voting restrictions—29 of them—passed in the last decade were enacted in 11 states which would have been subject to preclearance, the anti-discrimination rule that provided crucial protections as part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) before Shelby was decided.
Under preclearance, jurisdictions that had histories of barring people from voting based on their race were required to get federal approval before introducing new voting policies.
"Without this guardrail, voters lost a bulwark against discriminatory voting policies, and states previously subject to preclearance were free to implement discriminatory restrictions on voting access without advance checks," wrote Jasleen Singh and Sara Carter at the Brennan Center. "Many states did exactly that. Along with a prior decision narrowly interpreting constitutional protections for voting rights, Shelby County also sent a message to the nation that the federal courts would no longer play their historic role as a robust protector of voting rights."
"Since the 2020 election, 20 states passed 32 laws restricting mail voting access. Overall, 22 states passed 41 such laws since Shelby County. Some of these new restrictions have a clear racially discriminatory impact."
Texas wasted no time in announcing that a strict voter ID law, previously blocked by preclearance, would go into effect the same day that Shelby was handed down. Similar restrictions, which have been found to have a disproportionate effect on low-income voters and people of color, followed in at least nine states including Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina.
Since 2020—when the coronavirus pandemic upended voting and Republicans spread baseless lies about so-called "voter fraud" after former President Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection—GOP state legislators have largely turned their focus to restricting measures that offer flexibility to voters, such as mail-in ballots, said the Brennan Center.
"Since the 2020 election, 20 states passed 32 laws restricting mail voting access. Overall, 22 states passed 41 such laws since Shelby County," wrote Singh and Carter. "Some of these new restrictions have a clear racially discriminatory impact."
"For example," they added, "the Brennan Center studied a 2021 Texas law requiring a voter to include their driver's license number or the last four digits of their social security number on mail ballot applications and mail ballots and requiring the number to match the individual’s voter file data. During Texas's March 2022 primary, thousands of mail ballots and mail ballot applications were rejected, disproportionately cast by Latino, Asian, and Black voters."
A number of state legislatures have also taken advantage of the Shelby ruling as they have drawn new district maps.
Sherrilyn Ifill, former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and a senior fellow at the Ford Foundation, said Sunday that she knew in 2013 that the Shelby ruling was "catastrophic," but did not predict that the Republican Party would "turn voter suppression into part of its national policy."
Before 2013, said Democracy Docket, which offers analysis and expert commentary on voting rights, the U.S. Department of Justice had blocked more than 3,000 proposed voter suppression laws under the VRA.
The Brennan Center pointed out that within its ruling in 2013, the Supreme Court stated that Congress could pass a new
"coverage formula" to determine which jurisdictions would be covered by a preclearance provision.
"And it should," wrote Singh and Carter, "by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the Voting Rights Act to its full strength, as well as the Freedom to Vote Act to set nondiscriminatory baseline national standards for voting and elections."
In an op-ed at Newsweek on Sunday, U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) wrote that another voting rights-related ruling by the Supreme Court earlier this month, Allen v. Milligan, was "energizing" as the high court affirmed that Alabama had racially gerrymandered its electoral map.
However, she said, "we cannot rely on this Supreme Court, or the courts generally, to consistently protect our freedom to vote. We must, together, act."
In addition to passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, she wrote, "we must also engage in robust voter education and outreach efforts, empowering communities with knowledge and resources to help overcome anti-voting barriers."
While Ifill said she did not predict the extent to which the GOP would go to stop marginalized communities from voting, she "also did not predict the extraordinary determination of voters, who, even at the height of a deadly global pandemic refused to be bowed," she said. "That they would stand in line and risk their very lives to vote, despite efforts of Republicans and the indifference of the Supreme Court.
"The Shelby decision was catastrophic, yes," she added. "But we didn't give in and we won't give in. We will find a way to overcome every obstacle to our right to participate as first class citizens in American political life. We will vote and organize and litigate, and legislate until we win."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy