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
save act
The Worst Existential Threat to American Democracy Is Already Here: Voter Suppression
If the present strategy of voter suppression by the Republican Party is not stopped, the results of the midterms in two years and the 2028 presidential election are already decided.
Mar 01, 2025
The past few weeks have seen a deluge of devastation from the second Trump administration, which in less than a month has broken many democratic norms and customs and even ignored the Constitution in several ways.
During these head-spinning times, it's more vital than ever to zero in on the threats to our democracy. Today, one of the worst challenges we're up against is increasingly widespread voter suppression—a peril accelerating under President. Donald Trump and easy to lose sight of amid the chaos.
As we write, Congress is trying to pass the SAVE Act, which would require all citizens to produce a document such as a passport or birth certificate when they register to vote. It would apply even when they re-register after a move or, as many do, between elections. This new and unprecedented national requirement would severely limit online, mail-in, and automatic registration and has the potential to block millions of eligible Americans from casting ballots.
Universal suffrage is the heart of democracy but deeply threatened today.
The now almost-official Trump doctrine, Project 2025, also promises potentially disastrous consequences related to suffrage. The Department of Justice's Criminal Division would become responsible for investigating voting offenses, likely leading to bogus prosecutions of voters and election officials. The government would also gain access to voter lists that could facilitate purges of minority voters. Project 2025 also proposes restricting or abolishing programs that encourage voter registration.
We need to acutely oppose these potential dangers. To do that, it's helpful to understand the history of suffrage in our country.
America began its democratic experiment in the 1700s with a small demographic of eligible voters: white, male landowners. Voting rights were not directly in the text of the Constitution, but instead left to the states to decide.
While Americans no doubt rightly lament that voting was so restricted, it's worth recognizing that the very idea of suffrage was an audacious departure in and of itself—a profoundly progressive advancement that pivoted away from predatory monarchy with aristocracy that dominated the European continent. Indeed, some of the Founders expressed remarkably enlightened views on voting. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1776 that "the influence over government must be shared among all the people."
Even though our democracy was—and still is—deeply flawed, suffrage has always been its bedrock. Throughout our history advocates have fought to expand and enshrine suffrage, and today most state constitutions protect the right to vote. After the Civil War, several constitutional amendments codified and extended voting rights and since then legislation, such as the 1965 Voting Rights Act, has added further protections.
Sadly, however, voices from our country's Founders ring hollow when looking at our recent presidential election, which saw unprecedented organized voter suppression by the Republican Party.
Consider a report released this month by Greg Palast, acclaimed investigative reporter, forensic economist, and statistician. Using data from the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission, he found that voter suppression led to 14.1 million voters being deemed ineligible or having their ballots disqualified. Note that Trump won by a margin of only 2 million votes.
Almost 5 million voters were purged from voter rolls without credible evidence, and another 2 million mail-in ballots were disqualified for minor clerical errors, e.g. postage due. Almost another 800,000 ballots were disqualified or rejected for other, non-credible reasons, and over 3.24 million new registrations were rejected without credible evidence.
Palast points out that historically organized voter suppression was overwhelmingly directed at Black and Latino voters such as Jim Crow Era literacy tests and poll taxes.
How did we get here?
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court changed course from its history of protecting voter rights when it debilitated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, removing the requirement that jurisdictions with histories of racial discrimination obtain federal approval for new voting procedures. The result is a pernicious plethora of conservative state laws undermining or restricting voters.
A 2024 Brennan Center for Justice report found voter suppression has dramatically increased in the last 20 years. Many conservative states created obstacles by imposing unreasonable voter ID laws, and decreasing early voting times.
Unsurprisingly, voter suppression laws disproportionately impact communities of Black and Latino voters. For example, a 2022 Washington state audit reported that Black voters were 400% more likely than white voters to have their mail-in ballot rejected.
Universal suffrage is the heart of democracy but deeply threatened today.
What then is to be done to end this scourge of voter suppression by Mr. Trump's neofascist's advocates? Amid the chaos of the first hundred days of the second Trump administration, let us focus on defending these rights. If the present strategy of voter suppression by the Republican Party is not stopped, the results of the midterms in two years and the 2028 presidential election are already decided.
We are heading down a dark path reminiscent of a troublesome past. But we can be motivated by really great successes made possible by people's movements: The right of Blacks to vote was driven by inspiring and hard-won action, and women's suffrage struggles were also achieved through grassroots organizing.
The time is now. It will take all of us, joining in mass demonstrations and pushing our elected leaders to withstand the pressure and do everything in their power to block legislation and eliminate existing voter suppression regulation when—and wherever possible—before it's too late.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nebraska Supreme Court Orders Election Officials to Obey Law Letting Former Felons Vote
"This decision is a victory for Nebraskans, democracy, and the rule of law," said one ACLU attorney.
Oct 16, 2024
Democracy defenders on Wednesday welcomed a Nebraska Supreme Court
ruling that orders state election officials to comply with a law allowing former felons to vote immediately after they complete their sentences instead of waiting two years.
Nebraska's unicameral Legislature voted 38-6 in favor of LB 20 on April 11. Although Republican Gov. Jim Pillen declined to sign the bill, the measure took effect the following week, as the Nebraska Constitution allows lawmakers to enact laws without gubernatorial consent five days after a bill's passage if the Legislature is still in session.
After allowing the Legislature to pass the law, Pillen explained that Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and Secretary of State Bob Evnen—both Republicans—"have identified significant potential constitutional infirmities regarding the bill" and encouraged them to "promptly take such measures as are appropriate" to redress these purported flaws.
In July, Evnen ordered county election offices to stop registering former felons who have not received official pardons, claiming LB 20 is "unconstitutional."
The Nebraska Supreme Court justices did not rule on the law's constitutionality, as the state constitution requires five members of the tribunal to declare legislation unconstitutional.
"Because the requisite number of judges have not found that the statutory amendments are unconstitutional, we issue a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the secretary and the election commissioners to implement the statutory amendments immediately," the court's split decision states.
The ruling referred to Patty and Selma Bouvier—the chain-smoking twin sisters of Marge Simpson from TV's long-running animated series "The Simpsons"—in a swipe at Hilgers and Evnen for overstepping their authority by opining on the constitutionality of LB 20.
"Only the Nebraska Supreme Court declares statutes unconstitutional," the decision states. "The [five-justice] supermajority requirement is also well known. Patty and Selma at the Department of Motor Vehicles may not be constitutional scholars, but they know that they are expected to follow the law."
Plaintiff Gregory Spung of Ohama said that Wednesday's ruling left him feeling "ecstatic."
"For so long, I was uncertain if my voice would truly count under this law," he said. "Today's decision reaffirms the fundamental principle that every vote matters. It's a victory not just for me, but for thousands of Nebraskans who can now exercise their right to vote with confidence."
ACLU of Nebraska legal and policy counsel Jane Seu said: "This is justice. Given the sheer scale of disenfranchisement that this decision corrects, there is no question that it will be remembered as one of our state's most consequential voting rights decisions."
"For Nebraskans who have been caught up in this mess for the last few months, the key takeaway is this: If you are done with all terms of your sentence, you are eligible to vote, and there is now a court decision backing that up," Seu added. "Now is the time to know your rights, get registered, and make a plan to vote."
The ACLU—which along with the ACLU of Nebraska, Civic Nebraska, and the law firm Faegre Drinker sued on behalf of Nebraskans seeking ballot access under the new law—said that the voting rights of approximately 7,000 people hung in the balance.
As The Associated Pressnoted following Wednesday's ruling:
Many of them reside in Nebraska's Omaha-centered 2nd Congressional District, where both the race for president and the makeup of Congress could be in play. Nebraska overall is heavily Republican but is one of only two states—the other is Maine—that apportions its Electoral College votes by congressional district. The Omaha-area district has twice awarded its one vote to Democratic presidential candidates—to Barack Obama in 2008 and again to Joe Biden in 2020. In a 2024 presidential race shown by polling to be a dead heat, a single electoral vote could determine who wins.
"This decision is a victory for Nebraskans, democracy, and the rule of law," ACLU Voting Rights Project staff attorney Jonathan Topaz said of Wednesday's ruling.
"Secretary of State Evnen and Attorney General Hilgers attempted to overturn two decades of rights restoration law by executive fiat and re-disenfranchise thousands of Nebraska citizens heading into a presidential election," he continued. "We are grateful the Nebraska Supreme Court invalidated this lawless attempt to reinstate permanent felony disenfranchisement and are thrilled for the thousands of eligible Nebraska voters who will be able to cast ballots in November and beyond."
"We also urge the state to extend its voter registration deadline," Topaz added. "Thousands of Nebraskans have lost months to register due to the secretary's unlawful directive, and they should be allowed sufficient time to register to vote ahead of the November election."
Nebraska's online voter registration deadline is Friday. In-person registration ends October 25. Early voting in the state began on October 7.
As voter registration surges ahead of the November 5 contest between Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and former Republican President Donald Trump, GOP federal and state lawmakers are trying to make it harder to vote.
In July, for example, U.S. House Republicans passed Rep. Chip Roy's (R-Texas) Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require proof of American citizenship to vote in federal elections. Republicans claim the bill is meant to fix the virtually nonexistent "problem" of noncitizen voter fraud.
State-level examples include legislation signed last year by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis limiting voter registration drives, with fines of up to $250,000 for violators.
Last week, the Sentencing Project, a decarceration advocacy group, published a report estimating that 4 million U.S. adults are ineligible to vote in November's election due to felony disenfranchisement, including a disproportionate number of people of color.
Earlier this year, a federal court struck down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction. Similar legal battles are playing out in other states. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently upheld a law signed in 2023 by Gov. Tim Walz—the 2024 Democratic vice presidential candidate—restoring former felons' voting rights upon completion of their sentences.
Last December, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote while behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Shutdown Looms as House Rejects GOP Attempt to Impose 'Trump's Dangerous Agenda'
"As long as House Republicans continue pushing Project 2025 funding bills, they will continue pushing our nation towards a government shutdown," said Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle.
Sep 19, 2024
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday rejected a GOP resolution that would have punted a fight over government funding until after the next president takes office and pushed through a noxious voter suppression measure backed by Republican nominee Donald Trump.
The final vote was 202-220, with 14 Republicans joining nearly every member of the House Democratic caucus in voting against the legislation. GOP opponents of the bill included far-right lawmakers who want to slash spending.
Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Don Davis (D-N.C.), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) broke with their party and backed the Republican continuing resolution, which would have largely extended government funding at current levels into March.
With Trump's backing, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) agreed to attach to the continuing resolution the SAVE Act, legislation purportedly aimed at preventing noncitizens from voting—which is already illegal. Voting rights advocates have condemned the SAVE Act as an "unnecessary and dangerous" bill that would "make it harder for voters of color and naturalized citizens to register to vote."
"Instead of working with Democrats to fund the government, House Republicans tied themselves into knots trying to give Trump what he wants."
House Democrats said Wednesday that the failure of the GOP continuing resolution was an inevitable consequence of the party's decision to push extremist spending bills instead of working on a bipartisan solution to government funding.
The government will shut down on October 1 unless Congress acts. Johnson said leading up to Wednesday's vote that there is "no Plan B."
"Once again, the House Republican majority has failed at its most basic tasks while trying to force Trump's extreme and unpopular Project 2025 agenda on the American people," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. "Everyone in Washington, Democrats and Republicans, knew this ill-conceived continuing resolution was destined to fail. Why we spent a week and a half considering a partisan bill, just days from a government shutdown, is beyond comprehension."
"We have seven legislative days to keep the government open," she continued. "The time to begin negotiations on a continuing resolution that can gain the support of Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate was last week—but right now will suffice, if Republicans are willing to meet us at the table and actually govern."
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said late Wednesday that "as long as House Republicans continue pushing Project 2025 funding bills, they will continue pushing our nation towards a government shutdown."
"Trump said he'd 'shut down the government in a heartbeat' to push his Project 2025 agenda—and instead of working with Democrats to fund the government, House Republicans tied themselves into knots trying to give Trump what he wants," said Boyle. "Just as they've done for the last two years, House Republicans have proven they're more interested in imposing Trump's dangerous agenda than lifting a finger to help middle-class families and keep our government open. American families deserve better than this extreme bill and they deserve better than House Republicans."
Democratic lawmakers are reportedly expected to propose a clean three-month extension of government funding to avert a shutdown and buy time to negotiate a longer-term deal on government spending.
Ahead of Wednesday's vote, DeLauro warned that House Republicans believe delaying the government funding fight until March 2025 would give them "more leverage to force their unpopular cuts to services that American families depend on to make ends meet."
"This bill is an admission that a House Republican majority cannot govern," said DeLauro. "They would rather gamble on an intervening election than attempt to complete their work on time."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular