

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Maria Archuleta, ACLU national, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Robert Doody, ACLU of South Dakota, (605) 332-2508
The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amended class action
lawsuit in federal court today to restore the voting rights of American
Indians who were illegally disfranchised in the 2008 presidential
election. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of South Dakota on behalf of Kim Colhoff, Eileen Janis
and others, who attempted to vote in the election but were improperly
removed from the voter rolls due to felony convictions. Because state
law only disfranchises individuals sentenced to prison and both women
were just sentenced to probation, election officials unlawfully took
away their voting rights.
"Felony disfranchisement laws in
South Dakota have a disproportionate impact on American Indians, who
represent the majority of those convicted of felonies at the federal
level," said Robert Doody, Executive Director of the ACLU, South Dakota
Chapter. "Worse still, it's clear that confusion regarding the South
Dakota felony disfranchisement laws has resulted in legitimate voters,
even those who haven't been incarcerated for felony convictions, being
purged from the rolls or denied the ability to register to vote or cast
their ballots."
The lawsuit charges that South
Dakota officials' illegal disfranchisement of individuals with felony
convictions has had a disproportionate and negative impact on American
Indian voters who are overly represented in South Dakota's criminal
justice system. The lawsuit also contends that the removal of
individuals' names from the state and county voter registration lists
based on felony convictions for which they were sentenced only to
probation violates their rights to equal protection and due process
under the federal and state constitutions, the Help America Vote Act,
the National Voter Registration Act and Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting
Rights Act. The lawsuit names Secretary of State Chris Nelson, Shannon
County Auditor Sue Ganje and members of the state board of elections as
defendants.
The ACLU originally filed the
lawsuit in February 2009 on behalf of Colhoff and Janis. The amended
lawsuit filed today represents a class of individuals in South Dakota
with felony convictions who were denied the right to vote despite the
fact that they were never incarcerated.
Colhoff and Janis, both residents of
Pine Ridge, South Dakota, registered to vote for the first time in 1974
and 1984, respectively, and remained on the voter rolls until early
2008, after they were each convicted of a felony offense and sentenced
to five years probation but no jail time. Despite the fact that South
Dakota only disfranchises those sentenced to prison, Colhoff and Janis
were removed from the voter rolls without any notice and denied the
right to vote at their polling places when they attempted to vote in
the 2008 presidential election. In front of several other voters,
election officials refused to allow Janis to cast either a regular or
provisional ballot.
"I will never get the chance to go
back and make my voice heard," said Janis. "It deeply disturbs me that
my right to vote was taken away because of administrative incompetence.
No one should be denied a ballot just because election workers don't
understand the rules. It's really hard not feeling like a second-class
citizen when one of my most fundamental rights has been stolen from
me."
"What happened to our clients
represents the tragedy that occurs when election officials do not know
how to administer the law," said Nancy Abudu, senior staff attorney
with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. "Not only did election
administrators take away their constitutional rights, but they robbed
them of the opportunity to participate in this historic election."
Attorneys on this case are Abudu,
Bryan Sells and Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU Voting Rights Project;
Doody of the ACLU, South Dakota Chapter; and cooperating attorney
Patrick Duffy.
A copy of today's proposed second amended complaint in Janis v. Nelson is available at: www.aclu.org/racial-justice-voting-rights/janis-v-nelson-second-amended-complaint-pending-court-approval-requesti
An ACLU report providing a
historical overview of systemic discrimination against American
Indians, limiting their ability to participate in local, state and
national elections, can be found at: www.aclu.org/votingrights/minority/41203pub20090930.html
More information about the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.votingrights.org
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666"He’s the Jim Cramer of Iran war predictions," said one critic.
Conservative commentator Dave Rubin, who for months has been a top booster of President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, was inundated with mockery on Sunday after a viral video exposed months' worth of his failed predictions about the conflict.
The video, which was posted on social media Saturday, begins with Rubin telling viewers to not listen to any of the prognostications being made by critics of the war, which Trump launched in late February without any authorization from Congress.
"I'm pretty good with predictions," Rubin says. "And my prediction here is that everything the media is now going to say about Iran—it's going to close the Strait of Hormuz, and energy prices are going to go crazy—none of this is going to come to pass."
Iran war: greatest hits from the last 12 weeks pic.twitter.com/9pgXyvmsgF
— Dave Rubin Clips II (Parody) - Retired Jan.20/2025 (@DaveClips) May 24, 2026
The video then cuts to Rubin wrongly predicting that gas prices during the conflict "will continue to come down," before switching to claims that Iran lacks the military capability to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed in the face of US military power.
"If the United States wants to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, which it does," says Rubin, "and Donald Trump says we'll escort ships through if we have to, it's going to stay open."
From there, the video shows Rubin hyping of the prospect of Iranian dissident Reza Pahlavi swooping in to take over the country after the war, and then getting fooled by a fake artificial intelligence-generated video of Iranians giving thanks to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bombing their country.
The video compilation of Rubin's failed predictions drew immediate ridicule from critics.
"He’s the Jim Cramer of Iran war predictions," joked Krystal Ball.
Commentator Adam Mockler wrote of Rubin that "it’s brutal watching him make failed predictions week after week."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald argued that the video should be the last nail in the coffin of whatever credibility Rubin had left.
"Imagine having sat through and listened to all of this Israeli propaganda, which turned out to be (predictably and completely) false," commented Greenwald, "and then thinking there was some value in continuing to listen to this person."
The Bulwark's Tim Miller said that while he knew Rubin was "a smooth-brained hack," he still "couldn’t even fathom how bad these war takes would be."
Political analyst Omar Baddar, meanwhile, said the video should erase any doubt that Rubin is "the dumbest man on the internet."
The Trump administration last week sued Minnesota after it passed a law banning prediction markets from operating in the state.
A Sunday report in The New York Times revealed how the Trump administration is using a key government agency to shut down any efforts to regulate online betting markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
According to the Times, the administration has stacked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with industry insiders who have systematically "mowed down" staffers at the agency who have expressed interest in providing oversight on prediction markets.
Among other things, the report documented how multiple officials at CTFC have been put on leave simply for asking questions about the betting markets' ties to members of President Donald Trump's family or for having past experience enforcing regulations related to cryptocurrencies.
What's more, the Times found that even being an industry insider isn't enough to guarantee good standing in the agency. Brian Quintenz, who was tapped by Trump to lead CTFC last year, saw his nomination withdrawn after he drew the ire of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss for refusing to support their cryptocurrency exchange's complaint against the agency.
Revelations about industry insiders rolling over regulators at CTFC come as the Trump administration is fighting any attempts by states to regulate prediction markets.
As explained in a Thursday report from CNBC, the Trump administration is "fighting a multi-front battle to stop the state actions and assert its regulatory authority," with CTFC arguing that it is "the only entity that can regulate" betting platforms.
16 different states are engaged in legal proceedings against the platforms, and Minnesota last week passed a law to ban them outright, which immediately drew a lawsuit from the administration.
The new Minnesota law, which is scheduled to take effect in August, bans prediction markets "from hosting, creating or advertising in the state," according to ABC News.
In an interview with ABC, Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman (D-63B) said she authored the legislation because she has grown increasingly concerned about young people in the state seeing their finances drained from placing online bets.
"We're seeing studies come out that say [the companies] are targeting 18- to 21-year-olds," said Greenman, "and we are seeing gambling starting younger and younger."
CFTC Chair Michael Selig last month warned states against trying to regulate prediction markets, which he said would "circumvent the clear directive of Congress."
"Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others," said Selig. "If you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you."
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz," said one critic of the war.
President Donald Trump revealed on Saturday that he is mulling a deal that would end his illegal war with Iran, and some hawks within the Republican Party are expressing alarm.
According to a Sunday report in The New York Times, many details of the agreement to end the war remain murky, with the fate of Iran's enriched uranium up in the air. US and Iranian officials have also given contradictory messages about the proposed deal's contents, suggesting there is much work still to be done before any agreement is finalized.
Regardless, three hawkish GOP senators on Saturday raised major concerns about the contents of the deal, warning against accepting any agreement that will leave Iran in a stronger position than before Trump illegally launched a war against it without any authorization from Congress in late February.
"If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who lobbied Trump to attack Iran repeatedly before the start of the war. "A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the [Strait of Hormuz] in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another longtime Iran hawk, said he was "deeply concerned" about what he's been hearing about the deal and expressed particular worry about Iran getting relief from US sanctions while still maintaining the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
"If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars," Cruz wrote, "being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."
Sen. Roger Wicker (D-Miss.) was even blunter in his condemnation of the reported agreement.
"The rumored 60-day ceasefire—with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. "Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!"
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama, challenged Wicker's claims that Trump's illegal war had achieved anything of value.
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury," Rhodes wrote, "except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz."
Rhodes' criticism was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught."
Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, accused the Iran hawks of being delusional for thinking further bombing would force Iran to capitulate.
"DC's Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy," Vaez wrote, "and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with."