

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.

Media Office,(786) 363-2720 or media@aclufl.org
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida, along with State Senator Arthenia Joyner, and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) filed an administrative petition against Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner challenging his implementation of a dual election system involving restrictive changes in election procedures adopted by the Florida Legislature in 2011. Along with the ACLU of Florida, petitioners are represented by the Brennan Center for Justice and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida, along with State Senator Arthenia Joyner, and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) filed an administrative petition against Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner challenging his implementation of a dual election system involving restrictive changes in election procedures adopted by the Florida Legislature in 2011. Along with the ACLU of Florida, petitioners are represented by the Brennan Center for Justice and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Currently, the State of Florida is operating an unlawful dual system of elections in violation of the state "Uniformity Statute." Sixty-two Florida counties are enforcing restrictive 2011 changes to the Florida election code. However, the previous law still applies in the five counties that are "covered" under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) while the state awaits a federal court decision on whether the 2011 changes violate Section 5.
"Gov. Scott's insistence that the state go forward with two different sets of voting laws and procedures in different counties not only violates Florida law requiring uniform elections throughout the state, it is a recipe for chaos and another embarrassment for our state," said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida. "The Governor's insistence that the state can push the Voting Rights Act aside and not wait for approval from either the Department of Justice or the federal courts, is the clearest indication yet of his agenda to trample on the voting rights of the people of Florida."
In 2011, the Florida legislature passed a law, referred to by many as the "Voter Suppression Act," which included changes that make it more difficult for individuals to register to vote, reduce the number of days of early voting, specifically ban early voting on the Sunday prior to Election Day, and increase the odds that Florida voters will be required to cast provisional ballots. In the 2008 Presidential Election less than half of provisional ballots cast in Florida were counted. As required by Section 5 of the VRA, Florida must submit any changes to elections laws to the federal government for "preclearance" to ensure that they do not violate the voting rights of minorities in the five covered counties. While many provisions of the 2011 law have received Section 5 preclearance, the restrictive portions have not.
Contrary to past practice and state law, and even though the restrictive portions of the 2011 law are not in effect in the five covered counties, Florida ordered elections officials to go forward with implementing the 2011 restrictive changes in the remaining 62 of the State's 67 counties, while the five counties triggering the VRA review continue operating under the pre-2011 elections code. This has created a confusing and non-uniform election system across Florida.
"The petitioners are asking simply that Florida abide by state law which requires that the same voting rules apply throughout the State," said Robert Kengle, co-director of the Lawyers' Committee's Voting Rights Project. "The State is failing to apply the state Uniformity Statute in the same way it applied it in the past."
This administrative challenge is one of several ongoing legal challenges to recent elections changes in Florida. Besides the ongoing preclearance review of the Voter Suppression Act now pending before a three judge federal panel in Washington DC, on May 31st of this year, a federal court in Tallahassee blocked enforcement of key provisions of the 2011 law's restrictions on civic groups who conduct voter registration drives. In the last month, three different lawsuits, including one filed by the ACLU of Florida and the Lawyers' Committee and one filed by the United States Justice Department, challenged the state's "voter purge," which disproportionately targets minorities and requires United States citizens to re-prove their citizenship or have their names purged from the voter rolls.
"Florida has repeatedly passed laws, and taken administrative actions, that make it harder for eligible citizens to vote," said Diana Kasdan, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. "These restrictions, and others across the country, represent the most significant cutback in voting rights in decades. Rather than erecting senseless barriers to voting, we should make our voting system work for all Americans by modernizing voter registration."
The petition was filed on Friday, June 29th, with the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings and will be heard and decided by an Administrative Law Judge to be assigned by the Division. The Washington D.C. office of the Bryan Cave Law firm and Mark Herron of Messer Caparello & Self of Tallahassee are also providing pro bono legal counsel in the case.
A copy of the petition with attached exhibits is available here: https://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/2012-06-29-UniformityPetition.pdf
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"This is the Iraq War 2.0 with a South American flavor to it," warned one Democratic senator.
US President Donald Trump late Tuesday declared a blockade on "all sanctioned oil tankers" approaching and leaving Venezuela, a major escalation in what's widely seen as an accelerating march to war with the South American country.
The "total and complete blockade," Trump wrote on his social media platform, will only be lifted when Venezuela returns to the US "all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us."
"Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America," Trump wrote, referring to the massive US military buildup in the Caribbean. "It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before."
The government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, which has mobilized its military in response to the US president's warmongering, denounced Trump's comments as a "grotesque threat" aimed at "stealing the riches that belong to our homeland."
The US-based anti-war group CodePink said in a statement that "Trump’s assertion that Venezuela must 'return' oil, land, and other assets to the United States exposes the true objective" of his military campaign.
"Venezuela did not steal anything from the United States. What Trump describes as 'theft' is Venezuela’s lawful assertion of sovereignty over its own natural resources and its refusal to allow US corporations to control its economy," said CodePink. "A blockade, a terrorist designation, and a military buildup are steps toward war. Congress must act immediately to stop this escalation, and the international community must reject this lawless threat."
The announced naval blockade—an act of aggression under international law—came a week after the Trump administration seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela and made clear that it intends to intercept more.
US Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), one of the leaders of a war powers resolution aimed at preventing the Trump administration from launching a war on Venezuela without congressional approval, said Tuesday that "a naval blockade is unquestionably an act of war."
"A war that the Congress never authorized and the American people do not want," Castro added, noting that a vote on his resolution is set for Thursday. "Every member of the House of Representatives will have the opportunity to decide if they support sending Americans into yet another regime change war."
"This is absolutely an effort to get us involved in a war in Venezuela."
Human rights organizations have accused the Republican-controlled Congress of abdicating its responsibilities as the Trump administration takes belligerent and illegal actions in international waters and against Venezuela directly, claiming without evidence to be combating drug trafficking.
Last month, Senate Republicans—some of whom are publicly clamoring for the US military to overthrow Maduro's government—voted down a Venezuela war powers resolution. Two GOP senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joined Democrats in supporting the resolution.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Tuesday that "the White House minimized Republican 'yes' votes by promising that Trump would seek Congress’ authorization before initiating hostilities against Venezuela itself."
"Trump today broke that promise to his own party’s lawmakers by ordering a partial blockade on Venezuelan ships," wrote Williams. "A blockade, including a partial one, definitively constitutes an act of war. Trump is starting a war against Venezuela without congressional authorization."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) warned in a television appearance late Monday that members of the Trump administration are "going to do everything they can to get us into this war."
"This is the Iraq War 2.0 with a South American flavor to it," he added. "This is absolutely an effort to get us involved in a war in Venezuela."
"Obviously, they have issues with what is in that video, and that’s why they don’t want everybody to see it," Sen. Mark Kelly said of administration officials after the meeting.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday that the Pentagon will not release unedited video footage of a September airstrike that killed two men who survived an initial strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean Sea, a move that followed a briefing with congressional lawmakers described by one Democrat as an "exercise in futility" and by another as "a joke."
Hegseth said that members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees would be given a chance to view video of the September 2 "double-tap" strike, which experts said was illegal like all the other boat bombings. The secretary did not say whether all congressional lawmakers would be provided access to the footage.
“Of course we’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public,” Hegseth told reporters following a closed-door briefing during which he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio fielded questions from lawmakers.
As with a similar briefing earlier this month, Tuesday's meeting left some Democrat attendees with more questions than answers.
“The administration came to this briefing empty-handed,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters. “If they can’t be transparent on this, how can you trust their transparency on all the other issues swirling about in the Caribbean?”
That includes preparations for a possible attack on oil-rich Venezuela, which include the deployment of US warships and thousands of troops to the region and the authorization of covert action aimed at toppling the government of longtime Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Tuesday's briefing came as House lawmakers prepare to vote this week on a pair of war powers resolutions aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from waging war on Venezuela. A similar bipartisan resolution recently failed in the Senate.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and co-author of one of the new war powers resolution, said in a statement: “Today’s briefing from Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth was an exercise in futility. It did nothing to address the serious legal, strategic, and moral concerns surrounding the administration’s unprecedented use of US military force in the Caribbean and Pacific."
"As of today, the administration has already carried out 25 such strikes over three months, extrajudicially killing 95 people," Meeks noted. "That this briefing to members of Congress only occurred more than three months since the strikes began—despite numerous requests for classified and public briefings—further proves these operations are unable to withstand scrutiny and lack a defensible legal rationale."
Briefing attendee Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)—who is in the administration's crosshairs for reminding US troops that military rules and international law require them to disobey illegal orders—said of Trump officials, "Obviously, they have issues with what is in that video, and that’s why they don’t want everybody to see it."
Defending Hegseth's decision to not make the boat strike video public, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) argued that “there’s a lot of members that’s gonna walk out there and that’s gonna leak classified information and there’s gonna be certain ones that you hold accountable."
Mullin singled out Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who, along with the Somalian American community at large, has been the target of mounting Islamophobic and racist abuse by Trump and his supporters.
“Not everybody can go through the same background checks that need to be cleared on this,” he said. “Do you think Omar needs all this information? I will say no.”
Rejecting GOP arguments against releasing the video, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said after attending Tuesday's briefing: “I found the legal explanations and the strategic explanations incoherent, but I think the American people should see this video. And all members of Congress should have that opportunity. I certainly want it for myself.”
"This administration's racist cruelty knows no limits, expanding their travel ban to include even more African and Muslim-majority countries, even Palestinians fleeing a genocide," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
President Donald Trump faced sharp criticism on Tuesday after further expanding his travel ban—an effort the US leader launched during his first term, reinstated upon returning to office in January, and previously ramped up in June.
The Republican's new proclamation maintains full restrictions for people from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, and introduces them for travelers from Laos and Sierra Leone, who previously faced partial limitations.
Trump also added Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, South Sudan, and Syria to that list, just days after he vowed to "retaliate" for an Islamic State gunman killing three Americans, including two service members, and wounding three others in Syria. Journalist James Stout warned that "expanding the travel ban to Syria leaves few options for the people who fought and defeated the Islamic State and are being increasingly threatened by the Syrian state."
While the US government does not recognize Palestine as a state—and has backed Israel's genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip—the president also imposed full restrictions on individuals holding travel documents issued by the Palestinian Authority.
"The harm isn't theoretical," stressed Etan Nechin, a New York-based reporter for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Pointing to Palestinian peace activist Awdah Hathaleen, who earlier this year was denied entry at San Francisco International Airport, deported, and then murdered by an Israeli settler in the West Bank, the journalist suggested that Trump and his allies know the consequences of the travel ban, and "they don't care."
As Common Dreams reported earlier Tuesday, Sudan, Palestine, and South Sudan topped the International Rescue Committee's annual humanitarian crisis forecast.
Trump's latest proclamation continues partial restrictions for Burundi, Cuba, Togo, and Venezuela, and adds such limitations for Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Tonga, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
It also lifts a ban on nonimmigrant visas for people from Turkmenistan but maintains the suspension of entry for them as immigrants, with a White House fact sheet stating the country "has engaged productively with the United States and demonstrated significant progress."
Writer Mark Chadbourn said, "It's a white nationalist list—mainly Africa, some Middle East, plus Haiti and Cuba."
Here is a map of the affected countries (excluding Tonga), to give you a sense of how much this new ban restricts immigration from Africa in particular.Of the newly-added country, Nigeria faces the largest impact, with tens of thousands of visas issued every year to Nigerians.
[image or embed]
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) December 16, 2025 at 3:58 PM
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American in Congress, said that "this administration's racist cruelty knows no limits, expanding their travel ban to include even more African and Muslim-majority countries, even Palestinians fleeing a genocide."
Tlaib also accused the president, along with his deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, of wanting the United States to resemble a Ku Klux Klan event, declaring that "Trump and Stephen Miller won't be satisfied until our country has the demographics of a klan rally."
As the Associated Press noted:
The administration suggested it would expand the restrictions after the arrest of an Afghan national suspect in the shooting of two National Guard troops over Thanksgiving weekend...
The Afghan man accused of shooting the two National Guard troops near the White House has pleaded not guilty to murder and assault charges. In the aftermath of that incident, the administration announced a flurry of immigration restrictions, including further restrictions on people from those initial 19 countries who were already in the US.
Laurie Ball Cooper, vice president of US Legal Programs at the International Refugee Assistance Project, said in a statement that "IRAP condemns the Trump administration's escalating crackdown on immigrants from Muslim-majority and nonwhite countries. This expanded ban is not about national security but instead is another shameful attempt to demonize people simply for where they are from."
"Subjecting more people to this policy is especially harmful given the administration's recent invocation of the travel ban to prevent immigrants already living in the United States from accessing basic immigration benefits, including pulling them out of line at citizenship ceremonies," she continued.
"The expanded proclamation notably includes Palestinians and eliminates some exceptions to the original ban," she added. "This racist and xenophobic ban will keep families apart, but we are prepared to defend our clients, their communities, and the American values of welcome, justice, and dignity for all."