

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.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights coalition of more than 200 national civil rights groups is urging Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, a self-proclaimed supporter of restoring the Voting Rights Act, to bring a VRA restoration up for a vote on the House Floor.
In a letter sent to his office this week, The Leadership Conference asked Speaker Ryan "to bring legislation to the House floor this month to restore the critical protections of the VRA. As we approach the first presidential election in 50 years without that law's full protections, our request for immediate action is more urgent than ever."
The organization is looking to appeal to the Speaker, who has claimed to support a VRA restoration, because the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, "has shut down the possibility of any action in the Judiciary Committee while he remains in charge, and it is now clear that there is no way forward through him. Chairman Goodlatte's intractability does a disservice to the millions of voters impacted by the fallout from the Shelby County decision."
"Lip service is not public service," said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference. "While court after court after court acknowledges widespread voting discrimination, Speaker Ryan has not lifted one finger to ensure our election isn't rigged from politicians choosing who can vote based on the color of their skin."
The full letter is below and linked here.
September 13, 2016
The Honorable Paul Ryan, Speaker
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Speaker Ryan,
On the heels of the 51st anniversary of the Voting Rights Act (VRA or the Act), we remain deeply troubled that there has been no action in the House of Representatives to address the issue of voting rights. We are writing to urge you to bring legislation to the House floor this month to restore the critical protections of the VRA. As we approach the first presidential election in 50 years without that law's full protections, our request for immediate action is more urgent than ever.
As you know, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protected the voting rights of racial and ethnic minorities in several states and local jurisdictions with a history of discrimination against communities of color in voting. These jurisdictions were covered by Section 5 of the Act, which required the Department of Justice (DOJ) to approve any changes to voting in specific states and localities. However, in 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court's devastating decision in Shelby County v. Holder invalidated the pre-clearance requirement and the DOJ's authority to send observers to covered jurisdictions. Following Shelby, numerous states have passed voting laws, which several federal courts agree have a disparate impact on people of color and language minorities. In the case of North Carolina, the courts found that the state's massive bundle of voting restrictions, passed within weeks of the Shelby decision, targeted African-Americans "with almost surgical precision."[1] Evidence shows that restrictive voter laws also suppress turnout of the elderly,[2] people with disabilities,[3] and students.[4]
And while some courts have taken action to block discriminatory laws in states like North Carolina and Texas, these decisions came only after years of costly litigation during which impacted citizens were blocked from voting in the 2014 elections and this year's primaries. Meanwhile, there is no way of knowing how many potentially discriminatory voting changes are being made by cities, counties, school boards, water boards, and other local jurisdictions that were previously required to be precleared. According to "Democracy Diminished,"[5] a report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., "more than 85% of preclearance work previously done under Section 5 was at the local level."
Since Congress has failed to pass a bill to restore the VRA, which has resulted in DOJ lacking authority over voting changes in places that Congress determined in 2006 should continue to have federal oversight, we are extremely concerned that there will be widespread voter discrimination in the upcoming presidential election. This is exacerbated by the fact that there will be no DOJ observers holding jurisdictions accountable. In the 2012 general election, the Department of Justice sent 780 federal observers to 51 jurisdictions in 23 states.[6] Because of the Shelby decision, there will be virtually no election observers deployed in 2016.[7]
Shortly before the last VRA was reauthorized in 2006, former Congressman and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp wrote an op-ed,[8] "Renew the Voting Rights Act," urging Congress to reauthorize all sections of the law that were set to expire. Secretary Kemp's op-ed was prescient. He wrote that, "If Section 5 is not extended, the covered jurisdictions will not have to submit voting changes to the Department of Justice. The loss of federal authority to control voting procedures could enable local governments to more easily discriminate against minority voters. Renewing the Voting Rights Act won't solve all of these problems, but more Americans will have confidence that their votes really do count."
Mr. Speaker, you followed Secretary Kemp's guidance and voted to reauthorize the law, as did an overwhelming number of your colleagues. Your support for the bill overall helped protect "the crown jewel of American liberties" - a phrase President Ronald Reagan used to refer to the right to vote[9] when he reaffirmed his commitment to the 1982 VRA reauthorization.
In February of this year, you recognized the importance of the VRA when you told the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) that you support Rep. James Sensenbrenner's bill, the Voting Rights Amendment Act (H.R. 885), to help restore the VRA. While we realize that, as Speaker, you would prefer to defer to the Committee chair, in this case, not insisting that legislation to restore the VRA be brought to the floor is likely to result in disenfranchisement for thousands of Americans. This is because, for the past three years, Chairman Goodlatte has refused to consider any such legislation, claiming that it is not needed despite being provided by us and others with many examples of voter discrimination and intimidation. We understand your commitment to a bottom-up approach in Congress, but protecting the right to vote is too important to be held hostage by a single committee chair.
We are well aware of your various efforts to honor civil rights - from supporting H.R. 885 and visiting Selma with Rep. John Lewis to honoring the Bloody Sunday foot solders by presenting them with the Congressional Gold Medal. In contrast to your record of understanding and supporting the need to protect the right to vote, Chairman Goodlatte has shut down the possibility of any action in the Judiciary Committee while he remains in charge, and it is now clear that there is no way forward through him. Chairman Goodlatte's intractability does a disservice to the millions of voters impacted by the fallout from the Shelby County decision.
We know this because we wrote to Chairman Goodlatte in July,[10] presenting him with ample evidence of why he should hold a hearing and advance legislation to restore valuable protections against voting discrimination. To date, the chairman has taken no action whatsoever.
With the election less than 60 days away, we urge you to follow through on your commitment to ensure the right to vote for all eligible Americans without delay. Real leadership is making sure all American voters have access to the ballot box. It is time to take this matter to the floor of the House of Representatives immediately. We know you believe in voting rights and the VRA. Now you need to demonstrate your commitment.
Sincerely,
Wade Henderson, President & CEO
Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. Through advocacy and outreach to targeted constituencies, The Leadership Conference works toward the goal of a more open and just society - an America as good as its ideals.
(202) 466-3311"The result will be fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs, and less choice for audiences."
A group of Hollywood actors, directors, and producers on Monday published an open letter demanding the proposed merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery be blocked.
In their letter, the Hollywood heavyweights outlined the harms that would come from allowing Paramount—which is owned by David Ellison, son of billionaire Trump donor Larry Ellison—to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.
"This transaction would further consolidate an already concentrated media landscape, reducing competition at a moment when our industries—and the audiences we serve—can least afford it," the letter states. "The result will be fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs, and less choice for audiences in the United States and around the world. Alarmingly, this merger would reduce the number of major US film studios to just four."
The letter goes on to describe how consolidation in the entertainment industry has already "accelerated the disappearance of the mid-budget film, the erosion of independent distribution, the collapse of the international sales market, the elimination of meaningful profit participation, and the weakening of screen credit integrity."
Looking at the bigger picture, the letter notes that "competition is essential for a healthy economy and a healthy democracy," then goes on to praise California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state AGs for filing legal actions aimed at blocking the merger amid fears that the Trump administration could rubber-stamp it.
"We are grateful for their leadership," the letter concludes, "and stand ready to support all efforts to preserve competition, protect jobs, and ensure a vibrant future for our industry, for American culture, and for our single most significant export."
Actor Mark Ruffalo, a signatory of the letter, published an article on his Substack page outlining his own reasons for opposing the merger, which he described as "the epitome of crony capitalism and the oligarchs consolidating more corporations and media power to shape the outcome of their business interests."
Ruffalo also said he's spoken with others in Hollywood who were reluctant to sign the letter over concerns about retaliation from Trump or Ellison should the attempt to block the merger fail.
"The people pushing monopolies such as this one use fear to keep the workers in line," Ruffalo said. "I have heard it time and time again from my fellows, they are afraid of retribution. Some didn’t want to sign because they are afraid. How sad is that? In America the artists are afraid to speak out against power."
Actress Jane Fonda, founder of the modern Committee for the First Amendment, said that the proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. merger "would be one of the most destructive threats to free speech and creative expression in our history," because it would put "unprecedented power in the hands of a single corporation that already appears to have proven itself willing to sacrifice integrity for political favor."
The letter earned praise from democracy and antitrust advocates, who argued that blocking the merger was necessary to stopping President Donald Trump's ambitions for a right-wing takeover of US media.
“The future of free media and a strong entertainment industry in America is at stake here,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. “This proposed merger would not only harm competition and creativity, it would erode the very bedrock of our democracy."
Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project, noted that "consolidation in Hollywood has been a disaster, and has led to the weak state of the industry," and said the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger needed to be blocked to prevent further damage.
"Not only does this kind of concentration hollow out creative markets," said Stoller, "it concentrates control over culture and information in the hands of a few unaccountable executives, and in this case totalitarian Gulf countries, undermining a free and pluralistic media ecosystem that democracy depends on."
"The extremist Netanyahu government that has committed genocide in Gaza does not need more military support from American taxpayers."
With members of Congress returning to Washington, DC, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday pledged that he will, yet again, force a vote aimed at cutting off the flow of US weapons to Israel over its genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
"I will be forcing a vote on legislation to block the sale of nearly half a billion dollars worth of bombs and bulldozers to the Israeli military," Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media, taking aim at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court over the mass slaughter in Gaza.
"The extremist Netanyahu government that has committed genocide in Gaza does not need more military support from American taxpayers," declared Sanders, who has forced multiple votes on measures targeting US arms to Israel since it began bombarding Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack.
The next vote, which could come as soon as Wednesday, follows a similar effort last July, when a majority of the Senate Democratic Caucus backed his resolutions disapproving of the Trump administration's sale of 1,000-pound bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kits, and tens of thousands of assault rifles to the Israeli government. Previous votes had garnered less support.
"The American people do not want to spend billions to starve children in Gaza," Sanders said last summer, after the resolutions failed. "The Democrats are moving forward on this issue, and I look forward to Republican support in the near future."
Republicans currently have narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, though Democrats aim to flip both in the November midterm elections.
According to a Pew Research poll released last week, 60% of US adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% last year, and 59% have little or no confidence that Netanyahu will do the right thing regarding world affairs, up from 52% in 2025.
Although much of the world's attention has been focused on Netanyahu and President Donald Trump's war on Iran—and Israel's related assault on Lebanon—in recent weeks, Israeli forces have also continued to kill Palestinians in Gaza, despite an October 2025 ceasefire agreement.
As of Monday, Gaza officials put the death toll at 72,333, with another 172,202 wounded, though global experts have warned the true figures could be far higher. Over 750 deaths and 2,100 injuries have been recorded since the ceasefire took effect, with another 760 bodies recovered during that time.
"At least two children a day have been killed or injured in the six months since the ceasefire for Gaza was agreed," said Save the Children International CEO Inger Ashing last week, as her group and others released a report marking six months since the deal was reached. “This is not peace for children in Gaza. The ceasefire agreement has not translated into meaningful protection for children or created conditions for recovery."
Among the children killed was Ritaj Rihan, a 9-year-old girl reportedly shot by Israeli forces in front of her third grade class at Abu Ubaida bin al-Jarrah School in Beit Lahiya last week. The Gaza Ministry of Health said that "it was not an isolated incident, but a direct extension of a systematic policy targeting the Palestinian people."
The fight seemingly isn't over, with a spokesperson for the president pledging that he will "refile this powerhouse lawsuit," which critics have called part of his war on free speech.
A Florida-based federal judge on Monday dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a "bawdy" birthday letter the Republican allegedly gave to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump denies writing the letter or drawing the outline of a naked woman around the text. He sued the journalists behind the July report—Joseph Palazzolo and Khadeeja Safdar—and the newspaper, plus its parent company News Corp, chief executive Robert Thomson, and founder Rupert Murdoch.
The US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subsequently subpoenaed the Epstein estate for all materials that now-imprisoned co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly compiled for the dead financier's birthday book, including the letter attributed to Trump—and in September, the panel published those documents online.
US District Judge Darrin P. Gayles, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, found on Monday that Trump's "complaint fails to adequately allege actual malice." However, Gayles also gave Trump the opportunity to amend his filing within the next two weeks.
While The Wall Street Journal did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment, a spokesperson for Trump's legal team said in a statement that the president intends to continue the case.
"President Trump will follow Judge Gayles' ruling and guidance to refile this powerhouse lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants," the spokesperson said. "The president will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in Fake News to mislead the American People."
CNN noted that despite the legal battle, "the 95-year-old Murdoch has maintained a cozy if complicated relationship with the president, including multiple meetings at the White House in recent months."
The suit over the birthday letter to Epstein—whom Trump was publicly friends with in the 1980s and '90s until a reported falling out in the early 2000s—is just part of a sweeping effort by the president and his political enablers "to undermine and chill the most basic freedoms protected under the First Amendment," as the advocacy group Free Press put it in a December analysis.
In addition to the Journal case, examples included Trump's legal battles with the BBC and The New York Times, the White House taking control of the presidential press pool, the administration blocking The Associated Press from the Oval Office over its refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, ABC temporarily suspending late-night host Jimmy Kimmel following comments from Trump's Federal Communications Commission chair, and the Pentagon's legally contested media policy.
Such attacks continue. Last month, as the costs of his unconstitutional war on Iran mounted, Trump floated "treason" charges against media outlets that he accused of reporting false information about the conflict.