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.
Rebecca Autrey at rebecca.autrey@nyu.edu or 646-292-8316.
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is suing the Justice Department today for refusing to turn over documents related to a controversial letter DOJ sent last year, which sought detailed information about how states maintain their voter rolls. Voting rights groups are concerned that it could be a prelude to pressuring states to engage in aggressive voter purges -- the often-flawed process of deleting names from voter registration lists.
New York, N.Y. - The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is suing the Justice Department today for refusing to turn over documents related to a controversial letter DOJ sent last year, which sought detailed information about how states maintain their voter rolls. Voting rights groups are concerned that it could be a prelude to pressuring states to engage in aggressive voter purges -- the often-flawed process of deleting names from voter registration lists.
"The public has a right to know why the Justice Department sent this letter, and what information it received from states in response," said Jonathan Brater, counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "The Justice Department should be fighting to protect the voting rights of all Americans. We are concerned, though, that this letter may be part of a broader effort to undermine those rights, and we are going to court to find out."
Non-partisan ethics watchdog American Oversight is representing the Brennan Center in the lawsuit.
DOJ sent the letter in July 2017, requesting that election officials in 44 states share details about how they are complying with federal laws that govern voter list maintenance. In it, DOJ claimed the inquiry was related to "nationwide enforcement efforts." The Brennan Center filed a Freedom of Information Act request shortly afterward, requesting communication and documents related to both the creation of the letter and any responses DOJ received from states. Earlier this year, the DOJ largely denied the request, producing some partially-redacted pages while at the same time acknowledging that additional responsive documents exist.
"On its own, this letter would be troubling, but taken in the context of President Trump's discredited 'voter fraud' commission and the move to include a citizenship question in the census, it looks like one piece of a broader attack on voting rights," said Austin Evers, executive director of American Oversight. "With just months until Americans head to the polls again for the November midterms, we need to get to the bottom of how this letter was written and why it was sent."
DOJ's inadequate response comes as a new Brennan Center report finds that voter purges are on the rise. Between the federal elections of 2014 and 2016, almost 4 million more names were purged from the rolls than between 2006 and 2008.
The uptick is particularly noticeable in jurisdictions that previously had to "pre-clear" changes to their election procedures with federal officials because of a history of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder ended that federal oversight. Had purge rates continued in these jurisdictions at the same pace as rates in jurisdictions not subject to preclearance at that time, 2 million fewer voters would have been deleted from voter rolls between the elections of 2012 and 2016.
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310"The carnage the Israeli government is inflicting on the people of Gaza is unbearable," said IfNotNow. "For our collective sake. For the sake of those suffering. For the sake of each of our souls, we say NO MORE."
Dozens were arrested outside of the Trump International Hotel in New York City late Monday at a Jewish-led protest demanding an end to U.S. support for Israel's destruction of the Gaza Strip and starvation of its Palestinian population.
The protest was organized by the American Jewish group IfNotNow, Jews for Economic and Racial Justice, and other allied organizations and reportedly drew around 2,000 people, the latest evidence of mounting anger over Israel's assault on Gaza and deep U.S. complicity.
"The carnage the Israeli government is inflicting on the people of Gaza is unbearable. Palestinians in Gaza are suffering catastrophic levels of widespread starvation," IfNotNow wrote on social media. "Israeli troops have killed over 1,000 starving Palestinians lining up for scant aid at U.S.-backed sites. Haaretz reports that these 'food aid massacres' are a command decision. This is an atrocity of the gravest sort."
"Some Jewish communal leaders declare it a betrayal to Judaism to cry out against these injustices," the group added. "We consider it a betrayal to Judaism not to. For our collective sake. For the sake of those suffering. For the sake of each of our souls, we say NO MORE."
The demonstration, which started at Columbus Circle before moving closer to President Donald Trump's hotel, featured remarks from Jewish organizers, commentators, and political figures, including New York City Comptroller Brad Lander.
IfNotNow said that more than 40 were arrested at the demonstration, which the group called a product of "the broadest tent coalition in the Jewish community against the atrocities in Gaza in the last two years, representing the vast majority of U.S. Jews who are outraged by the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza."
NYPD officers arrest activists protesting Israel's war on Gaza outside the Trump International Hotel in New York City. (Photo: Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Monday's protest came days after 50 people were arrested at the Manhattan offices of U.S. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer during a demonstration against the lawmakers' continued support for arming the Israeli military. A day earlier, the two Democratic senators voted against a pair of resolutions led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would have halted the Trump administration's sale of 1,000-pound bombs, assault rifles, and other weaponry to the Israeli government.
But a majority of Senate Democrats voted for the resolutions, a signal that lawmakers are beginning to respond as U.S. public support for Israel's war on Gaza continues to fall. A Gallup survey released last month found that just 32% of Americans—including a mere 8% of Democrats—support the assault, a new low.
Meanwhile, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering expanding its assault on an enclave that is already utterly devastated, with more than 90% of residential buildings damaged or destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people killed or injured, and famine conditions fueled by Israel's blockade spreading rapidly.
“We need to keep up the pressure and get more food and aid into Gaza NOW before more Palestinians die of starvation,” T'ruah, an organization of rabbis that took part in Monday's protest, said in a statement. "This event is a mass mobilization of American Jews who object to our government's continued support for the policy of starvation and refusal to leverage its immense power to compel the admission of humanitarian aid."
Reuters reported Monday that Netanyahu "will convene his security cabinet this week to decide on Israel's next steps in Gaza following the collapse of indirect cease-fire talks with Hamas, with one senior Israeli source suggesting more force could be an option."
"Last Saturday, during a visit to the country, U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had said he was working with the Israeli government on a plan that would effectively end the war in Gaza," Reuters noted. "But Israeli officials have also floated ideas including expanding the military offensive in Gaza and annexing parts of the shattered enclave."
"Those who fight for all our freedom must have the most basic freedom to control their own bodies and futures—and this rule robs them of it," said the head of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Advocates for veterans, reproductive rights campaigners, and Democrats in Congress on Monday continued to lambaste the Trump administration's quiet move to end abortion care for former U.S. service members and their relatives.
"Since taking office, the Trump administration has repeatedly attacked service members, veterans, and their families' access to basic reproductive care, including gender-affirming care," said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a Monday statement.
Planned Parenthood and its leader have frequently criticized actions by President Donald Trump, including his signature on Republicans' recently passed budget reconciliation package that targets the group's clinics—which provide a range of healthcare services—by cutting them off from Medicaid funds if they continue to offer abortions.
"Those who fight for all our freedom must have the most basic freedom to control their own bodies and futures—and this rule robs them of it. Taking away access to healthcare shows us that the Trump administration will always put politics and retribution over people's lives," McGill Johnson said of the new proposal for veterans' care. "Planned Parenthood will never stop fighting to ensure everyone has access to the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive healthcare—no matter what."
The Trump Administration just moved to BAN abortion care for VETERANS, even in instances of rape and incest.This is just another attack on our veterans and reproductive health care.We owe it to our servicemembers to provide them the care they need.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Ted Lieu (@reptedlieu.bsky.social) August 4, 2025 at 1:06 PM
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration allowed the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide abortion counseling and care for service members and beneficiaries in cases of rape, incest, or if the pregnancy threatened the health of the patient. On Friday, the VA proposed a rule that would "reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling from the medical benefits package," and the Civilian Health and Medical Program.
The document says the VA would continue treating ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages, and would allow abortion care "when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."
The proposal quickly drew rebuke from a range of critics, including U.S. lawmakers. Blasting the proposed rule as "disgusting and dangerous," Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said on social media Friday that the government "should not be able to impose a pregnancy on anyone—least of all survivors of rape, abuse, or those whose health is at risk."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who had advocated for the Biden administration's policy, declared Saturday that "Republicans don't care if your health is in danger, if you're a veteran, or if you've been raped—they want abortion outlawed everywhere, for everyone."
As the 30-day public comment period for the proposed rule began Monday, U.S. House Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Mark Takano (D-Calif.) warned that "stripping away access to essential reproductive healthcare at VA, the largest integrated healthcare network in the United States, puts veterans' lives at risk and violates the promise we made to them. Veterans have earned the right to healthcare. Full stop. This ban on reproductive healthcare will harm veterans and is dangerous."
The proposal makes clear that VA Secretary Doug Collins "is substituting his judgment for that of the hundreds of thousands of women veterans who have earned the freedom to make personal medical decisions in consultation with their providers," Takano said in a statement. "It also gags medical providers and does not allow them to provide complete and honest care to veterans who get their care from VA. Rolling back this rule is a direct attack on veterans' rights. It will jeopardize the lives of pregnant veterans across our country, especially those residing in states with total abortion bans and other reproductive healthcare restrictions, which have already led to preventable deaths."
Reproductive rights advocates have similarly weighed in over the past few days and highlighted the anti-choice state laws enacted since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision reversed Roe.
Katie O'Connor, senior director of federal abortion policy at the National Women's Law Center, said that "at a time when extremist lawmakers are passing cruel abortion bans and restrictions, this move only deepens the crisis those laws have created—stripping veterans of their reproductive freedom and creating even more confusion about where they can turn for care."
"Veterans already face unique challenges to their health and well-being, including experiencing PTSD, recovering from military sexual trauma, and facing an increased risk of suicide," she noted, referring to post-traumatic stress disorder. "Banning access to the full range of reproductive services, including abortion, further jeopardizes their health and safety. No one should have to travel hundreds of miles, endure financial hardship, or risk their health just to get the medical care they need. Our veterans deserve better."
Center for Reproductive Rights president and CEO Nancy Northup declared that "this administration is sending a clear message to veterans—that their health and dignity aren't worth defending. To devalue veterans in this way and take away life-changing healthcare would be unconscionable. This shows you just how extreme this administration's anti-abortion stance is—they would rather a veteran suffer severely than receive an abortion."
Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, a practicing OB-GYN and CEO of Power to Decide, also warned that the new "needlessly cruel policy change," if it goes through as expected, will harm veterans and "once again betrays our nation's commitment to them."
"Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, 12 states have enacted total abortion bans, one additional state has no abortion clinics, and seven states have gestational restrictions often in effect so early that people don't even know they are pregnant," she explained. "All of this exacerbates an ongoing public health crisis. For some veterans, VA was the only place they were able to obtain abortion care in these states."
"Restrictions on abortion coverage—the effects of which fall hardest on people who already face unequal access to healthcare, including Black women, people of color, and people with low incomes—hinder a person's reproductive well-bring and deepen inequities," the doctor added. "Power to Decide condemns this policy and urges Congress to pass legislation to ensure all veterans have access to the abortion care they need when and where they need it."
However, experts said the warrants are effectively unenforceable, given that the lawmakers fled to Democrat-controlled states.
Republican state lawmakers in Texas voted Monday to issue what are likely unenforceable arrest warrants for Democratic colleagues who traveled to other states in order to thwart a vote on a GOP-grerrymandered congressional map.
"I have signed the civil arrest warrants," House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R-83) told reporters following Monday's vote, adding that Republicans would work with the Texas Department of Public Safety "to locate members."
However, Chad Dunn, a longtime Texas election and voting rights lawyer, told Democracy Docket that "a warrant issued by the Texas House is not effective out of the state unless another state chooses to domesticate it and enforce it under that state's laws."
Many of the more than 50 absconding Democrats are in Illinois, whose Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker told reporters Sunday that "we're going to do everything we can to protect every single one of them."
Other Texas Democrats went to Democrat-controlled states including Massachusetts and New York, where Gov. Kathy Kochul said Monday that she is open to retaliatory redistricting in order to "fight fire with fire."
"I have newsflash for Republicans in Texas. This is no longer the Wild West," Hochul said during a Monday news conference. "We're not going to tolerate our democracy being stolen in a modern day stagecoach heist by a bunch of law breaking cowboys."
"If Republicans are willing to rewrite these rules to give themselves an advantage, then they're leaving us no choice, we must do the same," she added.
A analysis published Friday by the National Democratic Redistricting Committee found that the congressional map proposed by Texas Republicans "packs voters of color into as few districts as possible in some areas and cracks them across several districts in others, effectively reducing the overall number of districts where Black and Latino voters are able to elect candidates of their choice."
The gerrymandered Texas map would eliminate the seat currently held by Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar, who would likely be forced into a primary battle with Rep. Lloyd Doggett. On Monday, Casar called for an emergency march and picket outside the mansion of Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who on Sunday threatened to remove Democrats who left the state from office.
The proposed map is meant to create five more Republican-leaning districts in Texas ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In addition to Hochul, Democratic governors including Gavin Newsom of California have expressed openness to redrawing their states' maps to create more districts likely to swing Democratic.
"It's incumbent upon Democrat governors, if they have the opportunity, to respond in kind," outgoing Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly said Friday at a Democratic Governors Association meeting in Madison, Wisconsin. "I'm not a big believer in unilateral disarmament."