

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.
Blair FitzGibbon, 202-503-6141, blair@soundspeedpr.com
Today, a coalition of democracy advocacy organizations and constitutional scholars released a comprehensive report titled "Age Discrimination In Voting At Home." It argues that laws in seven states--Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas--that provide no-excuse vote-at-home options only to elderly voters violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.
Today, a coalition of democracy advocacy organizations and constitutional scholars released a comprehensive report titled "Age Discrimination In Voting At Home." It argues that laws in seven states--Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas--that provide no-excuse vote-at-home options only to elderly voters violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. It also questions the constitutionality of a bill likely to become law in Missouri that expands vote-at-home options in 2020 but explicitly makes it easier for those over 65 to utilize it. The authors call for immediate litigation to challenge these statutes.
The report is by a joint project of Equal Citizens, The Andrew Goodman Foundation, The UCLA Voting Rights Project, Stris & Maher, National Vote at Home Institute, and University of Kentucky law professor Joshua A. Douglas.
"The [Twenty Sixth] Amendment's history and Congress's intent show that courts will likely find these laws unconstitutional, particularly in light of new challenges presented amid the COVID-19 pandemic," the report's authors explain. "These laws use age to create two classes of voters--one with easier access to the ballot box than the other--and work to abridge the voting rights of younger voters. That practice is impermissible under the Twenty-Sixth Amendment."
This report contains novel data analysis to concretely demonstrate the harm caused by these discriminatory statutes. The authors, for example, find: "in states where voters under 65 cannot vote at home without an excuse, voters who are 65 and older comprise nearly 65% of all such ballots. But in states without these provisions, the use of at-home ballots is much more evenly distributed, as older voters make up only 39% of the votes from home in those states."
This report is made public just weeks after a federal court granted a preliminary injunction in Texas in Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott on, in part, Twenty-Sixth Amendment grounds.
Statement from Jason Harrow, Executive Director and Chief Counsel of Equal Citizens and co-author of the report: "This report reveals that there will be substantial barriers to conducting a safe, secure election this year--especially for younger voters. But the Constitution does not permit states to pick and choose who can vote easily and who cannot. The 26th Amendment prevents any age discrimination at all in the process of voting. We're thrilled to partner with this great group to spread the word and far and wide that these laws are impactful and cannot stand."
"Fifty years ago, our nation came together across partisan lines to certify that young voices were vital to the health of our democracy by ratifying the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Despite that, many states today use various tactics to suppress the youth vote. This important report uncovers blatant age discrimination in absentee voting and its impact across age cohorts. I hope it is a wake-up call that helps us fulfill the promise of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and ensure that young voices and votes are a powerful force in democracy, in part by shedding light on how laws that may appear innocuous nonetheless unconstitutionally discriminate on account of age for the youth class and beyond," says Yael Bromberg, Esq., Chief Counsel for Voting Rights at The Andrew Goodman Foundation and Twenty-Sixth Amendment expert and co-author of this report.
Statement from Professor Joshua A. Douglas of the University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law and co-author of this report: "The right to vote is the most fundamental, crucial right in our democracy. It cannot be denied or abridged--especially during a pandemic. This report explains an important development in that continued struggle as we seek to achieve a more perfect union."
Statement from Chad Dunn, co-founder and Director of Litigation of the UCLA Voting Rights Project: "Fortunately states all over the country, in a bipartisan way, are finding a way to hold democratic elections during these pandemic times. Those few states who insist on trying to pick and choose the voters they want will run right into the U.S Constitution. The 26th Amendment guarantees the right to vote be administered equally without regard to age and it remains in effect even during a national health emergency."
Statement from Matt Barreto, co-founder and Faculty Director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project: "When the 26th amendment extended the right to vote to 18 year-olds in 1971 it clearly stated that states could not discriminate against voters by age. Absentee voting systems that advantage 65 and older citizens, but require people under age 65 to jump through extra hoops are a violation of the 26th amendment. This research is important in advancing legal theories and empirical evidence that the 26th amendment can, and should be used to uphold the voting rights of all American regardless of age."
Statement from Michael Donofrio of Stris & Maher and co-author of this report: "Stris & Maher is proud to partner with this outstanding coalition of election law advocates and scholars, political scientists, and nonpartisan election security experts to help make sure every citizen can safely and freely exercise their fundamental right to vote".
Statement from Amber McReynolds, CEO, National Vote at Home Institute and Coalition: "A strong democracy depends on our collective right to vote. That right cannot be denied on the basis of age. This report is crucial in advancing and highlighting the urgent need for some states to modify their voting laws to meet the clear intent set forth by the 26th amendment and ensure every eligible voter can vote in a safe, secure, and accessible way."
The US is at risk of losing its measles-eradicated status early next year, according to Scientific American.
US Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Friday demanded that the Trump administration "stop lying and follow the science" as an outbreak of measles in South Carolina grew and officials warned that low vaccination rates in the affected area likely mean the crisis will continue worsening.
Since the outbreak began in October in Spartanburg County, near the state's northern border, the highly infectious disease has sickened at least 129 people. The vast majority of people who have been infected have not been inoculated against measles, which is 97% preventable via the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) shot—which has been erroneously attacked for years by anti-vaccine activists including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
As President Donald Trump and Kennedy "push deadly anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, measles is making a comeback across America," said Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Friday. "People will die because of this."
At least three people, including two children, have already died this year in US measles outbreaks
More than 1,900 measles cases and 47 outbreaks have been reported across the country in 2025, compared with 285 cases across 16 outbreaks last year.
In South Carolina, more than 250 people have been exposed to the disease in schools, a healthcare facility, and a church, forcing dozens of unvaccinated children to quarantine for 21 days; some were exposed twice and had to be isolated for two separate three-week periods.
“That’s a significant amount of time,” Linda Bell, the state's epidemiologist, said at a recent press conference. “Vaccination continues to be the best way to prevent the disruption that measles is causing to people’s education, to employment.”
But Spartanburg County's ongoing outbreak is being driven by “lower-than-hoped-for vaccination coverage,” Bell said.
Public health experts consider a 95% vaccination rate to be the level at which the spread of measles can be eliminated in a community. Only about 90% of students in the county had all required childhood immunizations. South Carolina allows religious exemptions for school immunization requirements. Many of the schools where students have quarantined have vaccination rates "well below 90%," the New York Times reported.
Across South Carolina, MMR vaccination rates among schoolchildren has fallen significantly since 2020, from 96% to 93.5%.
Kennedy has been a longtime denier of vaccine science. In 2019, his anti-vaccine group, Children's Health Defense, tried to sue New York state over its vaccine requirement, which is one of just five in the country that doesn't allow for nonmedical exemptions.
In April, Kennedy visited a Texas community where two unvaccinated children had died of measles and acknowledged in a social media post that "the most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine."
“Vaccination continues to be the best way to prevent the disruption that measles is causing to people’s education, to employment.”
But during his visit he also promoted, without evidence, two therapeutic treatments that one vaccine expert told NPR are "valueless" in treating measles. In 2023 Kennedy told podcaster Joe Rogan that the vaccine was not linked to a decline in deaths.
He has recently continued fueling overall skepticism about immunizations, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel he assembled advising that newborn babies whose mothers test negative for hepatitis B should not receive a dose of a vaccine for the disease—sparking fear among public health experts that major progress in reducing childhood cases of the disease over the past three decades will be reversed.
In November the CDC website was changed to say a link between vaccines and autism—a theory that has long been debunked—cannot be ruled out. Two months earlier, as measles cases surged in another outbreak around the Utah-Arizona border, Trump called for combination children's vaccines like the MMR to be split up into separate shots—a call made decades ago by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who lost his medical license over his 1988 study that linked autism to the combination vaccine, which was later retracted.
High vaccine rates allowed the US to declare measles eliminated in 2000, but Scientific American reported Thursday that the current measles outbreaks are bringing the US "toward losing its measles-free status by early next year."
The worsening measles outbreak in South Carolina, said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), "is yet another horrifying consequence of Trump and RFK Jr.'s Make America Sick Agenda."
Republican Gov. Henry McMaster has urged residents to be vaccinated against measles, but said on Thursday, "We are not going to do mandates on people to go get vaccinated."
Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the US Health and Human Services Department, also continued to suggest that vaccination is principally a matter of personal liberty rather than public health, telling the New York Times that people in the affected community in South Carolina should talk to their doctors about "what is best for them."
On Thursday, Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said that along with the Republican Party's vote against extending Affordable Care Act subsidies, the Trump administration is raising questions about its push to "Make America Health Again" as it undermines "lifesaving vaccines and spark[s] disease outbreaks."
"The Trump administration," he said, "is endangering the health of the American people."
"If Trump is using this justification to use military force on any individuals he chooses... what’s stopping him from designating anyone within our own borders in a similar fashion and conducting lethal, militarized attacks against them?"
A Democratic senator is raising concerns about President Donald Trump potentially relying on the same rationale he's used to justify military strikes on purported drug trafficking vessels to kill American citizens on US soil.
In an interview with the Intercept, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) argued that Trump's boat strikes in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean have been flatly illegal under both domestic and international law.
Diving into specifics, Duckworth explained that the administration has been justifying its boat-bombing spree by arbitrarily declaring suspected drug traffickers as being part of "designated terrorist organizations," which the senator noted was "not grounded in US statute nor international law, but in solely what Trump says."
Many other legal experts have called the administration's strikes illegal, with some going so far as to call them acts of murder.
Duckworth, a military veteran, also said it was not a stretch to imagine Trump placing terrorist designations on US citizens as well, which would open up the opportunity to carry out lethal strikes against them.
"If Trump is using this justification to use military force on any individuals he chooses—without verified evidence or legal authorization—what’s stopping him from designating anyone within our own borders in a similar fashion and conducting lethal, militarized attacks against them?" Duckworth asked. "This illegal and dangerous misuse of lethal force should worry all Americans, and it can’t be accepted as normal."
Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported last week that Attorney General Pam Bondi recently wrote a memo that directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”
The memo expanded upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by Trump in late September that demanded a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The Intercept revealed that it reached out to the White House, the DOJ, and the US Department of Defense and asked whether the tactics used on purported Caribbean drug traffickers could be deployed on the US citizens that wind up on Bondi's list of extremists. All three entities, reported the Intercept, "have, for more than a month, failed to answer this question."
The DOJ, for instance, responded the Intercept's question about using lethal force against US citizens by saying that "political violence has no place in this country, and this Department of Justice will investigate, identify, and root out any individual or violent extremist group attempting to commit or promote this heinous activity."
Rebecca Ingber, a former State Department lawyer and current professor at Cardozo Law School, told the Intercept that the administration's designation of alleged cartel members as terrorists shows that there appears to be little limit to its conception of the president's power to deploy deadly force at will.
“This is one of the many reasons it is so important that Congress push back on the president’s claim that he can simply label transporting drugs an armed attack on the United States and then claim the authority to summarily execute people on that basis," Ingber explained.
The Intercept noted that the US government "has been killing people—including American citizens, on occasion—around the world with drone strikes" for the past two-and-a-half decades, although the strikes on purported drug boats represent a significant expansion of the use of deadly force.
Nicholas Slayton, contributing editor at Task and Purpose, pointed the finger at former President Barack Obama for pushing the boundaries of drone warfare during his eight years in office.
"Really sucks that Obama administration set a legal precedent for assassinating Americans," he commented on Bluesky.
"The American public is demanding decisive action to end US complicity in the Israeli government’s war crimes by stopping the flow of weapons to Israel."
Jewish Voice for Peace Action on Friday led a coalition of groups demanding that the Democratic Party stop providing arms to the Israeli government.
Speaking outside the Democratic National Committee’s Winter Meeting in Los Angeles, Jewish Voice for Peace Action (JVP Action) held a press conference calling on Democrats to oppose all future weapons shipments to Israel, whose years-long assault on Gaza has, according to one estimate, killed more than 100,000 Palestinian people.
While carrying banners that read, "Stop Arming Israel," speakers at the press conference also called on Democrats to reject money from the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), which has consistently funded primary challenges against left-wing critics of Israel.
JVP Action was joined at the press conference by representatives from Health Care 4 US (HC4US), Progressive Democrats of America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action (CAIR Action), and the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) Board of Directors.
Estee Chandler, founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, warned Democrats at the press conference that they risked falling out of touch with public opinion if they continued to support giving weapons to Israel.
"The polls are clear,” Chandler said. "The American public is demanding decisive action to end US complicity in the Israeli government’s war crimes by stopping the flow of weapons to Israel, and the Democratic Party refusing to heed that call will continue to come at their own peril."
The press conference came a day after the progressive advocacy group RootsAction and journalist Christopher D. Cook released an "autopsy" report of the Democratic Party's crushing 2024 losses, finding that the party's support for Israel's assault on Gaza contributed to last year's election results.
Chandler also called on Democrats to get behind the Block the Bombs Act, which currently has 58 sponsors, and which she said "would block the transfer of the worst offensive weapons from being sent to Israel, including bombs, tank rounds, and artillery shells that are US-supplied and have been involved in the mass killing of Palestinian civilians and the grossest violations of international law in Gaza."
Although there has technically been a ceasefire in place in Gaza since October, Israeli forces have continued to conduct deadly military operations in the enclave that have killed hundreds of civilians, including dozens of children.
Ricardo Pires, a spokesperson for the United Nations Children’s Fund, said last month that the number of deaths in Gaza in recent weeks has been "staggering" given that they've happened "during an agreed ceasefire."