

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.

Civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit today challenging anti-voter Senate Bill 1.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Texas, the Texas Organizing Project, Workers Defense Action Fund, Register, Educate, Vote, & Use your Power - Texas (REV UP Texas), and OCA of Greater Houston.
In their lawsuit -- filed by co-counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Disability Rights Texas, the Texas Civil Rights Project and the law firm of Jenner & Block LLP, -- these organizations argue that numerous provisions of the bill violate the Voting Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the U.S. Constitution. The legislation makes it virtually impossible for members of the plaintiff organizations to vote, especially those who are more comfortable with languages other than English, those with disabilities, and who have no option but to vote by mail. SB 1 is opposed by diverse groups of Texans -- from business executives, faith leaders, community organizers, local elected officials and countless everyday Texans -- including those represented by MOVE Texas, Common Cause Texas, Texas Freedom Network, AFL-CIO Texas, Black Voters Matter and Jolt Texas.
Recent non-partisan polling shows most voters, regardless of political party, believe that all Texans should have equal access to the ballot box. SB 1 would not only make voting harder for all Texans, it threatens to harm communities of color and Texans with disabilities the most.
The following are comments from the plaintiffs:
"The DISABILITY VOTE has been growing in Texas. SB 1 will inhibit people with disabilities from participating in future elections," said Bob Kafka, Texas organizer with REV UP Texas.
"For democracy to work, it must include all voices. SB 1 is an extremist anti-voter bill that raises even more barriers to voting and specifically targets vulnerable communities, especially voters with disabilities, voters of color, and elderly voters," said Grace Chimene, president of the League of Women Voters of Texas. "SB 1 is a violation of our freedom to vote, and we will continue to fight every attempt to silence Texas voters."
"SB 1 deliberately targets people of color, the elderly, and those with disabilities, placing illegal restrictions on their access to the ballot box. There's no denying that this bill is an attack on democracy in our state and a transparent act of political desperation," said Brianna Brown, co-executive director of the Texas Organizing Project.
"Texas has a history of violating Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act - we will continue to fight when Texas tries to limit the federal rights of limited English speaking voters to get the language assistance they need. The SB1 restrictions needlessly erect barriers for Immigrant, limited English proficient, seniors, and working class Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) citizens to exercise their right to vote, and go against the principle of equitable access," said Deborah Chen, Civic Engagement Programs Director with OCA-Greater Houston.
"SB 1 is part of a larger coordinated attempt to take political power away from working families. We should be aiming to increase civic engagement throughout our state, not make it more difficult for our communities to exercise their right to vote. Texans building our state deserve to have their voices heard at the ballot box and SB 1 will significantly impact their ability to do so," said Emily Timm, Workers Defense Action Fund Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director
The following are comments from co-counsel:
"Voters with disabilities and voters with limited English proficiency have the same right to vote as anyone else," said Tommy Buser-Clancy, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas. "SB 1 cruelly targets these voters and anyone who might assist them with increased burdens and unnecessary criminal penalties. These provisions are unlawful and part of a long history of Texas implementing discriminatory anti-voter measures. The legislation should be struck down."
"This assault on voting rights and democracy cannot go unchallenged," said Adriel Cepeda Derieux, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "We urge the court to strike down the barriers to voting that these new illegal restrictions impose."
"In 2018 AALDEF enjoined Texas from restricting assistance to voters with limited English proficiency," said Susana Lorenzo-Giguere, Senior Staff Attorney at AALDEF. "With SB1,Texas is at it again. SB1's restrictions on any assistance outside of reading and marking the ballot, like answering questions on how to use the voting machine or where to drop the completed ballot at the polling place, and SB1's criminalization of anyone answering those questions, unlawfully restricts the broad voting assistance rights under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act."
"People with disabilities, who make up 20 percent of the U.S. population, already face significant barriers to exercising their legal right to vote, such as physically inaccessible polling sites, election workers refusing to provide accommodations, mail-in ballots that cannot be used by people who are blind, and more," said Lia Sifuentes Davis, Senior Litigation Attorney with Disability Rights Texas. "SB1 is a discriminatory law that creates more unnecessary barriers and silences the voices of Texans with disabilities as well as Texans of color."
"SB1 officially cements Texas as the hardest state to vote in the country," said Ryan V. Cox, Senior Attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project. "For decades, voters of color have been silenced through voter suppression, gerrymandering, and deceptive tactics. We cannot allow our democracy to be undermined by these blatantly illegal voting restrictions aimed at disenfranchising communities of color and voters with disabilities."
"Equal access to voting is the foundation of democracy," said Jessica Ring Amunson, Chair of Jenner & Block's Election Law and Redistricting Practice. "This Texas bill violates the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and we are proud to fight to secure the right to vote for voters with disabilities and voters with limited English proficiency and the organizations that assist them in preserving this fundamental right."
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"People can't afford childcare," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday that it is absurd for the Trump administration to demand another $200 billion from Congress for an illegal war on Iran after lawmakers already approved $1 trillion in military spending for the year—and while millions of people across the nation are struggling to afford basic necessities.
"You got people all over this country, 20% of households, spending 50% of their income on housing," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an appearance on MS NOW. "People can't afford healthcare. People can't afford childcare. And this guy, in addition to giving tax breaks to billionaires, now wants to spend another $200 billion on a war that should never have been fought."
The senator's remarks came as President Donald Trump, who has not yet formally requested the funds from Congress, suggested another $200 billion would be a "small price to pay" as the US-Israeli war on Iran heads toward its fourth week with no end in sight.
"I think the Trump people are in a bit of panic," Sanders said Thursday. "They're losing ground. Gas prices are soaring. There is massive discontent against this war. It's got to end, and we've got to make sure that Trump is neutered in 2026."
With the Trump administration considering a plan to deploy thousands of additional troops to the Middle East amid widespread fears of a ground invasion of Iran—which would explode the price tag of an already costly war—the National Priorities Project (NPP) released an analysis highlighting where the $200 billion requested by the Pentagon could be better spent.
The group estimated that $200 billion would be enough for all of the following this year:
"Pete Hegseth would rather the US bomb Iranian families than feed American families," wrote NPP's Lindsay Koshgarian, referring to the Pentagon secretary. "We should remember the lies that led us into war in Iraq a generation ago. That war ultimately cost nearly $3 trillion. We must not go down that path again. Our tax dollars should be helping struggling Americans, not feeding new forever wars."
One advocacy group leader highlighted that "$200 billion is enough to materially change the lives of Americans," from establishing universal pre-K education to building over 100,000 housing units.
As US President Donald Trump on Thursday confirmed reporting that he's seeking $200 billion more from Congress to continue waging his unpopular war of choice on Iran, Rep. Ilhan Omar was among those forcefully pushing back.
"We're told there's no money for universal healthcare or to end hunger in this country. But somehow $200 billion more for war will likely move through Congress without question," said the progressive Minnesota Democrat, who fled civil war in Somalia as a child. "Not another penny for another endless war."
Since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started bombing Iran late last month—creating a spiraling crisis that has now killed and injured thousands of people across the Middle East, plus damaged civilian infrastructure in multiple countries—anti-war lawmakers and organizations have delivered similar messages.
"While they kick 17 million Americans off their healthcare, Republicans want to spend billions on Trump's reckless war of choice," Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in early March. "Hell no."
Last week, shortly after Pentagon officials told Congress that just the first six days cost Americans more than $11.3 billion, over 250 groups collectively told lawmakers on Capitol Hill to "vote against any additional funding for Trump's unconstitutional war."
At the time, the reported figure was a quarter of what it is now: $50 billion. The coalition noted that the funding "would be enough to restore food assistance for 4 million Americans that was taken away in the tax and budget reconciliation bill, establish universal pre-K education, and pay for the annual construction of more than 100,000 units of housing, among other possible priorities."
After Trump confirmed that he wants four times more than expected, one coalition member, the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, took to social media to highlight other ways the money could be spent to improve the lives of working Americans, from school meals and paid leave to funding all levels of education.
Another coalition member, Public Citizen, released a Thursday statement in which co-president Robert Weissman ripped Trump's spending request as "grotesque beyond words."
According to Weissman:
It should properly be understood not just as a request to replenish supplies, but to expand, escalate, and perpetuate the illegal, unconstitutional, unpopular and devastating war on Iran. Congress should understand that approving any portion of this funding opens the gates for one, two, and potentially many more war funding requests in the future.
How dare the administration propose this gargantuan sum to expand an illegal war of choice at the same time it has rammed through deep cuts in healthcare and food assistance, refuses to spend foreign assistance at a cost of millions of lives, and has cut spending on protecting clean air, maintaining our national parks, investing in health research, protecting consumers from fraud, and so much more.
$200 billion is enough to materially change the lives of Americans and truly make our country stronger. It would be enough to restore food assistance to the 4 million Americans and Medicaid to the 15 million Americans who will lose those crucial supports under the Republican reconciliation bill; establish universal pre-K education; pay for the annual construction of more than 100,000 units of housing; double the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency; and expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing.
Weissman argued that "every member of Congress should announce, right now, that they will reject this monstrous war funding proposal, before it is formalized."
Despite rising casualties across the Middle East and polls showing that the US assault on Iran is unpopular, even with Trump voters, a few Democrats voted with nearly all Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives earlier this month to reject war powers resolutions intended to end Trump's Operation Epic Fury. The upper chamber blocked a similar effort late Wednesday.
Berlin says it needs to focus on its defense in a separate ICJ case in which Nicaragua accuses Germany of supporting Israel's genocidal war on Gaza.
Germany said Wednesday that it will drop its planned intervention in the International Court of Justice genocide against Israel so that it can better focus on its own defense in a separate ICJ case filed by Nicaragua accusing Berlin of enabling Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza via arms sales.
Deputy German Foreign Minister Josef Hinterseher said during a press conference in Berlin that his country "will not intervene" on Israel's side in the South Africa v. Israel genocide case filed at the Hague-based tribunal in December 2023.
This is a marked departure from Germany's January 2024 announcement that it would intervene on behalf of Israel in the case, arguing that the genocide allegation made by South Africa had "no basis whatsoever."
Nearly two dozen nations, most recently the Netherlands, Namibia, and Iceland, have either formally intervened on the side of South Africa or announced their intent to do so. The Herero and Nama peoples of modern-day Namibia suffered a genocide during the region's colonization by Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
A handful of countries including the United States, Hungary, and Fiji have also intervened on behalf of Israel.
In 2024, Nicaragua filed a case against Germany at the ICJ, arguing that the European nation “has not only failed to fulfill its obligation to prevent the genocide committed and being committed against the Palestinian people... but has contributed to the commission of genocide in violation" of the Genocide Convention.
Germany has provided financial, military, diplomatic, and political support to Israel. It also temporarily halted financial contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) based on unsubstantiated Israeli claims that a dozen of its worjers were involved in the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
Unlike Germany, the US and Israel are not members of the ICJ. The US quit the tribunal after it ruled against the Reagan administration in Nicaragua v. United States, a 1984 ruling that determined the US illegally supported Contra terrorists and mined Nicaraguan harbors.
However, under the court's territorial jurisdiction powers, countries that are not members of the court can still be brought before it for crimes committed in member states.
Further complicating matters, Germany is one of numerous countries which have intervened in Gambia v. Myanmar, which the African nation filed at the ICJ in 2019 amid the Burmese junta's ongoing genocide against Rohingya Muslims.
The ICJ has issued several provisional orders in South Africa v. Israel, including directives to prevent genocidal acts and allow aid into the besieged Gaza Strip amid a burgeoning famine. Israel has been accused of ignoring these orders.
The US under the Biden and Trump administrations pressured ICJ members to refrain from intervening on behalf of South Africa. The Trump administration has also sanctioned members of the International Criminal Court (ICC)‚ which in 2024 issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
In Germany, as in several other Western nations, authorities have cracked down on pro-Palestine protests, free expression of support for Palestinian rights, and criticism of Israel. Critics say the persistent framing of German national identity around enduring guilt for the Nazis' wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust is driving overzealous policing of dissent and conflation of pro-Palestinian activism with antisemitism.
This perceived moral burden, say observers, risks stifling legitimate political debate, curtailing free speech, and criminalizing solidarity with Palestinians under the pretext of historical responsibility. This has driven German actions from secretly funding Israel's development of nuclear weapons over half a century ago to brutally assaulting and arresting pro-Palestine protesters—including women, elders, minors, and people with disabilities—after the October 2023 attack.
German police punch an anti-genocide woman in front of the cameras.
[image or embed]
— Antifa_Ultras (@antifa-ultras.bsky.social) October 7, 2025 at 2:20 PM
Amnesty International's latest annual human rights report on Germany notes "excessive use of force by police during peaceful protests by climate activists and supporters of Palestinians’ rights," as well as Berlin's "irresponsible arms transfers" to not only Israel but also Saudi Arabia.