October, 26 2022, 09:36am EDT

US: Protect the Right to Vote
Adopt All Measures Needed to Guarantee Access, Integrity
WASHINGTON
Election officials in the United States have human rights obligations to ensure that everyone entitled to vote in the November 8, 2022 elections are able to do so freely and without fear of intimidation or violence, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch issued a report in a question-and-answer format to describe the human rights imperatives, guided by international law, to protect the right to vote and the integrity of elections in the United States.
"The 2022 general elections in the United States are an important test of the country's resolve to adhere to fundamental principles of democracy and human rights," said Amanda Klasing, head of the US democracy initiative at Human Rights Watch. "Election officials themselves are under threat, and US officials should urgently ensure that voters, poll workers, and civic groups can participate freely in the electoral process, without fear or intimidation."
In its report, Human Rights Watch addresses the need to align US elections procedures with international human rights standards, including prohibitions against any racial discrimination in voting. It also discusses the critical role that civil society organizations play in protecting the integrity of US elections and key questions such as government's responsibility to counter misinformation and to act to prevent voter intimidation, including the presence of weapons or law enforcement in polling places.
While international human rights law "does not impose any particular electoral system," the United Nations says, it does set out voting rights and nondiscrimination obligations that are binding on the national, state, and local governments in the US.
A healthy democracy is one that is based on the will of the people and protects the rights of all, Human Rights Watch said. Inclusive democratic institutions are vital to protecting human rights: they help to ensure that people's voices are heard, civic groups can operate independently, elections are free and fair, and rights are protected under law.
In the US, some state and non-state actors are attempting to silence or limit the work of these groups. State laws violate the right to vote and misinformation about the 2020 elections is eroding public faith in elections and democratic institutions. This dynamic is especially visible in the lead up to the November 8 general elections.
The officials charged with administering free and fair elections in the US have come under increased scrutiny, harassment, and even death threats since the 2020 election in part due to false claims by former President Donald Trump and his supporters that there was a conspiracy to deprive him of the presidency in 2020, Human Rights Watch said. A task force of the US Justice Department, in close collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), reported in August 2022 that it had reviewed over 1,000 reports of hostile or harassing incidents against election workers, with almost 11 percent meeting the threshold for a federal criminal investigation. In October, the FBI issued a broad statement of caution about threats to election workers ahead of the November elections.
Human Rights Watch also provides information in the report on the pernicious laws, policies, and practices that limit the power of Black voters, and the important role nongovernmental organizations play in protecting the integrity of US elections. These groups operating at the state and local levels are on the front line of protecting the integrity of US elections. They help to register voters, inform them about their rights and how to vote, and contact local election officials when there are problems.
Civil society and nonpartisan observers play a significant role in a healthy democracy, Human Rights Watch said. Some state lawmakers have passed laws that chill the involvement of nongovernmental groups in registering or supporting voters, including laws with steep fines and even criminal penalties.
International human rights law provides a useful roadmap for a way forward on these and other hot-button issues related to the US election, Human Rights Watch said. As US citizens go to the polls, other human rights concerns in the US and globally are being exposed. One such issue is the link between politicians who foment xenophobic fears to build political power - a theme seen in contacts between officials in Texas and in Hungary, for example. Another is the failure of countries like Brazil and states like Georgia to fully ensure that all eligible voters feel safe and able to exercise their rights without the terror fomented by racial discrimination.
" Racial justice is central to actual realization of the right to vote in the US, in Brazil, and worldwide," Klasing said. "You can't have democracy without racial justice, and you cannot have racial justice without democracy."
The November general elections are very consequential for human rights in the United States. There are 36 governorships up for election, including in influential states such as Texas and Florida. Every state will have state legislative elections, with bills pending in statehouses across the country to protect and to attack many human rights, including the rights to abortion access, peaceful assembly, and more.
All US House of Representative seats are up for election, along with 34 US Senate seats. And there are local ballot initiatives in many states, including in California, Michigan, Kentucky, and Vermont, considering questions related to abortion and contraceptives. These state initiatives have become crucial to ensure continued access to abortion at the state level, as the nearly 50-year federal constitutional guarantee was overturned by the US Supreme Court in June.
Although the US Constitution's Thirteenth Amendment technically abolished the institution of chattel slavery, it provided an exception that allowed for the continuation of slavery "as punishment of crime." Over 150 years after the passage of this amendment, voters in Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont are considering measures that would explicitly prohibit all lingering forms of slavery and indentured servitude. Voters in Colorado, Florida and New Jersey previously took action to prohibit this racist exception.
The US prison labor system is a legacy of slavery and a form of economic exploitation, and racial inequities persist today. Black people are disproportionately incarcerated and thus overrepresented among those working in prison. In December 2020, Human Rights Watch supported an amendment to the US constitution that would "prohibit the use of slavery and involuntary servitude" as a punishment for a crime. Almost one million people in the US are currently working while confined in US prisons.
Specious claims of election fraud, dangerous lawsuits undermining the basic principle of "one person, one vote," and confusing changes to election rules are all dangerous anti-rights forces at play in the current midterm elections and beyond. Human rights offer an easily defined roadmap through this dangerous terrain, Human Rights Watch said.
"Staying the course on ensuring democracy requires dismissing and circumventing all distractions in favor of protecting the right to vote for everyone," Klasing said. "No one, whether a voter or an election official, and no matter their political views, social group, or race, should lose sight of that simple fact."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Abelardo de la Espriella, Far-Right Millionaire Backed by Trump, Claims Presidential Victory
US President Donald Trump, who was accused of interfering in Colombia's runoff election, falsely declared that De la Espriella won "BIG" as he led by less than a percentage point.
Jun 22, 2026
Abelardo de la Espriella, a far-right millionaire backed by US President Donald Trump, declared victory in Colombia's presidential runoff late Sunday as preliminary results showed him leading by less than one percentage point with more than 99% of the vote tallied.
Despite the narrow margin, Trump—who is notorious for lying about elections—falsely declared on Truth Social that De la Espriella won "BIG" as the far-right candidate's opponent, leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, said the results were "unofficial." Both Cepeda and incumbent Colombian President Gustavo Petro signaled that they would challenge vote counts.
"It is an abuse to declare a president through the media when the scrutiny is still ongoing," Petro wrote on X as interim results showed De la Espriella with 49.66% of the vote to Cepeda's 48.7%.
In the run up to Sunday's contest, Petro, international observers, and Democratic lawmakers in the US sounded alarm about the Trump administration's interference in the race on behalf of De la Espriella, who has pledged to "disembowel the left," cut corporate taxes, and dismantle Petro's social and economic policies, which slashed poverty and boosted the country's minimum wage.
"President Trump has... implied that if Mr. De la Espriella loses, Colombia may lose the support of the United States, its most important trade and security partner," a group of US lawmakers wrote in a letter to to Trump administration officials last week. "This direct interference by US officials in another country’s democratic elections is inconsistent with longstanding principles of national sovereignty and non-interference, as well as international law."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on social media that he called De la Espriella late Sunday to "congratulate him on his electoral victory."
"The Trump administration looks forward to working closely with your incoming administration to advance regional security cooperation, end illegal immigration to the United States, and strengthen our economic ties," Rubio added.
NPR noted that De la Espriella "has built a lucrative legal and media empire around his reputation."
"He owns a fleet of luxury cars, including a Rolls Royce, and frequently travels by private jet," the outlet added. "He has also cultivated a conspicuous public image as a businessman and influencer, launching a fashion brand, De La Espriella Style, which markets high-end accessories such as luxury watches and sneakers priced at over $1,000 a pair."
De la Espriella's declaration of victory sparked protests in the streets of Colombia's capital, Bogotá. Barron's reported that "roaring motorbike engines and shouts of 'resistance!' filled the air" in the capital city as thousands took to the streets in opposition to De la Espriella.
"We're going to see many more demonstrations," one student demonstrator predicted.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Good Riddance': Keir Starmer Resigns as UK Prime Minister
"Getting rid of Keir Starmer is not enough. We need to get rid of the politics he represents: corporate greed, anti-migrant rhetoric, and endless war," said former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Jun 22, 2026
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation on Monday, less than two years after his Labour party swept into power in a landslide election.
In his resignation speech, Starmer said that he was stepping down because members of his party did not feel he was the best choice to lead them into the next general election, with polls showing the far-right anti-immigration Reform party currently on track to receive the most votes.
Starmer also said that whomever is chosen as his successor "will inherit a Britain that is far stronger and fairer than the one I inherited two years ago, better prepared for the challenges ahead and better able to ensure the Labour party secures a second term in office."
Starmer's progressive critics disputed this characterization of his governance, which they said has done little more than legitimize the far right.
Specifically, critics pointed to the Labour government's continued support of Israel in its genocidal assault on Gaza, its decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group, and its efforts to court far-right voters by restricting immigration as some of its most destructive actions.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that Starmer had wasted the large majority that Labour had won and had done little if anything to improve the lives of the UK working class.
"Keir Starmer could have ended child poverty, homelessness and the grotesque levels of inequality in this country," Corbyn wrote. "Instead, he abandoned those in need, destroyed our civil liberties, and facilitated genocide in Gaza. That is how this prime minister will be remembered—and that is the legacy of moral and political bankruptcy he leaves behind."
Corbyn added that "getting rid of Keir Starmer is not enough," as "we need to get rid of the politics he represents: corporate greed, anti-migrant rhetoric, and endless war."
Member of Parliament Zarah Sultana, a former Labour MP who has since joined Corbyn's Your party, noted after watching the prime minister's speech that "the most emotion Keir Starmer has shown is over losing his job, not enabling the genocide of the Palestinian people."
"Good riddance," Sultana said. "His next stop should be The Hague."
Zack Polanski, leader of the Green party, predicted that Starmer's premiership would be remembered entirely negatively.
"Bills up. Wages too low," Polanski wrote, summarizing life in the UK under Starmer's leadership. "Record profits for oil and gas. Fifty richest families with more wealth than 50% of population. Shit in our rivers. Pensioners jailed for protesting. Migrants thrown under the bus. Supporting a genocide. That's Starmer's legacy."
Journalist Owen Jones delivered a similarly scathing assessment.
"Keir Starmer lied through his teeth to become Labour leader," Jones wrote. "He justified Israeli war crimes, arrested opponents of genocide, attacked pensioners, disabled people, and migrants, pocketed freebies, crushed dissent, and threw others under the bus to save himself. History damns him."
Economist Yanis Varoufakis delivered a lengthy rundown of Starmer's failures as prime minister, arguing he "was not merely a disappointment" but "a mendacious figure of ethical decrepitude, a man who won the Labour party leadership based on promises that he jettisoned five seconds after winning."
"History will remember Mr. Starmer as a man without conviction," Varoufakis wrote, "a prime minister who offers not a shred of honesty, but merely the cruel illusion of change. He is ethically decrepit because he had chosen, consciously, to abandon principle for power. And for that, history will indict him. Good riddance, I say."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Hands Off Public Media!' Thousands March, Workers Strike in Czechia Over Right-Wing Attack
"The media don't belong to politicians. They belong to us all and we won't allow them to be stolen from us."
Jun 22, 2026
Public media journalists and staff are on a 24-hour strike in Czechia on Monday, just a day after thousands of people marched in Prague against attacks by the right-wing government on the nation's public broadcasting system.
Gathered outside the public television offices in Prague, those gathered Sunday shouted "Hand off public media!" as they railed against reforms proposed by the government of billionaire Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, a far-right ideologue compared to US President Donald Trump and Hungary's former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
The right-wing reforms, approved by the Babiš cabinet last week, would eviscerate the annual budgets for both public radio and television programming by 15% next year—bringing them back to 2008 levels by cutting a combined €57 million—while also changing the funding mechanism going forward. Instead of funds generated through fees paid by individuals, households, and businesses, the annual budgets would now come from government allocations, which critics of the changes say would give the ruling party more influence over content.
"The media don't belong to politicians," Mikulas Minar, an organizer with the group behind the protest movement—dubbed the Million Moments for Democracy—told Deutsche Welle on Sunday. "They belong to us all and we won't allow them to be stolen from us."
Thousands Protest in Prague: “Hands Off Public Media” Over Funding Reform 🇨🇿
Large crowds gathered in Prague under the slogan “Hands Off Public Media”, protesting the Czech government’s proposed reform to replace license fees with direct state budget funding for public… pic.twitter.com/793Q2dZf6W
— Unit News (@Unit_News) June 22, 2026
The fight over the countries public media system, "is not just about money," reports The Guardian.
“The reforms have been prepared without consultation and without guarantees for the independence of public service media,” Pavla Kubálková, a member of Czech Television’s strike committee, told the newspaper. “A large part of society remembers what the news looked like when politicians chose the content before 1989. We don’t want to go back there.”
On Monday, the striking workers formed a symbolic human chain around the Czech public radio offices in Prague.

“What matters most to us is preserving independence and the direct relationship between Czech Television and its viewers,” added Kubálková, warning against increased political pressure on the public broadcasters from the state.
As the Guardian reports, those concerns, "were reinforced last week when Josef Nerušil, an MP for the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) party, which is part of the governing coalition, appeared to suggest that changes to funding should eventually lead to greater scrutiny of what public broadcasters air."
“The point is to change the funding,” Nerušil told Czech Radio. “But if we’re talking about what public service media should broadcast, then of course, in a further step, we want to get to a broader discussion.”
Nerušil admitted the aim was “to control not only the financial side but also the content side,” as he accused the broadcasters of political bias in their coverage.
The workers on strike and the people in the street, said Kubálková, should signal to the government that the people of Czechia are ready for a fight.
“The employees of both broadcasters are ready to defend their service to citizens, and we are determined to continue with even more vigorous protests,” she said. “We will do everything we can to defend public service media in their current form.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


