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
Bernie Sanders Leads Senators in Demand to End Super PACs in Democratic Primaries
“We cannot allow unlimited outside spending to distort our elections or drown out the voices of working people."
Apr 27, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading a coalition of Democratic senators pushing for the party's leaders to require candidates to swear off billionaire- and corporate-backed super PACs, or political action committees, in this year's primary elections.
Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined the independent senator from Vermont to send a letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin on Sunday.
Five of the senators are members of a group of Senate Democrats known as the "Fight Club" that has formed to oppose Schumer's preferred candidates in contested Democratic primaries, many of whom are closely aligned with the party's traditional corporate backers.
While the senators applauded the DNC's resolution last month broadly condemning the influence of dark money in party elections, calling it an "important first step," they said Democratic leaders needed to take more "concrete steps to curb the influence of dark money," particularly the artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency industries and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
"Corporate-funded super PACs are shaping the 2026 elections as we speak, and the scale of their resources is unprecedented," the senators said. "Crypto-aligned groups are preparing to spend $200 million, and AIPAC-affiliated groups already control more than $90 million. The AI industry has already spent over $185 million this year alone. These sums are being deployed to influence Democratic primaries and overwhelm candidates who rely on grassroots support."
April's broad anti-dark money resolution was passed by the DNC in lieu of one that directly singled out “the growing influence” of AIPAC, specifically over its more than $100 million spending blitz in 2024 to oust progressive candidates. Despite a dramatic shift toward opposition to Israel among Democratic voters over the past three years, that resolution was voted down by a DNC panel.
AIPAC continues to dump massive amounts of money behind its preferred candidates. The senators' letter notes that "in Illinois alone, outside groups spent over $50 million in recent Democratic primaries." Nearly half of that money was spent by AIPAC, which secretly funneled money to support its candidates using shell groups that appeared to be unaffiliated.
The group has used similar tactics in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Ala Stanford, a candidate for Pennsylvania's 3rd District in Philadelphia, was recently revealed to have received $500,000 worth of backing from AIPAC through a super PAC despite claiming to have received no support from the Israel lobby.
Meanwhile, in Maine, a clique of Republican billionaires who back Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)—including Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman and Palantir CEO Alex Karp—also recently dropped $2 million to fund an ad campaign seeking to hamper the chances of the Democratic Senate primary front-runner Graham Platner.
"We cannot allow unlimited outside spending to distort our elections or drown out the voices of working people," the senators said in Sunday's letter.
The senators noted Schumer's past statement that overturning the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the door for the flood of corporate money into elections by allowing individuals to independently spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates, was "probably more important than any other single thing we could do to preserve this great and grand democracy.”
They said that while reversing the ruling remained a "critical long-term goal," the party "has the authority—and the responsibility—to act now with clear, enforceable rules."
"National and state parties should require all Democratic candidates to sign a pledge opposing billionaire- and corporate-backed super PAC spending on their behalf in Democratic primaries," they said. "The DNC, state parties, and committees working to elect Democrats to the House and Senate have many potential tools at their disposal to enforce that pledge, including withholding endorsements for those who make endorsements in the primary, and they should use whatever tools necessary to do so."
Sanders has said that simply requiring candidates to take a pledge is not enough and that party leaders need to be diligent about holding them to it.
“If the Democrats are going to be honest and consistent in terms of their concerns about money and politics, they’ve got to clean up, in my view, their own house immediately,” he said in an interview on Saturday. “That means getting super PACs out of Democratic primaries, congressional as well as presidential.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Death on the Job' Report Details Workplace Safety Decline Under Trump
"From the dismantling of critical federal agencies and laws to the expansion of unregulated, untested AI technology, the protections that workers fought and died for are under serious threat," said the AFL-CIO president.
Apr 27, 2026
Since returning to the White House last year, President Donald Trump has revived his war on workers and their labor unions, including by making US workplaces less safe, according to an annual report released Monday by the AFL-CIO.
The AFL-CIO published its 35th annual "Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect" report on the eve of Workers Memorial Day on Tuesday, and in the lead-up to International Workers' Day, or May Day, on Friday—for which organizers have already planned more than 3,000 events demanding an economy that serves "workers over billionaires" across the United States.
"Over the last 35 years of this report, job safety agencies' resources have diminished dramatically, even as their responsibilities have grown immensely," the publication notes. "For instance, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is now in charge of 85% more establishments, 44% more workers, and new hazards and technologies, yet Congress has reduced its budget by 10% and staffing by 26%, including a 16% reduction in inspectors."
"These percentages have massive impacts on such a tiny agency and very real personal effects on workers and their families," the report continues. "Agencies now have a paltry number of staff to write standards, analyze data, conduct inspections, perform oversight on states, orchestrate needed research on important hazards, and respond to emerging threats. The number of OSHA inspectors has now hit a new low, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) does not have enough inspectors to meet its statutory requirement to inspect each mine multiple times a year."
While "more than 735,000 workers now can say their lives have been saved since the passage" of the Occupational Safety
and Health (OSH) Act, "too many workers remain at serious risk of injury, illness, or death as chemical plant explosions, major fires, construction collapses, infectious disease outbreaks, workplace assaults, toxic chemical exposures, and other preventable tragedies continue to permeate the workplace," the document stresses.
"Workplace hazards still kill approximately 140,000 workers each year in the United States—including 5,070 from traumatic injuries in 2024 and an estimated 135,000 from occupational diseases each year," the report states. "That is more than 380 workers each day. Job injury and illness numbers continue to be severe undercounts of the real problem."
The publication points out that "Black and Latino workers are more likely to die on the job," while older workers and minors are also "at serious risk." According to the data, the deadliest industries in the United States are: agriculture, forestry, and fishing and hunting; mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; transportation and warehousing; construction; and wholesale trade.
"It is a disgrace that in 2026, being Black, Latino, or an immigrant can still be a death sentence on the jobsite," declared AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Fred Redmond, in a statement. He specifically called out the president's attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as those on immigrant communities.
"Our new report makes it terrifyingly clear that the Trump administration's anti-DEI, mass deportation agenda will only make this crisis worse," Redmond said. "When workers are afraid that reporting threats to their safety could result in their work permits being revoked and their families being ripped apart, and when employers fear that reporting workplace data will hurt their bottom line, we are all less safe: workers of color and white workers, immigrant workers and US-born workers. We must fight the Trump administration's attacks on communities of color like our fellow workers' lives are on the line—because they are."
Faced with these "preventable" deaths, as AFL-CIO put it, the second Trump administration has taken an ax to job safety oversight and enforcement. Specifically, the report details, the administration has:
- Pushed out so many staff that job safety agency staffing is at new lows, leaving fewer inspectors than ever to cover a growing workforce;
- Instructed its OSHA and MSHA inspectors to focus on employer outreach and assistance, taking time and resources away from inspections with citations;
- Expanded OSHA penalty reductions for employers when they violate the law;
- Proposed twice to eliminate worker safety and health training grants, even though Congress has rejected these cuts so far;
- Proposed to eliminate the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, in charge of independent, nonregulatory investigations after an industrial explosion, leak, or other major incident;
- Stopped conducting MSHA impact inspections, a critical enforcement tool for focusing on mines with a poor history of compliance with MSHA standards, high numbers of injuries, illnesses or fatalities, or other indicators of unsafe mines;
- Issued zero criminal referrals for violations of the OSH Act;
- Indefinitely halted the enforcement of the silica standard in coal and metal/nonmetal mining;
- Extended deadlines for companies to comply with important Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chemical regulations that specifically protect workers, such as methylene chloride; and
- Proposed to remove dozens of OSHA and MSHA standards from the books and supported efforts to dismantle the regulatory process.
"Every worker should be able to go home safe and healthy at the end of their shift—but 55 years after the founding of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, that fundamental right is in danger," warned AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler.
"From the dismantling of critical federal agencies and laws to the expansion of unregulated, untested AI technology, the protections that workers fought and died for are under serious threat," Shuler said, as the Trump administration lobbies against legislation that would regulate artificial intelligence in Republican-led states.
"The labor movement refuses to go backward," she added. "More than five decades after a Republican signed the landmark Occupational Safety and Health Act into law, we urge all members of Congress—from both sides of the aisle—to join us in this fight."
Both chambers of Congress are currently controlled by Trump's Republican Party, and recent votes on various war powers resolutions have demonstrated how most GOP lawmakers are unwilling to stand up to the president, even when he defies the US Constitution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Wars, Uncertainty, and Geopolitical Upheaval' Led to 2025 Global Military Spending Surge
"Given the range of current crises, as well as many states’ long-term military spending targets, this growth will probably continue through 2026 and beyond," said one researcher.
Apr 27, 2026
Global military spending around the world surged in 2025 in response to further eroding geopolitical stability, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute revealed in a report released Monday.
In its annual report on trends in global military expenditures, SIPRI found that global military spending in 2025 totaled nearly $2.9 trillion, a 2.9% increase over defense spending in 2024. Global defense spending now accounts for 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the highest level since 2009.
Despite the Pentagon's ballooning budget, overall defense defense spending in the US actually decreased in 2025, as the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled US Congress stopped sending new military aid to Ukraine, which had received nearly $130 billion in military aid under President Joe Biden over the previous three years after it was invaded by Russia in 2022.
Even without additional US involvement, spending on the Russia-Ukraine conflict grew significantly in 2025, as Russia increased its defense spending by 6% and Ukraine increased its military expenditures by 20%.
"In 2025 military expenditure as a share of government spending reached the highest level ever recorded in both Russia and Ukraine," said Lorenzo Scarazzato, researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program. "Their spending is likely to keep growing in 2026 if the war continues, with revenues from Russia’s oil sales increasing and a major European Union loan expected by Ukraine."
The dip in US defense spending may not last long given that President Donald Trump has proposed a record $1.5 trillion military budget and the president's unauthorized war of choice with Iran has already cost US taxpayers an estimated $63 billion.
Both Israel and Iran spent less on defense in 2025 than the year before, although both countries are similarly likely to see a surge in spending given the conflict between the two countries that began when the US and Israel attacked Iran in late February.
Elsewhere in the world, the SIPRI report finds that defense spending in Europe grew by 14% in 2025, while growing just over 8% in Asia and Oceania.
The US, China, and Russia were the three biggest military spenders, and their combined spending of $1.48 trillion represented more than half of the global total.
Xiao Liang, researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, said that the big increases in defense spending came in response to "another year of wars, uncertainty, and geopolitical upheaval with large-scale armament drives."
"Given the range of current crises, as well as many states’ long-term military spending targets," the researcher added, "this growth will probably continue through 2026 and beyond."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


