Voting Rights Act
Places that were subject to federal supervision in the past still appear to be removing voters more aggressively today.
The racial gerrymandering case in Texas was seen as a test of the remaining power of the Voting Rights Act.
J. Christian Adams, who served on Trump's voter fraud commission, helped author a report that published the citizens' personal information online.
The Georgia Democrat argued that a 2013 Supreme Court ruling led to voter suppression tactics that targeted people of color.
The Senate minority leader outlined the priorities on the anniversary of "Bloody Sunday," the 1965 voting rights march where protesters were brutally beaten.
Democrats released a new formula for determining which jurisdictions need to have their voting changes cleared by the federal government.
After taking control of the U.S. House, Democrats are trying to compile evidence that shows voter suppression is a much larger problem than voter fraud.
A former Justice Department lawyer said a recent reversal in DOJ's position is "appalling."
The legislation would make it easier to vote, create publicly financed elections, rein in corruption and restore voting rights to millions.
The move is a recognition of the need to show the Supreme Court evidence of present-day discrimination.
Voter suppression is endangering a crucial civil right, and Jeff Sessions is letting it happen. But all is not lost.
The suit targets 32 counties the plaintiffs say are violating the Voting Rights Act.
Resistance works, but only if we work at resistance.
More than 200 civil rights groups opposed Andrew Oldham, but every Republican voted to make him a lifetime federal judge.
Anthony Kennedy was no champion of voting rights, but his replacement could make things even worse.
The court struck down 11 districts in the Virginia House of Delegates. Lawmakers have until Oct. 30 to redraw them.
Tens of thousands of Americans with disabilities have already lost their right to vote.
It is the latest voting rights dispute taken up by the justices.
A case at the high court could have big implications for how aggressively states can remove voters from their rolls.