Groups from Virginia and across the country are working with federal lawmakers to improve voting rights.

They are building support for voting rights bills like the Freedom to Vote Act, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Native American Voting Rights Act. Virginia passed its own voting rights law in 2021, which is modeled after stronger federal legislation.

Christine Wood, co-director of a coalition called the Declaration for American Democracy, said the bills can help clarify questions about how to vote.

"It would create national standards for voting," Wood explained. "No matter what state you moved to or lived in you would have the same baseline access to the polls and the ballots as anyone else."

Virginia is one of many states purging voter rolls of possible noncitizens, amid false claims noncitizen voting in federal elections is an ardent nationwide problem. The opposite is true. Noncitizens voting in federal elections rarely occurs. Some think voter registration form errors are the true culprit. The state removed over 6,300 noncitizens from voter rolls since August.

The groups are also building support for a bill to give Washington, D.C., statehood. Bills providing statehood for D.C. passed twice in the House of Representatives but have not gone further.

Chaitram Aklu, a retired teacher and member of the American Federation of Teachers, said it only seems fair since Washington, D.C., does not have the same rights as states.

"There are several hundred thousand people living in D.C.," Aklu pointed out. "While their representatives are allowed to participate in debate, they do not have a vote and that has been going on for over 220 years."

He added D.C. already pays more taxes per capita than 22 other states, with higher federal taxes than 19 states.

D.C. residents have said a major reason for statehood is the lack of autonomy they have over the district's governing bodies. The President and Congress have the final say on legislation or judicial nominations for D.C. courts. Meanwhile, they only have a lone representative in the House who does not have voting power and no Senate representation.

Tensions are rising in Springfield, Ohio, as controversial claims from Sen. J.D. Vance about migrants in the area have garnered national attention.

Vance, the Republican vice presidential nominee, has suggested that migrants have caused significant issues in the community, including allegations of pets being abducted and eaten, a claim that was referenced during Tuesday's presidential debate by former President Donald Trump. While the validity of these claims remains unclear, they have fueled debates surrounding immigration policy.

"This is something that came up on the internet, and the internet can be quite crazy sometimes," said Gov. Mike DeWine. "And look, the mayor, Mayor [Rob] Rue of Springfield, says no, there's no truth in that. They have no evidence of that at all."

While the claims about pets being abducted have not been substantiated, DeWine emphasized that Springfield has faced challenges with a rapid influx of migrants. The city of about 58,000 residents has seen an increase in its Haitian population, with estimates ranging from 15,000 to 20,000 under Temporary Protected Status, fleeing violence in their home country.

While many have filled local labor shortages, concerns about the strain on health-care services and other infrastructure have surfaced.

On the other hand, Vance has doubled down on the claims, arguing that local residents are reporting firsthand accounts of problems caused by the influx of migrants. His comments have sparked a broader conversation about how the media covers these issues and whether local residents' concerns are being taken seriously.

Vance told reporters to "work harder" in an interview following the presidential debate.

"We've heard from a number of constituents on the ground, both firsthand and secondhand reports, saying this stuff is happening," he said, "and I think it's important for journalists to actually get on the ground and uncover this stuff for themselves."

The issue of immigration in Springfield has become a flashpoint, not only for the upcoming election but also for people grappling with rapid demographic changes. Despite concerns about health or safety, many Springfield residents acknowledge the migrant community contributes to the local economy.

As the presidential race amplifies these issues, immigration is likely to remain a key topic as the election approaches.


get more stories like this via email

Former President and 2024 Republican nominee Donald Trump held a Thursday campaign rally in Tucson, his first since this week's debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.

The former president told the crowd the debate was a "victory" for him, but said he won't participate in another one. He thinks it's too late in the election cycle and early voting has already begun in some states.

Since the debate, new polling shows Harris has widened her lead over Trump by five points.

During his speech in Arizona's second-largest city, Trump touched on the economy and the housing crisis - two issues he pledges he'll fix.

"But now, Arizonans are experiencing an affordability crisis, and this is a crisis of historic proportions. Do you agree? You know that," he said. "You know what's going on, in this area in particular. Today not a single, major city in Arizona is considered affordable. Not one."

The Center for the Future of Arizona has found almost 80% of likely voters across political ideologies agree the state needs more affordable housing.

Another key issue is immigration, with 82% of likely voters saying they consider the United States' southern border an international humanitarian crisis. Trump has promised mass deportations, and has said he would use the military to protect the border if elected to a second term.

Celina Padilla lives in Tucson but is originally from the state of Jalisco in Mexico. She attended Trump's rally Thursday and said as an immigrant herself, while his heated rhetoric about immigration does impact her personally, she believes immigration reform is "non-negotiable."

"Every person should enter the United States legally," she said. "Of course, not all of us have done it that way, but now we have the ability to do so correctly and with the help from the presidency."

Like many Trump supporters, Padilla said her life was "better and easier" when he was in office.

Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff was also in Tucson on Thursday, aiming to mobilize support among the Democratic base. Arizona has historically been a "red" state, but President Joe Biden managed to flip the state "blue" in 2020 with fewer than 11,000 votes.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

A recent study by Vanderbilt University found that Americans generally love free speech, but their views change occasionally. One instance of this occurred during the protests at U.S. universities about the Israel-Hamas war.

John Geer, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, said the study replicated a 1939 poll that asked about free speech's role in a democracy and people's commitment to free speech. That study involved 3,500 participants. However, in June, only 1,000 Americans were surveyed to compare their current views to those in the past.

"We were interested to see if, in fact, all those protests, for example, it led people lessen or increase their commitment to free speech. And you could imagine hypotheses in both directions," Geer said.

Polling found that most Americans believe in unrestricted free speech, allowing any topic or speaker. However, there's a significant partisan divide, with Republicans more likely than Democrats to oppose any restrictions.

Jacob Mchangama, executive director for The Future of Free Speech and research professor at Vanderbilt University said Americans generally support free speech in abstract terms, but their views become more nuanced when confronted with specific hot-button topics on issues of transgender, gay marriage and abortion. He added there are also different degrees of tolerance for leaders of Israel and Hamas speaking on college campuses.

"If you ask whether a white supremacist should be allowed to speak on college campuses, only 37% say yes. A supporter of critical race theory, you get a majority, a significant majority of 66%, but that's still quite a few Americans who believe that someone who supports critical race theory should not be allowed to speak on college campuses," he explained.

Mchangama added that tolerance for opposing ideas is crucial for free speech, and the survey provides valuable data on this civic commitment. While most people support free speech, a significant minority would not tolerate opposing views, even when they are nonviolent and protected by the First Amendment.


get more stories like this via email