Coloradans want lawmakers to safeguard state voting rights
Darryl Walker fills out his ballot while voting on Super Tuesday in Denver, March 5, 2024. (Kevin Mohatt for Colorado Newsline)
Our foundational voting rights are at risk.
Americans are watching as the new presidential administration dangerously hacks away at institutions of our federal government at the expense of the people, with a slew of executive orders that violate the Constitution and aim to strip Americans of cherished civil liberties they have known for generations.
We can no longer rely on Congress as a backstop. The Trump administration has ordered the Department of Justice to cease all involvement in civil rights cases, including enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), which has protected Americans' right to vote since the civil rights era.
Congress has refused to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and is responsible for continuing to renew the VRA, and federal courts have been slowly eroding federal voting rights protections for years. The Supreme Court has notoriously ruled against landmark provisions of the VRA, like the 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision and the 2021 Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee decision.
Yet, in this time of uncertainty and national instability, Colorado can act on its own to strengthen the right to vote for Coloradans.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Senate Bill 25-1, the Colorado Voting Rights Act, will protect the access to the ballot Colorado voters currently have while protecting the state from the dismantling of the federal Voting Rights Act, any federal or state administration changes, and future attempts to undermine fair and accessible elections, regardless of who controls Congress or the White House.
And it's not just democracy advocates who support this move — two-thirds of Coloradans agree. A new poll from the State Innovation Exchange found that voters support a Colorado Voting Rights Act by a wide margin of 61%, with 46% supporting it strongly, more than all of those who oppose it combined.
Coloradans from all walks of life support the Colorado Voting Rights Act and see it as a policy that protects all communities, not just some, garnering an additional stamp of approval from 64% of centrist voters, and 62% of independent voters.
Despite all the strides Colorado has made in breaking down barriers to voter participation, we still have one of the widest racial turnout gaps in the nation. The COVRA addresses this while codifying anti-discrimination protections into state law.
Specifically, the COVRA will help build a more equitable democracy by setting clear and fair standards to ensure election administrators employ practices that do not create systemic disparities in participation between communities. The COVRA also prohibits election methods that dilute the vote of communities of color, targeting classic cases of gerrymandering that result in communities being underrepresented.
All local jurisdictions in Colorado are already subject to anti-discrimination standards under the federal VRA. Unlike the federal VRA, the COVRA is designed to help resolve disagreements over election rules outside of court whenever possible. Local governments would remain free to continue running their elections independently and according to their own rules and practices; the new bill simply sets standards in state law to prevent and address discriminatory practices.
Additionally, the bill creates explicit protections for LGBTQ+ voters, voters with disabilities, and eligible voters who are confined in jail during an election so that every Coloradan with the right to vote is protected under state law.
Colorado must take decisive action to protect our civil rights and liberties before it is too late. Our attorney general currently lacks the authority to enforce the VRA, and we need to equip our state to defend voting rights if federal protections fall.
Democracy includes everyone — no matter their race, background, ZIP code, or income — and every single eligible Coloradan deserves to fairly cast a ballot.
The Colorado Voting Rights Act will ensure that every voter's voice is protected in future elections, no matter who is in charge.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
26 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON — Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the borderor sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.'
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - To become governor, Kamala Harris must leap hurdles she created
I have no inside knowledge or insight as to whether Kamala Harris will run for governor of California in 2026. I'm not looped into her inner circle or decision-making process. But as someone who has advised many potential candidates about whether to run for offices from president to city council, I do have some perspective on what she should be considering. Having managed four campaigns for governor of California, I know the process is often harrowing and humbling for those who throw their hat in the ring. The state's electorate is not on the whole very attentive to politics, picking up only bits and snippets about candidates, many of them negative, and the media is out to turn over every rock to expose every frailty, screw-up, inconsistency and verbal slip. In Harris's case, she is already well known to voters, having been on the statewide ballot eight times, and having served as vice president, U.S. senator and attorney general. But she will be tested on two issues having nothing to do with her service as a senator or attorney general. If she does run, she will be pestered unmercifully about whether she would just be using the governorship as a holding room on her way to another White House bid. She would, of course, have to issue a pro forma pledge to serve a full term. The question is whether voters would believe have witnessed presidential fever infect their governors before. Jerry Brown was elected the first time in 1974. A little more than a year after being inaugurated, he was gallivanting off to Maryland and other states campaigning for president. Brown then ran yet again for president just over six months into his second term. Pete Wilson was handily reelected in 1994, then announced he was running for president less than five months after being sworn in. A perhaps even more serious problem for Harris is the current orgy of reporting about the new book, 'Original Sin,' which purports to tell the inside story of Joe Biden's physical and mental decline — and the complicity of those close to him in covering up and making excuses for his lapses. Some Democrats have tried to push back on the book by questioning this or picking at that, but come on, millions of Americans witnessed firsthand the pathetic and alarming former shell of himself that Biden displayed during the debate with Trump. Already, announced gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa (D), the former L.A. mayor, has very publicly taken Harris to task, demanding to know what she knew and when she knew it and criticizing her for not sounding an alarm about Biden's decrepitude. Just wait until the press gets her in their sights. And Harris will really have no good option: She will either have to throw Biden under the bus — an uncomfortable route given his recent cancer diagnosis, and her mum's-the-word approach until now — or claim she didn't witness the deterioration while sitting at his elbow, thus implicating herself in the cover-up. The emperor has no clothes, anyone? With all due respect to Harris, there is also the matter of her own presidential campaign. From a Democratic point of view, it was a total failure. She not only lost to Trump, of all people, but was the only Democratic nominee in the last 20 years to lose the popular vote. She lost all seven swing states — five of which had Democratic governors, and five of which had not one, but two Democratic senators. Democrats lost the Senate and failed to take back the House. She actually got a smaller share of the vote here in her own home state than Biden had in 2020. She even received fewer women's votes than Biden did in 2020. Does any of that shout, 'Hey, I should be able to waltz into the governor's office of the biggest state as a consolation prize?' Now, no doubt, a lot of Democrats in California would still support her, even if only as a big middle finger to Trump. But going for governor would inevitably result in a relitigation of questions about her flop of a run for president, as laid out in the best-selling book 'Fight,' a detailed chronicle of the 2024 race that sheds light on many of the missteps and mismanagement of her campaign. Again, I don't have a clue about Harris's intentions. But I do have some free advice about what she should be thinking about in making her decision. She's welcome. Garry South is a veteran Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of California and two for lieutenant governor. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's conservative allies warn Congress faces critical 'test' with $9.4B spending cut proposal
Some of the White House's conservative House allies say they're interpreting the upcoming vote on President Donald Trump's $9.4 billion spending cut proposal as a "test" of what Congress can achieve in terms of rolling back federal funding. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said he would not speak for members of the Trump administration but added, "I do think it is a test." "And I think this is going to demonstrate whether Congress has the fortitude to do what they always say they'll do," Roy said. "Cut the minimal amount of spending – $9 billion, NPR, PBS, things you complain about for a long time, or are they going to go back into their parochial politics?" House GOP leaders unveiled legislation seeking to codify Trump's spending cut request, known as a rescissions package, on Friday. It's expected to get a House-wide vote sometime next week. Meet The Trump-picked Lawmakers Giving Speaker Johnson A Full House Gop Conference "The rescissions request sent to Congress by the Trump Administration takes the federal government in a new direction where we actually cut waste, fraud, and abuse and hold agencies accountable to the American people," House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said in a statement introducing the bill. Read On The Fox News App The legislation would claw back funding that Congress already appropriated to PBS, NPR, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) – cuts outlined by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) earlier this year. And while several Republican leaders and officials have already said they expect to see more rescissions requests down the line, some people who spoke with Fox News Digital believe the White House is watching how Congress handles this first package before deciding on next steps. "You're dead right," Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital when asked if the rescissions package was a test. "I think that it's a test case – if we can't get that…then we're not serious about cutting the budget." A rescissions package only needs simple majorities in the House and Senate to pass. But Republicans in both chambers have perilously slim majorities that afford them few defections. Republicans are also racing the clock – a rescissions package has 45 days to be considered otherwise it is considered rejected and the funding reinstated. Mike Johnson, Donald Trump Get 'Big, 'Beautiful' Win As Budget Passes House Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, did not directly say whether he viewed the spending cuts as a test but dismissed any potential concerns. "This is very low-hanging fruit, and I don't anticipate any problems," Gooden told Fox News Digital. "I've heard a few comments in the media, but I don't think they're serious comments. If someone on the Republican side can make a case for PBS, but they won't take a tough vote against illegal immigration, then we've got a lot of problems." Paul Winfree, president and CEO of the Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), told Fox News Digital last week, "This first rescissions package from President Trump is a test as to whether Congress has the ability to deliver on his mandate by canceling wasteful spending through a filibuster-proof process." "If they can't then it's a signal for the president to turn up the dial with other tools at his disposal," Winfree, who served as Director of Budget Policy in the first Trump administration, said. Both Roy and Norman suggested a process known as "pocket rescissions" could be at least one backup plan – and one that Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought has floated himself. "Pocket rescissions" essentially would mean the White House introduces its spending cut proposal less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. In theory, it would run out the clock on those funds and allow them to expire whether Congress acted or not. Vought told reporters after meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Monday that he wanted to "see if it passes" but was "open" to further rescissions packages. "We want to send up general rescissions bills, to use the process if it's appropriate, to get them through the House and the Senate," Vought said. "We also have pocket rescissions, which you've begun to hear me talk a lot about, to be able to use the end of the fiscal year to send up a similar rescissions, and have the funds expire. So there's a lot of things that we're looking at." Still, some moderate Republicans may chafe at the conservative spending cuts. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., refused to comment on whether he'd support the legislation before seeing the details but alluded to some concerns. "Certainly I'm giving you a non-answer right now until I read the details," Bacon said. "It does bother me because I have a great rapport with Nebraska Public Radio and TV. I think they've been great to work with, and so that would be one I hope they don't put in." He also raised concerns about some specific USAID programs, including critical investments to fight Ebola and HIV in Africa. The legislation is expected to come before the House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper before most legislation sees a House-wide vote, on Tuesday afternoon. It's separate from Trump's "one big, beautiful bill," a broad piece of legislation advancing the president's tax, energy, and immigration agenda through the budget reconciliation article source: Trump's conservative allies warn Congress faces critical 'test' with $9.4B spending cut proposal
