signed

May 29 (UPI) — A federal judge declared a New Hampshire law that would have required new voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship because it is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliott wrote in the ruling, issued on Thursday, that New Hampshire House Bill 1569 would have made it harder for people to register to vote and cast ballots by removing methods for them to do so.

The law would have required all new voters to provide a document proving citizenship, rather than attesting to their citizenship under penalty of perjury on an affidavit.

New Hampshire state law already states that the form filled out and signed when registering qualifies as an affidavit, whether it is filed 30 days before an election or on election day, per state law, Elliott wrote.

“For many years, New Hampshire voters have been required to prove their citizenship,” Elliott wrote in the ruling.

“After this order goes into effect, New Hampshire voters will still be required to prove their citizenship,” she wrote. “Instead, this case questions, in part, whether it is constitutional to remove one of the methods previously available for proving citizenship — an affidavit swearing to the voter’s citizenship under penalties of voter fraud.”

HB 1569, which was passed and signed into law in 2004, was challenged by the ACLU of New Hampshire, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Forward Foundation, New Hampshire Youth Movement and several individual voters.

“New Hampshire’s elections have always been safe, secure and accurate — and this law could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot,” Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said in a press release.

“Making it harder to vote is a clear attack on one of our most fundamental of rights and this law is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs,” Klementowicz said.

New Delhi, India — When Argentina’s Gonzalo Montiel converted a penalty to seal his country’s third FIFA World Cup title in December 2022 in Qatar, Lionel Messi fan Vishwas Banerjee celebrated the Albiceleste’s triumph with abandon in Bangalore, a football-crazy city in southeastern India.

Unable to hold back his excitement, Banerjee screamed and tossed his shirt away as he watched the match on a big screen at a street crossing close to midnight.

“It was one of the best nights, watching Messi lift the World Cup,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Everyone went crazy. We danced on the streets,” Banerjee said, reminiscing about the excitement felt more than 3,000 kilometres (1,900 miles) away in an otherwise cricket-mad country.

While Messi is expected to make his World Cup swan song at the upcoming tournament in North America, football fans in India, the world’s most populous nation, are set to miss out on watching the biggest sporting event.

With just over three weeks to the tournament’s kickoff in Mexico, organisers FIFA have not found any buyers for broadcasting its most coveted product in India.

Here’s what we know about the World Cup broadcast rights crisis in the South Asian nation:

How many people watch the FIFA World Cup in India?

When the World Cup was played in Qatar nearly four years ago, India trailed only China in overall engagement figures, with more than 745 million fans following the action across all media platforms in the country, according to figures released by FIFA.

In television viewing numbers, India was among the top 10 countries – ahead of World Cup participants Germany, France and England – with nearly 84 million viewers.

Digital viewership numbers were also significant in India. For the final alone, an unprecedented 32 million viewers tuned in on Reliance’s JioCinema – a subscription video-on-demand over-the-top streaming service – as the tournament clocked 40 billion minutes of watch time on the platform.

Reliance’s Jio paid $60m for tournament rights in 2022, while Sony Sports secured broadcasting rights for the 2014 and 2018 FIFA World Cups, as well as the Euro 2016 championship, for around $90m in 2013.

So when FIFA began selling media rights for the 2026 tournament and the 2027 Women’s Cup, it expected plenty of takers for an estimated price of $100m.

But with 23 days until the tournament and the asking price reportedly slashed significantly, FIFA is still struggling to find buyers in one of its biggest markets.

Why are there no buyers for the World Cup 2026 in India?

Experts say the kickoff times for the majority of the matches are the biggest concern for Indian broadcasters.

With the tournament being staged in the United States, Canada and Mexico, many games will be played at odd hours for the Indian audience, with a 10-12 hour time difference between the host cities and the South Asian nation.

Only 14 out of the total 104 World Cup games will begin before midnight for fans in India.

The final will be held in New Jersey on July 19, beginning at 12:30am in India (19:00 GMT). By comparison, 98.4 percent of matches at the 2018 World Cup started before midnight, and 82.5 percent at the following edition in Qatar.

Karan Taurani, executive vice president at investment firm Elara Capital, sees TV as a “struggling” medium in India.

“When you have these kinds of sporting events, effectively it is mostly digital that is monetising and raising big money,” Taurani told Al Jazeera. “That is a big reason why no one’s showing interest in the FIFA World Cup.”

Taurani explained that cricket leads the sports economy market in India.

“Only a small fraction of people who watch the Indian Premier League [IPL] will watch the FIFA World Cup,” he said, adding that an even smaller fraction tune in past midnight to watch a match.

For broadcasters and advertisers, Taurani explained, these factors shrink the target audience.

He also pointed out that a recent ban by the Indian government on fantasy real-money betting apps had reduced the macro form of money in the sports entertainment industry.

The World Cup begins 10 days after cricket’s IPL 2026 final, one of the most-watched sports events in India and one where major prime-time advertisers focus the majority of their annual sports spending.

The price of football streaming in India has been going down anyway. The English Premier League rights, which were sold for $145m for three seasons between 2013 and 2016, went for $65m for 2025-28. There are no major takers for La Liga matches in India.

FIFA appears increasingly concerned that weak broadcaster interest in India could dent both revenues and its long-term ambition to grow football in one of the world’s largest media markets.

In the capital New Delhi, the high court is hearing a plea on the lack of a tournament broadcast deal and has sought responses from India’s information and broadcasting ministry and Doordarshan, India’s state-owned public television broadcaster.

“Without timely judicial intervention by this court, the petitioner and millions of Indian citizens will be irreparably deprived of their fundamental rights with no adequate alternative remedy,” the petitioner, a lawyer and football fan, has said in the plea.

He claims that missing out on the tournament violates the constitutional protections of freedom of speech.

“It is important to note that by denying access to the information in question or by not taking necessary steps to broadcast the FIFA World Cup, the respondents have directly infringed the petitioner’s fundamental right to acquire and receive information, which is an integral part of freedom of speech and expression under the constitution,” the petitioner argued in the plea.

With China’s state broadcaster signing a late World Cup deal with FIFA last week, there’s still hope and time for football fans in India. However, if no deal is signed, all eyes will turn to Doordarshan, which last beamed the tournament in 1998.

The continuing uncertainty is chipping away at the excitement of the football World Cup. “I’m heartbroken that we will not have any reliable way to watch the World Cup this year,” said Banerjee, the Messi fan from Kolkata.

“But we will tune to pirated streams anyway,” he added. “No one can stop that.”

The Sparks signed guard Kate Martin to a developmental player contract Sunday just hours before their first game of the season. About 45 minutes before tipoff, Martin arrived in Los Angeles.

“It’s been chaotic, but honestly, found a lot of clarity, a lot of confidence, and where I’m at and where the future of my career is heading,” she said. “So honestly, kind of all over the place, but feeling really good and having a lot of clarity right now.”

Martin was a surprising end-of-training camp cut for the Golden State Valkyries after she averaged 6.2 points per game in 42 contests last season. But Golden State was deep at the wing position, making Martin expendable with its other positional needs.

Speaking publicly for the first time since being cut, she was emotional, but excited for the opportunity with the Sparks.

“I chose L.A. because of the way they approached me,” she said. “I just feel honored for the opportunity. And opportunities don’t always come around in this league. And so for the year that I got cut to be the year where there are development spots, I feel very grateful for that.”

The Sparks had one developmental spot left after signing Louisville graduate Laura Ziegler during training camp.

Martin will be available to be on the active roster for 12 games, while receiving a weekly stipend of $750 in addition to a pro-rated minimum salary of $6,000. She has the most experience of any player signed to a developmental contract across the league with two full seasons under her belt.

“(Martin is) great in the locker room, great teammate, super hard worker,” said Las Vegas Aces coach Becky Hammon, who coached Martin in her rookie season. “She’s somebody who came in with pro habits and a lot of times from college, that’s hard to do, but she came in and was a nice piece for us.”

The 25-year-old was a fan favorite with the Valkyries and had the third highest-selling jersey in the WNBA last season despite coming off the bench for Golden State.

Martin first went viral during the 2024 draft when she was selected 18th overall by Las Vegas and was in the room to support her Iowa teammate, Caitlin Clark. She averaged 2.6 points per game in 34 games as a rookie with the Aces before being selected by the Valkyries in the expansion draft in December 2025.

“Now my expectations for myself are to buy into being an L.A. Spark,” Martin said. “I know that roles are ever changing throughout the season, but right now, I’m gonna be where my feet are, and I’m going to buy into this role as a development player. I’m going to learn, I’m going to grow, and I’m just going to make the most of this opportunity.”

It’s unclear how much Martin will play with the Sparks, but she might have a path because they lack wing depth. The Sparks are backcourt heavy, then have three bigs in Nneka Ogwumike, Cameron Brink and Dearica Hamby. Rae Burrell and Sania Feagin fill that role, but Martin could bring a three-point shot and energy off the bench.

“It’s a great fit for us,” Sparks coach Lynne Roberts said. “Thrilled how that worked out. It’s no secret, I love shooters. I think it’s a great add. And I think this gives her a chance in the developmental spot to just kind of settle and really pour into the player development. Her work ethic is unbelievable.”

May 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump threatened to raise tariffs to “much higher levels” on the European Union if it doesn’t agree to a trade deal by July 4.

“I had a great call with The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. We discussed many topics, including that we are completely united that Iran can never have a Nuclear Weapon. We agreed that a regime that kills its own people cannot control a bomb that can kill millions. I’ve been waiting patiently for the EU to fulfill their side of the Historic Trade Deal we agreed in Turnberry, Scotland, the largest Trade Deal, ever! A promise was made that the EU would deliver their side of the Deal and, as per Agreement, cut their Tariffs to ZERO! I agreed to give her until our Country’s 250th Birthday or, unfortunately, their Tariffs would immediately jump to much higher levels,” the president said Thursday afternoon on Truth Social.

The threat came after The EU has struggled to agree on the terms of the Turnberry Accord, which was for the United States to lower tariffs on EU products and for the EU to remove tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and invest billions in U.S. industries, including energy.

Von Der Leyen said on X that the bloc is still committed to the deal.

“I had a very good call with @POTUS. We discussed the situation in the Middle East and our close coordination with regional partners. We are united that Iran must never possess a nuclear weapon. Recent events have clearly shown that the risks to regional stability and global security are too great.

“We also discussed the EU-U.S. trade deal. We remain fully committed, on both sides, to its implementation. Good progress is being made towards tariff reduction by early July.”

Last week, Trump threatened to raise tariffs on European autos to 25%. It’s unclear if his renewed threat is specifically for vehicles or if it encompasses all EU exports.

Complicating matters is that Trump’s current method of levying tariffs was blocked Thursday by the U.S. Court of International Trade.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the administration’s tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Trump then added a 10% across-the-board tariff and then later upped it to 15%.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in an interview with Politico Thursday that the EU is moving slowly.

“With the tariffs, they’ve at least started a process. They’re working it through,” Greer said. “It’s a pain. I understand it’s slow. We’re not patient. But there are other things where they haven’t even started a process.”

“We’re 95% compliant for nine months … and they’ve been 0% compliant during that time. What am I supposed to do?” he said.

OMAHA, Neb. — Nebraska on Friday will become the first state to enforce work, volunteer or education requirements for new Medicaid applicants, eight months before the federally mandated requirements kick in.

Advocates worry that the state is launching so rapidly that key details remain unresolved and some people who are eligible for coverage will lose it.

State officials say they’re prepared, training staff and sending letters, emails and texts to people who could be impacted.

Health policy experts, advocates and other states will be watching closely.

“It can be used as a lesson for other states, both where things go well and where things don’t go well,” said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

The law is expected to leave some without insurance

The work requirement is part of a broad tax and policy law that President Trump signed last year. Nebraska Republican Gov. Jim Pillen announced in December that the state would implement it eight months before it was required, saying the aim was “making sure we get every able-bodied Nebraskan to be a part of our community.”

The state had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the U.S. in February: 3.1%.

The federal policy won’t apply to all Medicaid beneficiaries, just those who are enrolled under an expansion that most states chose to make to allow more low-income people to get healthcare coverage.

Under the change, many Medicaid participants ages 19 through 64 will have to show that they work or do community service at least 80 hours a month, or are enrolled in school at least half-time. They’ll also have their eligibility reviewed every six months rather than annually, so they could lose coverage faster if their circumstances change.

Exceptions will be made for people who are too medically frail to work or in addiction treatment programs, among others.

An Urban Institute report from March estimated that the changes would mean about 5 million to 10 million fewer people nationally would be enrolled in Medicaid than would have been otherwise.

Choices states make about how to run their programs are expected to be a major factor in exactly how many people lose coverage.

“The higher the administrative burden, the more likely people are found noncompliant and disenrolled,” said Michael Karpman, who researches health policy at Urban.

Nebraska plans to use data to help determine who qualifies

Not everyone who has coverage will need to submit proof that they’re working.

The state says it will first match enrollees with other data it has to see if participants are working or exempt. The state says it has that information for most of the roughly 70,000 people enrolled in Medicaid through the expansion.

That leaves between 20,000 and 28,000 who would have to provide more information, plus an average of 3,000 to 4,000 new enrollees each month.

At first, they will just need to show that they met the requirements in just one month of the previous 12. The time frame will shift to six months in 2027.

There’s some flexibility. For instance, instead of showing they work 80 hours in a month, someone could instead provide records that demonstrate they earned at least $580, the amount someone earning minimum wage would make in 80 hours.

People who don’t submit requested information within 30 days of being asked could have their applications denied or lose coverage they already have.

The change is causing worry and confusion

Bridgette Annable, who lives in southwest Nebraska, received a letter saying she must meet the work requirements or lose the benefits that pay for her insulin and diabetic supplies.

The 21-year-old mother now has a part-time job, despite being advised against it to protect her mental health. She’s worried about her ability to keep working.

“I am working 30 to 25 hours a week — as much as my employer can provide,” Annable said. “Although I call out of work often due to fibromyalgia pain and bipolar episodes that leave me too tired to leave the house. I have enough energy to take care of my daughter and do some cleaning, but that’s about it.”

Amy Behnke, the chief executive officer of the Health Center Association of Nebraska, said that staff members who help people enroll with Medicaid and their clients have a lot of questions, including some that the state hasn’t yet answered.

Some examples: Apprenticeship programs are supposed to count for work requirements, but does that apply only to those certified by the state’s labor department? There’s an exemption for people who travel to a hospital for care, but there’s not clarity on how far the journey must be.

KFF’s Tolbert noted that the state issued its 295-page list last week of conditions that could qualify someone as medically frail. “We don’t know if it’s a comprehensive list,” she said.

“The speed at which we are choosing to implement work requirements hasn’t left a lot of space for really meaningful communication,” Behnke said.

And Nebraska could have to make changes after the federal government provides guidance that is expected in June.

Mulvihill and Beck write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.