voting

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the historic Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, ruling that Southern states may no longer be forced to seek federal approval before making changes in their election laws.

The ruling came on a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. speaking for the court.

Roberts said the 1965 law had been a “resounding success” and has ensured that blacks now register and vote at the same rate as whites.

But he said it was no longer fair or rational to subject these states and municipalities to special scrutiny based on a formula that is more than 40 years old.

“States must beseech the federal government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have a right to enact and execute on their own,” he wrote. This conflicts with the principle that all the states enjoy “equal sovereignty” and cannot be subjected to different federal laws, he said.

PHOTOS: 2013’s memorable political moments

“Our country has changed in the last 50 years,” the chief justice said. He said that Congress needs to “speak to current conditions.”

As it currently stand, nine states are covered by the law based on voting data from the 1960s and early 1970s.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined with the chief justice.

The decision may have an immediate impact. Texas has been fighting federal courts over its voter ID law and plans to redistrict its congressional districts. Those state actions were halted under the part of the law struck down Tuesday.

The decision leaves open the possibility that Congress could adopt a new formula to target states or municipalities for special scrutiny.

The decision leaves intact the rest of the Voting Rights Act, which makes it illegal to adopt or enforce laws that have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. But civil rights advocates say the provision struck down Tuesday was still needed because it stopped discriminatory measures before they could take effect.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke for the four dissenters. She said the court had made an “egregious” error by striking down a law that had been extended in 2006 by a near unanimous vote in Congress.

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook

[email protected]

An extra live public vote on the night will hand fans more power – putting the audience at the heart of the biggest night in British sport

Gabby Logan has worked in live sports broadcasting for nearly 30 years and is riding high, having recently bagged a permanent presenting role on Match of the Day.

Now she’s gearing up for her 13th stint as host of Sports Personality of the Year next month alongside Clare Balding and Alex Scott, the annual two-hour TV extravaganza in which the sporting triumphs of the previous 12 months are celebrated.

Gabby, married to former rugby player Kenny Logan, says that despite having absolutely loved watching her BBC pal Clare on Celebrity Traitors, she’ll have to rule herself out of any cloak-themed action herself – for now, at least. “We had Tom Daley, Clare and Joe Marler representing sport, so it felt like we had a three-pronged attack,” she says, admitting that she’d been glued to every episode.

READ MORE: BBC Blue Lights stars rush to save man’s life as he suffers heart attackREAD MORE: David Attenborough’s ‘saddest TV moment ever’ will leave fans shaken after brutal attack

Having seen Clare make a big mistake in the Trojan Horse mission at the very start, Gabby said she didn’t have the heart to message her initially, knowing that she’d have felt “devastated” over the blunder. But when she did send a text, it was to point out that it didn’t really matter. “The one thing I did say to her was, look, you normally get everything right in life. I don’t think there’s any harm in showing people you’re human.”

So would Gabby, 52, fancy her chances in the castle? “I don’t think so,” she admits. “Not because it doesn’t appeal, I just know the time of year they film it would mean an enormous amount of time for me away from sport.

“And I feel like I’m just bedding in to Match of the Day and I still do the Six Nations, so that would take me away for a few weeks, which wouldn’t necessarily be a very good move in terms of my day job.”

Perhaps she might consider it a few years down the line? “At the age when you can go on and just fart willy-nilly, you mean?” she laughs, referring to Celia Imrie’s famous cabin parp. “That was one of the great moments.”

Gabby took over on Match of the Day from departing host of 26 years, Gary Lineker, in August, alongside Mark Chapman and Kelly Cates, and says that no backlash has ever arrived. “I’m sure there are people who had their grumbles, but the other day I had someone who said to me, ‘I hope you don’t mind me saying, I was a bit concerned that there were gonna be two women on Match of the Day. But actually it’s great. I really like it.’”

Laughing, she adds: “And then he went ‘I’m sorry, that sounds like a backhanded compliment’. But he was obviously a fan of the show and that kind of feedback actually means a lot really, because the fact this guy felt confident enough to express it, was good.”

A former gymnast, Gabby says she achieves balance in her life by never compromising on her exercise regime, by sleeping and eating well and by not going crazy with the booze.

Having fronted a podcast about midlife, The Mid-Point, for the past five years, there is not much she doesn’t know about the issues affecting both men and women in their fifties. “I have absolute commitment to my training sessions and have really ramped up doing weights, which is so good for bones,” she says. “And obviously, muscle density is so important; being strong is such a predictor of longevity. It’s so important.”

She says that even when on the road for work, she will locate a place for a workout, which is how she ended up in a £9-a-session cage-fighter gym in Manchester’s Moss Side earlier this month. “It was a kind of spit and sawdust type gym, and there were no showers,” she laughs. “But it had all the equipment I needed, it was great. I did it in 50 minutes, and I walked back to my hotel afterwards.”

She runs her diary with a rod of iron to ensure that she finds time for three weekly weights sessions, plus two pilates classes for flexibility, and then a run or a walk. “I have one rest day,” she says.

Gabby, whose 20-year-old twins, Lois and Reuben, with husband Kenny Logan, have now left home, keeps her sleep pattern regular and eats a healthy, balanced diet. “You do your own elimination of things and work out how you react to foods which make you feel a bit bloated or a bit sleepy or are driving your insulin up,” she explains. “That’s definitely something that I’ve noticed – sugars are the enemy.”

With booze, she says that it’s rare for her to have more than one drink. “Lee Mack is teetotal and he came on the podcast and said that after the first drink, you’re just chasing that feeling of the first drink,” she says. “I love having a gin and tonic on Friday when I’m cooking. But actually, what I’ve noticed is, he’s right. The first one does the trick, I don’t need the second one.”

She said that having seen her father, former footballer Terry Yorath, fight his own battle with booze, she was inclined to be careful. “I’ve got a dad who’s had a problem with alcohol and so I’ve seen the damage that it can do,” she says, admitting that there was “a bit of vanity” involved in the decision to be a moderate drinker too. “There’s a lot of sugar in alcohol and it generally doesn’t do much for your your looks to drink too much of it. So I think that kind of keeps me definitely on the right side of a healthy relationship.”

Looking ahead to SPOTY, Gabby says that despite her long service to the big night of live TV, it’s still her most nerve-wracking gig of the year. “You just wanna get that first intro section nailed, you know? And then you feel like you’re up and running. I remember Gary once saying, he was quoting Des Lynam, that SPOTY was the best laxative known to man. Thanks Gary! So even with all Gary’s experience, with all Des Lynam’s experience and for anybody else who’s hosted it down the years, it does send the nerves to a different level and the butterflies go a little bit harder.”

This time around she is thrilled that Rory McIlroy has already confirmed his attendance, with the golfer being a dead cert for the shortlist when it comes out this week. One change for this year’s event is that the Team of the Year Award will be voted for by the public, just like the main award, rather than being decided by a panel of experts – in a move designed to entice younger viewers to engage.

She’s hoping to remember this year’s show for the right reasons rather than for any gaffes. “I’ve had a few moments where I nearly took a tumble down the stairs,” she recalls. “And then when Mo Farrah won, the line went down – it really does test your live telly chops when things like that happen. She said that Mo’s reaction was priceless. “He was obviously just thrilled to be held in that esteem by the population, that people had picked up their phones and tapped in the numbers to vote. It’s that proactiveness which we really encourage because we want the audience to feel they are part of the directional travel of that award.”

Her most emotional moment came when a close family friend, Doddie Weir, was honoured, amid his ongoing battle with motor neurone disease. “That was very emotional because Doddie was a fantastic friend of our family, he and Kenny had been mates for 30 years.” They had both helped him to fundraise for more research into MND. “To see him honoured on stage for the work he’d done, which saw him selflessly giving up, pretty much, the last five years of his life – that was really emotional. His family, his beautiful sons were in the room. And I look back on that as a moment that definitely sticks out.”

She says that the job, while stressful, is also one of her favourite. “It’s the joy that you remember the most, and seeing people celebrated. It’s the feeling that you’ve reached out and touched people and made a difference to their lives. And that’s what sport does.”

– Sports Personality of the Year, Thursday 18 December, 7–9pm on BBC One and iPlayer

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 12 (UPI) — Chileans are preparing to vote in Sunday’s presidential election with eight candidates and marked by uncertainty.

For the first time in more than a decade, voting will be compulsory, greatly expanding the electorate and potentially reshaping a race that, according to recent polls, remains tight between the government’s candidate, the communist Jeannette Jara, and far-right leader José Antonio Kast.

Chilean President Gabriel Boric is not eligible for re-election because the constitution prohibits consecutive four-year terms.

An expected surge in voter turnout — after years of sustained abstention — adds an unpredictable element to the outcome and will test the parties’ ability to mobilize a broader and more diverse electorate.

René Jara, a political science professor at the University of Santiago, told UPI it will be an unprecedented election. As the first with compulsory voting in many years for more than 15 million registered voters, “there could be quite a few surprises,” he said.

“The expansion of the potential electorate hides several forms of silent voting, representing voices that in the past did not regularly take part in elections.”

Chilean law prohibits the publication of polls during the 15 days before an election. According to the latest surveys, Jara was leading in voter preference, but not by enough to avoid a runoff.

Her level of support also most likely would fall short of securing victory in the second round, scheduled for Dec. 14.

The same polls indicate that any opposition candidate who advances to the runoff most likely would win the presidency.

The right enters the election with three strong contenders. Kast, leader of the Republican Party, appears to have the best chance to win. Evelyn Matthei, a former minister under President Sebastián Piñera, represents the traditional right, and libertarian Johannes Kaiser has emerged as one of the race’s biggest surprises.

According to projections, Jara would lose to Kast in a runoff by about 12 points (36% to 48%), by 10 points to Matthei (33% to 46%), and by five points to Kaiser.

“This election is significant because of the fragmentation of Chile’s right wing. Traditionally, it was a bloc that faced elections in a unified way,” political scientist Hernán Campos, of Diego Portales University’s School of Political Science, told UPI.

He said that since the 2017 presidential election, and especially after 2021, increasingly extreme tendencies have taken root within the opposition.

Although Chile’s pre-election polling ban has prevents measuring public opinion after the close of the campaigns and the candidates’ performance in the final debates, Campos said he believes it is highly likely that the right will win the presidency.

He also sees the possibility that this bloc could secure a majority in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.

“This would open the door for them to carry out deeper reforms that could transform aspects of Chile’s institutions and public policy orientations that have defined the country’s political life over the past 20 years,” Campos said.

Public debate during the campaign centered on three main issues: security, migration and the economy.

Pressure to curb crime and control the northern border has co-existed with concern over employment, inflation and pensions, while deeper issues such as gender equality, low birth rates and historical memory continue to divide the country.

In this context, the return of compulsory voting could reshape Chile’s political landscape by bringing back to the polls voters who have long been absent from the democratic process.

Nearly 1.3 million members of the security forces and more than 26,500 internally displaced people are eligible to vote ahead of Tuesday’s polls.

Members of Iraq’s security forces and its internally displaced population have begun casting their ballots in the parliamentary elections – the sixth since a United States-led invasion toppled longtime ruler Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Polls opened at 7am (04:00 GMT) on Sunday for 1.3 million members of the security forces at 809 polling centres and will close at 6pm (15:00 GMT) before they are deployed for security purposes on the election day on Tuesday.

More than 26,500 internally displaced people are also eligible for early voting on Sunday across 97 polling stations at 27 places in Iraq, the Iraqi News Agency (INA) said.

Interior Minister Abdul Amir al-Shammari told INA that the special voting process is advancing “smoothly and in an organised manner”.

Nearly 21 million Iraqis are eligible to vote on Tuesday across 4,501 polling stations nationwide, the INA said.

More than 7,750 candidates, nearly a third of them women, are running for the 329-seat parliament. Under the law, 25 percent of the seats are reserved for women, while nine are allocated for religious minorities.

The current parliament began its term on January 9, 2022, and will last four years, ending on January 8, 2026.

An old electoral law, revived in 2023, will apply to the ongoing elections, with many seeing it as favouring larger parties. While about 70 independents won in the 2021 vote, only 75 independents are contesting this year.

Observers also fear that turnout might dip below the record low of 41 percent in 2021, reflecting voters’ apathy and scepticism in a country marked by entrenched leadership and allegations of mismanagement and endemic corruption.

There were widespread accusations of corruption and vote-buying before the elections, and 848 candidates were disqualified by election officials, sometimes for obscure reasons, including insulting religious rituals or members of the armed forces.

Past elections in Iraq have been marred by violence, including assassinations of candidates, attacks on polling stations, and clashes between the supporters of different blocs. While overall levels of violence have subsided, a candidate was assassinated in the run-up to this year’s election.

Influential Shia leader Moqtada Sadr urged his followers to boycott what he described as a “flawed election”.

Al-Sadr’s bloc won the largest number of seats in 2021, but later withdrew after failed negotiations over forming the government amid a standoff with rival Shia parties. He has since boycotted the political system.

Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, elected in 2022 with the backing of pro-Iran parties, is seeking a second term and is expected to secure a sizeable bloc.

Among the other frontrunners are influential Shia figures, including former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Muslim scholar Ammar al-Hakim.

By convention in post-invasion Iraq, a Shia Muslim holds the powerful post of the prime minister and a Sunni of the parliament’s speaker, while the largely ceremonial presidency goes to a Kurd.

California voters went to the polls Tuesday to decide on a radical redistricting plan with national implications, but the campaign is shaping up to be a referendum on President Trump.

Proposition 50, a ballot measure about redrawing the state’s congressional districts, was crafted by Democrats in response to Trump urging Texas and other GOP-majority states to modify their congressional maps to favor Republicans, a move that was designed to maintain Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Opponents have said Proposition 50 is a power grab by Democrats that would blatantly disenfranchise Republican voters.

But supporters, fueled by a huge war chest in deep blue California, managed to make the vote about Trump and what they say are his efforts to erode democracy. The president has never been popular in California, but unprecedented months of immigration raids, tariffs and environmental rollbacks have only heightened the conflict.

“Trump is such a polarizing figure,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA. “He commands great loyalty from one group of people and great animosity from others. … It’s not surprising that this measure has been portrayed as sticking it to Donald Trump or [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom.”

Proposition 50 underscores how hyperpartisan California politics have become. A UC Berkeley poll last week conducted in conjunction with The Times found more than 9 out of 10 Democrats supported Proposition 50 and a similar proportion of Republicans opposed it.

California voters had been bombarded with television ads, mailers and social media posts for weeks about the high-stakes special election, so much so that only 2% of likely voters were undecided, according to the poll.

As if on cue, Trump weighed in on Proposition 50 on Tuesday morning just as voting was getting underway.

“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump said on Truth Social just minutes after polling stations opened across California.

The president provided no evidence for his allegations.

Newsom dismissed the president’s claims on X as “the ramblings of an old man that knows he’s about to LOSE.”

At a White House briefing Tuesday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed, without providing examples, that California was receiving ballots in the name of undocumented immigrants who could not legally vote.

California’s top elections official, Secretary of State Shirley Weber, called Trump’s allegation “another baseless claim.”

“The bottom line is California elections have been validated by the courts,” Weber said in a statement. “California voters will not be deceived by someone who consistently makes desperate, unsubstantiated attempts to dissuade Americans from participating in our democracy.”

More than 6.3 million Californians — 28% of the state’s 23 million registered voters — had cast ballots as of Monday, according to a voting tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell. Ballots submitted by Democrats were outpacing votes by Republicans on Monday, though GOP voters were believed to be more likely to vote in person on election day.

Disabled Army veteran Micah Corpe, 50, had some choice words for Newsom outside a Twentynine Palms church that served as a polling place, calling the politician a “greasy used car salesman.”

Corpe, a Republican, described Proposition 50 as an effort by the governor to “do whatever he wants because he doesn’t like Trump.” At the same time, he said Texas’ decision to redraw its congressional districts was a necessity because of the influx of people moving there from California and other blue states.

“He fights [Trump] on everything,” Corpe said of Newsom. “Just give in a little to get a little. That’s all he’s got to do.”

Matt Lesenyie, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach, said the seeds of Proposition 50 were sowed when it became clear that Republicans in Congress were not going to challenge Trump in an investigatory way or provide serious oversight.

“One of the benefits of our system is that there are checks designed in there and we haven’t exercised those checks in a good long time, so I think this is a Hail Mary for potentially doing that,” he said.

Bob Rowell, 72, said that in an ideal world Proposition 50 wouldn’t be necessary. But the Trump administration’s push to redraw lines in red states has created a “distinct danger of creating a never-ending Republican domination in Congress,” he said. So Rowell, a Green Party member, voted yes.

“I hope there’s some way to bring us back into balance,” he said.

Robert Hamilton, 35, an architectural drafter who lives in Twentynine Palms, sees Proposition 50 as a necessary step to push back on Trump’s policies, which he said are impinging on people’s rights. He’s proud of the role California is playing in this political moment.

“I think as a state we’re doing an excellent job of trying to push back against some of the more egregious oversteps of our liberties,” Hamilton said outside a church where he’d just cast his ballot in favor of the measure. “I do hope that if this measure is successful that other states will follow suit — not necessarily taking the same steps to redistrict but finding ways to at least hold the line while hopefully we get things sorted out.”

Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Katie King contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s request to add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., sided with Democratic and civil rights groups that sued the Trump administration over his executive order to overhaul U.S. elections.

She ruled that the proof-of-citizenship directive is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, dealing a blow to the administration and its allies who have argued that such a mandate is necessary to restore public confidence that only Americans are voting in U.S. elections.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion.

She further emphasized that on matters related to setting qualifications for voting and regulating federal election procedures “the Constitution assigns no direct role to the President in either domain.”

Kollar-Kotelly echoed comments she made when she granted a preliminary injunction over the issue.

The ruling grants the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment that prohibits the proof-of-citizenship requirement from going into effect. It says the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which has been considering adding the requirement to the federal voter form, is permanently barred from taking action to do so.

A message seeking comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

The lawsuit brought by the DNC and various civil rights groups will continue to play out to allow the judge to consider other challenges to Trump’s order. That includes a requirement that all mailed ballots be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day.

Other lawsuits against Trump’s election executive order are ongoing.

In early April, 19 Democratic state attorneys general asked a separate federal court to reject Trump’s executive order. Washington and Oregon, where virtually all voting is done with mailed ballots, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.

Swenson and Riccardi write for the Associated Press.

Oct. 31 (UPI) — A federal judge in Washington permanently blocked President Donald Trump‘s executive order requiring proof of citizenship for those who cast mail-in ballots.

The president lacks the authority to change federal election procedures because the Constitution places that authority with Congress and the respective states, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled on Friday.

“The president directed the Election Assistance Commission to ‘take appropriate action’ to alter the national mail voter registration form to require documentary proof of United States citizenship,” Kollar-Kotelly said in her 81-page ruling.

Because Trump does not have the authority to order the EAC to alter federal election procedures, Kollar-Kotelly permanently enjoined the EAC and others from enforcing the president’s directive.

The ruling arises from challenges to Executive Order 14,248 — Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, which Trump signed on March 25.

In it, the president orders the EAC to require documentary proof of citizenship on the national mail voter registration form to ensure foreign nationals are not submitting votes via mail-in ballots.

State or local officials in turn would record the type of document used to show proof of citizenship.

The executive order also requires mail-in ballots to be received on or before election day for them to count.

The Democratic National Committee, League of United Latin American Citizens and League of Women Voters Education Fund filed the federal lawsuit against the president and the Republican National Committee to stop enforcement of the executive order.

“While the fight is far from over, we’re glad the court agreed that a president cannot ‘short circuit’ Congress and unilaterally use an illegal executive order to obliterate the rights of millions of voters,” said Marcia Johnson, who is chief counsel for the League of Women Voters, in a prepared statement.

Although Kollar-Kotelly blocked the enforcement of Trump’s executive order, other parts of the lawsuit are yet to be decided.