The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for January 19, 2026

You’re listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.

Years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke on the Brown vs. Board of Education decision during the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom at the Lincoln Memorial, May 17th, 1957.  As the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to strike down more of the VRA in 2026, his words are still relevant today.

[The ADM audio has been edited for time. Listen to the full speech at the The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change and read the transcription at the Stanford’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute]

“The legislative halls of the South ring loud with such words as ‘interposition’ and ‘nullification.’

But even more, all types of conniving methods are still being used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters. The denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition. And so our most urgent request to the president of the United States and every member of Congress is to give us the right to vote. 

Give us the ballot, and we will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights.

Give us the ballot, and we will no longer plead to the federal government for passage of an anti-lynching law; we will by the power of our vote write the law on the statute books of the South (All right) and bring an end to the dastardly acts of the hooded perpetrators of violence.”

We’ve linked the full speech at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.  I’m Brian Beihl.

Today’s Links

Articles & Resources:

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change – Audio of Dr. King delivering “Give Us the Ballot” on May 17, 1957 at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute, Stanford University – Transcription of the “Give Us the Ballot” Address
Brennan Center for Justice – Voter Suppression
The Fulcrum – Trump Targets Voting Rights and Suppresses Voting
NAACP Legal Defense Fund – Louisiana v. Callais

Library of Congress – A Time for Freedom documentary (Dr. King speaks at 24:04)

Groups Taking Action:

Southern Poverty Law Center, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, ACLU, Campaign Legal Center

Register or Check Your Voter Registration:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your State

Please follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! 

Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org

Want ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!

Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network’s Audioport and PRX

#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #MLKDay #DrMartinLutherKingJr #GiveUstheBallot #VotingRightsAct #BrownvBoardofEducation

The post With SCOTUS Appearing Ready to Strike Down More of the Voting Rights Act in 2026, MLK’s 1957 ‘Give Us the Ballot’ Speech is Still Relevant appeared first on American Democracy Minute.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Dec. 23, 2025

The Trump Department of Justice has tried for months to compel states to turn over voter registration data. A new university research center analysis suggests existing federal law doesn’t explicitly permit it.

A University of Wisconsin State Democracy Research Initiative paper outlines federal laws the DOJ is using to justify the action in the face of challenges from states, pro-voter groups and voters. None of the laws in question, the Privacy Act of 1974, the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act and the Civil Rights Act, explicitly authorize state voter registration data to be turned over for the purpose of identifying noncitizens and noncitizen voters.

Author Derek Clinger writes that DOJ points to the Civil Rights Act’s provisions that state records be available for examination, but notes the purpose of that law was to prevent voter suppression. The NVRA requires state voter data be available for public inspection, but doesn’t detail how it can be used or whether sensitive data like driver’s license or Social Security numbers can be shared. HAVA does not have a disclosure requirement, and the Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits personal data from being shared between agencies without legal justification.

Clinger writes that most states have robust privacy protections for voter and personal data. He expects the multiple challenges to extend beyond the 2026 midterms.

We’ve linked the full explainer at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org. I’m Brian Beihl.

Today’s Links

Articles & Resources:

American Democracy Minute – (October) Class Action Suit by Voters Claims Personal Data Shared to the Trump Administration’s SAVE Database Violates the Privacy Act of 1974
American Democracy Minute – U.S. DOJ Sues MA, CO, HI and NV to Turn Over Voter Registration Files, but Even Red States are Pushing Back
University of Wisconsin Law School – State Democracy Research Initiative – Explainer: Can the Federal Government Force States to Hand Over Citizens’ Voter Information?
Brennan Center for Justice – Tracker of Justice Department Requests for Voter Information

Groups Taking Action:

League of Women Voters,C.R.E.W., Electronic Privacy Information Center,  Fair Elections Center

Register or Check Your Voter Registration:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your State

Please follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! 

Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org

Want ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!

Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network’s Audioport and PRX

#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #DataPrivacy #SAVEDatabase #VoterRegistrationData 

The post Can the Feds Require States to Turn Over Voter Data?  A New Paper Suggests Federal Law Doesn’t Explicitly Allow It, So Courts Will Decide. appeared first on American Democracy Minute.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Sept. 1, 2025

Brian is away today, but we’re following up our Friday story on a federal appeals court allowing Pennsylvania mail-in ballots missing a date to be counted.  One of the arguments made in that case was about the Materiality Provision. The ACLU case mentioned was refused by the U.S. Supreme Court, and a lower federal court said it didn’t apply to this case. See our Aug. 29 report for more on the case.

Our report on court challenges to undated or misdated mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania mentioned the “Materiality Provision” of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Just what is the Materiality Provision, and how can it help protect voters?

In question are ballot envelopes from otherwise eligible voters, received on time and correct except for a missing or incorrect date on the outer envelope.  Pennsylvania’s election law invalidates those ballots, and as many as 10,000 voters were affected in 2022.

The materiality provision, part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s Title 1, was designed to keep racist election officials from rejecting voter registrations for minor mistakes – used as a voter suppression tactic throughout the South.  For instance, White voters were given assistance and alerted to mistakes, while Black voters were disenfranchised for a simple spelling error.    

For years, federal courts found that Title 1 applies to the whole voting process, and ruled that missing dates, envelopes, and postmarks are “immaterial” to the validity of the ballot. Only recently have Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and other Conservative judges argued that it should apply ONLY to registration, and overturned such appeals.  

If a voter does everything else right, but makes a trivial mistake, shouldn’t we make every effort to honor the intent of the voter?  The ACLU’s high court appeal may answer that question.

We’ve linked more at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.  I’m Brian Beihl.

Today’s Links

Articles & Resources:

Congressional Research Service – The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Eleven Titles at a Glance
Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum – Helen L. Brewer – Title I of the Civil Rights Act in Contemporary Voting Rights
Litigation
Protect Democracy – The Constitutionality of the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Democracy Docket – Pennsylvania Orgs Ask SCOTUS To Decide if Rejecting Mail-in Ballots for Date Errors Violates Civil Rights Act
Campaign Legal Center – (2018) CLC Argument Used in Georgia Absentee Ballot Cases
Democracy Docket – This Civil Rights Provision Protects Your Vote from Simple Mistakes

Groups Taking Action:

ACLU, NAACP PA , League of Women Voters PA, Black Political Empowerment Project

Register or Check Your Voter Registration:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your State

Please follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! 

Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org

Want ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!

Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network’s Audioport and PRX

#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #VoterSuppression #CivilRightsAct #Pennsylvania #SCOTUS

The post What is the ‘Materiality Provision’ of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and How Can it Help Protect Voters? appeared first on American Democracy Minute.

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for April 7, 2025

Some good news during some very dark days for American democracy.  A federal judge ruled Pennsylvania mail-in ballots without a date can be counted, protecting the vote of as many as 10,000 citizens who made a simple mistake.

The ballots were received by election officials on time from eligible voters, but lacked a date, or included the wrong date. Republicans sued to invalidate them and won in lower state courts.  Pro-voter groups claim rejecting the ballots violated the Commonwealth’s Free and Equal Elections Clause. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court initially refused to hear the appeal last September, but said in January it will now hear the case. 

Meanwhile, the ACLU asked the U.S. Supreme Court to find that rejecting the ballots was a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s Materiality Provision, preventing ballots from being rejected for trivial issues.  The high court refused the ACLU case, but the U.S. District Court ruled March 31st that the rejections were illegal.  

Judge Susan Baxter wrote, “The evidence of record demonstrates that county boards across the Commonwealth discarded 10,657 otherwise valid ballots in the 2022 general election solely because voters either forgot to date them or used an incorrect date. Such disenfranchisement burdens the right to vote and there is no valid state interest to weigh this against.”

It’s unclear when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will weigh in on the issue.

We’ve linked to more at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.   I’m Brian Beihl.

Today’s Links

Articles & Resources:

American Democracy Minute – (2024) After Years of Litigation, Undated Ballot Envelopes are Again at Issue in Pennsylvania’s 2024 Election – and Thousands Likely Disenfranchised
Reuters – Pennsylvania can discard undated mail-in ballots, US appeals court rules
ACLU – Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP et al. v. Schmidt et al
Jurist – US judge rules Pennsylvania rejecting undated mail-in ballots violated First Amendment
U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania via Democracy Docket – BETTE EAKIN, et al. Plaintiffs
vs. ADAMS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al
Democracy Docket – Pennsylvania Must Count Undated Mail-In Ballots, Federal Court Rules

Groups Taking Action:

ACLU, NAACP PA , League of Women Voters PA, Black Political Empowerment Project

Register or Check Your Voter Registration:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your State

Please follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! 

Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org

Want ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!

Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network’s Audioport and PRX

#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Pennsylvania #UndatedBallots

The post Good Democracy News for a Change:  Federal Court Directs Pennsylvania to Count Undated Mail-in Ballots in Ongoing Partisan Dispute appeared first on American Democracy Minute.

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for Oct. 3, 2024

Today’s Script

(Variations occur with audio due to editing for time. Today’s Links below the script)

You’re listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.

Our report on court challenges to undated or misdated mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania mentioned the “Materiality Provision” of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Just what is the Materiality Provision, and how can it help protect voters?

In question are ballot envelopes from otherwise eligible voters, received on time and correct except for a missing or incorrect date on the outer envelope.  Pennsylvania’s election law invalidates those ballots, and as many as 10,000 voters were affected in 2022.

The materiality provision, part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s Title 1, was designed to keep racist election officials from rejecting voter registrations for minor mistakes – used as a voter suppression tactic throughout the South.  For instance, White voters were given assistance and alerted to mistakes, while Black voters were disenfranchised for a simple spelling error.    

For years, federal courts found that Title 1 applies to the whole voting process, and ruled that missing dates, envelopes, and postmarks are “immaterial” to the validity of the ballot. Only recently have Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and other Conservative judges argued that it should apply ONLY to registration, and overturned such appeals.  

If a voter does everything else right, but makes a trivial mistake, shouldn’t we make every effort to honor the intent of the voter?  The ACLU’s high court appeal may answer that question.

We’ve linked more at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org.  I’m Brian Beihl.

Today’s Links

Articles & Resources:

Congressional Research Service – The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Eleven Titles at a Glance
Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum – Helen L. Brewer – Title I of the Civil Rights Act in Contemporary Voting Rights
Litigation
Protect Democracy – The Constitutionality of the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Democracy Docket – Pennsylvania Orgs Ask SCOTUS To Decide if Rejecting Mail-in Ballots for Date Errors Violates Civil Rights Act
Campaign Legal Center – (2018) CLC Argument Used in Georgia Absentee Ballot Cases
Democracy Docket – This Civil Rights Provision Protects Your Vote from Simple Mistakes

Groups Taking Action:

ACLU, NAACP PA , League of Women Voters PA, Black Political Empowerment Project 

Check Your Voter Registration:

• U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your State
• USA Vote Foundation – Registration, Eligibility, State Election Office Links
• Vote.Gov – Register to Vote in Your State
• Vote.Org – Check Your Registration to Vote
  
  

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  

Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org

Want ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!

Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network’s Audioport and PRX

#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #VoterSuppression #CivilRightsAct #Pennsylvania #SCOTUS

The post What is the ‘Materiality Provision’ of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and How Can it Help Protect Voters? appeared first on American Democracy Minute.