Marie Moyer JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (KMIZ) The Missouri Supreme Court convened Monday to hear arguments on two appeals related to voter laws. Both suits were filed by the NAACP and League of Women Voters in 2022 following the passage of House Bill No. 1878, which changed state rules related to elections, including sections dealing with voter registration, absentee voting and voter identification. The first suit has the NAACP and League of Women Voters appealing a previous ruling in favor of the state that deemed HB 1878 was constitutional. One of HB 1878’s rules requires voters to provide a current government-issued photo ID at the polls, making alternative IDs such as a Missouri student ID, voter registration cards, and utility or bank statements, which were previously accepted, invalid. Voters who show up on Election Day without a valid photo ID can only cast a provisional ballot, which will count if they return later that day with proper ID or if their signature matches the one on file. But in-person absentee voters who lack a valid ID are not allowed to cast a provisional ballot at all. The groups argued that the tighter restrictions on voter IDs violated the Missouri Constitution’s equal protection clause, which guarantees a right to vote, claiming several Missouri voters in 2022 sued the state after having issues getting a valid ID, either due to disabilities or other difficulties. The state won the initial ruling, arguing that the voters who sued with the groups were ultimately able to vote, that provisional ballots are commonly counted and that potential voters can easily access state resources to get a valid ID. “The law is now tremendously easy to comply with because voters can easily obtain free IDs, join the permanently disabled voters list, or cast provisional ballots which are almost always counted,” according to the State’s brief. The second suit has the state appealing a court ruling in favor of the NAACP and League of Women Voters. House Bill No. 1878 tightened rules surrounding people who solicit voter registrations. This included ending payment for solicitors and requiring solicitors to be at least 18 years old and registered Missouri voters. The rule also banned solicitors from encouraging voters to get an absentee ballot application by making the action a Class 1 election offense that could result in jail time. The groups argued that the statute’s use of the term “solicitor” is overly broad, potentially applying to anyone who encourages or assists with voter registration. They argued that this vagueness exposes volunteers to criminal penalties and places unconstitutional restrictions on political speech. The state argues that the definition of “solicitor” in the statute only applies to someone who provides voters with registration or absentee-ballot applications and then collects the completed documents for submission to a local election. The Missouri Supreme Court has not yet ruled on either appeal.
https://www.newspressnow.com/kmiz-local-news/2025/11/19/missouri-supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-voter-law-changes/
Tag: unconstitutional
Federal court halts Texas’ new House map, orders return to 2021 districts
A federal court on Tuesday blocked Texas from using its newly drawn 2025 congressional map, ruling that state lawmakers likely engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. In a 160-page order, a three-judge panel in the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction preventing the state from implementing the map in the 2026 elections. Instead, the court ordered Texas to revert to the congressional map enacted in 2021 while the case proceeds. This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.
https://www.wptv.com/politics/federal-court-halts-texas-new-house-map-orders-return-to-2021-districts
Here is what it would take for me to join a No Kings rally (Opinion)
To all those who wrote me personally or sent a letter to the editor about my October 19th column, I’m glad you attended the No Kings rally. You’re right; the protest did succeed in providing participants a sense of community and a platform to voice concerns about Trump’s abuse of power.
The flawed optics, however, obscured the protest’s vital message and hardened the hearts of Trump supporters as I feared it would. In the future, protests against Trump’s unconstitutional actions must do more than simply amplify voices of resistance; they must ensure those voices are actually heard.
When I talk with people who ardently disagree with me, I do not try to make them see I am right. Rather, I aim to move them from “you’re wrong, Kafer” to “that’s reasonable. I can see why you feel that way.” This is a considerable step given that nobody wants to change his or her mind.
Reaching plausibility, the first step in persuasion, requires credibility and consistency. Thus, the next rally must present a more consistent, credible message to be heard beyond those who already agree.
### First, fix the signs.
Protest signs I saw included messages such as:
– “You ban books. You ban drag, yet kids are still in body bags,”
– “Defund Israel,”
– “Putin’s Puppet,”
– “Tax the Rich,”
– “Color is not a crime,” and
– “RFK’s brainworms died of starvation.”
There were also various flags—blue and pink, rainbow, Ukrainian, etc. All of this, and the costumes, made the protests appear to be catch-all leftist rallies rather than a unified movement against abuse of power.
Waving signs that read “Save due process,” “Protect the constitution,” “The 10th Amendment matters,” and “I didn’t support Biden’s abuses either” lack flair but they would be more likely to make Trump supporters question Trump’s abuses than a hodgepodge of off-message partisan policy preferences or over-the-top comparisons with mass-murdering dictators.
Signs reading “German soldiers were also just following orders!!!,” “Not my dictator,” and “No Nazis” are ridiculous. Remember, fear is a potent but risky tactic in persuasion. Too little has no impact, but too much is likely to evoke disbelief or fatalistic inaction. Nazi signs generate eye rolls, not credibility.
And while there is truth to the assertion that Trump behaves more like a monarch than a constitutionally-restrained elected official, the slogan “No Kings” evokes derision. Kings are not elected; Trump was. Kings don’t generally tolerate protests; they arrest protesters. There’s a reason there are few political marches in Brunei, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Eswatini, where royalty holds power.
### Second, the next rally must emphasize bipartisanship.
Don’t list dozens of leftist organizations on the website or on flyers because it only furthers the lie that protests were dominated by the far-left and protesters were paid for their participation. Organizers were paid, as they are for every large-scale event undertaken by the right or left, but participants were unpaid volunteers.
Any website or flyer should focus on volunteers, not those working on logistics.
### Lastly, save the costumes for Halloween.
While there were comparatively few frogs, unicorns, and dinosaurs in the crowd, they were the most noticeable participants. Perhaps silly costumes successfully combated false narratives about threatening, angry protesters as intended, but they also detracted from the seriousness of the message.
Did the guys dressed as Founding Fathers at Tea Party rallies during the Obama presidency make you more or less open to their message about the size and scope of the federal government? One of the reasons the 60s Civil Rights marches were so successful is that ambivalent Americans saw men and women in ties and dresses.
In the future, remember any strangely dressed person in the crowd will end up on camera and appear representative of the whole. Look like the people you want to influence.
Next time, if the message is more consistent and the messenger more credible, the protest will do more to multiply the number of concerned Americans rather than further divide.
I honked in solidarity as I drove by the Littleton No Kings rally. Perhaps next time, I will join.
—
*Kirsta Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist. Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.*
https://www.denverpost.com/2025/11/03/no-kings-protests-trump-colorado-plausible/
JONATHAN TURLEY: Why blue states’ new anti-ICE laws are unconstitutional virtue signaling
Illinois has joined California and Connecticut in barring federal immigration agents from conducting “civil arrests” of undocumented immigrants in or around state courthouses. This new sanctuary law appears largely symbolic and raises serious constitutional questions.
At the core of the issue is whether a state can restrict federal jurisdiction, especially after the Civil War. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has intensified rhetoric against ICE and the Trump administration for months, making comparisons to Nazis and warning that democracy is at risk. However, the new law crosses a constitutional line by not only limiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations but also establishing a 1,000-foot “buffer zone” around courthouses.
This law treats courthouses like churches, creating sanctuary zones where suspects can claim protection from civil arrest not only inside the building but also within 1,000 feet—unless ICE chooses to ignore the law altogether. Recently, the chief judge in Cook County issued a similar order, and some judges in other states have done the same.
### Legal Challenges and Constitutional Issues
The authority for these sanctuary orders is highly questionable. The federal government enforces laws mandating the arrest of certain individuals for immigration violations. These include mandatory detention of aliens removable due to criminal convictions or terrorism-related activities, as well as detention and removal of those with final deportation orders.
Illinois’ sanctuary law conflicts with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
> “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently rejected efforts by states to interfere with federal immigration enforcement. In the 1952 case *Harisiades v. Shaughnessy*, the Court affirmed that the federal government has “exclusive” control over immigration policy.
Interestingly, former President Barack Obama once successfully challenged state laws that interfered with federal immigration enforcement. In the 2012 case *Arizona v. United States*, the Supreme Court ruled that:
> “[t]he Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.”
This federal authority dates back to the 19th century. In the 1893 case *Fong Yue Ting v. United States*, the Court held that Congress has the right to expel aliens of a particular class or allow them to remain, using all proper means to enforce the system.
### Additional Provisions and Implications
Illinois’ new law also creates the ability to sue federal authorities for false imprisonment under state law. Furthermore, the 1,000-foot buffer zone extends around any state court, effectively creating safe zones for undocumented immigrants.
This raises practical questions. For instance, could someone renting an apartment within such a zone claim effective immunity from civil arrest simply by residing there? Could suspects use public sidewalks or spaces within these zones to avoid federal enforcement?
Moreover, with states like Illinois pushing apps that track ICE operations, individuals might evade arrest by stepping into designated safe zones. It remains to be seen whether landlords will increase rents in these areas given the new “immunity” amenity.
If deemed constitutional, states could expand these safe zones beyond courthouses to include city services, clinics, and more, creating a patchwork of sanctuary areas that complicate federal enforcement.
Notably, similar tactics have been attempted by blue states to challenge Second Amendment rights, resulting in ongoing legal battles.
### Conclusion
Despite serious constitutional concerns, these sanctuary laws serve political purposes, allowing lawmakers to signal opposition to federal immigration policies. However, the legal weaknesses of the laws may lead to unintended consequences for individuals who mistakenly believe they are fully protected within these safe zones.
As legal challenges unfold, it remains uncertain how these laws will be enforced or whether courts will uphold them against federal authority.
—
*For more information, click here.*
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jonathan-turley-why-blue-states-new-anti-ice-laws-unconstitutional-virtue-signaling
Bitchat hits #2 on app charts in Jamaica as Hurricane Melissa strikes
Jamaicans have rushed to download Jack Dorsey’s decentralized peer-to-peer messaging app, Bitchat, as the fatal Hurricane Melissa continues to rip through the Caribbean. Bitchat, which uses Bluetooth mesh networks for internet-free, encrypted communication, is now the second-most downloaded app on the Apple App Store and Google Play in Jamaica. The app offers a lifeline for 2.8 million people as internet coverage continues to falter in the region.
Bitchat only trails the weather forecast platform Zoom Earth, indicating that two of their most basic needs right now are to know what the weather is and to communicate with one another.
CNN reported on Wednesday that Hurricane Melissa has killed over 30 people in the Caribbean, including at least 23 in Haiti, while countless homes and businesses have been destroyed.
Until recently, adoption of decentralized, encrypted messaging apps was driven primarily by users leaving centralized communication platforms that may censor content or impose other restrictions. However, Bitchat has since become a critical solution for people in countries where internet access has been disrupted, whether due to government interference or natural disasters.
In September, Bitchat downloads rose significantly in Nepal amid government corruption and a social media ban that blocked Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and YouTube, triggering widespread protests. Downloads also rose in Indonesia a week earlier amid protests. A similar incident occurred in Madagascar later that month, amid protests over ongoing water and power cuts.
The European Union has also been mulling the controversial “Chat Control” law, which would eliminate encrypted messaging, forcing apps like Telegram, WhatsApp, and Signal to allow regulators to screen messages before they are encrypted and sent.
The proposal, which aims to spot child abuse material, was moving closer toward passing in October before Germany expressed opposition, arguing that scanning private messages is unconstitutional. The vote has now been postponed, with another vote set for early December.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitchat-second-ranked-app-jamaica-as-hurricane-strikes?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_partner_inbound
US Supreme Court’s new term will examine Trump’s presidential power
**US Supreme Court’s New Term to Examine Trump’s Presidential Powers**
*By Chanshimla Varah | October 7, 2025, 11:20 AM*
The United States Supreme Court opened its new term on Monday, with Chief Justice John Roberts swiftly rejecting over 800 pending appeals. Among these was a notable appeal from Ghislaine Maxwell, who challenged her conviction for luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by her late partner, Jeffrey Epstein.
### Focus on Trump’s Expansive Presidential Power
Over the next ten months, a primary focus for the justices will be assessing former President Donald Trump’s broad claims of presidential power. Several key cases related to his administration’s actions are set to be heard this term.
### LGBTQ+ Rights: Therapy Ban Cases
One of the initial cases the court will review concerns state bans on therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Nearly half of the U.S. states have enacted such bans, making this a critical case for LGBTQ+ rights nationwide.
### Trade and Tariff Case
On November 5, the court will hear a major case addressing Trump’s imposition of tariffs on imports. Two lower courts have ruled that Trump lacked the statutory authority to impose these tariffs, setting the stage for a significant Supreme Court decision.
### Authority Over Independent Agencies
In December, the court will consider a case regarding Trump’s authority to remove members of independent agencies at will. This case has the potential to overturn or significantly narrow a 90-year-old precedent surrounding presidential powers.
### Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
Another significant case pending before the court involves Trump’s executive order that sought to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are either in the country illegally or temporarily. The Trump administration has appealed lower court rulings declaring this order unconstitutional. Arguments on this case may take place in late winter or early spring.
### Federal Reserve Board Dispute
The justices will also conduct an expedited review of Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from her position as a governor on the Federal Reserve Board, a key and influential institution in U.S. financial policy.
### National Guard Troop Deployment Legal Battle
The term will also see a legal dispute stemming from Trump’s efforts to seize control of state National Guard troops and deploy them in cities where he alleged rampant crime, despite opposition from local and state leaders. A federal court in Oregon has barred Trump’s proposed troop deployment to Portland, and an appeals court is set to review this decision in the coming days.
—
As the Supreme Court embarks on this term, many of the cases will have far-reaching consequences on the bounds of presidential authority and the legal landscape surrounding policy and civil rights.
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/world/new-supreme-court-term-will-examine-trump-s-presidential-power/story
US Supreme Court’s new term will examine Trump’s presidential power
**US Supreme Court’s New Term to Examine Trump’s Presidential Power**
*By Chanshimla Varah | October 7, 2025 | 11:20 AM*
The United States Supreme Court opened its new term on Monday, marking the beginning of what promises to be a significant judicial session. Chief Justice John Roberts commenced the term by rejecting over 800 pending appeals, including a notable case from Ghislaine Maxwell, who is challenging her conviction related to luring teenage girls for sexual abuse by her late partner, Jeffrey Epstein.
### Focus on Trump’s Presidential Power
A key focus over the next 10 months will be the Court’s examination of former President Donald Trump’s expansive claims of presidential authority. Several high-profile cases connected to Trump’s actions and executive orders are set to be heard, shaping the legal boundaries of presidential power.
### LGBTQ Rights and Conversion Therapy Ban
One of the early cases on the docket involves state bans on therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Nearly half of the U.S. states have enacted such bans, and the Court’s ruling will have a major impact on LGBTQ rights nationwide.
### Tariffs Imposed by Trump
On November 5, the Supreme Court will hear a significant case revolving around Trump’s imposition of tariffs on imports. Two lower courts previously ruled that Trump lacked the statutory authority to impose these tariffs, and the Court’s decision will clarify the extent of presidential powers in trade matters.
### Case on Removing Independent Agency Members
In December, justices will consider arguments in a case regarding Trump’s authority to remove members of independent agencies at will. This case could overturn or drastically narrow a 90-year-old precedent, significantly altering administrative law.
### Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
The Court has also received a case concerning Trump’s executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The Trump administration has appealed lower-court rulings that declared the order unconstitutional. This case might be heard later this winter or early spring.
### Federal Reserve Board Dispute
An expedited review is also expected regarding Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from her position as a governor on the Federal Reserve Board, a vital institution in U.S. financial policy.
### National Guard Troop Deployment Legal Battle
The latest legal battle involves Trump’s attempts to deploy state National Guard troops in cities with high crime rates, against objections from local and state officials. A federal court in Oregon recently barred Trump’s troop deployment to Portland, with an appeals court set to review that decision in the coming days.
—
The Supreme Court’s upcoming term is set to define critical aspects of presidential power and constitutional interpretation, with several landmark cases involving former President Trump likely to have wide-ranging implications. Stay tuned for updates as these cases unfold.
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/world/new-supreme-court-term-will-examine-trump-s-presidential-power/story