Your support helps us to tell the story
This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.
The rift between Britain and European judges over prisoner voting widened today after the Coalition Government – backed by Labour – insisted it had the authority to maintain the current ban on inmates taking part in elections.
Its stance put the country on a collision course with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which has called for the UK to lift its current blanket ban.
Just one day before the deadline for Britain to respond to the ECHR ruling, the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, set out three alternatives for action. One – which the minister signalled he supported – was for the ban to remain in place with only minor amendments. The other options involve offenders sentenced to less than four years in jail or those sentenced to less than six months receiving the vote.
The options, detailed in draft legislation, will be considered by a parliamentary committee and then debated by MPs, although Mr Grayling has set no timetable for the moves. The Council of Europe, which oversees the ECHR, accused Mr Grayling of delaying tactics.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments