China is systematically breaking up Uighur families and keeping them relatives apart after years.

An opinion article describes a disputed Congressional election with subtle right-wing bias.

I agree that it would be better to decide this election in an unbiased apolitical way. And the House of Representatives won't do that; it is dominated by the Democratic majority.

But the State of Iowa procedure would be equally political and biased. The Chief Justice was appointed to the court by an extreme right-wing governor.

Given this situation, I conclude that asking the House to decide is as legitimate as asking the Republican judge to decide, if it has to be one of those two.

What could be a better way? The idea that occurs to me right now is to establish objective criteria for deciding which ballots are valid, in edge cases. But this too will be politicized: Republicans would prefer to invalidate any ballot which is somehow strange, since they figure it is more likely to come from someone marginalized and thus probably a Democrat.

The UK plans to change citizenship law to help people that were kept out of the UK by the government's mistake and thus became ineligible.

However, the way they plan to fix it is not the right way, because it gives a minister arbitrary discretion over whether to punish the individual for a government mistake. The right change would be to legislate that absence from the UK in which a government mistake played a role is not an impediment to citizenship.

India plans to track all cars somehow.

That will make it easier to find dissidents and anyone that state-linked Hindu extremists wish to lynch.

Opponents of Bolsonaro called him a Nazi, so to show how right they were, he had them arrested.