Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Reform in 2023: It’s time for the civil rights community to embrace independent voters

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

"So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote, I do not possess myself," the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1957. "I cannot make up my mind – it is made up for me."

Henryk Archive/Donaldson Collection/Getty Images

As 2022 draws to a close, The Fulcrum has invited leaders of democracy reform organizations to share their hopes and plans for the coming year. This is the seventh in the series.

Gruber is the senior vice president of Open Primaries. He previously worked for the American Civil Liberties Union and several other civil rights organizations.

Independent voters decided nearly every outcome in the midterm elections and sent many “election deniers” packing. Their reward is that 20 million of them – including millions of voters of color – will be shut out of voting in the 2024 presidential primaries. That number could double if efforts to close the primaries accelerate in 2023.

The civil rights community, which has long insisted that ours is a democracy in progress, has always been at the forefront of the fight for justice in the United States. But it has continued to remain silent on the question of full voting rights for independent voters.


Independent voters are now the largest or second largest group of registered voters in almost every state in the country. They are also the fastest growing group of voters. It’s an accelerating phenomenon driven by dissatisfaction with partisanship and distrust of status quo institutions. But choosing to distance yourself from Democratic or Republican membership comes with a price tag. In many states, independents are locked out of participating in primaries – public elections paid for by taxpayers and administered by our government. It’s systematic voter suppression and exclusion.

The ACLU’s website states that “voting is the cornerstone of our democracy and the fundamental right upon which all our civil liberties rest. The ACLU works to protect and expand Americans’ freedom to vote.” That work has, properly, focused on equal voting rights for racial minorities. There is no moral equivalency between being denied the right to vote because of the color of your skin and the choice not to join a political party – but that is no excuse for silence. The denial of the right to vote, for whatever reason, is an attack on our core values of freedom and equality. It’s felt painfully by millions of independent voters every primary election.

As the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. declared in his “Give Us the Ballot” speech in 1957:

So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote, I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind – it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact – I can only submit to the edict of others.

When you alternately ignore, justify or distinguish independent voters as a group not worthy of voting rights protections, you miss entirely King’s vision that every citizen has a voice in our democracy.

What’s perhaps most peculiar about the silence of the civil rights community with regards to independent voters is how many independent voters are people of color. Forty percent of Asian Americans, 37 percent of Latinos and 30 percent of African Americans are independent. You wouldn’t know it from the work of any of the organizations entrusted with protecting these key voting groups. Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Unidos US, the NAACP and others fight every day against efforts that make it harder for minorities to vote; unless, of course, they happen to be independents.

A hundred years ago, in the “white primary cases,” the Supreme Court struck down primary elections designed to disenfranchise African Americans in the South. The civil rights community led that effort. In 2023, MAGA elements of the Republican Party in these same states are threatening to close the primaries. If successful it will have a negative impact on all voters, but it will particularly impact African-Americans. As Rep. Joe Neal of the South Carolina legislative black caucus declared back in 2010 after successfully defeating a lawsuit to close the primaries:

The South Carolina federal court has upheld the rights of voters in South Carolina, especially the minority community, to free and unfettered access to the polls. This measure (closed primaries) would have eliminated the ability of hundreds of thousands of African Americans to have a voice in who represents them in many positions of influence in South Carolina.

The civil rights community has ignored this development, despite growing recognition that closed primaries disempower voters of color.

Our country is changing. Voters' relationship to the two parties is in flux. It’s simply untenable to continue to shut out millions of independent voters from our elections. It’s time for the civil rights community to take this on. Our democracy in progress needs you.

Read More

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less