Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Voter registration volunteers are crucial for democracy. They shouldn't be threatened with fines or felonies.

Opinion

Person posting a sign that reads, "Register to vote here"
Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images
Robert Brandon is the president and CEO of the Fair Elections Center, a nonpartisan voting rights and election reform organization.

On National Voter Registration Day last September, activists, neighbors and community volunteers across the country took to the streets to help 1.5 million voters get registered in the span of just 24 hours, a historic feat in preparation for the 2020 election. But today, on this year's National Voter Registration Day, those same volunteers are being targeted by extreme, partisan anti-voting measures around the country.

Since 2012, National Voter Registration Day has mobilized thousands of volunteers to help fulfill the promise of our democracy: ensuring that all Americans have access to the ballot. While election officials work tirelessly to expand participation in our elections, many of them have too little funding and resources to reach potential voters, especially those in communities that have been historically underserved and disenfranchised.

Voter registration volunteers fill that gap. They expand the reach of election officials, building trust with their community members and encouraging them to participate in our elections. They regularly reach voters who are missed by government efforts by meeting them where they are, including at grocery stores, schools and community events. These efforts are a necessity for people with disabilities, young people, and Black and Latinx voters, who are up to twice as likely to register at voter registration drives than white voters.

Now, those very acts of civic engagement are being penalized in states across the country. Volunteers and community organizers in states like Texas, Florida and Kansas can face felony charges or hefty fines for helping voters register if they accidentally run afoul of needlessly cumbersome regulations that are often vague and may be enforced unpredictably.

These laws do nothing to strengthen voter registration; on the contrary, they are having immediate, debilitating impacts on efforts to sign up more voters. After Kansas made it a felony offense to give off the appearance of being an election official — a frighteningly ambiguous and subjective law — multiple groups, including the League of Women Voters, were forced to suspend their voter registration drives. As a result, fewer prospective voters will have the opportunity to get the voter registration assistance they need, shutting them out from the electoral process. These attacks on community-centered registration efforts are a severe threat to our democracy and a clear, partisan attempt to make it harder to vote. They must be stopped.

Laws penalizing essential, good-faith efforts to help voters register sow unnecessary distrust between volunteers and their neighbors, with the intent of restricting who gets to vote in our elections and without making elections any fairer.

Overturning extreme voter suppression laws and protecting the rights of the American people will require an all-hands-on-deck effort, including fighting these needless regulations in the courts. That's why my organization filed a lawsuit against Florida's bill SB 90 for requiring volunteers to provide misleading information to potential voters that could make them less likely to register and harder for community groups to build trust with those they help.

As election lawyers and voting rights advocates fight against the extreme, state-level restrictions to accessing the ballot box, the federal government needs to pass protections that remove unnecessary barriers to voter registration. The new Freedom to Vote Act introduced in Congress would make it easier for more people to register, including through same-day voter registration, thus freeing up more time and resources for election officials and community organizations to focus their outreach on communities that need it most.

Whatever their race, background or ZIP code, all eligible Americans deserve access to the ballot. Helping our neighbors and fellow citizens exercise their right to vote is a non-negotiable part of making that right a reality.

Read More

​DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly.

DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly speaks to the gathering at an adoption ceremony in Torrington.

Laura Tillman / CT Mirror

What’s Behind the Smiles on National Adoption Day

In the past 21 years, I’ve fostered and adopted children with complex medical and developmental needs. Last year, after a grueling 2,205 days navigating the DCF system, we adopted our 7yo daughter. This year, we were the last family on the docket for National Adoption Day after 589 days of suspense. While my 2 yo daughter’s adoption was a moment of triumph, the cold, empty courtroom symbolized the system’s detachment from the lived experiences of marginalized families.

National Adoption Day often serves as a time to highlight stories of joy and family unification. Yet, behind the scenes, the obstacles faced by children in foster care and the families that support them tell a more complex story—one that demands attention and action. For those of us who have navigated the foster care system as caregivers, the systemic indifference and disparities experienced by marginalized children and families, particularly within BIPOC and disability communities, remain glaringly unresolved.

Keep Reading Show less
Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep Reading Show less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep Reading Show less
The Great Political Finger Trap

Protesters gather near the White House on November 24, 2025 in Washington, DC. The group Refuse Fascism held a rally and afterwards held hands in a long line holding yellow "Crime Scene Do Not Cross" tape along Lafayette Square near the White House.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The Great Political Finger Trap

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination earlier this year, a YouGov poll was released exploring sentiments around political violence. The responses raised some alarm, with 25% of those who self-identified as “very liberal,” and nearly 20% of those polled between the ages of 18 and 29, saying that violence was sometimes justified “in order to achieve political goals.” Numerous commentators, including many within the bridging space, lamented the loss of civility and the straying from democratic ideals. Others pointed to ends justifying means, to cases of injustice and incivility so egregious, as they saw it, that it simply demanded an extreme response.

But amidst this heated debate over what is justified in seeking political ends, another question is often overlooked: do the extreme measures work? Or, do acts of escalation lead to a cycle of greater escalation, deepening divisions, and making our crises harder to resolve, and ultimately undermining the political ends they seek?

Keep Reading Show less