Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The war in Ukraine could restart action on voting rights legislation

Opinion

Destroyed building in Ukraine

Residents survey the wreckage after Russia fired missiles at a housing complex in Kyiv last month. One person was killed and 19 people were injured, including four children.

Andriy Dubchak/dia images via Getty Images

Simon is a technology consultant and a contributing author of “Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework”.

The crisis in Ukraine should lead Americans to reflect on the political state in our country. The plight of the Ukrainian people, in and of itself, is a weighty issue. At the same time, the harsh reality of events in Ukraine could lead us toward strengthening the foundations of democracy at home.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine illustrates the fragility of democracy in general and, in particular, our democracy in the United States – notably, the importance of the democratic process, free and fair elections, the peaceful transition of power, and the rule of law.

The situation in Ukraine could, and should, be used as a springboard to build the case for securing voting rights in the United States. So far, Democrats in Congress have been unsuccessful in moving either the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act or the Freedom to Vote Act forward. By connecting the dots, they could leverage the crisis in Ukraine to create an effective communication strategy. The objectives would be grassroots support as well as influencing top-down thinking of moderate Republicans to elevate the importance of passing voting rights legislation.


We are all bombarded with graphic images of destruction from Ukraine via the 24-hour news cycle. Most people can distance themselves from these events since they are taking place 5,000 miles away and because we feel safe on U.S. soil. While the United States is not physically threatened by a neighboring country, the democratic process has become threatened internally. This issue was brought to the forefront when supporters of Donald Trump stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. By allowing narratives like the Big Lie about the 2020 election to perpetuate, we risk anti-democratic mechanisms taking hold in the country or within one political party.

More specifically, if Democrats can clearly articulate the association between physical attacks happening in Ukraine and ongoing attempts to chip away at the democratic process at home, we have a chance to turn the tide with some Republican lawmakers. The means to convey this message is to juxtapose the loss of basic human rights through the displacement of Ukrainian refugees with the loss of constitutional rights being threatened by restrictive voting laws being promoted in some states. We must not wait for harmful voting legislation to force U.S. citizens into refugee status – having to choose between remaining in their homes or moving their families to another state where voting rights are protected. This can only be prevented through legislation at the federal level.

An effective communication strategy must be grounded in reality in order to resonate with its intended audience. The proposed strategy connects the brutality of war in Ukraine with the risk of inaction on voting rights concerns. The intent would be to elicit a visceral reaction to this violence that logically and emotionally leads to internalizing the existential need to strengthen voting rights in America.

Proponents should convey to those who are not yet convinced that any political movement seeking to undermine the voting process could ultimately hurt either party – depending on who is in power at a given time. The current Republican leadership might view the obstruction of voting rights legislation as a means to bolster their political power in the short-term. However if we, as a country, diminish the voice of the voter, we limit our own autonomy as a representative of our constituents. The result being that our personal independence is relegated to the authoritarian party leadership, which we are dependent on to remain in office. Conversely, by supporting broad voting rights measures, Republicans will strengthen their own autonomy and the freedoms that are exercised throughout the democracy.

The United States, NATO members and many other nations are standing behind Ukraine and the tenets of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination against an oppressive, autocratic neighbor. By enabling Republican colleagues to see the authoritarianism of Vladimir Putin through a new lens, Democrats might help them to see how the aspirations of a Trumpist Republican Party could lead to unbridled authoritarianism in the United States.

Stated another way, allowing anti-democratic forces in the U.S. to chip away at democracy is akin to allowing Russia to continue to advance on Ukrainian cities, little by little, over a period of time, until there is no independent Ukraine left.

Similarly, if we allow the unfounded claims of voter fraud to lead to reduced access to voting rights in some states, we will enable authoritarian elements to take root. The challenge for Democrats is to gain buy-in from moderate Republicans.

Nothing has worked to date when it comes to swaying at least 10 Republicans in the Senate to break ranks and support voting rights bills. There’s a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville that characterizes it well:

“Everybody feels the evil, but no one has courage or energy enough to seek the cure.”

As Americans, we need to initiate a wake-up call to Republicans as a spark to muster the courage and energy needed to seek the cure. The link between the evil of Russian aggression and voter suppression in the U.S. offers an opening to gain bipartisan support for voting rights. The risk of inaction could lead to erosion of the very foundations of our democracy.


Read More

President Trump answers questions from reporters.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters before boarding Air Force One on August 21, 2026 in Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Trump’s White House Press Ban Violates 1st Amendment

The principle is simple. Just like politicians are not supposed to pick their voters, government officials don’t get to pick the reporters who cover them.

If they did, the First Amendment would be meaningless. and we would no longer live in anything resembling a constitutional republic. That is why President Trump’s September 18 announcement that he is banning reporters from CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House is so dangerous.

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.

Keep ReadingShow less
When Money Trumps Life

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the 81st session of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly at U.N. Headquarters on September 22, 2026 in New York City.

Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

When Money Trumps Life

Last week at the United Nations, Donald Trump showed the world just how little he values human life. In a single speech, he rattled off a laundry list of “hoaxes” to write off: climate change, AI, “Russia hoax,” “Ukraine hoax,” and more. Climate change, AI, and modern warfare all pose existential threats to civilization as we know it, and yet our president seems hellbent on gaslighting our fears while accelerating problems that threaten our survival. What would make a person behave in such a self-sabotaging way? Well, perhaps we should, as they say, follow the money.

Earlier this month, the UN warned that Earth is already 1.4°C hotter than before the industrial age and set to blow past the 1.5°C limit in the next few years. The World Health Organization projects that such warming will cause roughly 250,000 additional deaths a year starting in 2030. Any leader who values human life should recognize this as the existential threat it is and change course. Instead, Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the UN's founding climate treaty, and his EPA scrapped the scientific finding underpinning federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in the first six months since launching his war in Iran, Trump's nine largest oil and gas holdings gained up to $4.4 million.

Keep ReadingShow less
 U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Pool/Getty Images

How Presidential Primetime Addresses Shape Public Trust in Democratic Institutions

A question still being studied is the effects on public trust when the head of the Executive casts doubt on the institutions that run elections, enforce laws, and decide legal disputes. The President of the United States is arguably the most powerful man in the world. He is the commander in chief of a nation #1 in nominal gross domestic product as well as #1 in military power, budget, and spending as of 2026. The actions he takes spew ripple effects across the world and follow many generations. A way you can measure the executive's power can also be measured in how much influence his speeches have on the markets, opinions of the masses, news outlets, lawmakers, social media reactions, etc. His framing of an issue can shape the next day’s political conversation.

These conversations become extremely dangerous/consequential when discussing a principle as embedded in our country as Democracy. In his July primetime speech, Trump continued to pedal the claims about election security and argued for stricter voting rules. He continued to portray the country as facing a moment of corruption and uncertainty, followed by presenting himself as the one prepared to restore order. The address continued with repeated claims about his loss in the 2020 election that have not been supported by the evidence compiled over years of investigation by many parties. Professional reviews, audits, and courts have yet to find significant evidence of foul play substantial enough to influence the outcome of that election.

Keep ReadingShow less