Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Elections legislation has no place in end-of-year congressional agenda

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wants to complete his year-end agenda by Christmas.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

As Congress continues to plod its way through a series of high-profile, and in some cases critical, bills before departing Washington for the December recess, a pair of election reform bills appear to be left by the wayside.

Last week, Congress averted a government shutdown by approving a short-term spending bill and leaders are negotiating on two more legislative priorities this week: an annual defense authorization bill and a measure to prevent the United States from defaulting on its debts.

Those and other bills leave little, if any, room for Senate consideration of the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which so far have been blocked by Republicans.


Monday morning reports on the congressional schedule detail efforts to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policy for the Pentagon each year, and an increase in the debt ceiling, a move that allows the federal government to take on more debt without resorting to extraordinary measures such as default.

Democrats are also hoping to push through the Build Back Better Act, a massive increase in social safety net spending that Republicans oppose. And the Senate GOP may force a vote on a measure to block implementation of President Biden’s vaccine mandate for private companies.

Congress is scheduled to begin the December recess on Dec. 13, leaving just a few days to complete the agenda. But few on Capitol Hill expect that schedule to hold, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said he wants the major legislation all completed by Christmas.

Even if they were to stay in town longer, there’s little talk of election legislation making another appearance on the Senate floor.

A coalition of more than 200 organizations advocating passage of the elections bills issued a letter Thursday calling on Congress to delay the recess so it could take up to the two measures.

“The most important step that Congress can take to protect the array of issues our organizations advocate for is to pass these vitally important voting rights bills in order to ensure that all Americans’ voices are heard in our democracy,” reads the letter, signed by members of the Declaration for American Democracy coalition and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

The Freedom to Vote Act is a wide-ranging collection of changes to elections, campaign finance and ethics rules. It’s the successor to the For the People Act, which was blocked this summer by Senate Republicans after passing the House. Moderate Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia negotiated changes, with hope of bringing on enough Republicans to overcome a potential filibuster, but the GOP remains united in opposition.

Similarly, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act has been blocked by Senate Republicans after being passed by House Democrats. That bill would restore a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that required states with a history of racial discrimination to get approval from the Justice Department before changing election laws. That provision, known as “preclearance,” was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013.

“This legislation must be a top priority on the remaining agenda for the year, and we urge you to stay in session to do whatever it takes until these bills are passed because inaction is not an option,” the advocates wrote in their letter.

Voting rights groups have also called for Senate Democrats to abolish the filibuster or at least modify the rule so election legislation can be passed by a simple majority. But lawmakers have resisted those calls for now.


Read More

US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less