News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
MOST READ
Get some leverage.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Opinion
blackred/Getty Images
State by state, electoral reform is happening — but not fast enough
Jul 09 2020
Fisher is deputy director of Unite America, which works to enact and helps finance political reform efforts and candidates "who put people over party." (It is a donor to The Fulcrum.)
<p>Our Unite America Institute has just graded each state on the status of four key electoral reforms: voting at home, independent redistricting commissions, ranked-choice voting and nonpartisan or open primaries. This was our second annual report, and it finds incremental improvements since last summer, as eight states notched higher marks. </p><p>Yet nine states still have failing grades. — and another 21 have earned a D. (California leads the country with an A-.) </p><p>Only a few states have <a href="https://www.uniteamericainstitute.org/research/state-of-democracy" target="_blank">improved their standin</a>g from a year ago. </p><p>Within the last year, two states (Virginia and Nevada) established permanent absentee voting lists, which allow voters to voluntarily opt in to a system that automatically mails them a ballot for all future elections. <a href="https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/01/va-house-approves-significant-absentee-voting-expansion/" target="_blank">Virginia's reform</a> was complemented by a switch to no-excuse absentee voting and an extension of the deadline to mail ballots. Assembly Bill 345 in Nevada <a href="https://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/government/voting-rights-bill-signed-by-nevada-gov-steve-sisolak/" target="_blank">also included</a> provisions expanding poll location options, and allowing for online and same-day registration. </p><p>Five states (Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, and Wyoming) earned points, because the Democratic Party in those states used ranked-choice voting for their presidential primaries. By all accounts, the process was a success that allowed voters to share their full preferences and the states also showed an increase in voter participation. Utah picked up a point, as well, with both parties using ranked-choice voting for their state and federal nominating caucuses. </p><p>Four cities (Palm Desert, Calif., Easthampton, Mass., Eastpoint, Mich., and New York) also passed measures to adopt ranked-choice voting. In New York alone, where 74 percent of voters said the system should be used for city council and mayoral races, the reform will eventually triple the number of voters using RCV nationwide, and will save the city more than $10 million each election cycle. </p><p><br/></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://thefulcrum.us/media-library/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ0MDQxNS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0ODY4Njk3MH0.PbueQWL6EJAAxZOUgLRwp60eSEZ0zvW3TP2NApv12VY/image.png?width=980" id="be1c5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4df8c41adbd9bb1fc04d68e24651fc76" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="graph" />
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Democracy reform progress over the past decade.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Unite America</small></p><p>If the last year saw electoral reform policies inch forward, the next year offers an opportunity to leap ahead.<br/></p><p>Ongoing ballot measure campaigns in three states would end the practice of partisan gerrymandering by turning over the map drawing process to an ethics board in <a href="https://northdakotavotersfirst.org/" target="_blank">North Dakota</a>, to a redistricting commission in <a href="https://www.onevirginia2021.org/" target="_blank">Virginia</a> and to an independent commission in <a href="https://arvotersfirst.org/" target="_blank">Arkansas</a>. </p><p>Voters in <a href="https://alaskansforbetterelections.com/" target="_blank">Alaska</a>, <a href="https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/may/30/2020-effort-arises-on-ranked-choice-vot-1/?elections" target="_blank">Arkansas</a>, and <a href="https://northdakotavotersfirst.org/" target="_blank">North Dakota</a> will have the chance to approve final-four voting — a powerful combination of nonpartisan primaries with ranked-choice voting for the top four finishers in the fall — for state and federal elections. RCV is also looking to be on the ballot in <a href="https://voterchoice2020.org/" target="_blank">Massachusetts</a>, where more than 2,000 volunteers recently successfully completed the first online petition gathering drive to qualify for a ballot in the country's history. <a href="https://allvotersvote.org/" target="_blank">Florida</a> could improve its standing, too, where voters will be asked to approve a top-two nonpartisan primary system. </p><p>While transitioning to 100 percent vote-at-home systems ahead of this November's elections is an unattainable goal for most states, the current coronavirus crisis has elevated the importance of implementing more permanent policy over the long-term, like Utah and Colorado have done. The 2021 legislative session will likely bring a flurry of legislation to empower all voters to cast more secure, informed and cost-efficient ballots. States like Arizona (where 79 percent of 2018 votes were cast by mail), Montana (72 percent) and New Mexico (63 percent) are leading candidates for making the switch. </p><p>Measuring the progress of the movement to put voters first is an important practice, as our community must demonstrate how quickly we are advancing policies that put voters first. <br/><br/>Progress on many important issues — from women's suffrage to gay marriage — <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-pace-of-social-change/" target="_blank">has often started slowly, and then happened all at once</a>. This year promises to serve as a potential inflection point that can begin to rapidly accelerate the progress being made. With some new wins on the board, we could be on the precipice of repeating a scale of meaningful change to our democracy not seen since the progressive era. </p>
From Your Site Articles
- Revamp House's election method? Consider the last Parliament vote. ›
- Why ranked-choice voting should be a part of the coronavirus ›
- Ranked-choice voting has momentum and a track record of success ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Microphones were set up outside the Supreme Court on Monday, when the justices ruled unanimously that states may punish "faithless electors."
Faithless electors decision does little to address democracy's ills
Jul 08 2020
Sarat is a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
<p>This week the Supreme Court did something that in recent years has become extraordinary: It issued a unanimous decision in a high-profile case — and also the one getting the most attention from those worried about our dysfunctional democracy this year.</p><p>The unanimity aside, however, the ruling was much ado about an important but relatively narrow flaw in the system. And it obscured some serious and continuing worries about the court, the current political climate and our electoral democracy.</p><p>The court said states could impose penalties on so-called faithless electors. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia require members of the Electoral College to pledge they will vote for the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in their jurisdiction. </p><p>A faithless elector is one who violates that pledge and claims the right to substitute personal judgment in casting electoral votes. However, 16 states and D.C. impose no penalties on such electors for violating their promise. And most have no way of preventing an elector from acting in such a manner. The laws of five states provide a financial penalty, and 13 allow a wayward vote to be cancelled.</p><p>In the whole history of the country, there have been just 180 faithless electors out of more than 23,000 votes cast. But the outcomes in five previous elections, and as recently as 2000, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/us/electoral-college-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Alert&pgtype=Homepage" target="_blank">could have been changed</a> by a swing of only 10 electors. </p><p>Four years ago, 10 of them <a href="https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors" target="_blank">voted or attempted to vote</a> for a candidate different from the person to whom they were pledged. Eight were Democrats. Two were Republicans. </p><p>Some voted for Colin Powell for president and hoped to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/19/us/elections/electoral-college-results.html" target="_blank">encourage</a> an Electoral College rebellion in states won by Donald Trump. They wanted others to follow their example and deny him an electoral vote majority. Washington fined one $1,000 and Colorado replaced another on the state's electoral college slate.</p><p>Such efforts are mere band-aids on a larger wound -- one that requires far more serious attention. </p><p>The decision in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf" target="_blank">Chiafalo v. Washington</a> remedied the problem of electors who would cast ballots according to whim. But it is not much of a victory for democracy, nor does it correct the Supreme Court's anti-democratic record over the past 15 years under Chief Justice John Roberts. </p><p>During oral argument, the electors' lawyers made the rather strange <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/19-465_c0n2.pdf" target="_blank">argument</a> that instructing members of the Electoral College to vote in a particular way, and penalizing them for using their own judgment, were incompatible with democratic values.</p><p>Justice Elena Kagan decisively repudiated that argument in her majority opinion. She noted that in long-established democratic practice "presidential electors became trusty transmitters of other people's decisions." That "reflects a tradition more than two centuries old," she wrote. "In that practice, electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the state's voters have chosen." </p><p>She said the <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xii" target="_blank">12th Amendment</a>, which has governed the presidential election process since 1804, "embraced this new reality— both acknowledging and facilitating the Electoral College's emergence as a mechanism not for deliberation but for party-line voting." </p><p>And she concluded that this reality accords not only with the Constitution but also "with the trust of a nation that here, We the People rule."</p><p>This encomium to popular sovereignty and Monday's ruling do not mean that the Supreme Court will now provide needed help in the urgent work of defending our electoral process. </p><p>Patching defects in the Electoral College cannot compensate for the Roberts Court's string of decisions that compounded the already serious problems confronting the American political system. Included in that list are <a data-linked-post="2636209592" href="https://thefulcrum.us/citizens-united" target="_blank">Citizens United v. FEC</a>, which <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/#tab-opinion-1963051" target="_blank">opened the door</a> in 2010 to big money influence in elections; <a data-linked-post="2636706724" href="https://thefulcrum.us/shelby-county-v-holder" target="_blank">Shelby County v. Holder</a>, which in 2013 <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/529/#tab-opinion-1970752" target="_blank">gutted</a> the protections afforded by the 1965 Voting Rights Act; and Ruchio v. Common Cause, last year's <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf" target="_blank">turning back</a> of all challenges in federal court to partisan gerrymandering. </p><p>As District Judge Lynn Adelman recently <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3540318" target="_blank">noted</a>, the Roberts Court's "hard right majority is actively participating in undermining American democracy."</p><p>Much needs to be done to translate Kagan's words about popular rule into a meaningful program for repairing and restoring our democracy. </p><p>That work starts by addressing the looming problems of the 2020 election, from <a href="https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/" target="_blank">voter suppression</a> to the absence of <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/30/politics/what-matters-may-29/index.html" target="_blank">vote by mail</a> options in many states. And given this nation's <a href="https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/07/30/2020-partisan-divide-austin-sarat" target="_blank">deep political divisions</a>, action needs to be taken to prevent supporters of the losing candidate from trying to get enough electors to deviate from the popular vote to throw the election to the candidate who lost that vote. </p><p>Scholars and commentators are already contemplating such <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/how-trump-could-lose-election-still-remain-president-opinion-1513975" target="_blank">doomsday scenarios</a>. They point to the very real prospect that Trump may lose and yet try to cling to power. One scenario highlights the possible effort to get Republican-controlled legislatures to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/17/us-election-2020-rogue-electors-supreme-court" target="_blank">appoint</a> Republican electors in states carried by former Vice President Joe Biden.</p><p>Legislatures must act expeditiously to forestall such efforts. The 18 states that do not now require their electors to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner should do so before November. States which do not impose any penalty for non-compliance should do so as well. </p><p>However, neither the faithless elector decision nor those reforms addresses the fundamental problems of the Electoral College itself, including its association with <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/" target="_blank">the defense of slavery</a> and with an anti-democratic strain of American politics. As George Mason of Virginia, one of its early defenders, <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_717.asp" target="_blank">explained</a>, the Electoral College was needed because the people did not "have the requisite capacity to judge the respective pretensions of the candidates."</p><p>It is time to repudiate that view and <a href="https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/supreme-court-unanimously-rules-states-may-require-presidential-electors-be-faithful" target="_blank">close</a> the Electoral College. As former South Bend., Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/448510-buttigieg-doubles-down-on-scrapping-electoral-college-its-undemocratic" target="_blank">observed</a> during his presidential campaign, "Most Americans, of any party, ought to be able to get on board with the idea that one person, one vote, counting equally, is the fairest way to choose our president."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Four arguments defending the Electoral College are all wrong - The ... ›
- Faithlessness is the least of Electoral college's problems - The Fulcrum ›
- High court says states can require electors to be faithful - The Fulcrum ›
- Allow us to punish faithless electors, nearly half the states ask ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Gerrymandering in Pennsylvania
Gerrymandered Pennsylvanians seeking a redress of their grievances
Jul 07 2020
Kuniholm is chairwoman of Fair Districts PA, created four years ago by other good-government groups in Pennsylvania to end partisanship in drawing of the state's legislative and congressional maps.
<p>The Fourth of July commemorates the abiding right of the governed to alter or abolish any form of government that ignores the people's voice. The Declaration of Independence, signed 244 years ago last week, lists repeated injuries and usurpations that deprived the colonists of a voice in the establishment of laws, concluding: "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuries."</p><p>Supporters of redistricting reform considered those words over the holiday weekend with sadness. Some of us have spent 30 years asking for redress of an unfair redistricting process and an increasingly intransigent legislature. </p><p>More recently, we have attempted every lawful avenue of request, petitioning our representatives in Harrisburg in every way we know — with meetings, calls, emails, letters, postcards, op-eds, billboards, radio ads, petitions and resolutions of support. All have been met with silence, or with empty statements of support by those who could schedule a vote or easily move this reform forward.</p><p>Many members of the General Assembly, from both sides of the aisle, applaud and affirm our efforts. They know that the current system puts far too much power in the hands of just a few leaders — allowing men (they are all men) elected by a tiny fraction of the state's voters to draw district lines, set the legislative agenda and lock out any voice of dissent. </p><p>Those who hold the levers of power have ignored or blocked our continued petitions. </p><p>I write this on behalf of 70 members of the Fair Districts PA team. In the past month we have sent letters signed by hundreds of constituents to the Republicans who run the Senate, Joe Scarnati and Jake Corman, and Chairman John DiSanto of the Senate's State Government Committee. No response.</p><p>We have asked the new speaker of the House, Republican Bryan Cutler, and Chairman Garth Everett of that chamber's State Government Committee for a vote on bills. But we have received no assistance and no acknowledgement of the pressing deadline, which has now passed, for enacting this reform. </p><p>Thousands of Fair Districts PA supporters have now seen how arbitrary and unresponsive our Legislature has become.</p><p>Dozens of us have asked legislators for meetings and had no acknowledgment of the request. </p><p>Dozens have contacted legislators only to be told: "I'll let you know if I have questions. I see no reason to meet."</p><p>Dozens have met with legislators who say "this is a Democrat bill" or "you're a Democrat group" — both statements are untrue — as if that negates the request or absolves them of the need to consider its merits.</p><p>And most of us have been told the following don't matter: </p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Our number of cosponsors, the most of any bills in this or the last session.</li><li>The local resolutions supporting us, representing more than 70 percent of the population.</li><li>Our more than 100,00 petition signers.</li><li>The polling consistently showing more than two-thirds of voters support a citizens commission to take the place of the Legislature in drawing election district boundaries.</li></ul><p>We've watched with sadness as bills introduced with one or two sponsors speed through both chambers without public comment, expert testimony or any evidence of public support.</p><p>We've listened with sadness as friendly legislators explain that "The bills that move are the ones leaders choose. It has nothing to do with what voters want."</p><p>We grieve as fellow supporters turn away in disgust, with the sad refrain, "Why bother?"</p><p>Our government is in a dangerous place: unaccountable, unresponsive, deeply divided, less and less able to hear the voices of those it promises to serve. </p><p>Unless our legislators return this summer, it is now too late to amend the state Constitution and institute an independent commission for legislative redistricting in time for 2021. But there are other possible remedies: strong guardrails on the current redistricting processes, immediate attention to legislative rules that put far too much power in the hands of too few leaders.</p><p>But this is what we want most: A change of heart, a course correction in the halls of Harrisburg. The voices of all voters should matter to every legislator — not just the the party faithful in a handful of leaders' home districts. </p><div></div><p>Until this changes, nothing changes.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Partisan maps hurt children, liberal group claims - The Fulcrum ›
- David Thornburgh, taking the family business a new way - The ... ›
- CAP report: gerrymandering prevented gun control laws - The Fulcrum ›
- A father-daughter film underscores states' rights to bar partisan maps ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
10'000 Hours/Getty Images
We must be willing to consider others' viewpoints if we're going to get through the pandemic together, write Levison and Fersh.
4 principles to guide us past our Covid crisis divisions
Jul 06 2020
Levison directs Minnesota's Office of Collaboration and Dispute Resolution, a government mediator. Fersh founded and remains senior advisor of Convergence, a nonpartisan group that incubates cross-partisan deliberations on pressing national policy questions.
<p>Several polls show that the public may be more aligned on managing the novel coronavirus than what is playing out in public debate. For sure, surges in Covid-19 infections in some states have exacerbated the partisan bickering over response measures. The country is experiencing fierce partisan debates on how much to open up the economy, the value of masks and who is responsible for and at fault for what.</p>
<p>Often in the past, the silver lining of a crisis is that it brings people together. So why isn't this crisis, especially now when our country seems so divided, uniting us as we might hope? And what can we do about it?</p>
<p>At this moment, many among us fear that our choice is uncomfortably stark: Either we all stay home and avert larger-scale loss of life but lose our livelihoods, or we all go to work and restore the economy but increase the number of lives lost. Conflicts like these lead us to think in "either/or" terms and often result in heated disagreement or gridlock. There is a better way to deal with the current debates and the myriad economic, health and other impacts from the pandemic that we will be addressing for years to come. </p>
<p>It is appropriate for the public and experts to have differing ideas about how to solve urgent and complex issues. The trouble arises when we stop believing we have shared goals and values — and when we lack the trusting relationships to bridge the divides. Conflict itself isn't a problem; the key for our democracy is how we deal with it.</p><p>We can all agree we need to honor the important goals of keeping people healthy and fostering a strong economy. The devil is in the details. As we all grapple with Covid-19, here are four guiding principles based on our experience leading multiple consensus building projects involving people with different backgrounds and points of view.</p><p><strong>Focus on shared goals and values. </strong> Although individuals and groups hold different positions, they are generally motivated by the same big picture goals (such as health and a strong economy) and core values (such as fairness, responsibility, freedom and compassion). The issue is not about different goals and values; it's about finding the right balance among them to address the current challenge. </p><p><strong>Put yourself in the shoes of others.</strong> To identify mutually acceptable solutions, understand the needs and interests of the other side. Ask open-ended questions and listen to others' viewpoints rather than immediately preparing a rebuttal. Consider the most reasonable arguments of the other side and don't overreact to messengers who are overly strident and not representative of the whole group.</p><p><strong>Devise integrative solutions</strong><em><strong>. </strong></em> Listen well to understand the other side's needs and then collaborate to develop creative solutions that include the most important needs of everyone involved. These solutions may require some give and take, but the goal here is not to find split-the-difference answers but rather "win-win" solutions that don't compromise fundamental principles. These solutions will not only be more acceptable to all parties but will often be stronger and more comprehensive. </p><p><strong>Give others the benefit of the doubt. </strong> Very few people get up in the morning wondering, "How can I make the world a worse place today?" Most people, most of the time, care about how to make the world better. To solve a problem with others, it is essential to look for and connect with the goodness in them. </p><p>Based on extensive experience bridging divides on complex and polarizing issues, we know the principles we recommend work. They are deeply needed now at the federal, state and local levels. For those who want assistance in deploying them, there are people throughout the country trained in mediation and related skills who can help.</p><p>With so much at stake today, we need to see the value of engaging differing viewpoints to solve challenging issues, recognize that we share values with most people with whom we disagree, and foster relationships in spite of differences. </p><p>This may be the only way to generate wise and durable solutions to our most pressing problems.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less