Evidence-based policy-making ASBC is a network of businesses and business associations committed to the triple bottom line. To change public policy, we advocate for legislation that supports sustainability, equity, and justice – from a business perspective.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Sen. Mike Lee (left) and Speaker Mike Johnson conduct a news conference May 8 to introduce the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Bill of the month: Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act
Jul 25, 2024
Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.
Last month, we looked at a bill to prohibit noncitizens from voting in Washington D.C. To continue the voting rights theme, this month IssueVoter and BillTrack50 are taking a look at the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.
IssueVoter is a nonpartisan, nonprofit online platform dedicated to giving everyone a voice in our democracy. As part of its service, IssueVoter summarizes important bills passing through Congress and sets out the opinions for and against the legislation, helping us to better understand the issues.
BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.
We took a deep dive into the SAVE Act, which would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections. The bill defines what constitutes acceptable documentary proof of citizenship, such as a REAL ID-compliant identification card, U.S. passport or birth certificate. It would require states to implement a program to verify the citizenship status of individuals seeking to register to vote, and it would provide federal agencies with processes to assist states in confirming citizenship. If enacted, the bill would impose criminal penalties for election officials who register noncitizens to vote.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states have introduced voter ID laws that require or request voters to present ID at the polls, but what's different here is that the SAVE Act imposes a more stringent test at the point of registration, as there are few forms of ID that also prove citizenship. Only about 48 percent of U.S. citizens have a passport, according to State Department data. And few people have a birth certificate handy. Driver’s licenses and tribal ID cards typically do not prove a person’s citizenship and probably couldn’t be used to register under the SAVE Act.
Read the IssueVoter analysis of the bill.
Restoring faith in U.S. elections?
The illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 makes it unlawful for noncitizens to vote in federal elections (including for the House of Representative, Senate and president), and imposes a penalty of up to year in prison for violators. It makes them ineligible to receive visas, ineligible to be admitted to the United States and deportable. So why does the bill's sponsor, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), feel the bill is necessary?
"Secure elections are a key cornerstone for any representative government; without them, we won't have a country. Radical progressive Democrats know this and are using open border policies while also attacking election integrity laws to fundamentally remake America. ... [W]e must end the practice of noncitizens voting in our elections,” said Roy.
Other Republicans also cited voting by immigrants living in the country illegally to justify the new law. "Illegal immigrants and noncitizens across the nation are being improperly registered to vote, allowing them to cast illegitimate ballots in federal elections,” said Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who has companion legislation in the Senate.
An attack on voting rights?
Those opposing the bill aren't buying it. "Despite numerous recounts, challenges in court, and deep-dives by conservative think-tanks, there has been zero evidence of the widespread fraud that this bill purports to target," said House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.). In fact, according to The Associated Press, states such as North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, California and Texas reviewed their voter rolls between 2016 and 2022. These audits found that fewer than 50 noncitizens in each state had voted in recent elections, out of upwards of 23 million total votes per state.
"This bill would do nothing to safeguard our elections, but it would make it much harder for all eligible Americans to register to vote and increase the risk that eligible voters are purged from voter rolls. The evidence is clear that the current laws to prevent noncitizen voting are working as intended—it is extraordinarily rare for noncitizens to break the law by voting in Federal elections," reads a Statement of Administration Policy issued by the White House.
The experience of Texas illustrates potential pitfalls with attempting to verify citizenship. In 2019, the Texas Secretary of State David Whitley flagged 95,000 registered voters as potential noncitizens and attempted to check their status. The efforts prompted multiple lawsuits and ended with his resignation after it emerged that tens of thousands of names on the list were legitimate citizens.
Will the bill pass?
Despite these issues, the SAVE Act passed out of the House on July 10 by a vote of 221-198. Five Democrats — Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (N.C.), Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez (Wash.), Jared Golden (Maine), and Vicente Gonzalez (Texas) — joined all Republicans in pushing the legislation over the line. It is unlikely to progress further through the Democratic-controlled Senate, and President Joe Biden has promised to veto the bill should it reach his desk.
It is, though, another indication of how the clash between election integrity and voting rights will continue to be a hot topic in this election year. Expect to see the SAVE Act in ads and other election messages in a state near you very soon, with Republicans claiming that Democrats opposing the bill want to allow illegal immigrants to vote and Democrats responding that the bill merely seeks to make it harder for legitimate voters to cast their ballot.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Don’t Miss Out
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
gustavofrazao/Getty Images
Progress comes from supporting community-based, multiracial democracy
Jul 24, 2024
Nowlin, who served on the board of the Surdna Foundation, advises family foundations as the principal of KDN Philanthropy Consulting. Riley is the executive director and secretary of the board of trustees of the Rx Foundation.
Many of us have spent our philanthropic careers devoted to making tangible change on issues — health care, climate, economic security and more — but have seen limited progress or even years of work rolled back as democracy slips. A collective commitment to supporting a community-based, multiracial democratic practice is needed to sustain it. In light of this, the grant-making community faces a big and admittedly daunting task.
Democracy is the system that creates pathways for people to act collectively, to hold leaders and institutions accountable and to fight for the change they want to see in the world. We need to think beyond tactics that yield only short-term wins, to our role in supporting communities so that they can set their own priorities, innovate on strategy and deliver on a long-term vision for change on the issues that affect their daily lives.
Fortunately, the essential work of shifting philanthropic practice toward supporting democratic systems is already well underway. A re-energized focus on community organizing is disrupting the status quo and creating the conditions for an inclusive multiracial democracy that can withstand the significant challenges of our time. The foundation of this theory is as old as humankind: the importance of relationships.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
It’s the connections that people make with each other that build a sense of agency in individuals, create a feeling of collective power, and enable people to wield their power together to make life better and bring about the kind of world they want to live in.
We are part of a learning and funding collective, the Democracy & Power Innovation Fund, that is in its fifth year of learning directly alongside and from frontline community leaders and organizers. The lessons learned collaboratively from this work can help to guide philanthropy's role in bolstering the understanding, theory and practice of community power-building. In this work together, we are guided by four core beliefs:
1. Support locally led groups in building their ability to organize and wield power.
Independent, state-based groups, many with young Black or Latino leadership, are showing that change is possible through democratic practice. For example, it took more than a decade, but LUCHA in Arizona proved it can turn new and infrequent voters into long-term participants in the democratic process. Together, they have stopped anti-immigrant legislation and passed ballot initiatives to increase the minimum wage and provide sick leave, end predatory collection practices on medical debt, and provide in-state college tuition for undocumented students — wins that are making a huge difference in the lives of everyday people.
What keeps LUCHA grounded is the listening sessions the group did with 1,700 of its members. The members were not simply polled and then dismissed. They were invited to meetings at other members’ homes for food and conversation and to share stories that became LUCHA’s People First Economy agenda. Then, LUCHA invited people to actually lead the campaign work that was necessary to advance that agenda as volunteer leaders.
2. Support experimentation and learning to improve strategy and practice. Funders need to expand our understanding and use of metrics, moving away from what is easiest to count and toward co-defining what is meaningful for impact.
In evaluating civic engagement programs, some in philanthropy have borrowed the metrics of the political industry — that is, numbers of door knocks, digital impressions, headcounts at rallies and so forth. While numbers are important, a focus solely on numbers leads funders to overlook other measures that are defined and leveraged by frontline groups.
The experience of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative is a case in point. In 2016 and 2018, this independent power-building organization registered more people to vote than the state political parties. Despite this stunning accomplishment, OCC’s co-executive directors felt they were not winning actual material change for everyday Ohioans, including their young and Black constituents. They studied how organizers were spending their time and decided to redirect their energy toward bringing in more volunteers, developing the leadership of those volunteers, and deepening the relationships and the commitments members made with each other.
This experimentation allowed OOC to build the power of its membership. In the years that followed, they helped win significant victories on police reform, school funding, maternal health, child care and democracy reforms. The group continues to punch above its weight — and continues to achieve impressive numbers in reaching new and infrequent voters across the state. Relationships and friends-and-family organizing are the key: In the month leading up to the 2022 elections, one family in Cincinnati recruited more than 1,000 volunteers who made sure that more than 20,000 people were registered and voted.
3. Support unrestricted, multi-year funding that spans off-election years. Democratic systems and practices must be nurtured every year, whether a major election is coming up or not.
Many in philanthropy support civic engagement, voting rights and get-out-the-vote efforts in election years, then cease this funding in non-election years. Art Reyes III of We the People in Michigan calls this approach “building sandcastles.” He states: “Boom-and-bust funding creates transient campaigns that are not sturdy. They're not ours. And they're very easily washed away after election day.”
One example of this core belief in practice is Voces de la Frontera in Wisconsin, which builds the leadership of Latino and immigrant workers in rural areas year-round, including dairy workers, meat packing workers and other essential workers. Among other things, Voces provides worker safety trainings, citizenship and ESL classes, and trains super volunteers, known as voceros, who advocate for workers and help people who are eligible to register and vote.
By offering services and mutual aid, voceros build trust and relationships, which make it possible for folks in this community to have each other’s backs when it comes time for collective action and fighting for change. These efforts require resources year-round, particularly in off-election years when grassroots groups can place more focus on capacity-building, relational strategies, as well as rest, replenishment and well-being.
4. Be curious about the diversity of needs, values and worldviews within Black, Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islander and Native communities.
For decades, the civic engagement industry has been endlessly curious about white voters (e.g., suburban soccer moms, NASCAR dads) and their worldviews. But very little research has been done to understand people of color and the values and mindsets that drive their political engagement. Black, Latino, AAPI and Native people have been targeted to benefit the political industry for someone else’s power, rather than agents who need to be understood and engaged to support their perspectives and collective power.
Right now, state-based power-building groups are working with national researchers, including Katrina Gamble of Sojourn Strategies and Terrance Woodbury of HIT Strategies, to conduct first-of-its-kind research that is allowing them to understand Black voters and the diversity of their values and political motivations. These learnings will enable frontline groups to build data-informed programs to reach different segments or values clusters of Black voters through relational, year-round organizing, and innovations in door-to-door canvassing that include urban and rural settings.
Earlier phases of this research found a direct correlation between a Black person’s feelings of power and their level of civic engagement, including voting. As the researchers explained, “When Black people feel powerful, they vote. When they feel powerless, they don’t.” Similar values research is necessary across all communities of color, if we are serious about prioritizing multiracial democratic practice.
No sector can meet the moment our country faces alone, but no sector can shrink from its responsibility. Philanthropy has an important role to play in promoting, supporting and realizing the goal of a community-based, multiracial democratic practice. If member- and relationship-based community organizations have the resources to build and sustain a multiracial democracy, more progress can be made on the issues at the center of our philanthropic missions.
Keep ReadingShow less
mscornelius/Getty Images
We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot
Jul 24, 2024
LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.
The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.
The roots of many contemporary political problems can be found in the Constitution. Its institutions are creaky, and rights that are new or threatened need anchors.
But the roots of these problems also extend to the people and principles beneath the structures and rights secured by the Constitution. Sure, changing term lengths across all three branches of government or advancing voting rights are worthy amendment topics. It is critical, however, that we re-embrace the fundamental role we citizens have.
This is why “We the People” — the heart of the Constitution — matter most. We are still the ones who elect our representatives, senators (after the 17th Amendment in 1913) and the president (sort of, via the Electoral College).
The framers weren’t flawless, but they deserve credit for creating a government that confronts how bad humans can be. The separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism may be frustrating, but they prevent power from being consolidated and more easily abused, a risk the framers knew would be perpetual.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Paradoxically, they also understood that our public officials must be good — virtuous, as they asserted repeatedly — if our democracy is to work as intended. Yet we citizens remain the only ones who can put malignant or malicious perpetrators into office. Can we reduce this complementary risk? Yes, with these four steps:
First, vote. But don’t stop there. A constitutional democracy asks more of us, particularly in the 21st century, when performative partisanship, misinformation and disinformation prevail. Foreign policy expert Richard Haass called our deteriorating civic life the greatest security threat facing the nation. In “The Bill of Obligations,” he described 10 “habits of good citizens” that each of us can do to strengthen America, including staying informed, getting involved, valuing norms and supporting civics education. Our “[c]ollective identity” he said, “is a matter of teaching, not biology.”
Second, dial back the animosity toward those with whom we disagree.It’s an old saw, and easier said than done, but disagreeing agreeably is as necessary as it is laudable. We need to remind our representatives to rediscover this lost art, too. That means changing their incentives from appealing to a narrow, primary electoral base while restoring their constitutional role of bargaining, negotiation and compromise. Yuval Levin clarifies in his latest book, “American Covenant,” how a diverse nation must use this fundamental, Madisonian approach to govern itself. He also emphasizes that national unity is less about what we think and more about what we do.
Third, refresh our appreciation for the full range of principles expressed in our constitutional structure, which might best be accomplished by reading “The Pursuit of Happiness” by the National Constitution Center’s president, Jeffrey Rosen. The philosophies and values beneath the service, citizenship and representation that shaped the founders’ thinking when they crafted the Constitution are considered classical for a reason; in Rosen’s hands, they come alive. He vibrantly shows how the founders tapped the work of great thinkers, from Cicero and Epictetus to Hume and Locke, to conceive the nation’s constitutional design. Their perspectives on restraint, moderation, humility and other traits are surprisingly resonant for re-anchoring our public morals today.
Lastly, recognize that we are all reformers, whether active or passive. As the artist Georgia O’Keeffe said in 1981, reflecting on moving to and living in northwestern New Mexico, “When you start making a home, it is difficult to stop changing it, imagining it different.”
It may be trite to equate our government or nation with a residence, and odder still to do so by citing an introverted artist. But few analogies work better. We are individually and collectively building and living in a home called America. We may disagree about small matters, say a paint color, or large matters, perhaps a renovation. But we need to agree about the largest matters, such as fixing leaky roofs, broken door hinges and cracked foundations.
And then there is how we treat those residing in the other rooms. Suggesting that “We the People” need a civic reboot is not a slur against any or all of us; it simply places us where we belong — at the center of our country, our government, our home — and evokes our responsibility of “imagining it different.” The cyclical waves or spirals that bring change don’t happen unless we use our imagination.
So keep at it, America. O’Keeffe captured the essence of human striving to better our world. Perhaps more than her artwork, her civic wisdom can inspire us all.
Keep ReadingShow less
Wikimedia
The Supreme Court and the rule of law
Jul 24, 2024
Rikleen is executive director ofLawyers Defending American Democracy and the editor of “Her Honor – Stories of Challenge and Triumph from Women Judges.”
Events are now occurring at a breathtaking pace that leaves us in a perpetual cycle of breaking news and ramped-up emotions. Yet, within this maelstrom, our north star must be the rule of law — and protecting it when endangered.
The rule of law is endangered when a presidential candidate is nearly assassinated at his own rally by a 20-year-old armed with a semi-automatic rifle, whose accuracy killed a father shielding his family. It is further endangered by those who use this tragedy for political advantage, casting blame in the absence of a known motive as to why an unstable young man with access to a gun wreaked havoc on the country.
Each time the rule of law is weakened, our country becomes further at risk.
The very foundation of the rule of law rests on the public’s trust and confidence in our justice system. In the past two weeks, that confidence and trust has been shaken to its core. After another term featuring a series of sweeping decisions demonstrating broad judicial overreach, the Supreme Court has now demonstrated that the public can no longer place its trust and confidence in this court’s decisions.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In its most recent departure from the norms and principles that have guided the court historically, the radical Roberts majority decided that a president is essentially immune from prosecution. In a decision that went much further than it needed to go, but not far enough to provide any guidance for the lower courts, the majority abandoned a fundamental principle that courts must decide the facts that are before it, not the facts that judges and justices want.
Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts crafted a decision to match the majority’s ideology, which is extreme.
It is a misnomer to refer to the Roberts majority as conservative, as commentators often do. This country has lived through courts that expressed both traditionally liberal and traditionally conservative ideologies for decades. Rather, the Roberts majority represents an extreme viewpoint that violates centuries of constitutional principles in its decisions.
The court’s decisions have also done a disservice to the vast majority of lower federal court judges who daily seek to uphold the ideals of our justice system in a reasoned framework, based on precedent and the facts before them.
And that leads to the decision by one lower court judge who has embraced the openings that the Supreme Court created to issue rulings — or otherwise fail to do so – when it suited an agenda. After slow-walking the classified documents criminal case against former President Donald Trump for more than a year, Judge Aileen Cannon has now dismissed it entirely.
In doing so, Cannon has finally succeeded in what has seemed to have been her goal from the outset: Delay the case and deny any effort to seek justice. Of particular significance in her written ruling, Cannon cites several times Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in the presidential immunity case in which he mused that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment violated the law — an invitation for future litigation that even the radical majority did not include in its decision.
In effect, Thomas set forth a dispiriting call to which Cannon eagerly responded, leaving the rule of law in tatters.
Cannon has now earned her reputation as a radical who, like the Roberts majority, has continually demonstrated adherence to an ideological agenda that is at odds with principles of the rule of law.
None of us, however, can take time for lamenting. We cannot be a bystander to the dismantling of the rule of law and our democratic institutions.
Instead, we must ensure that our justice system survives these difficult times. There are organizations that need your talents, community forums that need your ideas, and myriad ways to serve as a convener and participant in civil discourse that can help reverse the current threats.
We have no other choice but to join together and save the rule of law. The risk is too real for us to think someone else will do the job.
Keep ReadingShow less
C-CSPAN screenshot
Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview
Jul 24, 2024
Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.
Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”
Most recently Breslin has also contributed to The Fulcrum’s 30-part series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross-partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.
While an in-depth analysis of what works and doesn't work in our democracy is a laudable and much-needed task, unfortunately Project 2025 is a biased political report designed to build a case for conservative solutions. The Fulcrum believes that a version of Project 2025 approached from a cross-partisan perspective, void of pre-determined left or right solutions, would serve as a guide for citizens and our elected representatives to ensure the healthy democratic republic we all desire.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Breslin’s interview on C SPAN offered an in-depth overview of the 990-page Project 2025 report and is a much-needed scholarly analysis of the Heritage Foundation’s comprehensive, far-reaching proposal.
In the interview, Breslin discusses the many controversial components of Project 2025, including its neo-isolationist and Christian nationalist temperament. He also discusses what Project 2025 would mean for America and how it promotes a degree of social, racial and religious intolerance. Callers to the show examined topics ranging from foreign aid to DEI policies, the proposed closing of the Department of Education and the reasons former President Donald rump might want to distance himself from the project. Consistent with the mission of The Fulcrum, Breslin tries to find common ground in a polarized and difficult political environment.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More