Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How to separate poll watching from voter intimidation

Contributor Tammy Patrick, a senior advisor at the Democracy Fund, went on NPR on Thursday to explain how one of the mechanics of the election — poll watchers — do their work in most states. Her explanation stood in contrast to what President Trump seemed to be calling for in Tuesday's presidential debate. While warning about potential voter fraud, he asked his supporters to "go into the polls and watch very carefully."

Almost every state has some sort of system set up so political parties can send observers inside polling places, explained Patrick, who was previously an elections official in Maricopa County, Arizona (which includes Phoenix). But there are clear rules and limitations about what these observers can do — how close they can be to voting equipment, who they can talk to and what they can challenge. Poll watchers have to sign up ahead of time and work with election officials, she said.


Trump supporters responding to the president's call are likely to be treated as "electioneers," and that means they'll be restricted from how close they can get to a polling place. If they yell or try to intimidate voters, they'll be breaking the law, Patrick said. It's urgent that election officials have the training to de-escalate potential conflicts, how to report them and where to seek help.

"There is a tactic here that can be used to make sure that individuals start to question whether or not it is safe to even go to the polling place," Patrick said. "Unfortunately, in this moment, we need to make sure that our elections are protected from adversaries, both foreign and domestic."

Listen to Patrick's full interview on All Things Considered last week:


Read more from The Fulcrum's Election Dissection blog or see our full list of contributors.


Read More

Making parties great again, early election results, and timely links

Donkey and elephant

Making parties great again, early election results, and timely links

#1. Deep Dive: Is it Realistic to Make Parties Great Again?

There’s intriguing new energy for advancing party-based forms of proportional representation (PR) in the United States, along with substantial legal efforts to win fusion voting where candidates earn the right to be nominated by more than one party. The underlying theory of the case for this new energy is that American political parties should be both strengthened and allowed to multiply. But is that what either the voters or elected leaders want? Here’s a longer “Deep Think” than usual to explore that question.

First, here’s new evidence of this energy and the intellectual case around stronger parties behind it:

Keep ReadingShow less
A person at a voting booth.

Independent voters now make up the largest voting bloc in the U.S., yet many are excluded from primaries and debates. Why reforming primary elections requires empowering independents.

Getty Images, LPETTET

Empowering Independent Voters Can Fix Primary Elections

Not long ago, almost no one talked about the rules and culture of primary elections. Today, there is a growing recognition that the way we run primary elections isn’t working. They’re too partisan. Too low turnout. Too dominated by ideological activists. My organization, Open Primaries, has spent years pushing this conversation into the mainstream.

But we won’t fix primaries purely by tweaking rules. Their dysfunction is a symptom of a larger problem: the systemic exclusion of independent voters from our political life. To truly reform them, we have to start with an honest discussion about why so many Americans are leaving the parties- and what it would take to empower them as full participants in our democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Liberty and Justice for Some

Stephanie Toliver examines book bans, transgender rights in Kansas, the impacts of ICE detentions, and the history of conditional equality in America’s schools, libraries, and churches.

Getty Images, Catherine McQueen

Liberty and Justice for Some

Late February brought two stories that most Americans filed under separate categories. In Kansas, the state government invalidated the driver's licenses and birth certificates of transgender residents, erasing legal identities with the stroke of a pen. In New York, a Columbia University neuroscience student named Ellie Aghayeva was taken from her campus apartment by federal agents who misrepresented themselves to get through the door and held by ICE until the city's mayor personally petitioned for her release. Different people, different states, different mechanisms. The same message: for some of us, the promises of this nation were always conditional.

And yet, many Americans hold onto the lie of equality because acknowledging the truth would mean that the foundational promise we have repeated since childhood — liberty and justice for all — was never meant for all of us. It is far easier to accept comfortable fictions than to reckon with a truth that destabilizes everything you thought you knew. That meritocracy is real. That all are equal. That the documents we carry and the institutions we enter will protect us the same way they protect everyone else. But for many of us, there was never a fiction to hold onto. We were born into the conditions the lie was designed to obscure.

Keep ReadingShow less
Michael B. Jordan standing next to Delroy Lindo

Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo at the 41st Annual Santa Barbara International Film Festival.

Getty Images, Phillip Faraone

Not OK: Curb Slurs and Hate Speech To Avoid The Monstrous

John Davidson shouted out the n-word while Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo presented a prize recently at the British Academy Film Awards.

Was it hate speech or a mistake made due to a disability?

Keep ReadingShow less