Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Carter Center details its first oversight of an American election

Jimmy Carter in Sudan as an election monitor

Jimmy Carter has led election monitoring efforts all around the world, including Sudan in 2010 — but never in the United States until now.

Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images

CLARIFICATION: The headline and story were updated Oct. 18 to more accurately reflect the group's plans.

The Carter Center, which Jimmy Carter started after his presidency in part to assure fair elections in the developing world, is making explicit its plan for watchdogging an American contest for the first time.

The organization has unveiled one video explaining the basics of voting rights and balloting logistics, and another video encouraging patience if the presidential result is not known soon after the voting stops in 19 days because millions of mailed ballots will still need to be counted. It's working to help states and counties nationwide improve voter education and election transparency. And it's finalizing arrangements for "targeted observation efforts" mainly in Georgia, where the center is headquartered and which has a history of voter suppression and controversy over results tabulation.

The details underscore the degree of concern by human rights organizations about the adequacy of months of preparation for a safe and comprehensive Election Day that yields trustworthy results.


The Carter Center has monitored 111 elections in 39 countries since the 1980s and decided after the party conventions in August that the presidential contest merited something similar, citing a "backsliding" of American democracy that started a decade ago and has accelerated during the Trump administration.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

"We've focused on places where democracy is either poised to take a step forward or in danger of taking a step backward," the head of the nonprofit's democracy program, David Carroll, wrote last week in sketching some of the coming efforts on the center's website. He said the nations where election observers have gone before almost all have domestic stresses similar to those in the United States now: "Countries characterized by political polarization, ethnic or racial divisions and fears that election results won't be accepted or seen as credible."

Since the center made the decision only six weeks ago, it decided it would be too ambitious to deploy volunteer observers at polling places — in part because that would require getting permission from as many as 10,000 election administering jurisdictions, many of which would likely resist on the grounds that the monitors would have partisan bias because the former president is a Democrat.

President Trump, who is trailing in the polls to former Vice President Joe Biden, has repeatedly questioned the integrity of the election and refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he's defeated — mainly by alleging, without evidence, that an unprecedented use of absentee ballots in response to the coronavirus pandemic will assure widespread fraud.

Carter co-chaired a bipartisan commission that in 2005 described mail-in ballots as the easiest way to commit election fraud. But in May he announced he had changed his mind because the steady expansion in remote voting, and improved ballot security, had proved the process almost immune to cheating.

The former president reiterated that view last month after both Attorney General William Barr and the White House cited the 15-year-old report in efforts to discredit the practice. "I approve the use of absentee ballots and have been using them for more than five years," Carter said.

Part of the Carter Center's work this fall has been collaborating with the National Vote at Home Instituted on a report on how local election officials can make the absentee ballot process more transparent — and with the National Conference of State Legislatures on a report explaining election observer rules in all 50 states.

The other nations where Carter elections teams are working this fall are Côte d'Ivoire, Myanmar and Bolivia.

Carter turned 96 two weeks ago and is the oldest person ever to have been president. He was defeated by Ronald Reagan after a single term in 1980 and he and his wife, Rosalynn, started the humanitarian, peacekeeping and global democracy promotion organization two years later.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less