Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Reform in 2021: Campaign Legal Center looks to fortify voting and election processes

Campaign Legal Center staff

The staff at the Campaign Legal Center will be working to revise the Electoral Count Act.

Casey Atkins/Campaign Legal Center

This is the second installment of an ongoing Q&A series.

As Democrats take power in Washington, if only tenuously, many democracy reform groups see a potential path toward making the American political system work better. In this installment, Corey Goldstone, communications manager for the Campaign Legal Center, answers our questions about 2020 accomplishments and plans for the year ahead. His organization works to achieve voting, campaign finance and redistricting reforms through litigation. Goldstone's responses have been edited for clarity and length.


First, let's briefly recap 2020. What was your biggest triumph last year?

The Campaign Legal Center successfully advocated for nonpartisan voting reforms to encourage broader participation and a more inclusive democracy. As a result, America turned out to vote in record numbers in 2020. Braving the dual challenges of a viral pandemic and civil unrest, hardworking election officials stood shoulder to shoulder to finish the vote count and certify the results, despite intense pressure from Donald Trump to circumvent election procedures.

Major legal victories in our voting rights litigation paved the way for safe and secure access to absentee voting and a higher degree of confidence that states would not reject ballots for arbitrary reasons like handwriting in voter signatures.

CLC also played a leading role — along with our partners in the National Task Force on Election Crises — in educating lawmakers, the media and the public about the limited role of state legislatures and the vice president in the vote certification process.

And your biggest setback?

Trump was an existential threat to democracy in 2020. He used his megaphone in 2020 to convince many of his supporters that the election was stolen, despite all evidence to the contrary. In the final weeks before the election, only 37 percent of Americans expressed confidence that the election would be held fairly. Countering cynicism and conspiracy theories with facts has become increasingly challenging.

While it's a relief that a violent attempt to prevent the counting of the Electoral College votes in our presidential election failed, the fact it was encouraged by the president and attempted by the crowds he summoned to Washington reflects a deeper decay in public confidence in our democracy.

What is one learning experience you took from 2020?

We have a resilient system of safeguards in place in which ballots are validated and counted. Our elections are highly decentralized and election administrators are qualified officials who take their jobs seriously. We have a duty as Americans to accept the results of elections, even if the candidate we supported does not win. Many officials in key positions resisted pressure from Trump and recognized their obligation to the country.

Now let's look ahead. What issues will your organization prioritize in 2021?

We need to advance voting rights, strengthen ethics laws, curtail partisan gerrymandering and decrease the influence of wealthy special interests in our political system. These are reforms that an overwhelming majority of Americans — across the political spectrum — view as popular.

The vote certification process was abused by bad-faith partisans to the point where the country narrowly avoided a constitutional crisis. The Electoral Count Act should be substantially revised to provide constraints on the permissible grounds for objecting to a state's appointment of presidential electors or the votes cast by those electors.

How will Democratic control of the federal government change the ways you work toward your goals?

If passed, HR 1 would enact one of the most comprehensive improvements our democracy has seen in decades.

What do you think will be your biggest challenge moving forward? And how do you plan to tackle it?

The splintering of American media consumption makes it challenging to educate the public about election mechanics to foster trust in the process. We need to make sure we are talking to voters that distrust mainstream media.

Finish the sentence. In two years, American democracy will ...

be more transparent, inclusive and accountable to the people.


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less