In 2012, Fair Elections Center (formerly Fair Elections Legal Network) launched Campus Vote Project (CVP) to focus and expand its work around student voting issues. CVP works with universities, community colleges, faculty, students and election officials to reduce barriers to student voting. Our goal is to help campuses institutionalize reforms that empower students with the information they need to register and vote.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

In October, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) introduced federal legislation to establish a federal guaranteed income pilot program.
(Zachary Miller/MNS)
As Cities Test Guaranteed Income, Congresswoman Pushes for a Federal Pilot
Dec 05, 2025
In 2018, Moriah Rodriguez was in a car accident that left her with a traumatic brain injury and unable to work. A few years later, she and her four children were on the brink of homelessness when she enrolled in the Denver Basic Income Project.
Rodriguez, who now serves on the DBIP Board of Directors, used the unconditional cash transfers provided through the program to find a place to live and pay off debt. She believes that, if not for the program, her life would be fundamentally different.
“I don’t believe that the way that the system is set up is giving people the opportunity to be successful,” Rodriguez said.
The Denver Basic Income Project is one of many city- and county-wide guaranteed income pilot programs throughout the country. These initiatives, which gained popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, are experimental and provide cash payments to specific groups for a limited time to study their effects.
In October, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) introduced federal legislation to establish a guaranteed-income pilot program. The congresswoman has advocated for the initiative in past legislative sessions, citing rising economic inequality as proof of the program’s necessity.
“The greedy are getting the majority and the needy are becoming even more needy,” Watson Coleman said. “That’s un-American as far as I'm concerned.”
Watson Coleman said that guaranteed income can lessen economic struggle by plainly distributing resources and avoiding government bureaucracy.
Researchers echoed this sentiment. They say cash is flexible, non-paternalistic, and efficient.
“People want guaranteed income to do all the things, right? And that’s really because cash can do all the things,” said Misuzu Schexnider, who works at UChicago’s Inclusive Economy Lab. “It’s really one of the few interventions that can help people achieve their goals, regardless of what the goal is.”
However, Schexnider said that this versatility can make the impact of these programs difficult to measure.
Benjamin Henwood, the director of the Center for Homelessness, Housing and Health Equity Research at USC, expressed a similar concern. In a study exploring the impact of cash distributions to people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Henwood found that while recipients of the transfer were more likely to report not being unhoused, there was no statistically significant change that could be attributed to the cash transfer.
Henwood described the cash transfers as “incremental, not transformational” and said the small amount of money transferred and the short duration of the program might have limited the intervention's statistical efficacy.
Still, the Denver Basic Income Project, which to date has deployed $10.8 million to over 800 families and individuals, found that almost half of participants reported moving into stable independent housing within a year, a decisive success.
And, while the quantitative data from these pilot studies can be a mixed bag, the qualitative stories that these studies gather from participants, like Rodriguez, are “overwhelmingly positive,” Schexnider said.
Both Schexnider and Henwood also emphasized that their findings run counter to the stigma often associated with welfare programs.
Welfare is often mired in a societal belief that equates receiving assistance with personal failure, like laziness or irresponsibility. Some assume that participants will spend the additional money on what Henwood calls “temptation goods,” like drugs or alcohol.
The researchers said these beliefs are simply not true. In fact, Henwood noted that his study was just as much about proving that basic income did not lead to an increase in the purchase of temptation goods as it was about demonstrating the intervention's success.
Meanwhile, in a basic income study conducted by the non-profit OpenResearch, Schexnider said recipients worked fewer hours, but only by a few hours each week. She noted that most spent the additional time on childcare, transportation, or much-needed rest.
“For some in our country and globally, it’s a bit of a convenient myth — convenient for some — to paint people with low income as somehow lazy and deficient. And the data doesn’t bear that out,” said Elizabeth Crowe, the coordinator of the Elevate Boulder Guaranteed Income Program.
These researchers all welcomed the idea of a federal program, but highlighted the necessity for concrete, outcome-driven details in the project’s proposal.
Under the proposed legislation, the federal pilot program would last 3 years, and 10,000 participants would receive a monthly cash payment equal to the fair market rent for a 2-bedroom home in the ZIP Code where they reside. Watson Coleman said she would leave the details, such as who is eligible for the program, to “authentic technicians” or experts in the field.
Part of the researchers’ support stems from the fact that the program is not novel. Aside from initiatives like the Denver Basic Income Project, cash transfers are often considered the standard in charitable giving. And Schexnider said there are already successful federal programs that are essentially cash transfers, such as the Child Tax Credit.
For Gwen Battis, the project manager for the DBIP, the federal pilot program is an “inevitable need.”
“As AI takes jobs, we’re going to need a way to participate in the economy and pay for things,” she said.
In highlighting the effect of AI on employment, Battis hits upon a key driver in the movement for basic income.
Not only is the country experiencing record income inequality, but there are also questions about how artificial intelligence will negatively impact the job market.
Technology executives have indicated that they aspire to create artificial general intelligence, a machine capable of performing all the economically valuable work humans do on a day-to-day basis.
Dario Amodei, the CEO of AI start-up Anthropic, told Axios that AI could soon wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs.
“Most [lawmakers] are unaware that this is about to happen," Amodei said. “It sounds crazy, and people just don’t believe it."
In recent years, Republican lawmakers at the state level have pushed back against guaranteed-income pilot programs.
Legislators in states like Arizona, Iowa, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin have all introduced bills to ban income programs. They say such programs make participants overly reliant on the government.
State Rep. John Gillette of Arizona told Business Insider last year that guaranteed income programs are “socialist” and a “killer for the economy.”
“Is money a birthright now?” Gillette asked. “Do we just get born and get money from the government? Because I think the Founding Fathers would say that is very contrary to our capitalist system and encouraging people to work.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued a county in his state to block a basic income program. In the legal filing, he called the initiative a “socialist experiment” that was an “illegal and illegitimate government overreach.”
While their Republican counterparts in the U.S. Congress have yet to comment directly on the federal basic income bill, they have shown reticence toward more expansive welfare policies.
The House resoundingly passed a resolution on Nov. 21 that denounced the “horrors of socialism.” No Republican lawmaker voted against the measure, and 86 Democrats joined Republicans to approve it.
Some are also skeptical about the practical reality of the basic income proposal and other expansive welfare policies.
In his home state, Grady Lowery, a lecturer at the University of Tennessee, said politicians are actively presenting their state as a haven for those escaping the “socialist” New York and its mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani.
“Not only is there not support for Mamdani here, there’s active fear and hostility towards this kind of socialist dictatorial figure that he represents,” Lowery said.
Lowery said the bill might have potential if the legislators could avoid the “socialist pejorative label,” which they have already garnered.
Watson Coleman is undeterred. The bill is now pending in the House Ways and Means Committee.
“I don't care if we're in this administration that didn't want to shelter, didn't want to feed, and didn't want to give health care to (people),” Watson-Coleman said. “I’m still going to advance my legislation that I think is legitimate work for the federal government to do.”
Sophie Baker covers politics for Medill on the Hill. She is a sophomore from Utah studying journalism and political science at Northwestern University. On campus, she writes for The Daily Northwestern, where she has served as an assistant city editor.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

In October, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) introduced federal legislation to establish a federal guaranteed income pilot program.
(Zachary Miller/MNS)
As Cities Test Guaranteed Income, Congresswoman Pushes for a Federal Pilot
Dec 05, 2025
In 2018, Moriah Rodriguez was in a car accident that left her with a traumatic brain injury and unable to work. A few years later, she and her four children were on the brink of homelessness when she enrolled in the Denver Basic Income Project.
Rodriguez, who now serves on the DBIP Board of Directors, used the unconditional cash transfers provided through the program to find a place to live and pay off debt. She believes that, if not for the program, her life would be fundamentally different.
“I don’t believe that the way that the system is set up is giving people the opportunity to be successful,” Rodriguez said.
The Denver Basic Income Project is one of many city- and county-wide guaranteed income pilot programs throughout the country. These initiatives, which gained popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, are experimental and provide cash payments to specific groups for a limited time to study their effects.
In October, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) introduced federal legislation to establish a guaranteed-income pilot program. The congresswoman has advocated for the initiative in past legislative sessions, citing rising economic inequality as proof of the program’s necessity.
“The greedy are getting the majority and the needy are becoming even more needy,” Watson Coleman said. “That’s un-American as far as I'm concerned.”
Watson Coleman said that guaranteed income can lessen economic struggle by plainly distributing resources and avoiding government bureaucracy.
Researchers echoed this sentiment. They say cash is flexible, non-paternalistic, and efficient.
“People want guaranteed income to do all the things, right? And that’s really because cash can do all the things,” said Misuzu Schexnider, who works at UChicago’s Inclusive Economy Lab. “It’s really one of the few interventions that can help people achieve their goals, regardless of what the goal is.”
However, Schexnider said that this versatility can make the impact of these programs difficult to measure.
Benjamin Henwood, the director of the Center for Homelessness, Housing and Health Equity Research at USC, expressed a similar concern. In a study exploring the impact of cash distributions to people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Henwood found that while recipients of the transfer were more likely to report not being unhoused, there was no statistically significant change that could be attributed to the cash transfer.
Henwood described the cash transfers as “incremental, not transformational” and said the small amount of money transferred and the short duration of the program might have limited the intervention's statistical efficacy.
Still, the Denver Basic Income Project, which to date has deployed $10.8 million to over 800 families and individuals, found that almost half of participants reported moving into stable independent housing within a year, a decisive success.
And, while the quantitative data from these pilot studies can be a mixed bag, the qualitative stories that these studies gather from participants, like Rodriguez, are “overwhelmingly positive,” Schexnider said.
Both Schexnider and Henwood also emphasized that their findings run counter to the stigma often associated with welfare programs.
Welfare is often mired in a societal belief that equates receiving assistance with personal failure, like laziness or irresponsibility. Some assume that participants will spend the additional money on what Henwood calls “temptation goods,” like drugs or alcohol.
The researchers said these beliefs are simply not true. In fact, Henwood noted that his study was just as much about proving that basic income did not lead to an increase in the purchase of temptation goods as it was about demonstrating the intervention's success.
Meanwhile, in a basic income study conducted by the non-profit OpenResearch, Schexnider said recipients worked fewer hours, but only by a few hours each week. She noted that most spent the additional time on childcare, transportation, or much-needed rest.
“For some in our country and globally, it’s a bit of a convenient myth — convenient for some — to paint people with low income as somehow lazy and deficient. And the data doesn’t bear that out,” said Elizabeth Crowe, the coordinator of the Elevate Boulder Guaranteed Income Program.
These researchers all welcomed the idea of a federal program, but highlighted the necessity for concrete, outcome-driven details in the project’s proposal.
Under the proposed legislation, the federal pilot program would last 3 years, and 10,000 participants would receive a monthly cash payment equal to the fair market rent for a 2-bedroom home in the ZIP Code where they reside. Watson Coleman said she would leave the details, such as who is eligible for the program, to “authentic technicians” or experts in the field.
Part of the researchers’ support stems from the fact that the program is not novel. Aside from initiatives like the Denver Basic Income Project, cash transfers are often considered the standard in charitable giving. And Schexnider said there are already successful federal programs that are essentially cash transfers, such as the Child Tax Credit.
For Gwen Battis, the project manager for the DBIP, the federal pilot program is an “inevitable need.”
“As AI takes jobs, we’re going to need a way to participate in the economy and pay for things,” she said.
In highlighting the effect of AI on employment, Battis hits upon a key driver in the movement for basic income.
Not only is the country experiencing record income inequality, but there are also questions about how artificial intelligence will negatively impact the job market.
Technology executives have indicated that they aspire to create artificial general intelligence, a machine capable of performing all the economically valuable work humans do on a day-to-day basis.
Dario Amodei, the CEO of AI start-up Anthropic, told Axios that AI could soon wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs.
“Most [lawmakers] are unaware that this is about to happen," Amodei said. “It sounds crazy, and people just don’t believe it."
In recent years, Republican lawmakers at the state level have pushed back against guaranteed-income pilot programs.
Legislators in states like Arizona, Iowa, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin have all introduced bills to ban income programs. They say such programs make participants overly reliant on the government.
State Rep. John Gillette of Arizona told Business Insider last year that guaranteed income programs are “socialist” and a “killer for the economy.”
“Is money a birthright now?” Gillette asked. “Do we just get born and get money from the government? Because I think the Founding Fathers would say that is very contrary to our capitalist system and encouraging people to work.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued a county in his state to block a basic income program. In the legal filing, he called the initiative a “socialist experiment” that was an “illegal and illegitimate government overreach.”
While their Republican counterparts in the U.S. Congress have yet to comment directly on the federal basic income bill, they have shown reticence toward more expansive welfare policies.
The House resoundingly passed a resolution on Nov. 21 that denounced the “horrors of socialism.” No Republican lawmaker voted against the measure, and 86 Democrats joined Republicans to approve it.
Some are also skeptical about the practical reality of the basic income proposal and other expansive welfare policies.
In his home state, Grady Lowery, a lecturer at the University of Tennessee, said politicians are actively presenting their state as a haven for those escaping the “socialist” New York and its mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani.
“Not only is there not support for Mamdani here, there’s active fear and hostility towards this kind of socialist dictatorial figure that he represents,” Lowery said.
Lowery said the bill might have potential if the legislators could avoid the “socialist pejorative label,” which they have already garnered.
Watson Coleman is undeterred. The bill is now pending in the House Ways and Means Committee.
“I don't care if we're in this administration that didn't want to shelter, didn't want to feed, and didn't want to give health care to (people),” Watson-Coleman said. “I’m still going to advance my legislation that I think is legitimate work for the federal government to do.”
Sophie Baker covers politics for Medill on the Hill. She is a sophomore from Utah studying journalism and political science at Northwestern University. On campus, she writes for The Daily Northwestern, where she has served as an assistant city editor.
Keep ReadingShow less
Democracy 2.0 Requires a Commitment to the Common Good
Dec 05, 2025
From the sustained community organizing that followed Mozambique's 2024 elections to the student-led civic protests in Serbia, the world is full of reminders that the future of democracy is ours to shape.
The world is at a critical juncture. People everywhere are facing multiple, concurrent threats including extreme wealth concentration, attacks on democratic freedoms, and various humanitarian crises.
Instead of a world characterized by exploitation, eradication, and diminishment of political expression, we need a bold new social contract in which democracy evolves into a lived expression of political values that are centered on a relentless commitment to the collective well-being of our societies and the planet.
Reining in Extreme Wealth
The staggering concentration of wealth in the hands of a select few casts a long shadow over democracy. Not only does it create wealth inequality but it also it produces and exacerbates other inequalities like race and gender.
In 2024, the richest 1% of people worldwide owned more than the bottom 95% combined. And it's not just global inequality that has grown; inequality within countries has also become worse. This level of inequality is eroding trust in institutions, which in turn is weakening democracies. In Indonesia, for example, people "who believe socio-economic inequality is unjust, are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward democracy."
Beyond breaking public trust, extreme wealth has been used to sway the political landscape, often at the expense of the common good. While the relationship between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk received much scrutiny, relationships between the ultra-wealthy and anti-democratic leaders are not unique to the US. In India, billionaires like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Andani have been longtime supporters of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party. Billionaire Eduardo Eurnekian's backing of Javier Milei in Argentina and Lajos Simicska's role in the rise of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary are other examples.
This corrosive impact of extreme wealth on democracy is undeniable and must be reined in. One way of doing this is through the effective taxation of wealth. According to the Tax Justice Network, a well-implemented wealth tax that is "flanked by globally coordinated measures to disallow tax abuse" could raise more than US $2 trillion. This would provide a stable source of revenue for countries and would also contribute toward the redistribution of wealth and security.
Redistribution alone, however, will not solve inequality. In South Africa, for instance, the wealthiest 1% have seen their pretax incomes soar by nearly 80%, while the poorest 20% have watched theirs shrink. This stark contrast reveals that any redistribution must be paired with policies that shape how pretax incomes are distributed in the first place. Tackling the deep-rooted imbalances of power and opportunity that stem from unequal ownership is crucial alongside enforcing robust antitrust measures to break up corporate dominance and stop unfair business practices.
Restitching the Unravelling Social Safety Net
Public institutions that provide public services are on the decline. Social spending has decreased worldwide, especially health care. From South Africa to Britain, people's struggle to access essential services like health care has resulted in a distrust of the political system. Anxiety over the perception that immigrants are overwhelming public resources is also rising. Using data from across 30 European countries, scholars have traced how ill health translates into anti-immigrant sentiment.
The unravelling social safety net has created an environment where exclusionary ideologies easily spread. Declining public services play a role in the surge of right-wing populist and nativist sentiment. Unscrupulous politicians use the tension to distract from their failures by scapegoating immigrants.
The chainsaws being taken to social spending that have now been popularized by figures like Milei and Musk must be rejected. Public services, which have been key in reducing global poverty and redistributing wealth and security, are an essential investment in communities and society.
Of course, reining in extreme wealth and increasing social spending are not silver bullet solutions for revitalizing democracy. More is needed, including dismantling corporate power, providing material security, global and countrywide wealth redistribution, and reparations. Each of these options reflects a commitment to the common good.
It is time for us to acknowledge the depth of inequality that exists and act in ways that benefit the needs of all and the planet, rather than the narrow self-interests of the few. Working toward collective freedom, shared prosperity, justice, and dignity is the only meaningful way forward.
Democracy 2.0 Requires a Commitment to the Common Good was originally published by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less

Daniel Flores (trumpet) and Alberto Saberben (Peruvian flag) cheer on the Fire from Sector Latino, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025. Tomas Moran/ Illinois Latino News Network
Tomas Moran/ Illinois Latino News
Encendidos: Sector Latino’s Passion On And Off The Pitch
Dec 05, 2025
BRIDGEVIEW, Ill. – There’s a chill in the Illinois air as cars zoom past on I-294, but this is no ordinary fall evening for Chicago Fire FC fans.
Drums and chants of “dale Chicago” echo out of SeatGeek Stadium, where the Fire are ending the longest playoff drought in the MLS’s in a wild-card matchup against Orlando City. At the onset of the second half, Illinois native Brian Gutiérrez, or “Guti,” finds the back of the net and scores the Fire’s first playoff goal in 13 years. He sprints straight to the supporters’ section to celebrate with Sector Latino, which erupts to embrace its hometown hero.
“There’s a connection between the players and the fans that hasn’t been there for a long time,” said Mauricio Pineda, former chair of Section 8, an independent Fire supporter’s association.
Sector Latino, a separate supporter group for the MLS’ Chicago Fire, had a roller coaster 2025 season. Their passion for the club has been strained by regulations limiting protests against the Trump administration’s immigration policy. The Fire’s on-field success coincided with political tensions in Chicago surrounding the deployment of ICE agents and the National Guard.
A banner stating “Fire fans contra ICE” led to three Sector Latino members receiving yearlong bans. The group and Section 8 requested the club to release a message supporting communities impacted by ICE. Such a message has not yet arrived.
“I understand that they’re trying to avoid conflict,” said Pineda. “But we spend our hard-earned money, time, and effort on this team. It sort of feels like a slap in the face when you don’t get a statement from the team supporting the things that are important to you.”
A high point for Sector Latino and the club at large came on Oct. 22, when the Fire took on Orlando in their playoff opener. Guti’s goal kick-started a 3-1 victory, Chicago’s first playoff win since 2009.
Sector Latino stood and chanted all game, alongside Section 8, which encompasses eight other groups. Fans skipped work and sat through hours of traffic to reach the southwest Chicago suburb. Supporting the Fire unconditionally through last-place finishes and early eliminations finally paid off. Rain or shine, the Fire faithful stuck with the team. Guti, a homegrown Mexican-American player, sparked the first flame Chicago had seen in over a decade.
“They’re my people,” said Guti at the postgame press conference. “We come from the same people and we live the same background.”

Brian Gutiérrez at the postgame press conference following Chicago’s win against Orlando, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025. Tomas Moran/ Illinois Latino News Network
“It was heartbreaking to not be a part of it,” said Nate Cubeta, one of the three Sector Latino members currently serving a ban.
Cubeta and siblings Edith and Julio Lopez brought a banner to the Chicago Fire matchup against Charlotte FC on June 28. It featured former Mexico and Chicago star Cuauhtémoc Blanco and the message “Fire fans contra ICE”. The trio made the sign without consulting other Sector Latino members and displayed it at two games before the Charlotte contest.

“Fire fans contra ICE” banner displayed at Soldier Field during the Chicago Fire’s game versus Charlotte FC, Monday, June 28, 2025 (image courtesy of Nate Cubeta for Illinois Latino News Network).
At the game, stadium officials asked Cubeta to take down the banner. He refused, and it was confiscated. The club notified the fans shortly after the game that all three were banned from Fire games for the next 365 days.
“We created the sign knowing it was technically in violation of the regulations,” said Cubeta.
MLS’s Fan Code of Conduct bars “displaying signs, symbols, or images for commercial purposes or for electioneering, campaigning, or advocating for or against any candidate, political party, legislative issue, or government action.”
Although Cubeta and both Lopez siblings were aware of the potential repercussions of the banner, they did not expect such a reaction.
“We were shocked and appalled by the punishment,” said Cubeta. “A one-year punishment is typically only for a violent incident.”
Sector Latino and Section 8 both released statements condemning the ban. The open letter from Sector Latino inquired, “Is it that Chicago Fire ownership only cares to collect money, content, and cache from Chicago’s immigrant community and offer no support in return?”
A protest was also organized by Sector Latino and Section 8 for the fixture with San Diego FC on July 12. Backs turned against the pitch, the entire supporters’ section fell dead silent for the opening 15 minutes of the match. The constant drumming, flag waving, and chanting the Fire is accustomed to, even in the worst of times, was gone.
The Fire’s front office issued a statement to the press, declaring, “The Chicago Fire remain committed to providing a safe and enjoyable environment for all fans.” Supporter Relations Coordinator Roberto Díaz stopped responding to further messages seeking comment.
Ultimately, the Philadelphia Union eliminated Chicago on Nov. 1, ending the Fire’s 2025 campaign. With the successful, yet tumultuous, season behind them, the community remains at the heart of Sector Latino.
“I feel at home in Sector,” said Cubeta. “It’s about having options for people to support in a way they’re comfortable with.”
With a new stadium in the works for 2028, fans are cautiously optimistic for the Fire’s future. Soccer culture is community-based, Sector Latino and Section 8 want to ensure that the Fire maintains that fundamental value.
“Soccer is the only professional sport in the US where fans get a still say on how the team is run,” said Pineda. “We want to ensure that fans don’t lose that. Today, the immigrant community is being impacted by ICE, but tomorrow there may be another issue fans want to speak up about.”
Soccer teams traditionally represent communities, and supporter groups are the conduit through which residents show their support and make their voices heard.
“With the Fire, you still have a say,” Pineda said. “You still get to express to the team what you want to see. It provides fans a platform to communicate what’s important to them.”
“The visibility, the power is in the stadium,” said Cubeta. “That’s a part of stadium supporters’ culture.”
One thing is for sure, though. Sector Latino continues to believe in the Chicago Fire as a symbol of its community.
“I’ll definitely be at the first game I’m allowed back,” said Cubeta. “They can’t get rid of me that easily.”

View of Sector Latino from behind at SeatGeek Stadium, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025. Tomas Moran/Illinois Latino News Network
Encendidos: Sector Latino’s Passion On And Off The Pitch was first published on Illinois Latino News and was republished with permission.
Tomas Moran is a bilingual student journalist in his second year at Northwestern University, with a focus on radio and television broadcasting.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















