Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Meet the reformer: Mike Burns, who wants you to vote early (in age) and often

Mike Burns of the Campus Voter Project

Mike Burns gets a a kick out of running of the Campus Vote Project.

Photo courtesy Mike Burns

After college at Longwood University and before law school at Catholic University, Mike Burns spent four years getting a first-hand look at what it takes to get people to vote. He managed Gerry Connelly's 2007 campaign for re-election to lead the biggest county in the Northern Virginia suburbs, a year before the Democrat won his seat in Congress. Then he became executive director of the Fairfax County Democratic Party. Now, rather than running campaigns, he's working to help more students vote as national director of the Fair Elections Center's Campus Vote Project. His answers have been lightly edited for clarity and length.

What's the tweet-length description of your organization?

We work 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.


Describe your very first civic engagement.

When I was in high school, we had a history-government class requirement that you had to complete a certain number of hours engaging in the political process. I put up signs for a candidate: Barry for Sheriff. I remember because my best friend's name was Barry and we got a real kick out of this. I attended some debates and forums for local elections, distributed campaign literature door-to-door and made phone calls for a state House race. I did not realize it at the time, but I see now it is an ingenious way to introduce young people not just to the offices, candidates and issues — but also to how they engage with the local community.

What was your biggest professional triumph?

I feel particularly proud whenever a young person who has worked with us goes on to do amazing things. Campus Vote Project has built is always looking to improve the leadership development of the student leaders we engage in this work. I could not be prouder that we have hired two of them as full-time staff. This is essentially my retirement strategy. As we keep creating leadership stepping stones, eventually someone who started out in a student role with CVP will take over my position in the national office.

And your most disappointing setback?

Every time I read a headline that says young people are "apathetic" or portrays them as non-voters. Young people have always been at the center of social movements in this country — from the civil rights and anti-war movements of yesterday to the March for Our Lives and climate change activism of today. I have the privilege of working with students at the forefront of the continuing fight for voting rights and a democracy that includes everyone. And it disappoints me when older folks in positions of power distort this narrative instead of showcasing young leaders and working to build them up.

How does your identity influence the way you go about your work?

I am a middle-aged white guy with a law degree so I have to be cognizant of that privilege every day in my job. I am constantly amazed by the tremendous CVP staff and our student Democracy Fellows and the array of identities, backgrounds and lived experiences they bring to our efforts. As a manager of such a diverse group, it is incumbent on me to continually learn and make space for us as an organization to go beyond just diversity and address equity and inclusion.

What's the best advice you've ever been given?

Hope for the best and plan for the worst. After law school I regularly took to describing myself as not "risk averse," but just "very risk aware." The corollary to this is that I think my staff is probably sick of me using the phrase "How do we set them up for success?" every time we plan something new.

Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.

Healthy DemocraSea — chocolate fro-yo with sea salt and caramel.

What's your favorite political movie or TV show?

"Veep." It was laugh out loud funny because all the jokes and bits started with a kernel of truth and then took them to their absurd extreme. Unfortunately, our current political climate has also taken itself to such extremes that they could no longer come up with new material that would still be funny.

What's the last thing you do on your phone at night?

I have an 11-week-old son, and we track on an app how much he eats, sleeps and does other things. So usually the last thing is listening to a podcast with my headphones while I put his nighttime feeding into the app.

What is your deepest, darkest secret?

Oh my. I am an unabashed voting rights activist who constantly works to convince young people and students that their vote matters. But I do not have a perfect voting record. I have a December birthday so I just missed my first chance to participate in an election at the end of high school. But in Virginia there are elections every year — state and local in the odd-years along with federal in even years. And my first year of college was an off-off year in Virginia — i.e. no statewide races for governor, lieutenant governor or attorney general, just state legislature and local. I totally missed this and did not think to get an absentee ballot and vote until the following year when it was a presidential election. I started working on campaigns and for voting rights ever since to make up for this.


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