Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Most Americans see voting rights as more important than election security

voting rights protest

Rally-goers call for all votes to be counted at a Nov. 4 protest in New York.

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

Three in five Americans believe it's more important to ensure that all voters get to vote than it is to make sure nobody who's ineligible casts a ballot, a new poll finds, although there's an enormous partisan split on those priorities.

The same survey, however, revealed a solidly bipartisan degree of confidence among three-quarters of Americans that elections in their own states are being run fairly and securely.

The results, out Tuesday from NBC News, are the latest evidence of the complex and sometimes polarized views the electorate holds about the bedrock institution of democracy.


While 87 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of independents say "making sure that everyone who wants to vote can do so" is a top priority, 77 percent of Republicans say "making sure that no one votes who is not eligible to vote" is more important.

That fundamental disagreement, of course, reflects the continued partisan divide over the integrity of the 2020 election, fueled by the unprecedented and unfounded allegations by Donald Trump that his second term as president was stolen by fraud. His false allegations have fueled the drive by Republican legislators around the country to enact stricter voting laws that Democrats see as designed to suppress the vote — particularly targeting people of color.

As those bills keep advancing, though, 59 percent of Republicans — along with 85 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of independents — say they are confident their states can already administer elections where everyone eligible may cast a ballot and the results are tabulated accurately.

But the poll did reveal a sharp GOP split based on where people live. In states Trump carried, 76 percent of Republicans view their own elections as free and fair. In states carried by President Biden, that same number plunged to 39 percent.

The poll was conducted by telephone April 17-20 and has a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.

Read More

From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority
the capitol building in washington d c is seen from across the water

From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority

The unprecedented power grab by President Trump, in many cases, usurping the clear and Constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, appears to leave our legislative branch helpless against executive branch encroachment. In fact, the opposite is true. Congress has ample authority to reassert its role in our democracy, and there is a precedent.

During the particularly notable episode of executive branch corruption during the Nixon years, Congress responded with a robust series of reforms. Campaign finance laws were dramatically overhauled and strengthened. Nixon’s overreach on congressionally authorized spending was corrected with the passage of the Impoundment Act. And egregious excesses by the military and intelligence community were blunted by the War Powers Act and the bipartisan investigation by Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho).

Keep ReadingShow less
In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

Person speaking in front of an American flag

Jason_V/Getty Images

In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

Nearly 14 years ago, after nearly 12 years of public service, my boss, Rep. Todd Platts, surprised many by announcing he was not running for reelection. He never term-limited himself, per se. Yet he had long supported legislation for 12-year term limits. Stepping aside at that point made sense—a Cincinnatus move, with Todd going back to the Pennsylvania Bar as a hometown judge.

Term limits are always a timely issue. Term limits may have died down as an issue in the halls of Congress, but I still hear it from people in my home area.

Keep ReadingShow less
“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Members of the National Guard patrol near the U.S. Capitol on October 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)

Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Approaching a year of the new Trump administration, Americans are getting used to domestic militarized logic. A popular sense of powerlessness permeates our communities. We bear witness to the attacks against innocent civilians by ICE, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and we naturally wonder—is this the new American discourse? Violent action? The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York offers hope that there may be another way.

Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim democratic socialist, was elected as mayor of New York City on the fourth of November. Mamdani’s platform includes a reimagining of the police force in New York City. Mamdani proposes a Department of Community Safety. In a CBS interview, Mamdani said, “Our vision for a Department of Community Safety, the DCS, is that we would have teams of dedicated mental health outreach workers that we deploy…to respond to those incidents and get those New Yorkers out of the subway system and to the services that they actually need.” Doing so frees up NYPD officers to respond to actual threats and crime, without a responsibility to the mental health of civilians.

Keep ReadingShow less