Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Stimulus has $400 million to make voting safer, no mandates to make it easier

A cross-partisan coalition has been running a social media ad calling on Congress to fund election integrity efforts.

States will get $400 million to make voting in the coronavirus presidential election easier and safer, but with almost no strings attached, under the massive economic recovery package unveiled Wednesday.

The pot of money in the nearly $2 trillion stimulus deal, on a fast track to pass the Senate by day's end with the House vote timetable uncertain, is the result of an unusually intense and coordinated lobbying campaign by some of the major players in the democracy reform movement.

While celebrating a rare victory for one of their causes, some groups nonetheless said they would seek much more money in what's likely to be another pandemic response package from Congress this spring. These groups warned the initial infusion of cash will prove insufficient to prevent justifiable anxiety about voting this fall, and that an absence of any legislative mandates will allow too much of the grant money to get spent unwisely.


Expecting the pandemic will result in a record flood of early voting and absentee ballots, the advocates told congressional leaders that election officials would not be equipped — to staff polling places well in advance, print and deliver millions of mail-in ballots, and then tabulate the results quickly and accurately — without spending at least $2 billion in the next seven months.

Progressive groups also pressed senators, who dominated negotiations with the Trump administration, to pair the money with requirements that states expand their periods for online registration, lengthen early voting calendars and guarantee a free voting-from-home option for everyone in the country.

Democrats embraced the idea, hoping the historic public health crisis would offer a rationale for nationalizing policies that have smoothed access to the ballot box, boosted turnout and reversed sagging confidence in the reliability of elections in the states where they're already in place.

But they found no support among Senate Republicans, who were united against any new federal control over elections now conducted by at least 6,000 city, county and state jurisdictions. Many also expressed apprehension that universal voting-by-mail, especially if hastily imposed, would prove a boon to election fraudsters.

Four years ago, 24 percent of votes were mailed in or delivered in sealed envelopes and 17 percent were cast in person before Election Day; in 16 states more than half the ballots were cast one of those ways. Almost no credible allegations of mail-in fraud were reported then or so far this year, when five of the seven presidential primaries with the highest turnout to date were conducted mainly by mail.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell initially opposed providing any election aid in the stimulus package, giving in only after enough GOP colleagues reported election officials in their red states warning they could not handle the expected influx of voting from outside polling places on Election Day.

It was a striking parallel to what happened last summer. After months of refusing, McConnell relented to pressure in his own caucus and backed more grants to the states to buy paper-based voting equipment and otherwise bolster election security in the face of an expected resurgence of the Russian interference efforts of 2012.

Like that fund, which Congress eventually filled with $425 million, the new election grants will be doled out by the Election Assistance Commission, a tiny agency that has struggled with funding and staff cuts in recent years.

Advocates for universal voting by mail, which started in Oregon in the mid 1990s and will be the default across just four additional states this fall, say the laws of 17 states would need to be rewritten first. Election administrators in the remaining states have the power to turbocharge the already permissive rules for getting an absentee ballot.

Nine states don't currently have any in-person voting ahead of Election Day. Four of those — reliably blue Connecticut, reliably red Alabama and Missouri, and purple battleground New Hampshire — are also states with the most restrictive absentee ballot rules, requiring voters of all ages to list an excuse on each application.

"In November, when there's a very real chance that circumstances may keep many seniors away from the polls, the system might well deliver Republicans a net advantage," former national GOP Chairman Michael Steele and Eli Lehrer of the conservative R Street Institute think tank wrote Tuesday in a Washington Times op-ed endorsing voting by mail.

"Such systems save money, don't require anyone to wait in line, don't require disrupting activities in public buildings and are essentially immune from large-scale fraud," they wrote, and "many voter intimidation tactics become impossible when everyone can vote in the privacy of their own homes."

Steele's support for the funding was central to the work of the good governance coalition that formed within hours a week ago to press for election system relief in the third, and by far biggest, stimulus package Congress has written since the Covid-19 outbreak started transforming American life and pushing the economy into a crisis.

The groups mounting the most aggressive lobbying campaigns — including Common Cause, the Brennan Center for Justice, Unite America, the National Vote at Home Institute and Issue One — soon realized that new federal mandates were a lost cause and focused instead on delivering money to the states.

Several of them also teamed up as part of a cross-partisan coalition of democracy reform organizations — including RepresentUs, Stand Up Republic, the Leadership Now Project and the conservative Lugar Center think tank — to produce a 30-second social media ad advocating for the funding. Issue One had its own 15-second spot, targeted to eight states with influential GOP senators.

(Disclosure: Issue One operates, but is journalistically independent from, The Fulcrum.)


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less