Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Partisan opponents find common ground on election reform

Four years ago, Michael Steele and Donna Brazile sat down together in Charlottesville, Va., to discuss ways a Republican and a Democrat can bridge the divide on issues of race, despite their partisan differences.

Steele, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Brazile, who led the Democratic National Committee, reconvened Tuesday to find common ground on election reform.

Early on, Steele framed the discussion around three words.

“The three words are ‘we the people,’ and the fundamental principle is that all of us get to play,” Steele said. “It may not have started out that way. But that's how it is right now. And the fact of the matter is, if we don't embrace that from the beginning ... it doesn't matter.”


Both forums were, appropriately enough, sponsored by the Common Ground Committee, which hosts solutions-oriented events to bridge the partisan divide.

Before getting to reform ideas, the pair discussed the state of democracy in the United States.

“This is a system that has been weakened, and it's being drained of trust,” Brazile said. “And if we don't take prudent steps to revitalize our democracy, I think we're in trouble.”

While the upcoming midterm elections will likely feature Republicans hammering Democrats on rising inflation and gas prices, according to Steele, if voting rights legislation goes by the wayside, other issues become less important.

“The reality of it is — those things don't matter if you can't vote,” Steele said. “The fundamental aspect for me is, how do we re-engage with each other to be stewards of our civic responsibility ... to make certain that everyone has free and unfettered access to a ballot box, and that our government doesn’t get in the way of that?”

The moderator, former CBS correspondent Jackie Adams, introduced a 2006 clip of Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, now the minority leader, supporting the body’s decision to vote 98-0 to reauthorize the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibited racial discrimination in voting.

Despite McConnell’s willingness to reinforce safeguards against racial discrimination in 2006, Adams said, the senator now says the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, passed by the House of Representatives in 2021 to reinforce provisions of the VRA that were struck down by a 2013 Supreme Court decision, is unnecessary.

Steele said the only thing that’s changed in those 16 years is the position of the Republican Party.

“The reality of it is he was right in 2006. He's dead wrong now. He knows it. Everyone knows it,” he said.

But, Steele said, there’s no active spirit within the Republican Party to enter that space and fight for change. It’s incumbent on voters to make that change through the ballot box, he argued.

After Brazile said some legislation is still actively creating obstacles to voting for Black and poor people, Adams asked if Republicans were guilty of systemic racism by preventing the loss of power by the traditional white ruling class through a lack of voting reform.

“Absolutely,” Steele said.

He pointed to the “Southern strategy” — a political realignment of voters by the Republican Party in the 1950s and 1960s, amidst the Jim Crow era and the civil rights movement, to maximize their support among white voters — alongside voter suppression tactics in the 21st century.

Brazile said it’s difficult to hold on to “American” values of access and fairness because elections are decentralized, meaning the rules are set by local and state governments. Federal reforms, such as the For the People Act, the John Lewis bill and the Freedom to Vote Act, have all been blocked by Senate filibusters.

“As long as you need 60 votes, you won't be able to fix anything,” Brazile said. “It's not going to come simply because our lawmakers are trying to make it happen.”

The discussion of state-level laws quickly turned to partisan gerrymandering, which, according to Brazile, ignores the presence of non-aligned voters for much of the process. Because independent voters don’t have a say in primaries, they spend much of the time on the sidelines, she said.

Steele said the issue boils down to elected officials deciding where their districts are and how the power is distributed.

The conversation turned to Georgia, where recently enacted laws were expected to tamp down voter turnout. Instead, large numbers of voters took part in the recent primaries.

“‘Just because people can swim doesn't neglect the fact that there's still sharks in the water,’” she said, channeling voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams. “When the rules have changed, you go out and you educate people, you provide them with information.”


Read More

Members of a women's softball team cheerfully join hands during practice on a sunny day, showcasing team spirit, cooperation, and enthusiasm for the sport.

Do trans women have a strength advantage? A look at studies on hormone therapy, muscle mass, and why it should determine eligibility in women's sports.

luza studios/Getty Images

Trans Females Are Not Biological Males - Let Them Play on Female Teams

Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans—many following the lead of President Trump—feel that it is not right for trans females to participate in women's sports. But the trans community, supported by those on the left wing of the Democratic Party, insists that this is part of ensuring the rights of trans people. The issue has been divisive among Democrats.

This is a complex issue. On the one hand, boys are boys, and girls are girls. That's the basic fact behind male and female sports, other than some intramural school sports that have boys and girls on the same team. Because boys are biologically stronger and faster than girls, separate leagues have been developed for both. This has nothing to do with gender identity; it is just a reflection of biological fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less