Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Conservatives call for more federal funding for election security

Election security

A Beloit, Wis., election worker reviews ballot information on Election Day 2020.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Leaders of conservative think tanks and advocacy organizations are urging Congress to provide “robust and consistent” funding to state and local governments to bolster election security.

In a letter to House and Senate leaders, the signatories cite recent cyberattacks that threatened national security and the economy, saying those incursions demonstrate the need to protect election infrastructure.


“Leading computer science experts agree that hacking threats against US voting systems are growing and that increasingly out-of-date elections infrastructure make for relatively easy targets,” reads the letter, which was signed by leaders of Americans for Tax Reform, R Street Institute and FreedomWorks, among others.

The letter details security risks to be addressed, including equipment and databases that can be easily hacked; identifies Russia, Iran, China and North Korea as potential attackers; and cites efforts by Republicans and Democrats to address the risks.

"In light of these recent cyberattacks, we urge you to support robust and consistent assistance to state and local governments to ensure the integrity of our nation’s election infrastructure," they wrote.

The letter argues that the parties have an opportunity to build on common ground around shared security goals.

“There is growing bipartisan consensus that supports commonsense solutions to this challenge, including voter-verified paper ballots and audits,” they wrote. “There is also strong support for better federal oversight of voting machine vendors and for strictly keeping voting and tabulation infrastructure off of the Internet.”

In 2020, Congress authorized the distribution of $425 million to the states to improve election security measures. That followed on the heels of the $380 million in grants approved in 2018.

This year, Democrats have packed additional election security provisions into the For the People Act, a comprehensive measure negotiated with West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat who had opposed earlier electoral reform legislation. But both measures, along with the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, have been blocked by Senate Republicans this year.

“Across the board, our federal government is far too expansive and expensive, but there are times where it has a role to play. Protecting our elections against foreign threats and providing funding for election security are two such cases,” said Matthew Gerner, a fellow in the governance program at R Street and a signatory on the letter.

“While there are some admirable provisions of the so-called For the People Act, the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, they make the problem of an expansive and expensive federal government even worse,” he said. “The For the People Act and the Freedom to Vote Act infringe on free speech rights, and all three bills shift control over elections from state and local governments to Washington, DC. None of them are the right path for federal election legislation.”

The National Election Defense Coalition, which works with groups on the left and the right to secure elections, helped organize the letter.

“Today, the issue of federal funding and prudent standards for paper ballots and audits are national priorities,” said NEDC President Ben Ptashnik. “With clear liberal, centrist and conservative support, Republican leaders in Congress and conservative Democratic Senators like [Joe] Manchin, should do whatever it takes to overcome obstructionism and rebuild confidence in American democracy.”


Read More

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stethoscope, pile of hundred dollar bills and a calculator

A deep dive into America’s healthcare cost crisis, comparing reform to a modern “moonshot.” Explores payment models, rising costs, and lessons from John F. Kennedy’s space race vision to drive systemic change.

IronHeart/Getty Images

The Moonshot America Needs to Solve Its Healthcare Crisis

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy told the nation, “We choose to go to the moon.” It’s often remembered as a moment of national ambition. In reality, the United States was locked in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the fear of falling behind in technological dominance made the mission unavoidable.

Today’s space race is driven by a different force. Governments and private companies are investing billions to capture economic advantages, from satellite infrastructure to advanced computing to the next frontier of resource extraction.

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Louisiana violated the Constitution in creating a new Black-majority voting district. This was after a Federal court had ruled that the previous map, by packing Blacks all in one district, diluted their votes, which violated the Voting Rights Act.

The question is what impact the decision in Louisiana v Callais will have on §2 of the Voting Rights Act ... and on the current gerrymander contest to gain safe seats in the House. The conservative majority said that the decision left the Act intact. The liberal minority, in a strong dissent by Justice Kagan, said that the practical impact was to "render §2 all but a dead letter," making it likely that existing Black-majority districts will not remain for long.

Keep ReadingShow less