Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Companies unite in pledge to give workers time for voting

empty work cubicles
Matelly/Getty Images

At least 2 million workers will be given paid time off to vote for president this fall under a pact formed by hundreds of companies, which say boosting turnout is part of their corporate civic responsibility.

The agreement was announced Wednesday by a business coalition, Time to Vote, which said 383 firms have already made such a promise. The goal is to expand the roster to 1,000 by Election Day, doubling the participants in a similar initiative ahead of the 2018 congressional midterms.

The commitment by corporate America to support their employees' civic engagement is notable because efforts to shape turnout have been such a partisan flashpoint in recent years — and because not being able to break away from work is the top reason people cite for not voting.


Turnout is central to the outcome in every close election, and both sides say that will be true again in November. In only three of the past five presidential contests have more than 60 percent of eligible voters cast ballots.

Democratic legislatures have recently been assertive in pushing measures designed to make casting ballots more convenient, while Republicans in charge of statehouses have been more motivated to set strict rules for voting, they say in order to combat potential fraud. Smaller nationwide turnouts have tended to benefit the GOP, however.

The commitment by the companies could factor into what is expected to be a considerable increase in turnout as President Trump stands for re-election.

Bosses of companies in the Time to Vote coalition have promised to commit to accommodating workers in voting with paid time off on Election Day, by eliminating meetings or other internal obligations on Nov. 3, or by spending to help employees who are permitted to vote early or by mail.

A year ago House Democrats touted, but then quietly abandoned, legislation making Election Day a federal holiday. It is, however, a holiday for public sector workers in 13 states, the biggest of them New York and Illinois. And many unionized workers have paid time off for voting guarantees in their contracts.

Few who, so far, have signed on to Time to Vote are reliant on union labor. Among the members are financial services and health firms including JP Morgan Chase, Farmers Insurance and Kaiser Permanente; the information technology spinoff of Hewlett Packard; online businesses from Lyft to PayPal; and an array of retailers including Best Buy, Dick's Sporting Goods, Gap, Patagonia, REI Co-op, Target and Walmart.

Time to Vote, which says it's nonpartisan, first organized during the campaign two years ago, and the resulting 53 percent turnout was the highest in a century for a midterm.

Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center before that election said they felt voting was important, but not always convenient. More than one-fifth of those surveyed cited logistical concerns as the main reason voting was difficult. And surveys by the Census Bureau after the last three midterms found that work or school conflicts were far and away the main reason cited by people who did not vote — more than a quarter of respondents each time.

A similar initiative that aims to alleviate these concerns for workers is ElectionDay.org, a project by the nonprofit Vote.org. More than 490 companies have promised to adopt policies that make voting easier for their workers.

This effort to increase voter participation from the business community "sends a powerful message," said Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning group that advocates for many democracy reforms. "Ultimately, a culture shift will meaningfully boost voter participation, and business leaders can help drive that shift," he said.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less