Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Travel and personnel spending questioned at election agency pleading poverty

Rep. Zoe Lofgren

Rep. Zoe Lofgren has raised questions about some spending practices of the Elections Assistance Commission. She chairs the House Administration Committee, which oversees the commission.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

When all four members of the Election Assistance Commission appeared before congressional committees this spring, the main theme was a cross-partisan plea of poverty: The agency, all of them agreed, does not have nearly enough money to do its central job of helping the states secure their voting systems in time for the 2020 election.

Now the chairwoman of the House Administration Committee, one of the panels that heard this lament, is pushing back on the claims.

In a letter to the commissioners last week, California Democrat Zoe Lofgren questioned why an EAC allegedly so strapped for cash has recently changed its internal rules so that two commissioners and three other senior employees who live far from Washington are being reimbursed for their trips to the agency's headquarters.


Chairwoman Christy McCormick, nominated by President Obama, travels 165 miles to work from Williamsburg, Va., and Donald Palmer, nominated by President Trump, travels all the way from St. Johns, Fla.

The reimbursement issue "raises concerns about how much taxpayer money is being used to accommodate travel," Lofgren wrote, at the same time "the agency is avowedly struggling with its current funding levels."

In May the commissioners told House and Senate committees with oversight of the EAC that their agency "lacks sufficient funding" to hire a staff sufficient to handle its workload.

Lofgren's letter also questions the propriety of paying Palmer $74,000 for part-time work for the commission at the same time he was employed as an elections administration fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center, where his work involved advancing recommendations from a 2014 blue-ribbon commission for improving the voting experience. He also remained a part-time staffer on the EAC for six weeks after he was confirmed as a commissioner in January, Lofgren said.

She asked the commission for answers within three weeks.

How the EAC responds could prove pivotal for the agency's prospects of securing a significant increase in time for the presidential election.

Last month, the House passed a bill providing $16.2 million for operating the commission in the next fiscal year, a 75 percent increase from the current level. The measure also includes $600 million for the panel to give as grants for states to buy paper-trail-equipped voting machinery and to otherwise improve election security. That is up from $380 million in grant money in this year's budget. The Senate has not yet begun advancing its version of such a spending bill.

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