Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Election security experts keep up pressure for more cash

Illinois voters

Voting for president in 2016 in Illinois, where some of the most aggressive Russian hacking was attempted and the site of a congressional field hearing this week.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

As House and Senate negotiators determine how to reconcile a $350 million divide over election security spending, lawmakers headed to one of the Russian hackers' target states this week for a status report on Illinois' preparations for 2020.

While a number of states were targeted in 2016, the Illinois election system was among the most compromised, with black hats successfully gaining access to the voter registration database and positioning themselves to manipulate the data. Investigators found no evidence of any records being altered.

Illinois election officials told members of the House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday that the state has improved its digital security but more needs to be done to block future hackers.


"Cybersecurity is an ongoing, ever-escalating process that doesn't have an end date, and as such there will be an ongoing need for funds to maintain the program," state Board of Elections Director Steve Sandvoss said at the field hearing in the Chicago suburb if Gurnee, Capitol News Illinois reported.

Sandvoss updated the committee on Cyber Navigator, a new program in which the state uses a $13.2 million federal grant to provide election security support to local officials throughout Illinois. Lake County Clerk Robin O'Connor expressed gratitude for the support but stressed that more needs to be done.

"The threat of election interference, we believe, all of us who are here, is constant and requires proactive monitoring," she said.

In June, the House voted to allocate $600 million to helping the states improve their election security in the year before the election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, after stonewalling all election security legislation throughout the summer, relented in September and allowed the Senate to pass $250 million in spending to protect election systems.

The Democratic-led House and Republican-controlled Senate must now negotiate a compromise.

"We know what we need to do to harden our infrastructure, but we're lacking in leadership and funding," Elizabeth Howard, counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice's Democracy Program, told the committee.

She believes the United States needs to spend more than $2 billion to properly protect our election systems.

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