Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

$425 million to secure elections included in sprawling federal budget bill

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (above), kept the pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell this fall and finally won his support for additional funding for election security.

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

After months of testy standoffs and high-pressure bickering, congressional leaders have reached a bipartisan deal to spend $425 million to boost election security in the next year.

The funding is included in a $1.4 trillion government-wide spending package unveiled Monday and on course for swift approval. The Democratic-led House of Representatives voted for it Tuesday afternoon, with the Republican Senate assured of going along in time to ward off a partial government shutdown this weekend.

President Trump has signaled he'll sign the deal. Once that happens, the Election Assistance Commission can begin delivering a new round of grants to states laboring to make the voting tamper-proof in 2020. Government intelligence experts are unified in predicting the Russians will be joined by other foreign agents in seeking to hack into the country's several thousand different election systems next year.


The grants may be spent on buying voting equipment so long as the new system creates a paper record of every ballot cast, to implement post-election audits and for cyber security training, among other uses.

The funding comes on top of $380 million in grants Congress approved in March 2018.

Initially, many Republicans opposed any additional funding. They argued that some states had not spent their allocation from last year and they feared the money would lead to an eventual federal takeover of elections now run entirely by state and local governments. In addition, they believed enough has already been done to secure the 2020 elections.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked security funding for months but faced tremendous pressure from advocacy groups, Democrats and others who said he was putting the credibility of the next presidential election at risk.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 election found that operatives attempted to hack into voting systems around the country and were successful in gaining access to a voter registration database in Illinois and to computers used by some election officials in Florida.

McConnell's blanket opposition to all election security bills — partly driven by his not wanting to infuriate the president, who hates any suggestion his victory was tainted — prompted some critics to label the Kentucky Republican as "Moscow Mitch," an epithet he reviles. But he changed his mind in September after several of the nation's most prominent conservative groups came out in support of boosting federal spending against hacking.

By that time, the House had passed a spending bill with $600 million for election security. McConnell initially got behind an allocation of $250 million. In one of the final budget deal's reflections of the realities of a divided Congress, the final number neatly splits the difference.

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