Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

McConnell relents, supports $250 million for election security

Mitch McConnell

The Senate majority leader announced his change of heart on the Senate floor.

C-SPAN

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday he supports providing an additional $250 million in aid to the states to bolster election security, reversing himself after months of blocking all efforts to shore up the country's voting systems before the 2020 election.

The senators who write the annual package of spending bills endorsed that amount hours later, meaning the next step is a vote by the entire Senate.

Congress approved $380 million in election security grants to states during the fiscal year that concludes at the end of this month.

McConnell and other Republicans have said they oppose election security legislation mainly because they fear a federal takeover of state and local election processes, but also because in their view enough is already being done to secure the integrity of next year's voting. But proponents say the hodgepodge of state and local laws leave election systems vulnerable to hackers, and that officials nationwide lack the financial resources to ensure next year's elections for president, Congress and myriad other offices are secure against foreign interference.


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 of some election officials in Florida.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

McConnell's subsequent, blanket opposition to all election security bills — partly driven by his not wanting to infuriate President Trump, who bristles at any talk his victory was not legitimate — prompted some critics to label the Kentucky Republican as "Moscow Mitch," an epithet he reviles.

His change in position came a day after several of the nation's most prominent conservative groups came out in support of such measures.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and Adam Brandon, president of FreedomWorks, said at a news conference they favor legislation ensuring that paper ballots are used so there is a way to check that votes are properly tallied and can be used for post-election audits.

"If the American people not believe in the legitimacy of their elections the entire system that we have starts to crumble," Brandon said.

Both said they opposed any attempt by the federal government to dictate policy to state and local election officials.

The Democratic-controlled House in June passed, on a mostly partisan vote, an appropriations bill that includes $600 million for election security — an amount that will now must be reconciled with the Senate figure. Also in June the House passed, again in a partisan vote, a standalone package of election security measures.

The only substantive related bill McConnell has allowed through the Senate would deny U.S. entry visas to anyone who's known to have interfered with an American election. He said nothing to signal a change of heart about allowing more policy measures to advance.

Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he believes more than $250 million is needed for additional election security and said he hopes a larger amount can be negotiated before final approval of a budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

James Langford, an Oklahoma Republican on Senate Appropriations, noted that states had only spent $128 million of the $380 million approved last year.

He called on Congress to provide rigorous oversight of what already has been approved and any additional funds that are provided.

McConnell, who has a seat on Appropriations, revealed his change of heart on the Senate floor. "I'm proud to have helped develop this amendment and co-sponsor it in committee," he said.

"I made umpteen speeches here at this chair, and the Republican leader denied the need," Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, McConnell's Democratic said in reply. "But now, thank God, he has seen the light. We need more money for election security; ask election officials, Democrat or Republican, throughout the country."

But Schumer's office later issued a statement that "Senate Democrats believe this new funding is not a substitute for passing the comprehensive bipartisan election security legislation that experts say is desperately needed.

Read More

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

A roll of "voted" stickers.

Pexels, Element5 Digital

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?

An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

Keep ReadingShow less
MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less