Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Iowa felons (who can pay) see start of a long path to voting rights

Gavel

If a many-step process is completed, freed felons who pay restitution will get back voting rights in Iowa.

Aitor Diago/Getty Images

Iowa has taken a small but significant step toward ending its status as the only state where all felons are prohibited from voting, but returning the franchise to some 60,000 former convicts remains at least several years away.

The state Senate gave bipartisan passage Tuesday to a measure that would require felons to fully pay restitution to their victims to regain the right to vote. One-third of the chamber's Democrats voted "yes" and the bill has been endorsed by GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds, increasing chances the state House will go along.

But that measure would come into play only if the General Assembly votes in two successive legislative sessions to amend the state Constitution to allow felon voting and then voters ratify the idea in a statewide referendum.


Currently, the Iowa Constitution permanently bans felons from voting even after they complete the terms of their sentences, including probation and restitution payments. The only way these people get to vote again is by winning a special reprieve from the governor.

Conditioning voting rights on having the financial resources to make payments, which is very difficult for many people newly out of prison, is being challenged as an unconstitutional de facto poll tax in Florida. That requirement was added by the GOP Legislature last year after Florida voters approved a sweeping reenfranchisement for felons.

Last year, the Iowa House passed a constitutional amendment that would have automatically restored voting rights to felons after they get out of prison. The proposal died in the Senate in part because a critical mass of lawmakers wanted to restrict who could qualify.

Reynolds, who supports enfranchising felons once they agree to restitution payment plans, said Tuesday that she backs the Senate bill as a worthy compromise. "If that's what it takes to get things done, we have to be willing to take a look and listen to what both sides are saying," she said.

Still, 2023 is the earliest felons could gain ballot access — and that's only if a constitutional amendment, which hasn't moved yet on either side of the state capital, gets all the way through the General Assembly for a first time before lawmakers adjourn April 21. A repeat vote next year would get the measure on the ballot for voters to have the final say in November 2022.

Reynolds could slap a Band-Aid on the issue with an executive order granting voting rights to felons as Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky — another state whose constitution bans felons from voting — did as soon as he took office in December. Reynolds has so far been reluctant to do so, preferring lawmakers pass a permanent change to enfranchise felons.

Read More

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
Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.
A pile of political buttons sitting on top of a table

Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.

Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast.

In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they’re ready to “fight fire with fire” with their own partisan gerrymanders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

Wilson Deschine sits at the "be my voice" voter registration stand at the Navajo Nation annual rodeo, in Window Rock.

Getty Images, David Howells

Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

On July 24, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Circuit Court order in a far-reaching case that could affect the voting rights of all Americans. Native American tribes and individuals filed the case as part of their centuries-old fight for rights in their own land.

The underlying subject of the case confronts racial gerrymandering against America’s first inhabitants, where North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting reduced Native Americans’ chances of electing up to three state representatives to just one. The specific issue that the Supreme Court may consider, if it accepts hearing the case, is whether individuals and associations can seek justice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That is because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, contradicting other courts, said that individuals do not have standing to bring Section 2 cases.

Keep ReadingShow less