Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Meet the change leaders: Kevin Johnson, Election Reformers Network

Man at a podium with American Promise logo

Kevin Johnson, speaking at an American Promise event.

Courtesy Kevin Johnson

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Kevin Johnson is co-founder and executive director of Election Reformers Network, a nonpartisan nonprofit advancing innovations that protect elections from polarization. Since 2017, Johnson has led ERN’s research and advocacy programs focused on impartial election administration, independent redistricting and voting rules. He draws on decades of experience supporting emerging democracies overseas and advancing reforms in the United States.


Johnson is also a member of the Election Expert Study Team of the Carter Center, where he assists the U.S. Elections Program. He serves on advisory bodies of American Promise and Rank The Vote.

Johnson co-authored the first comprehensive study of secretary of state conflict of interest and pioneered the top-two proportional approach to Electoral College reform and the nominating commission approach to secretary of state selection. He has published more than two dozen op-eds on a wide range of reform topics in media outlets including The Washington Post, The Hill, Governing, Commonwealth Magazine, The Daily Beast and The Fulcrum.

At the National Democratic Institute, Johnson directed election observations in the West Bank and Gaza, Indonesia, and several countries in Africa, and organized advisory consultations for constitution drafters in new democracies, among other programs. With Common Cause, Johnsonled a successful anti-Citizens-United ballot question campaign in Newton, Mass., and helped organize citizen participation in the highly regarded 2011 Massachusetts redistricting process, among other efforts.

In 2002, Johnson co-founded Liberty Global Partners, an investment advisory firm focused on venture capital and private equity in emerging markets. At Liberty Global, he has led capital marketing initiatives that raised more than $6 billion for investment funds targeting China, India, Brazil, Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia. Johnson has an MBA from Wharton and a bachelor’s degree in English literature from Yale University.

I had the wonderful opportunity to interview Johnson in April for the CityBiz “Meet the Change Leaders” series. Watch to learn the full extent of the democracy reform work that Kevin does:

The Fulcrum Democracy Forum Meets Kevin Johnson, Executive Director of Election Reformers Networkyoutu.be


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less