Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Mueller stresses gravity of Russian meddling, but election security secondary at hearings

Mueller stresses gravity of Russian meddling, but election security secondary at hearings

Robert Mueller testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday afternoon.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election still "deserves the attention of every American," Robert Mueller reiterated Wednesday, but the gaps in election security permitting a foreign adversary to influence the presidential outcome received minimal attention during the former special counsel's day testifying to Congress.

While his testimony was dominated by terse one-word answers or halting sentence fragments affirming the contents of his report, Mueller was crystal clear and emphatically in his own voice on a singular point.

In fact, it was the one thing the former FBI director said, almost word for word, in his opening statements to both the House Judiciary and House Intelligence committees.

"Over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious," he told Judiciary at breakfast time. "This deserves the attention of every American."


Appearing after lunch before the Intelligence panel, which has become among the most polarized on Capitol Hill during its own two-year probe of Russian meddling, Mueller added: "And I am sure that this committee agrees."

The nationally televised morning session spent almost no time on the parts of Mueller's April report detailing the porousness of the American election system. Instead, the focus was on whether President Trump obstructed the special counsel's inquiry, during which Democrats succeeded in getting Mueller to bluntly say that he had not cleared the president of obstruction of justice, or "totally exonerated" him, as Trump describes it.

Republicans at both hearings focused on casting doubt on the credibility of the Mueller investigation.

The Democratic lawmakers at the afternoon session did spend some time trying to get Mueller to expand on his report's description of a "sweeping and sophisticated" campaign by Russia to tilt the election Trump's way — highlighted by an expansive social media disinformation and propaganda campaign, the theft and leaking of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails, and finally extensive efforts to hack into the aging voting systems used in bellwether counties and tossup states.

The report provides an extensive catalogue of the vulnerabilities in the U.S. election system that Russia sought to exploit. It infiltrated the emails and computer networks of unwitting election administrators and the companies that supply voting machines and registration software across the country.

As he did in almost all aspects of his testimony, Mueller declined entreaties to expand on his report's findings — or to even read from its 448 pages. While he testified several times that Trump was supposed to be the beneficiary of Russia's efforts, the special counsel curtly said he was "not going to speculate" when asked what, if any, effect all the meddling had on his election victory.

While Congress has been preoccupied by the propriety and political consequences of beginning impeachment proceedings against Trump, which would be based at least in part on the obstruction evidence in Mueller's report, there's essentially no doubt that any charges brought by the Democratic House would produce an acquittal in the Republican Senate.

And for the moment, the same sort of gridlock exists when it comes to the tangible things Congress could do to prevent foreign interference in the 2020 campaign and beyond.

Publicly disclosing the buyers of online political ads, mandating a paper record for each vote, and explicitly banning foreign assistance to presidential and congressional candidates are all provisions in HR 1, the political process overhaul passed by the Democratic House and sentenced to death in the GOP Senate.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised to bury not only that bill but virtually all other measures aimed at shoring up election security, labeling them either unnecessary or infringing on states' rights to run their own elections. The measure that stands the best chance, especially in light of the bipartisan deal to boost spending Congress is on course to clear this week, would deliver several hundred million dollars to the states for buying modernized voting equipment in time for November 2020.

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