Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump linking of easing voting rules to GOP woes creates knowing fury on the left

Trump speaking at White House

President Trump said on "Fox & Friends" that Republicans would have difficulty getting elected if different "levels of voting" were implemented.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Progressive democracy reform groups are seizing on a brief comment from President Trump as smoking gun evidence Republicans oppose making it easier to vote because they fear doing worse with bigger turnout.

Preventing election fraud has been the GOP's singular public reasoning for supporting tight rules of access to the ballot box. Democrats and voting rights groups say that's a subterfuge, noting the scant evidence of criminality and the solid evidence that more people voting means fewer wins for Republicans.

Trump openly embraced that concept Monday when discussing proposals he said he blocked from the coronavirus economic rescue package — emphasizing his rebuff of the $2 billion Democrats sought to pay for nationwide voting-at-home, online registration and expanded early voting in person.


"The things they had in there were crazy," Trump said during an extended "Fox & Friends" telephone interview. "They had things, levels of voting that if you ever agree to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again."

"They had things in there about election days and what you do and all sorts of clawbacks," he added. "They had things that were just totally crazy and had nothing to do with workers that lost their jobs and companies that we have to save."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Negotiators settled on $400 million to make it easier to vote without getting Covid-19, but left out clear guidelines on how the states may spend their share.

"How anyone can oppose our enabling the states to have vote by mail raises so many other questions, but let's just be hopeful and have public opinion weigh in," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday . "It's necessary for our country to have a strong Republican Party, and I feel sad that the president does not have confidence that his party can convince the American people about a path to go forward."

Trump's comments suggest that good government groups may have an uphill battle securing such aid in the next coronavirus response package, which Congress is expected to put together in the next two months.

Beyond that, he became the highest ranking Republican to describe a partisan motivation for opposing easier voting — jumping ahead of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who last year derided the ballot access expansions in the House's sweeping good government package, known as HR 1, as the "Democrat Politician Protection Act" and "a power grab that's smelling more and more like exactly what it is."

Polling supports the supposition that higher turnout generally benefits Democrats. A study of people who weren't registered or did not plan to vote in the 2014 midterm by the Pew Research Center, for example, found 51 percent favoring the Democrats to just 30 percent favoring the GOP.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that all states "should be beginning to plan" to conduct the November election predominantly with vote-from-home ballots because of the coronavirus pandemic.

"I think we should be looking into all mail ballots across the board to begin with, because it's an easier way for people to vote, but whether or not that's required across-the-board in all 50 states and territories I'm not sure yet," the Democratic presidential front-runner said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Reactions to Trump from the left were particularly impassioned.

"The truth is more people voting isn't good or bad for either party. It's good for America," Ellen Kurz, who runs iVote, which finances campaigns of Democrats committed to voting rights. "But his sentiments bring into stark relief why Republican officials across the country have taken every opportunity to keep people from voting."

"A monstrous example of putting party ahead of America," said House Administration Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren. The California Democrat said "every American, regardless of party affiliation, should condemn the president's apparent belief that it's a good thing for American voters to risk their lives when safer voting alternatives are possible."

"Worth noting that Trump responds to a question about 'special interest projects' by talking about funding for VOTING.This is not a special interest project, it is our DEMOCRACY — and ensuring it can function should be a bipartisan emergency," Vanita Gupta, a former civil rights chief at the Justice Department who now runs the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said on Twitter.

Read More

Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less
People holiding "Yes on 1" signs

People urge support for Question 1 in Maine.

Kyle Bailey

The Fahey Q&A: Kyle Bailey discusses Maine’s Question 1

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge ofdrawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The PeoplePeople, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. Sheregularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Kyle Bailey is a former Maine state representative who managed the landmark ballot measure campaigns to win and protect ranked choice voting. He serves as campaign manager for Citizens to End SuperPACs and the Yes On 1 campaign to pass Question 1, a statewide ballot initiative that would place a limit of $5,000 on contributions to political action committees.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ballot envelopes moving through a sorting machine

Mailed ballots are sorted by a machine at the Denver Elections Division.

Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post

GOP targets fine print of voting by mail in battleground state suits

Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

In 2020’s presidential election, 17 million more Americans voted than in 2016’s election. That record-setting turnout was historic and even more remarkable because it came in the midst of a deadly pandemic. A key reason for the increase was most states simplified and expanded voting with mailed-out ballots — which 43 percent of voters used.

Some battleground states saw dramatic expansions. Michigan went from 26 percent of its electorate voting with mailed-out ballots in 2016 to 59 percent in 2020. Pennsylvania went from 4 percent to 40 percent. The following spring, academics found that mailing ballots to voters had lifted 2020’s voter turnout across the political spectrum and had benefited Republican candidates — especially in states that previously had limited the option.

Keep ReadingShow less
Members of Congress in the House of Representatives

Every four years, Congress gathers to count electoral votes.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

No country still uses an electoral college − except the U.S.

Holzer is an associate professor of political science at Westminster College.

The United States is the only democracy in the world where a presidential candidate can get the most popular votes and still lose the election. Thanks to the Electoral College, that has happened five times in the country’s history. The most recent examples are from 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the Electoral College after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and 2016, when Hillary Clinton got more votes nationwide than Donald Trump but lost in the Electoral College.

The Founding Fathers did not invent the idea of an electoral college. Rather, they borrowed the concept from Europe, where it had been used to pick emperors for hundreds of years.

Keep ReadingShow less