Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

No matter pandemic or presidential wish, we must vote in November

Opinion

Construction for the 2021 inauguration at the U.S. Capitol

Construction for the 2021 inauguration has already begun at the U.S. Capitol. The election must take place as scheduled, writes Reed Galen.

David Hawkings/The Fulcrum

Galen is an independent political consultant and advisor to The Lincoln Project, an organization of conservatives working for President Trump's defeat. He has been active in the electoral reform movement since 2016.

The coronavirus pandemic has affected every part of our lives. We've seen shelter-in-place orders, schools dismissed, and restaurants and shops shuttered. Every day we see new examples of Americans doing their part in the face of a crisis no one could have predicted and too many of our institutions did too little to prepare for.

Our elections are a prime example. In just the past few weeks we've seen primary and special elections postponed in the interest of social distancing and public health. Maryland, Kentucky, Georgia and Louisiana have pushed voting until later in the spring or summer. While this may provide a small hiccup for the Democratic presidential campaign, these decisions were prudent.


Ohio, which was slated to vote Tuesday, called a halt to the primary just hours ahead of time. On its face, Gov. Mike DeWine's request for a state judge to intervene and halt polling makes sense given the universal admonition not to gather in large groups.

However, when the court refused, DeWine's public health director canceled the election unilaterally, citing the coronavirus. Given that neither the governor nor the General Assembly had statutory authority to do so, DeWine used a legal end-around to achieve an otherwise reasonable goal.

This willingness and ability to use such extraordinary authority is concerning for several reasons.

First, when left with no other option, DeWine found the fastest and most efficient means necessary to take an action for which he didn't otherwise have authority. Indeed, incredible times sometimes call for incredible measures, but the ability of an executive to take unilateral action — especially when it concerns voting — is an uncommon act in America, to say the least.

This leads to the next issue: Other governors and state elections officials view DeWine's action — and the lack of reaction from the Legislature, the media or the people — as a precedent for taking similar action should they deem it necessary and appropriate. Given this hyper-polarized moment, we should insist that leaders of both parties commit publicly to not taking actions that will adversely affect their political opponents.

Lastly, and perhaps most concerning, is that President Trump, given his ignorance and disdain for both law and tradition, will attempt to utilize a similar "public health emergency" declaration to cancel elections in November. This must not be allowed to happen.

Although this week Trump said he didn't believe it was necessary to postpone other primary elections, we should not take that, or anything he says, as a blanket statement. Given the president's predilection for saying whatever comes to mind or is the most expedient, it is not beyond the realm of possibility to see him leaning into a "cancel the election" stance and pressuring Republican governors and secretaries of state to go along with his wishes.

To prevent such an outcome, elections officials, both in the statehouses and the counties, need to immediately begin preparing for more flexible means of allowing voters to participate this fall. The good news is that most of the infrastructure already exists to make this a reality.

All states provide for at least some voting using an absentee, mail-in ballot. They are split about evenly between those that require some sort of reason (illness, military service, planned travel or advanced age) and those that provide the option to any registered voter who asks. Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah and Hawaii are the standouts — because in those five states ballots and return envelopes will be proactively sent to every voter for use in the general election.

Given most states' abilities and the traditions of issuing absentee ballots, elections officials should immediately begin the process of determining how best to ensure every voter can participate — either in person or at home in November. Most state ballots are not finalized until late August or early September; this should be sufficient time for county officials to organize printing and delivery.

While they are preparing to allow people to vote from their homes, states must also work with civic groups such as the League of Women Voters and other electoral reform groups to accomplish several key objectives.

Initially, states will need to implement a public service campaign to inform the electorate that the state will be moving to mail-in or all-absentee balloting. This must include resources, both mail and digital, that ensure voters clearly understand how to vote their ballot at home.

Given that many poll workers and election judges are older Americans, states must begin a recruitment drive for new poll workers and election judges. Younger Americans should take up the mantle of protecting the integrity of our elections from their parents and grandparents.

Lastly, there must be a concerted and coordinated campaign by us, the American people, to demand these changes and reforms be put in place as soon as possible. With the help of many national, state and local reform groups, we can ensure that come Nov. 3, every American voter's voice is heard.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
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