Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Standoff on timing of next stimulus masks debate over more election aid

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that Democrats are seeking an additional $1.6 billion for voting services necessitated by the coronavirus pandemic.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Top congressional Democrats are promising to include much more money for healthy elections in the next coronavirus response package they're pushing. But Republicans' resistance to quickly writing such a bill is intensifying, obscuring their level of interest in additional spending to expand voting by mail, early voting and online registration.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday the measure her House majority has started putting together would provide at least $1.6 billion on top of the $400 million included in the economic rescue package passed last week.

Dozens of groups advocating for voting rights and the broader democracy reform agenda have coalesced behind that funding level as their singular focus during the pandemic, arguing that conducting a normal and trustworthy election in November will be impossible otherwise.

But Republicans in control of the Senate say they're in no rush to draft another stimulus bill, and state officials say significant delay could make it impossible to spend additional aid in time.


The $2 trillion measure signed last Friday needs time to prove itself, Republicans say, and besides they're highly skeptical about Democrats' agenda, arguing the left wants to use the cover of the Covid-19 outbreak to advance a liberal agenda on all kinds of minimally connected fronts.

Complicating the prospects for additional election grants is resistance from President Trump, who lamented this week that making it too easy to vote would cripple the chances of Republican candidates.

On Thursday, two dozen progressive groups joined the two Democratic senators leading the drive for the money, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ron Wyden of Oregon, to promise an intense lobbying push in the weeks ahead.

They expressed optimism GOP congressional leaders would support another wave of spending whenever they agree to move the next bill, in part because the top election officials in 28 states are Republicans and they're eager for the cash.

"I'm beginning to see a disconnect between conservatives at the state and local level and Republicans who have resisted this in Washington," Wyden said.

What those GOP officials don't want are accompanying federal requirements for liberalizing their voter registration or absentee ballot rules, even though many are preparing to do so. No such strings were attached to the first grants because new federal mandates on how the states and counties conduct elections are non-starters for Republican leaders, starting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

"Offsetting the carbon footprint of airplanes, remaking our energy grid, or changing election laws, as Democrats have suggested, have nothing to do with our war against the disease," House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a statement.

The Brennan Center for Justice, one of the most prominent left-leaning democracy reform groups, came up with $2 billion as the high-end estimate of what it would cost to print return-postage-paid ballots, send them to all Americans who don't already vote at home, verify and count the ocean of paper that gets returned, stand up online registration in the 11 states that don't have it and assure hygienic polling stations for the small numbers who still vote in person early or on Nov. 3.

The estimate did not include additional costs that more than a dozen states now face from postponing their primaries and expanding absentee options for voting in those contests.

In addition, the Postal Service says the budget crisis it's facing because of the pandemic means it will not be capable of delivering and returning many millions of ballots unless it gets a significant bailout of its own.

Pelosi promised that would be part of the House's next stimulus package, not only to smooth commerce but also to ease the election.

"Vote by mail is so important to our democracy so that people have access to voting and not being deterred, especially at this time, by the admonition to stay home," Pelosi told reporters on a Wednesday conference call.

As for what Trump said Monday about election aid, the California Democrat said: "When the president says, 'if we have vote by mail we'll never elect another Republican,' I think that, first of all, it doesn't recognize that Republicans know how to vote by mail."

Although Congress is formally scheduled to reconvene in three weeks, that timetable was set before the Trump administration extended the nationwide period for social distancing until May 1. Odds are strong most members, except those with a hand in writing the next relief bill, will stay away from Washington until the measure is ready for a vote.

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