Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

New bipartisan group pushes for safe and secure voting of all kinds

Granholm and Ridge

Two prominent former governors, Democrat Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Republican Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, are co-chairing the new VoteSafe.

Getty Images

With millions of voters scared of coronavirus exposure, a surge of absentee ballots is coming in November even if the rules are not relaxed and more federal help is not delivered — a reality obscured by the intensifying partisan rhetoric over vote-by-mail's virtues and flaws.

And so a new group, VoteSafe, has been launched in hopes of lowering the volume and magnifying the needs of election administrators of both parties preparing for the first Election Day in a century during a nationwide public health emergency.

The organization, unveiled last week, has an A-list bipartisan pedigree and the backing of many prominent good-government groups — an alliance made possible because the group is pushing remote voting and use of polling places with equal force.


"VoteSafe is committed to ensuring voters have options: expanded access to absentee ballots as well as safe, sanitary, and accessible in-person voting locations," the website says up front. "Our goal is to ensure the safety of all voters as they exercise their constitutional right. Doing so is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. We are committed to ensuring that the right to vote safely transcends politics and partisanship."

The principles are at the core of VoteSafe's mission: States should ensure voters have access to both voting options, and Congress should provide states with the resources they need to do so.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In March, Congress allocated $400 million for states to spend on safeguarding elections during the pandemic, but good-government groups and election administrators have said this is not nearly enough to cover the costs.

The Democratic House voted two weeks ago to give another $3.6 billion to states, but the money is in a $3 trillion pandemic economic recovery package that's dead on arrival in the Senate, and it's not clear when Republican leaders there will come up with a counteroffer and whether it will include any election funding.

Six top state election officials have endorsed VoteSafe's principles, including Republican Secretaries of State Brad Raffensburger of Georgia and Kim Wyman of Washington. The others are Democratic Secretaries of State Jocelyn Benson of Michigan, Jena Griswold of Colorado, Maggie Toulouse Oliver of New Mexico and Denise Merrill of Connecticut.

VoteSafe aims to encourage more election officials to sign on to these principles ahead of an election now just 23 weeks away. Its website includes an open letter to election administrators that urges them to join the campaign.

"This is not a partisan issue and not a time to play politics," the letter reads. "We can unite over protecting the sacred American right to vote."

Two prominent former governors, Republican Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania and Democrat Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, are serving as co-chairs of VoteSafe. Eleven good-government groups have also partnered with the campaign, including the League of Women Voters, the National Vote at Home Institute, RepresentUs and the R Street Institute.

"Let's remember that voting isn't a privilege, it's a responsibility of citizenship," Ridge said. "Responsibility also rests with government to make certain that every American has the right to vote safely during this public health crisis."

Read More

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
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