Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

For women, the time to run is now

Opinion

Michelle Lujan Grisham, women in government

New Mexico's Michelle Lujan Grisham is the only woman of color currently serving as govenror.

Lea Suzuki/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images

Wilson is an associate professor of political science at the University of Indianapolis and a public voices fellow at The OpEd Project.

Start your engines, organize your campaign and submit your filing paperwork, ladies, because now is the time to run. Women are critically underrepresented in government, regardless of the level or branch.

We are mere months away from the congressional midterm elections, which gives us the opportunity to vote on federal races, but there are many statewide elections that coincide with the Senate and House candidates at the top of the ticket. Even with the presidency not up for election this year, the Covid pandemic, rampant inflation, and Russia’s involvement in Ukraine give voters plenty of motivation to get to the polls.

Female candidates should be motivated, too. The last two election cycles marked record-breaking numbers of women running for office and ultimately winning. Research in political science (like the work of Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox) shows that when women run, they win — but they do not run as often as men do. This disparity in declaring candidacies leads to the gender gap in politics.


Women are substantially underrepresented. At the federal level, women account for just 27 percent of members of Congress and are one-third of the Supreme Court. Though we have our first female (and person of color) vice president, our country still has never elected a female president. State government fares somewhat better in terms of women in public office, with 30 percent of state legislative seats occupied by women and nine states having female governors. Some politicians begin their careers in state government and then climb to the federal level, giving hope to the difference that could serve as a pipeline.

If these numbers alone are unconvincing in the need to cultivate more diversity in public office, the statistics only get worse when racial and ethnic differences are added. Women of color comprise a much smaller subset of elected officials. According to the Center for American Women in Poltics at Rutgers University, there are three women of color currently serving in the Senate (and five ever historically), one woman of color is governor of her state (Michelle Lujan Grisham, the first Latina to hold that office) while four hold the office of lieutenant governor. A record-breaking number of women of color ran in 2020 and projections based on candidate declarations show that record will again be broken in 2022. But the disparity still remains.

This gap is often the topic of conversation immediately before and following the election itself. While there is never a bad time to analyze underrepresentation and consider the causes and consequences, nothing can be done then about attracting more candidates. Candidates need to file with their elections manager (usually the secretary of state) by their state deadline in order to be listed on the ballot. Write-in candidacies do not require filing but they are largely unsuccessful. Filing opened up across the country this month and the window to declare a candidacy is slowly closing, with most state deadlines set for February and March.

To file, a prospective candidate must meet state qualifications (usually including age minimums and residency requirements), organize a campaign committee (notably a campaign finance chair who will need to navigate complex but critical laws), and, in some cases, pay a filing fee. These fees were used historically as a way to deter candidates who weren’t serious in their pursuits, though “indigent” candidates who cannot afford the fee can collect signatures as dictated by state law to forgo the financial barrier.

Traditionally, parties and political organizations led the charge and still play a large role in the recruitment, training and campaign organizing for candidates. In an era of candidate-centered elections and where primaries, not conventions, select the names that will be on the ballot in November, prospective candidates should consider running, regardless of whether they are approached or groomed by a party. Waiting to be tapped on the shoulder is not going to cut it. If you are thinking about running, you can start by yourself.

In most arenas of public service, women are the minority. And, despite two great record-breaking cycles leading up to this election, they remain the minority. From a symbolic representation perspective, this can be harmful. But it is even more damaging when considering substantive representation, where differences of experience and perspective can have on an actual impact on policies. Research has shown that women contribute in different ways than their male counterparts, confirming the value of their presence in leadership. Having institutions that resemble the people they represent is essential to an effective democracy.

If our democratic institutions do not reflect their own constituencies, one has to question the extent to which they are truly democratic with regards to representation. After all, a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” must include the people who aren’t men.

Read More

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

When ego replaces accountability in the presidency, democracy weakens. An analysis of how unchecked leadership erodes trust, institutions, and the rule of law.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

When Leaders Put Ego Above Accountability—Democracy At Risk

What has become of America’s presidency? Once a symbol of dignity and public service, the office now appears chaotic, ego‑driven, and consumed by spectacle over substance. When personal ambition replaces accountability, the consequences extend far beyond politics — they erode trust, weaken institutions, and threaten democracy itself.

When leaders place ego above accountability, democracy falters. Weak leaders seek to appear powerful. Strong leaders accept responsibility.

Keep ReadingShow less
Leaders Fear Accountability — Why?
Protesters hold signs outside a government building.
Photo by Leo_Visions on Unsplash

Leaders Fear Accountability — Why?

America is being damaged not by strong leaders abusing power, but by weak leaders avoiding responsibility. Their refusal to be accountable has become a threat to democracy itself. We are now governed by individuals who hold power but lack the character, courage, and integrity required to use it responsibly. And while everyday Americans are expected to follow rules, honor commitments, and face consequences, we have a Congress and a President who are shielded by privilege and immunity. We have leaders in Congress who lie, point fingers, and break ethics rules because they can get away with it. There is no accountability. Too many of our leaders operate as if ethics were optional.

Internal fighting among members of Congress has only deepened the dysfunction. Instead of holding one another accountable, lawmakers spend their energy attacking colleagues, blocking legislation, and protecting party leaders. Infighting reveals a failure to check themselves, leaving citizens with a government paralyzed by disputes rather than focused on solutions. When leaders cannot even enforce accountability within their own ranks, the entire system falters.

Keep ReadingShow less