Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democratic senators seek $20 billion in election funding

​Sen. Amy Klobuchar

Sen. Amy Klobuchar

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Democratic senators introduced a bill on Wednesday that would allocate $20 billion in federal funding for election administration. Like other election-related legislation offered over the past two years, it faces a difficult path to enactment.

The bill, sponsored by Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, would fund improvements to election management, poll worker training and the elimination of barriers to voting.

“Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy, but in recent years we have seen a barrage of threats seeking to undermine our elections. It is critical that we respond to these threats head-on by ensuring that state and local governments have the resources needed to strengthen the administration of our elections, protect election officials on the frontlines, and provide all eligible voters with the opportunity to make their voices heard,” Klobuchar said.


The Minnesota Democrat has been a leading advocate for federal election reform and funding. In February, she led 23 Democrats in urging President Biden to designate $5 billion for election security and to prioritize funding for election administration in his fiscal 2023 budget. Biden in fact included $10 billion for election administration as well as $5 billion for the expansion of mail-in voting in the budget proposal released in March.

Klobuchar chairs the Rules and Administration Committee, which held a hearing on the security of the 2022 election Thursday.

The bill mirrors the recommendations offered in a new report from the National Institute for Civil Discourse. Another report, the Election Infrastructure Initiative’s “ 50 States of Need ”, however, goes much further. It calls for more than $50 billion over 10 years for states to improve election administration, equipment, cybersecurity, voter registration systems and post-election audits. Both reports emphasize not just increased funding but also a consistent flow of dollars to the state for election infrastructure.

If and when this bill comes up for a vote, it will likely face the same procedural barriers that have stopped other election reform bills in the Senate. Three bills – the For the People Act, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act – would have instituted changes to elections but were blocked by Republican filibusters in the Senate.

In 2017, Klobuchar teamed up with Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma on a bill to strengthen cybersecurity, but that also failed to pass. A 2019 bill focused strictly on election security passed the House but did not make it out of committee in the Senate.

But there have been a handful of bipartisan successes over the past 20 years. In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, which provided federal funds for the improvement of election infrastructure and established the Election Assistance Commission. Since 2010, HAVA funds have only been appropriated twice. In 2018, a larger appropriations act included $380 million to increase the cybersecurity of voting systems. An additional $400 million in HAVA funds were appropriated in 2020 through the CARES Act to help state and local governments pay for additional costs caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.


Read More

Alaska Is Voting on More Than Ranked Choice Voting. It’s Voting on Who Gets to Vote

Alaska voters will once again vote on a measure to repeal its nonpartisan election system. Those fighting to preserve the system have gone to the courts to make a simple case: It’s only fair that voters know exactly what is on their ballot.

Specifically the consequences of Ballot Measure 2, which would give parties the ability to shut out 60% of Alaska voters registered as independents. This is what attorney Scott Kendall argued before the Alaska Supreme Court last week.

Keep ReadingShow less
Group of young adult students sit at desks in classroom listening to teacher

Why do Americans respond so differently to hard history lessons? A look at the three psychological mindsets driving the patriotism debate — and a path past it.

Lighthouse Films/Getty Images

“They Hate America”: Patriotism in the Face of Historical Updates

I happened upon a civil discussion blog and read a post by a man who said he was happy to report that when he attended a panel discussion about teaching patriotism in the schools, all went well. He said that’s because most of the people in the bridging organization that hosted the event are “pretty patriotic.” He clarified that by writing, “None of the type of bad actors (and there are many) who want to teach kids to hate America and Western Civilization were represented.”

Someone made a comment about why we can’t incorporate historical change into curriculum and objected to the notion that a segment of the population wants to teach kids to hate America. The man who posted cited what he believes is proof. A last commenter simply input the emoji for a sleeping person, as though the argument was boring or unimportant.

Keep ReadingShow less
Android portrait, Deep Learning, Artificial Intelligence Background

1,200 AI agents broke isolation, self-organized, and hacked Hugging Face — then covered their tracks. An argument for international AI controls, now.

blackdovfx/Getty Images

AI As a Darth Vader Menace

The enemy is in our midst, but the enemy is not us; it's AI. Whatever negative thoughts I had about AI—how it is being misused, how that use would weaken America, and how it should be regulated—were naive (see my article, "AI - Its Use, Misuse, and Regulation").

AI is instead showing itself already, in its infancy, as a three-headed gorgon that could one day destroy us. Yes, as I acknowledged in my article, AI does have positive uses, but the negative potential far outweighs the positive.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House, Washington, DC
A large white building with a fountain in front of it

We Can and Should Reform the President’s Pardon Power

On August 21, Congressman Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a report entitled “Pardons, Inc.: How Trump and His Clemency-for-Cash Racket Let White-Collar Criminals and International Drug Dealers Walk Free and Dodge Billions in Restitution Owed to Their Victims.” As the title suggests, the report documents the president’s startling abuse of his constitutional power to grant pardons and reprieves.

If that problem were limited to Trump, we might look to the ballot box to remedy it. But it is not.

Keep ReadingShow less