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

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less