Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The For the People Act is not dead  yet

Opinion

Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Mitch McConnell

Pool/Getty Images

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (left) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are continuing to maneuver on opposites sides of the For the People Act.
Effingham is director of federal reform for RepresentUs, a right-left anti-corruption group.

Pundits and journalists have expressed doubts about the future of the For the People Act since it was introduced, and continue to label it "dead" in article after article. The reality is that the landmark voting rights bill has never been closer to getting passed — but the window to do so is quickly closing.

Of course, we're well aware of the main hurdles in the way. It's true that not a single Republican senator supports the bill. And yes, because of that, we face the obstacle of the filibuster. But Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is laying the groundwork to bring along hesitant colleagues and break the logjam.

You see, a complicated game of chess is playing out in the Senate. In the wee hours of the night last week, Schumer introduced three pieces of legislation: the For the People Act, as well as a stand-alone anti- gerrymandering bill and a stand-alone dark money"disclosure" bill. Republican Ted Cruz immediately filibustered the bills. At 4:30 a.m., just before adjourning for August recess, Schumer declared, "Republicans have formed a total wall of opposition against progress on voting rights. That's what we have come to: total Republican intransigence."

Let's step back for a second. In the last two months, Republican senators on four occasions have blocked debate from starting on legislation to set common-sense baseline voting standards, end gerrymandering and get big money out of politics. These are issues that all have overwhelming bipartisan support in the country — particularly gerrymandering, which 89 percent of voters oppose.

Prior to the latest filibuster of the bills, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin tried to win Republican support for a compromise bill that set a national voter ID standard. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called that good-faith negotiation attempt "comic relief."

But Schumer is moving the pieces into place to pass the For the People Act, despite Republican opposition. He is forcing his Democratic colleagues to realize an unfortunate truth: Republicans in the Senate have shown us time and time again that there is no proposal — no matter how popular or how historically bipartisan — that they're willing to support.

By bringing voting rights to the floor again, Schumer sent a message before leaving town. If passing popular standalone pieces of legislation like the Redistricting Reform Act won't get 10 Republicans, if passing reasonable voting protections that includes a voter ID standard won't get 10 Republicans, Democrats in the Senate must come to terms with the reality that there is nothing of value in the democracy space that will get Republican support. So they must take the only alternative route forward: filibuster reform.

Manchin and others continue to voice concerns about ending the filibuster, but they must now see they have no other options. Democracy depends on Democratic senators figuring out how to end gridlock on voting rights and enact filibuster reform.

There is no time to waste. The Census Bureau delivered population data to states last week, kicking off the redistricting process that could see unprecedented gerrymandering aided by powerful supercomputers and the blessing of the Supreme Court. RepresentUs' Gerrymandering Threat Index shows that 35 states are at "extreme" or "high" risk of partisan gerrymandering. That's why we partnered with the Princeton Gerrymandering Project on a Redistricting Report Card to detect gerrymandering and grade each state's proposed maps. If the Senate doesn't pass federal anti-gerrymandering reform immediately when it reconvenes, we could be stuck with bad voting maps for the next decade.

With the Senate in recess, now is the time to call and write your senators and urge them to support the For the People Act. Because Schumer said that when the Senate comes back next month, the bill will be first on the agenda. Make no mistake: Democratic senators know how to move this bill forward reforming the filibuster. They know they have no other choice.


Read More

Vote pins

Vote pins

Photo provided

Sharp Gender Divide Among Latino Voters

A new analysis from the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute (LPPI) and the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) reveals significant political differences between Latinas and Latino men in California — especially among younger voters and those without bachelor’s degrees. The findings, drawn from the May 2026 Berkeley IGS Poll of 1,912 Latino registered voters, challenge the notion that California’s Latino electorate behaves as a single political bloc.

California Latinas are more likely than Latino men to prioritize protecting immigrant communities, opposing the Trump administration’s agenda, and defending democracy and voting rights. According to the report, 69% of Latinas say protecting immigrant communities is “very important,” compared with 52% of Latino men. On “fighting the Trump agenda,” the gap is identical: 68% of Latinas versus 51% of Latino men. Democracy and voting rights receive the strongest support across both groups, with 87% of Latinas and 77% of Latino men rating the issue as very important.

Keep ReadingShow less
unrecognizable businessman giving speech to professional audience

Brain science explains why voters reward charisma over results — and why the leaders who "fix" the most get credit for the least. A behavioral look at elections.

alvaro gonzalez/Getty Images

The Résumé Should Outvote the Smile

There's an old joke about a couple who finally solved years of arguing over decisions. "Since you're the man of the house," the wife said, "you handle the big things -- our stance on foreign wars, who we send to the Senate. I'll take care of the small stuff: groceries, the mortgage, where we live, what we eat." The husband agreed happily, certain he had won the better half of the deal. A few years later he realized the trade had gone entirely the other way. He held forth on geopolitics at dinner parties while his wife quietly ran every detail that actually touched his life: what he ate, where he lived, how his money was spent. What looked like ultimate authority was, in practice, near-total abdication over the things that shaped his days.

Voters make the same trade, and pay for it the same way. We keep hiring leaders for the qualities we would want in a spouse -- warmth, charm, a commanding voice, the sense that they see us -- instead of the qualities we would want in a mechanic: someone who can find what is broken and fix it before the whole system fails. We evaluate candidates the way we choose intimate partners, not the way we hire people to run complex, high-stakes systems.

Keep ReadingShow less