Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

For the People Act doesn't curtail states' rights

voting

"While local control over many legislative matters is appropriate and beneficial, the cry of states' rights has been used to restrict access to the ballot in the past," writes Young.

LifestyleVisuals/Getty Images

Young is the assistant director of engagement for Mormon Women for Ethical Government.


Although I have lived in six states, I didn't realize until recently how much voting access still depends on the state in which you reside. While laws can no longer explicitly exclude entire groups of would-be voters based on their religion, gender or race, voting is by no means equally accessible in all states. Registration options, deadlines, early voting and so much more vary significantly from state to state.

Considering this variety, the question surfaces: To what extent should the federal government provide and protect voting rights? Today, this question pertains to the For the People Act, which would promote the freedom to vote for all Americans. But this is not a new question.

Americans have been debating the roles of the federal and state governments since our nation's inception. Because no national standards for voting rights were specified in the Constitution, states decided who could vote (primarily landowning white males) and where and when those ballots could be cast. However, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution specifically affirms that "Congress may at any time by Law make or alter" the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections." The Constitution empowers Congress to respond to the needs of an expanding democracy.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

While the 2020 election was rife with contention and disinformation, there are two reasons to commend it. First, it had the highest voter turnout (66 percent of eligible voters) in decades. Additionally, it was found to be "the most secure in American history" by some of the nation's top cybersecurity officials. In such a tumultuous year, these were two important indicators. A functioning democracy requires both high levels of voter turnout and election security.

Unfortunately, rather than asking how to promote both voter participation and election processes we can trust, state legislatures across the country are using the myth of voter fraud to introduce legislation to restrict voting access. Consequently, the further protection of voting rights provided the For the People Act is crucial. This bill establishes national standards for voting access in each state (as well as much-needed campaign finance and ethics reforms).

Though these voting reforms are well within the bounds of constitutionality, opponents claim S 1 (as the bill is known in the Senate, where it is now under consideration) would federalize our elections. Yet elections would still be administered locally, and state legislatures could establish differences to their elections as long as they meet the national standards in the For the People Act. Surely the federal government has the ability, if not even the responsibility, to protect the freedom to vote in federal elections for all eligible Americans? The majority of Americans believe so. The bill has substantial (and, notably, bipartisan) popular support. Even when presented with messaging explaining that opponents say "states should control their own elections," 68 percent of Americans (including 57 percent of Republicans) approve of the bill as a whole.

Historically, Confederate states used the claim of states' rights in their attempt to preserve slavery. Even after the 15th Amendment, Southern states used the power of states' rights to implement poll taxes, literacy tests, and other laws to exclude Blacks from voting. States' rights were so closely connected to racism that the short-lived States' Rights Democratic Party was created to promote racial segregation and white supremacy. It is no coincidence that former slave states currently have the most restrictive voting laws, disproportionately affecting racial and ethnic minorities.

However, directly preceding the Voting Rights Act of 1965, many Americans favored federal intervention to guarantee voting rights. Polls show 76 percent of Americans supported a potential law to send federal officials to areas with low voter turnout to ensure Blacks and whites "are given an equal opportunity to register and to vote." When this question was framed alongside the viewpoint that it would impede the "rights of states to control their own elections," support dropped to 53 percent. The argument for states' rights diminished, but did not destroy, the desire of the majority of Americans for a federal guarantee of basic civil rights.

While local control over many legislative matters is appropriate and beneficial, the cry of states' rights has been used to restrict access to the ballot in the past. Voting is at the heart of representative government. Should our federally granted right to vote be determined locally? Today it appears that, despite alarmist language about nationalizing our elections, the public again supports using the federal government to secure voting rights for the people. Whether we live in a rural town or large city, a coastal state in the south or a landlocked state in the mountain west, the majority of Americans want equal freedom to vote. Are our elected officials up for the dialogue and collaboration necessary to make that happen?

Read More

Ken Powley
Team Democracy

Meet the change leaders: Ken Powley

Nevins is co-publisher ofThe Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of theBridge Alliance Education Fund.

Ken Powley and Chris Newlon founded Team Democracy in early 2021. Its signature initiative is the nonpartisan Safe and Fair Election Pledge. The pledge is designed to create an important piece of common ground where Americans — including their elected representatives — can join together from opposite sides of the aisle in committing themselves to protecting the most essential guardrails of American democracy: safe and fair elections, and the peaceful transfer of power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Drawing of a scene from "Alice in Wonderland"

Alice attends the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, iIllustration by Sir John Tenniel.

Andrew_Howe

We live in our own version of Wonderland

Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."

“Curiouser and curiouser,” Alice cried after falling down the rabbit hole in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.”

In nearly every arena of our lives we might observe the same, from our changing climate and increasingly high-stakes global conflicts, to space travel, energy conservation and the accelerating use of artificial intelligence. And, of course, in our volatile politics. Things are indeed getting curiouser.

Keep ReadingShow less
NVIDIA headquarters

Our stock market pivots on the performance of a handful of AI-focused companies like Nvidia.

hapabapa/Getty Images

We may face another 'too big to fail' scenario as AI labs go unchecked

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

In the span of two or so years, OpenAI, Nvidia and a handful of other companies essential to the development of artificial intelligence have become economic behemoths. Their valuations and stock prices have soared. Their products have become essential to Fortune 500 companies. Their business plans are the focus of the national security industry. Their collapse would be, well, unacceptable. They are too big to fail.

The good news is we’ve been in similar situations before. The bad news is we’ve yet to really learn our lesson.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman dancing

Mexican Independence Day celebration in Chicago

We must welcome in Latine unity

Marín is the co-creator and community advocate at BECOME. Rodríguez is the co-executive director of Enlace Chicago.

The Welcoming Neighborhood Listening Initiative delves into the dynamic social landscape of Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood, exploring resident perspectives on the influx of new neighbors seeking asylum. The study moves beyond traditional data collection to activate community members as leaders in driving transformative solutions. Ultimately, the report emphasizes the importance of culturally responsive training and community dialogues to foster understanding, bridge cultural divides and build a more inclusive Little Village for all.

Chicago just marked Mexican Independence Day with a reinstated celebration of El Grito in downtown and an annual parade in La Villita, a primarily Mexican neighborhood also known as Little Village. These festivities kicked off Hispanic Heritage Month, which celebrates the independence of Mexico along with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Chile.

Keep ReadingShow less

Meet the change leaders: Pearce Godwin

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Pearce Godwin is founder of the Listen First Project and the #ListenFirst Coalition of 500 organizations bringing Americans together across differences to listen, understand each other and discover common interests.

He catalyzes the movement to save America from toxic polarization by shifting social norms from division, distrust, contempt and violence toward connection, understanding and belonging. Pearce manages large-scale, co-created endeavors such as Meeting of America and the annual National Week of Conversation to engage as many Americans of all backgrounds and beliefs as possible to turn down the heat and find a way forward together.

Keep ReadingShow less