Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Meet the reformer: Gilda Daniels, voting rights advocate and chronicler

Gilda Daniels book launch

Gilda Daniels (right) reads from a passage of her book "Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America" during a launch event Jan. 28.

Tristiaña Hinton/The Fulcrum

Gilda R. Daniels has spent almost three decades at the intersection of law and voting rights. Currently litigation director at the Advancement Project, a liberal nonprofit focused on advancing racial justice, she's also interim director of the group's voting rights efforts. A law professor at the University of Baltimore, she was a senior Civil Rights Division official at the Justice Department in both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. She's become best known to the general public, though, with this year's publication of "Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America" (NYU Press). Her answers have been slightly edited for clarity.

What's democracy's biggest challenge, in 10 words or less?

Voter fatigue and voter suppression.


Describe your very first civic engagement.

My father was the first African-American elected to our parish's police jury, which is a governing body in Louisiana similar to a county commission. He demonstrated public service. His slogan was "A public servant, not a politician."

What was your biggest professional triumph?

Writing "Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America."

And your most disappointing setback?

A miscarriage in 2015.

How does your identity influence the way you go about your work?

As an African-American female who grew up in the South, I view the world through multiple intersections.

What's the best advice you've ever been given?

Don't pray and worry.

Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.

Democracy's Destiny: chocolate ice cream, nuts, marshmallow cream and dark chocolate chips.

West Wing or Veep?

I have never watched an episode of Veep.

What's the last thing you do on your phone at night?

Turn it off.

What is your deepest, darkest secret?

I can SANG!


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep Reading Show less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep Reading Show less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime
Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep Reading Show less