Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Tennessee lawmakers ban ranked-choice voting

Ranked-choice voting in Tennessee

Lawmakers in Tennessee blocked the city of Memphis from conducting ranked-choice elections.

David Underwood/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Alternative voting systems have been making inroads across the country in recent years but suffered a setback Monday when the Tennessee General Assembly passed a ban on ranked-choice voting.

Assuming Gov. Bill Lee signs the bill into law, this will end a saga that began in 2008 when the people of Memphis voted to use RCV for city elections but had yet to use it — and mark a rare reversal of an electoral system change.


Ranked-choice voting, also known as an instant runoff, was used in more than 43 jurisdictions over the past few years, according to FairVote, which advocates for RCV and other changes to elections systems. New York City is the most populous jurisdiction to use RCV, along with the state of Maine, San Francisco, Minneapolis and many other cities. In 2020, Alaskans approved the use of RCV for federal and state general elections.

The Virginia Republican Party held a ranked-choice gubernatorial primary in 2021, leading to the nomination of now-Gov. Glenn Youngkin — a rare statewide win for a Republican in a state that has been trending Democratic.

The voters of Memphis never got an opportunity to use a system they approved. The local measure authorized the city to begin using RCV after election officials determined that voting equipment could handle it. That approval was granted in 2017 and the city planned to use RCV for the 2019 city council elections (following reaffirmation in a 2018 referendum), but a state election official determined ranked voting would violate the state law.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

That led to a series of lawsuits on behalf of Memphis voters, but those filings will be moot if the bill is enacted.

"Ranked choice voting is the fastest-growing nonpartisan voting reform in the country for good reasons. As more than 50 cities have shown, ranked-choice voting is straightforward to implement and easy and popular with voters. That's why many Republicans introduce pro-RCV legislation and Republican parties regularly choose to use RCV for party contests,” said FairVote President and CEO Rob Richie. “It's disappointing that the Tennessee legislature is denying the will of Memphis voters — the voters who twice overwhelmingly voted to implement RCV. We hope they still get a chance in the future."

In an RCV election, voters rank their preferred candidate. If no one receives a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with the least support is eliminated and that person’s voters are redistributed to second-choice candidates. The process continues until someone has a majority of the votes.

In a standard election with more than two candidates, someone can win without earning a majority of votes.

Supporters of ranked-choice voting say that, in addition to guaranteeing the winner can claim majority support, RCV encourages more civil campaigning because candidates need to appeal to a wider base of support in order to earn secondary votes. It also can save money for cities and states by eliminating the need to manage expensive runoff elections.

Ranked-choice voting is not the only alternative method expanding in the United States. Approval voting, in which voters select as many candidates as they want with the person with the most support winning, has been implemented in St. Louis and Fargo, N.D.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less