Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Flood of 'spend more on elections' missives in congressional mailboxes

Mail delivery
Jed Share/Kaoru Share/Getty Images

Advocates for making voting safer and easier this year are showering Congress with appeals for help in the next coronavirus response package.

The flow of letters, e-mail and appeals posted online has accelerated in recent days, as lawmakers have started haggling over a fourth aid package since the pandemic took hold. But any decisions have now been delayed at least two weeks, as the Senate on Tuesday joined the House in postponing lawmakers' earliest return until the week of May 4.

The missives have much in common: They are signed mainly by progressive groups, augmented by a handful of cross-partisan good governance organizations. They focus on getting more money for expanding mail-in voting, early in-person voting, online registration and other steps to protect the electorate and election workers from the virus. And they stop short of calling for federal requirements for states spending the aid.


The most immediate decision for Congress is how to break a partisan stalemate over increasing funds to the Paycheck Protection Program, the small-business relief program at the core of the government's efforts to steer the economy beyond the worst of the Covid-19 outbreak.

Beyond that, Democrats have been pushing legislation mandating that states ease access to the ballot box this fall, principally by making absentee ballots available to all voters. Republicans object, arguing that would constitute a federal takeover of elections and spawn a wave of election fraud.

The groups are mainly soft-pedaling or staying away from that fight, especially now that President Trump's antagonism toward widespread voting-by-mail has hardened GOP opposition.

The award for the largest list of signatories clearly goes to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which had more than 200 groups on its letter sent Monday to all members of Congress. It asks for $4 billion in funds to help with delayed primary elections and the fall general election, on top of the $400 million provided in last month's $2.2 trillion stimulus package.

The letter highlights the need for more by-mail and early voting but also emphasizes the importance of providing safe Election Day options. It says states should not be required to provide matching funds — a 20 percent match on the first funds — and that some oversight should be included.

"We encourage Congress to institute accountability measures that provide latitude to states while ensuring that the funds are being directly used to ameliorate the impact of the pandemic on voting access," the groups wrote.

After the funding is delivered, the letter says, several policy changes "must be implemented" to ease the process of voting — including no-excuse absentee voting and online and same-day registration.

Among the more prominent groups who signed are the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the Sierra Club.

Another 50 groups sent an open letter to congressional leadership, also released Monday, demanding Congress provide $4 billion to the states. It calls for the money to be used for the same things mentioned by the Leadership Conference, and walks a similar fine line about mandates.

"While these reforms can and must be implemented by the states, Congress has an obligation to safeguard the integrity of our elections by setting national voting rights standards," says the letter. Stand Up America, Common Cause and Indivisible organized this letter, which includes some of the same groups as the first one.

On Tuesday representatives from a dozen different groups, many of which emphasize a more ideologically centrist approach to lobbying for fixes in the democratic system, signed a letter from the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers urging Congress "to move swiftly and decisively on voter mobility legislation" — but without mentioning either a monetary request or the need for mandates.

A similar letter to Capitol's Hill's bipartisan leadership was sent last week by the top leaders of the new Fix the System coalition, a group including some of the most influential democracy reform groups formed this spring to push proposals they view as having potential for bipartisan support.

Read More

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment
holding hands
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment

America’s drug policy is broken. For decades, we’ve focused primarily on the supply side—interdicting smugglers, prosecuting dealers, and escalating penalties while neglecting the demand side. Individuals who use drugs, more often than not, do so out of desperation, trauma, or addiction. This imbalance has cost lives, strained law enforcement, and failed to stem the tide of overdose deaths.

Fentanyl now kills an estimated 80,000 Americans annually. In response, some leaders have proposed extreme measures, including capital punishment for traffickers. But if we apply that logic consistently, what do we say about tobacco? Cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke kill nearly 480,000 Americans

Keep ReadingShow less