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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

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