Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Lessons for Democracy Reformers in the Legacy of President Jimmy Carter

Opinion

Lessons for Democracy Reformers in the Legacy of President Jimmy Carter

ATLANTA -- SEPT 14: Former President Jimmy Carter interviewed for "The Presidents' Gatekeepers" project at the Carter Center, Atlanta, Georgia, September 14, 2011.

(Photo by David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images)

President Jimmy Carter touched the lives of millions, in countries around the world, through contact points as diverse as public health campaigns, Sunday school lessons, rural homebuilding, or appreciation of southern rock. Included in his huge roster of impact is the organization I lead, Election Reformers Network, which was founded by international democracy experts inspired by his leadership. Like many others, I had the good fortune to work with President Carter on election missions overseas and to support The Carter Center’s expansion of its work into the United States. Carter’s legacy has much to teach democracy reformers here in the U.S.

President Carter learned early in his career about the anti-democratic forces he would challenge so often throughout his life. He lost his first election for Georgia state senate because of election fraud so blatant that “ the dead voted alphabetically.” Georgia had long been a one-party state ruled by insiders and local Democratic Party bosses. Blacks were systematically disenfranchised, and voting rules gave rural counties vastly disproportionate power through an in-state version of the electoral college.


Carter fought in court and in the media against the party operatives and their ballot stuffing, and he was finally awarded his senate seat. Along the way, many counseled him to give up and accept the way things worked, but he persisted. His commitment to the principles of fairness mobilized key advocates to challenge the status quo. But that same moral grounding meant his victory wasn’t laced with vindication. In his book about the election, Carter is remarkably even-handed toward the system that had tried to cheat him.

Carter’s win launched his political career and helped make democracy and election fairness central to his work in the White House and beyond. In 1982, the year he launched The Carter Center, only a third of the countries of the world were electoral democracies ( according to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance), and a peaceful democratic transfer of power seemed impossible across most of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Central and Eastern Europe. Many assumed that democracy couldn’t take root in certain regions or cultures. But before the end of the century, the number of electoral democracies had more than doubled, burying those old doubts about cultural barriers.

President Carter and The Carter Center played an important role in this huge increase in genuine elections and human freedom around the world. Carter’s work overseas often resembled his seminal Georgia senate win. He persisted in the face of daunting obstacles and kept long-term goals in sight. His faith in the betterment of all people made every corner of the globe important to him. In his many election monitoring missions, he emphasized the transparency that deters fraud and ensures fair elections. But Carter also focused on the important underlying structures of democracy, which so often favor insiders and incumbents, including who runs elections and how votes translate into power.

There are many lessons here for US reformers, including the importance of both elections and the wider range of rules and institutions that make democracy function. His successes overseas depended on authentic nonpartisanship that we can learn from, a complete neutrality toward election outcomes. For me personally, more specific lessons include his advocacy for the U.S. to move away from relying on partisan insiders to run elections, a cause Election Reformers Network has long supported. His opposition to electoral-college-style voting in Georgia reconfirms my concern about the many distortions of our presidential voting system and the need, long though it will take, for constitutional reform.

But Carter’s most important lessons are moral. He was able to combine an almost spiritual commitment to full and fair democracy with respect and empathy toward even those who oppose democratic change. Often, the key to his success was a willingness to personally connect with and trust actors whom most would assume to be his adversaries. “He built trust with autocratic leaders under threat from opposition movements in countries such as Nicaragua and Zambia,” remembers Democracy International CEO Eric Bjornlund, who worked with President Carter in several countries over more than a decade. “That quality helped him succeed in ushering in peaceful transitions in those pivotal countries.”

These considerations bring up questions about approaches to the very different man who, in a few short weeks, will occupy the White House. Carter voiced opposition to Trump policies, but personally attended his first inauguration in 2017. In a 2022 New York Times opinion piece, Carter spoke out against the “lies” and “disinformation” “that stoke distrust in our electoral system.” He would surely be concerned now by Trump’s continued refusal to accept the verdict of the rule of law regarding the 2020 elections. Despite these very real concerns, Carter would be at Trump’s next inauguration on January 20 if he could.

Democracy is grounded in the rule of law and in respect for all people. How fortunate we are to have President Carter’s example of deep moral commitment to both goals.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization.


Read More

Senators Express Support, Criticism of Future Military Action in Iran

Sen. Chuck Schumer criticized the Iran War on Tuesday. Republicans and Democrats are mostly split along party lines in support and criticism of the war.

(Marissa Fernandez/MNS)

Senators Express Support, Criticism of Future Military Action in Iran

WASHINGTON — Senators seemed split along party lines over future military action in the Middle East after a classified intelligence briefing on Tuesday afternoon. Democrats called for increased clarity on the objectives and justifications for attacks, while Republicans supported the Trump administration’s current plan.

The conflicting reactions came as both the House and the Senate are scheduled to vote on a war powers resolution on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively. If passed, the resolution would limit further military actions in Iran without congressional approval.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

Analysis of President Donald Trump’s tariffs after a record $901.5B U.S. trade deficit in 2025. Explore the economic realities behind trade imbalances, the United States Supreme Court ruling on tariff authority, and the growing debate over executive power and trade policy.

Getty Images, Phanphen Kaewwannarat

What’s Next After the Court’s Tariffs Decision?

A Stubborn Imbalance

After a year of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, sold as a reset of global trade, the promise was simple: the U.S. trade deficit would shrink. It did not. The Commerce Department instead reported a $70.3 billion deficit in December and a staggering $901.5 billion for all of 2025, one of the largest totals on record. The gap between imports and exports barely narrowed at all.

These figures matter because they undermine the central premise of the strategy: make imports more expensive, reduce foreign purchases, and bring production back to the United States. But that approach overlooks a key reality. Trade balances are not driven by tariffs alone. They reflect deeper forces such as consumer demand, domestic savings rates, the strength of the dollar, and global capital flows. Those forces do not yield easily to executive action.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person grabbing a gallon of milk from an aisle.

New U.S. dietary guidelines from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Brooke Rollins promote more milk in schools—but widespread Lactose Intolerance raises questions about equity and nutrition policy.

Getty Images, Theerawit Jirattawevut

Lactose Intolerant? You’re Not Alone

Last month, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins announced new dietary guidelines for Americans that were a major reset of federal nutrition policy. Among the new recommendations: drink more milk, eat more yogurt and cheese. While nutritionists continue to debate the scientific basis of the recommendations, changes in federal meal programs, including school meals, are already in the works.

Any school that participates in federal meal programs must offer milk with every meal, and new guidelines support whole milk in addition to 2% and skim milk already available in schools. While there is debate about the level of saturated fats in whole milk, there’s a deeper problem with the dairy recommendation for school lunches: the widespread prevalence of lactose intolerance. The vast majority of people on this planet, approximately 70%, are lactose intolerant. While it is estimated that only about 35% of the US population is lactose intolerant, that number is much higher depending on your ancestral history: 75% of African Americans; 90% of Asian Americans; 50% of Latinos; 50% of Ashkenazi Jews; and 70-90% of Native Americans are lactose intolerant. For school districts with large populations of descendant groups, the recommendation to just drink more milk doesn’t work for millions of kids.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court weighs pipeline deadline fight with stakes far beyond the Straits of Mackinac

Supreme Court of the United States

Cayla Labgold-Carroll

Supreme Court weighs pipeline deadline fight with stakes far beyond the Straits of Mackinac

WASHINGTON – A dispute over a missed court filing deadline landed before the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 24, but legal scholars warned the decision could reshape whether federal or state courts get to decide the fate of major energy projects, and whether states retain meaningful power to enforce their own environmental laws.

The case, Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, asks whether federal courts have the authority to waive a 30-day deadline for removing a case from state to federal court. While the case is procedural, the flexibility Enbridge requested could allow companies to pick the court they prefer.

Keep ReadingShow less