The Nevada Assembly on Tuesday passed legislation allowing residents to register to vote on Election Day, as part of a broader measure that expands early voting and provides for online registration.
The sweeping reform package, Assembly Bill 345, now heads to the Senate, which – like the Assembly and governor's seat – is controlled by Democrats.
If adopted, Nevada would become the 17th state to allow voters to register and cast a ballot on Election Day.
What the century scholars call “the democratic century” appears to have ended on January 20, 2025, when Donald Trump was sworn in as America’s forty-seventh president. It came almost one hundred years after German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Adolph Hitler as Chancellor of Germany.
Let me be clear. Trump is not America’s Hitler.
He is a duly elected president entitled to his views of the presidential power that he is authorized to exercise under the Constitution. As the New York Times explains, “President Trump’s expansive interpretation of presidential power has become the defining characteristic of his second term.”
It is right to say that he has launched a “second American Revolution.” Many Americans think he is bringing much-needed change to Washington, and, as columnist Bret Stephens observes, displaying the kind of “energy in the executive” that the U.S. Founders valued.
Still, the consequences of his view of presidential power and his revolution have been grave so far, leaving democracy and the rule of law in the United States staggering and some political leaders and citizens stunned that things they had long taken for granted could unravel so quickly.
But maybe, over the long term, what Trump is doing will work like an electric shock applied to a heart in cardiac arrest and jolt people out of their democratic slumber. This may sound odd. This is not something anyone would wish for.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
As the lyrics from a 1960s rock song put it, “You don’t know what you got ‘til it’s gone.”
That is one way of understanding why the rise of fascism in Europe turned out to be a boon for democracy, although no one knew it or could have foreseen it at the time. The incubation period for democracy’s century began on that tragic day, January 30, 1933.
The struggle against fascism and its unspeakable acts deepened democratic commitments here and around the world. Achieving a similar thing in our time will, hopefully, not require slaughter, war, and global catastrophe.
A crisis may be a terrible thing to waste but there is no guarantee that if we don’t waste it we come out better on the other side.
Just ask Woodrow Wilson.
Recall that, in 1917, President Wilson tried to rally support for America’s entrance into World War I by claiming that fighting the war was essential if the world were to “be made safe for democracy.” In his address to Congress asking for a Declaration of War, Wilson said, “Our object now, as then, is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power and to set up among the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth ensure the observance of those principles.”
Going to war, “with this natural foe to liberty…[would require]…the whole force of the nation… We are glad…to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of…peoples… for the rights of nations great and small, and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life…”
But, almost as soon as the war ended, Wilson‘s hopes for that lasting outcome were dashed. Instead, “the U.S. opted not to join the burgeoning League of Nations, even though it had been the nation to first propose such international cooperation. Instead, the United States focused on building the domestic economy by supporting business growth, encouraging industrial expansion, imposing tariffs on imported products, and limiting immigration.”
Three decades later, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt rallied the nation for war in Wilsonian language. The United States would be “fighting for the universal freedoms that all people possessed.”
FDR identified four such freedoms: freedom of speech, the freedom to worship in one’s own way, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
This time it worked. After the Second World War, there was no retreat.
At home, the fight against Hitler’s racist ideology helped propel the effort to make America’s democracy more democratic and inclusive. It deepened America’s appreciation of and attachment to democracy. This is registered by surveys that show that among people born in the 1930s, 75% of them say that it is “essential to live in a society governed democratically.”
Moreover, as Harvard University Professor Steven Levitsky said, “[T]here’s no question that after World War II…the United States, for decades, was a model to many aspiring Democrats and many democratic activists across the world.”
Since January 20, that is no longer the case.
The Washington Post observes that “as Trump upends democratic norms at home, his statements, policies, and actions are providing cover for a fresh chill on freedom of expression, democracy, the rule of law, and LGBTQ+ rights for autocrats around the world—some of whom are giving him credit.”
Professors Jason Brownlee and Kenny Miao note that since Trump came on the scene, we have witnessed what they call, “’a wave of autocratization’ threatening to engulf the world’s most venerable polities.” They point out that Trump returning to the Oval Office would mean “democracy is gone.”
What does this have to do with the possibility of a Trump-inspired democratic awakening?
My argument is this: In the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism, Americans began to take democracy for granted. They didn’t have to think about it. They didn’t have to be taught why it is valuable.
That is one reason young people are less attached to democracy than their parents or grandparents. They are not opposed to it; they just have not invested a lot in thinking about its preservation.
For them and all of us, the Trump Administration’s first days have been a reminder of democracy’s fragility and vulnerability. We can no longer assume that this country will always be a democracy or ignore the work that needs to be done to ensure that it will be.
Even as we come to this realization, it is important to pay attention to the lessons of history and the experiences of other countries. If we do, we will see that, to use Brownlee and Miao’s words, “the road from [democratic] backsliding to breakdown may be less traveled than previously assumed.”
“[N]orm erosion, institutional gridlock, and other woes, while certainly troubling—are not portents of dictatorship,” they wrote.
That is why Americans need to realize that we still have choices to make and those choices still matter. Our destiny is neither sealed nor guaranteed.
In fact, as Americans experience life under a government in which one person’s will is supreme, they may be inspired to stand up for democracy by Winston Churchill’s wisdom: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.”
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
A gavel.
Lawyers know that President Trump’s executive orders targeting individual law firms, and now, theentire legal profession, are illegal and unconstitutional. The situation puts a choice to every lawyer and every law firm. Do you fight – speak out and act out against this lawless behavior? Or do you accommodate it, keep your head down, and wait for the storm to pass?
The answer is to fight. Here’s why – and here’s what lawyers should do.
Our system of government is rooted in the principle that government power is constrained by guardrails. Whether legal, constitutional, or simply norms of behavior, these guardrails are so clear that few Americans disagree with them: government power is constrained by the courts; free speech is sacred; Congress gets to decide how money is spent; law enforcement decisions are made through a rigorous process, not political whim; government officials must tell the truth and follow the law.
These guardrails are not self-enforcing. All citizens have a role to play in enforcing these principles but lawyers have a special duty. For the privilege of entering this profession, lawyers swear an oath to protect the Constitution. And that means when the government is crashing through these guardrails, lawyers have an obligation to act – and to take sides.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Paul, Weiss is an example of a firm that has failed to live up to this standard. After being hit with an illegal and unconstitutional executive order, trying to put the firm out of business, the firm decided that instead of fighting, it would cut a deal requiring it to provide $40 million in free legal representation to causes identified by President Trump and to make other major changes in its operations. The leadership of Paul, Weiss decided that its highest duty was to stay in business.
Other firms and attorneys are in the fight. For example, Williams & Connolly is representing Perkins Coie, as it deals with another illegal and unconstitutional executive order targeting it. This is an act of principle and courage, as Williams & Connolly will likely face a fate similar to their client’s. Or look to the example of the young associate from Skadden who had everything to lose but decided her principles mattered more than her job.
Far too many law schools and their leaders seem to be trying to avoid confrontation. But these institutions, which teach the Constitution, the rule of law, legal ethics, and lawyers’ duty to preserve and protect a system of law focused on justice and fairness, don’t get to sit silently when those very principles are under attack. They have an obligation to set an example. It is past time for these leaders to speak out against this behavior, to call out their alumni who are acting this way, and to even revoke their degrees.
Individual lawyers and ordinary citizens also must act. If you’re an attorney at a firm that won’t live up to these sacred principles, there are other firms that will hire you. If you’re a company with business with a firm that isn’t living up to these standards, consider moving your business to one that does. And if you’re an alumni of a law school that has stood on the sidelines, demand action, and stop donating.
Above all, the message must be clear. The government cannot break the law and it cannot violate the Constitution. As lawyers, we swear an oath to represent our clients with zeal. The Constitution and the rule of law deserve the same representation. In the end, if lawyers won’t speak out now, when their profession is under an illegal and unconstitutional attack, when will they? If lawyers won’t fight for themselves, who will? And if lawyers cave in, who will be left to fight for the rest of us?
A close-up of a microphone during a session of government.
An area of intense focus for the political reform movement is our dysfunctional Congress. Such efforts as open primaries, ranked choice voting, proportional representation, anti-gerrymandering, and campaign finance reform have made fixing Congress a primary objective. As they become more widely adopted, they will improve representation legitimacy and legislative outcomes. But they may not be sufficient by themselves to deliver the quantum improvement in governance that our country desperately needs.
The time may be rapidly approaching when much more robust reforms to our democracy become feasible, even if they require amendments to the Constitution. Supermajorities of Americans now believe that fundamental structural changes to the system are necessary. They would like to hear about ideas that are totally nonpartisan; that more strongly incentivize consensus-driven outcomes responsive to the will of the people; that can galvanize an electorate ready to unleash its energy in support of rejuvenating our democracy; and that can yield meaningful results well in advance of any needed constitutional changes.
With these criteria in mind, I would like to introduce Fulcrum readers to an early-stage concept that is worthy of consideration. It is called the Public Check on Congress (PCC).
PCC would establish a new constitutional mechanism by which the national electorate, as a whole, by means of a nationwide referendum, could periodically hold the members of Congress—of all parties and both Houses—collectively accountable for Congress’ overall performance. PCC would oblige the members of Congress to take a substantial measure of joint (bipartisan and bicameral) responsibility for what they do and choose not to do, with significant consequences if that performance falls short.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
At the end of this article is a link to a more complete explanation of PCC. It includes a first draft of a constitutional amendment that would be required for full implementation, although much of the benefit could accrue long before final ratification when Congress sees the handwriting of collective accountability on the wall.
Here’s a checklist of some important ways PCC could improve our democracy:
PCC would have a number of other attractive attributes. As a referendum on congressional performance, it would be our only national election that is not a “lesser of evils” choice. It would give voters the choice between “a pox on both your houses” or a nod of satisfaction to Congress as a whole. It would also be the only nationwide election where every vote would be relevant, not just those in swing districts and states. And PCC would be uncomplicated for citizens to understand and execute on their ballots. (Some have already captured its essence by nicknaming it the “Shape Up or Ship Out” amendment.)
PCC is consistent with the original intentions of the U.S. Founders. They anticipated that their system of checks and balances might require some adjustments from time to time and expected future generations to make them.
For readers who are intrigued by the Public Check on Congress and would like to learn more about it, please click on the link below. Allow yourself some “steep time” for a few paradigms to shift.
For example, we know that all members of Congress have two responsibilities. The first is an individual responsibility each member has to their local district or state. The second is a collective responsibility each shares with all other members of Congress to serve the national interest. But while each is held accountable for their individual local responsibility by means of their local election, they are not held collectively accountable for their collective responsibility. The nation as a whole has no opportunity to vote on their collective performance. This “accountability gap” is a root cause of much congressional dysfunction. PCC would address this accountability gap with its powerful incentive to reach a consensus and act in the national interest. And if properly designed, it would do so without unduly interfering with members’ responsibility to their local constituency.
There are several other opportunities you will have to relax your grip on the status quo as you read the linked memo. You might even be stimulated to come up with other helpful new ideas that fit within the expanding Overton window of political reform possibilities.
For a more complete explanation of the Public Check on Congress, go to:
https://www.publiccheckoncongress.com/_files/ugd/c6a3ba_7f65ffda33c874f998c9360aa38bf4501.pdf
I welcome any comments at this address: wlb744@gmail.com
Bill Bridgman is a retired businessman. He is the Founder of the Public Check on Congress project and a member of the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers.
A dollar sign balloon.
After contributing more than a quarter of a billion dollars to elect Donald Trump, Elon Musk has now turned his attention to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, giving millions of dollars to support Judge Brad Schimel, the Republican candidate.
According to The Brennan Center, this race is the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history. If Musk is successful, it will tip the High Court’s balance to his political favor.
How is it that corporate billionaires are able to use their massive wealth to sway the political process?
In 2010, the Supreme Court overturned the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act, signed by President George W. Bush, that prohibited corporations from engaging in political campaigns, ruling instead that corporations were entitled to the same unrestrained right to free political speech as ordinary citizens—a mysterious equivocation.
Corporations cannot vote or run for public office—they “are not members of ‘we’ the people by and for whom our constitution was written,” according toJustice John Paul Stevens’ dissent, clearly foreshadowing how granting massive organizations unlimited political speech would “undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.”
In ending the protections that prohibit corporations from engaging in political campaigns, the majority of justices didacknowledge the “compelling” argument that corporate wealth could undermine the electoral process, but they rejected the claim that such contributions would amount to a quid pro quo. While these kinds of contributions may “ingratiate a corporation with and lead to greater access to a political candidate, ingratiation and access are not corruption.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Elon Musk is a glaring example of just how wrong they were.
Musk, who contributed over a quarter of a billion dollars to President Trump’s campaign, now holds the breathtaking power of restructuring the agencies, programs, and workforce of the United States Federal Government through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the agency he directs.
Some are concerned that Musk, unable to oversee thesafe design of an electric vehicle orrocket launch, has been tasked with redesigning the U.S. government, but former ligation judge Thomas Moukawsher identifies the greater concern—Musk can now erase or eliminate the agencies overseeing his own corporate interests and any investigations into his corporate practices or consumer complaints against him.
With at least twenty federal investigations into his companies, $288 million seems a small price to pay to direct the fate of these investigations and oversight for billions of dollars of his government contracts. He is entrusted with recusing himself should a conflict of interest arise. But who will hold him accountable?
In the span of a few months—at his directive—thousands of federal employees have been fired, agencies dismantled, federal monies frozen and at least eleven Inspectors General dismissed. Now, he’s toying with how to alter some of the nation’s largest safety nets like Medicare and Social Security, which is even more alarming given his claim that citizens who receive federal money are “parasites.”
Since assuming his new role, Musk created a “wall of receipts,” to document government inefficiency and corruption. It’s actually a glaring example of his own incompetence—riddled with incorrect information and sloppy errors—even mis-entering an eight-million-dollar expenditure as an eight-billion-dollar expense. And though Musk claimed his staff would receive no salary, they’re actually receivingsix-figure paychecks.
Musk is just one billionaire shaping the democratic process, a task conveniently expedited when billionaires like himself, Jeff Bezos, and Rupert Murdoch, also control the flow of information through their massive media empires. Billionaires become their own gatekeepers able to regulate the news and information we consume.
Musk’s role in the Trump Administration should become the symbol of our desperate need for State and Federal Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform. There is growing concern among voters about the role of corporate wealth in our elections. Billionaires on both sides of the aisle try to shape a political landscape compatible with their bottom line and larger corporate agenda. Campaign Finance Reform is a concrete step that would go far to re-balancing the electoral process and restoring political equity to “ordinary” citizens.
Trudy Bayer, Ph.D. is a specialist in the rhetoric of social movements. She was the founding director of the Oral Communication Lab at the University of Pittsburgh.
