Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Rainy days aren’t just for the winter

Rainy days aren’t just for the winter
Getty Images

Kevin Frazier will join the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University as an Assistant Professor starting this Fall. He currently is a clerk on the Montana Supreme Court.

My fiancé and I were exhausted when the movers told us that, upon further review, it would actually cost twice their initial estimate to move our stuff from Helena to Miami.


The number shocked us and our bank accounts. But we were captive customers. The moving crew had already sealed, wrapped, and trapped everything we counted on joining us in Florida. With those pieces of our lives held hostage, we lacked any option other than to acquiesce.

This expense, though unwelcome and undergoing a challenge (I’m a lawyer, after all), caught us off guard but didn’t sink our finances.

Others wouldn’t be so lucky. These sorts of financial tsunamis can appear out of nowhere and unmoor the 22 percent of Americans with no emergency savings—detaching them from whatever had previously provided stability in their lives. Unexpected financial swells don’t just disturb those furthest from the shore. About 30 percent of Americans might be able to withstand the first waves of financial instability, but only have enough savings to stay afloat for three months, according to a June survey by Bankrate.

More Americans need access to the financial anchor required to survive a calamity. Specifically, every American undergoing a period of financial instability should have access to a one-time, no-questions-asked grant of $5,000—to be deducted from any future Social Security earnings or donated by an individual with more financial stability (more on this in a second). The cruel irony is that though some would denounce this as a politically unacceptable “gift,” a one-time grant would actually save society money and act as an investment in those most in need of a heavier anchor.

When individuals become financially adrift, society pays a hefty and, at least in some cases, avoidable cost of trying to bring them back to shore. For example, according to the Urban Institute, the Miami community collectively paid $6 million to $14 million in 2019 as a result of the costs incurred by residents with unstable finances being evicted, and failing to pay their property taxes and utility bills.

Consider that in some cases a few hundred dollars would have allowed individuals to stay in their homes and retain all of the security, stability, and opportunity that comes with it. That’s precisely why Miami created the Eviction Prevention Program. Qualifying residents could receive up to $7,000 (one-time) towards the rental arrears. Established in response to COVID-19, the program demonstrated the community’s interest in preventing any resident from getting too far from the shores of financial stability as well as the value of early and low-cost interventions. Funding for the program has since dried up, though the need for financial assistance remains.

Now’s the time for the community to fill the gap left by governments that, due to crass politics or leaky budgets, refuse to lend the bootstraps folks need to regain their financial footing. For the Warren Buffets of the world—those who claim that they’d welcome paying higher taxes—the creation of a No Questions Asked (NQA) fund is akin to getting into pickleball because it would require little work and only a basic understanding of the rules.

Emergency relief funds such as the NQA fund succeed because they don’t get mired in the costly, biased, and bureaucratized process of trying to decide who is worthy of relief. Eligibility for such funds should hinge on two factors: any demonstration of financial instability and evidence that the recipient experienced an unexpected financial calamity.

Think back to a time when you felt the surge of panic brought on by a swell of financial instability—did it seem like you could wait for relief? Did you consider drastic and potentially dangerous ways to rebuild your financial foundation? Did the panic and anxiety impact your mental and physical health? My hunch is that the answer is yes to each of those questions. My expectation is that if such a fund existed then people would donate—as the tangibility of an “ask” goes up, so does the willingness of someone to give. There are few asks more tangible than helping a family stay in their apartment, a parent cover their child’s medical expenses, or a neighbor recovering from being duped by a deceptive company.

I know that versions of No Questions Asked funds exist around the country. If you know of one, tell me about it and let’s spread the word. Few things are more fundamental to the American ethos than encouraging people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but let’s not forget that sometimes even bootstraps are unaffordable—that’s a problem we can collectively solve.


Read More

Person holding "Vote" sign.

Person holding "Vote" sign.

Photo provided

Latino Voters Shift Ahead of Midterm Elections

Two years after providing historic levels of support that helped propel Donald Trump back to the White House, Latino voters are shifting rapidly away from the Republican Party. The realignment is driven by a potent combination of persistent economic anxieties and a sharp backlash against the administration’s aggressive domestic immigration crackdowns. A landmark national poll conducted by NBC News and Telemundo reveals that the President’s approval rating among registered Latino voters has plummeted to just 27%, signaling deep political turbulence for the GOP on the eve of critical midterm elections.

When asked by reporters outside the White House about the plunging numbers, President Trump angrily dismissed the data, labeling the findings as “fake news.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Person placing ballot in voting box

Person placing ballot in voting box

Getty Images

Who Gave the Federal Government the Right to Decide Who Can Vote?

The Trump administration is pressing to remove noncitizens from voter rolls across the country. Yet an important question seems to be missing from the debate: Where, exactly, does the federal government get the authority to impose a citizenship requirement on federal elections? The Constitution does not make citizenship a universal qualification for voting. Instead, Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 states: “The Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” At the same time, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 explicitly grants Congress authority over the conduct of federal elections: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished Congress’s power to regulate how federal elections are conducted from the states’ authority to determine voter qualifications, explaining that Congress may regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections, “but not who may vote in them.” For much of American history, noncitizens voted in elections in at least 22 states and territories, and some historical research suggests the number may have been as high as 40. Today, certain noncitizens are still permitted to vote in local elections in California, Maryland, Vermont and the District of Columbia. If the Constitution leaves voter qualifications to the states, what gives the federal government the authority to demand otherwise?

A Long History of State Decisions

Keep ReadingShow less
Two young people hold signs on education matters

Two young people hold signs on education matters

Oakland District Teenagers Are Going to the Poll for the Second Time This Nov. 3

Rosanna Custodio was about just 10 years old the first time her teachers walked off the job.

That was 2019, when Oakland teachers went on strike for seven days over low pay, class sizes, and support staff. They walked out again in 2022 over school closures, and again in 2023 over pay and school safety. Rosanna, now 17 and a student at Oakland High School, has kept count of how many times educators have walked out.

Keep ReadingShow less