Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Carter, Ford: Nonviolent campaigns are the only safeguard for democracy

Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford

President-elect Jimmy Carter and President Gerald Ford in the White House.

Historical/Getty Images

The following editorial appeared last month in the Detroit News after the July assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. Given the events of this week, the piece is reprinted below, again denouncing political violence. Last week, the authors held a national joint convening on election norms, advancing strategies for leaders, voters and the media to support the United States’ tradition of a peaceful transfer of power.

Carter is the grandson of former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and Ford is the son of former President Gerald Ford, a Republican. They serve as co-chairs of the Principles for Trusted Elections, a cross-partisan program of The Carter Center, the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation and Team Democracy.

The assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump on July 13 is a stark reminder that the specter of political violence casts a long shadow over our democratic ideals. This outrageous act underscores the sad reality that those engaged in our democratic process — whether as candidates, public officials or citizens — can find themselves in situations where their safety is compromised simply by participating.


This is not just an attack on individuals; it is an assault on the principles of democracy upon which our great nation was founded.

For us, as members of presidential families, the violence evokes memories of a tumultuous time in our nation’s history. For Mike Ford, it is particularly personal to recall the frightening times when my dad, former President Gerald Ford, faced two assassination attempts in 1975. Members of the Ford family experienced a range of emotions from shock to fear to anger and finally gratitude for the good people who protected him.

Together — on behalf of both the Carter and Ford families — we urge our nation to stand together in agreement that violence not only results in tragic losses but undermines the core values that define our American democratic system. The right to safely and peacefully engage in political discourse is fundamental to our identity as a nation.

The focus must now shift back to the citizens who form the backbone of our democracy. These are the people who attend rallies, volunteer at polling stations and participate in grassroots activism. They are not mere spectators but rather active participants in shaping our collective future. When their safety is threatened, it strikes at the heart of our democracy and weakens our ability to govern ourselves effectively.

We urge our fellow Americans and leaders at all levels to reaffirm their commitment to nonviolence and civil discourse. It’s the reason we co-chair the Principles for Trusted Elections to encourage citizens to tell their public leaders and candidates to stand up for safe, nonviolent elections. We condemn any form of threats or intimidation, regardless of political beliefs or affiliation. It is incumbent upon us to foster a political environment where diverse opinions are respected and differences are settled through discussion, not aggression.

As we move forward, let us honor the sacrifices made by those who have faced violence by ensuring that their courage and dedication to democratic values are not in vain. Let us elevate the voices of ordinary citizens who embody the spirit of civic engagement and uphold the norms of civil campaigning throughout the election cycle. Let us protect our democratic institutions and ensure that America remains a beacon of freedom and opportunity for all.

We stand behind the initial unifying remarks made by President Joe Biden, former President Trump, and their parties who denounce acts of violence. With this cross-partisan leadership, we hope that the nation can move peacefully forward in the months leading up to November. Candidates, voters, poll workers and election officials should be able to have confidence that they can each fulfill their essential roles and responsibilities for the democratic process in a peaceful electoral environment.

July 13 served as a sobering reminder of our responsibilities as participants in democracy. We can all rise to the occasion and safeguard the principles that have guided our nation through its darkest hours. Together, we can build a future where political discourse is marked by respect, understanding and a steadfast commitment to the ideals that unite us as Americans.

This writing was originally published in the The Detroit News, Aug. 14.


Read More

​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less