Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy at a press conference in August

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been one of the most vociferous defenders of President Donald Trump’s expansive use of executive authority, withholding billions of dollars in federal funding to states and dismissing protests of the White House’s boundary-pushing behavior as the gripings of “disenfranchised Democrats.”

But court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that a decade ago, as a House member, Duffy took a drastically different position on presidential power, articulating a full-throated defense of Congress’ role as a check on the president — one that resembled the very arguments made by speakers at recent anti-Trump “No Kings” rallies around the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Killing suspected drug traffickers without trial undermines due process, human rights, and democracy. The war on drugs cannot be won through extrajudicial force.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Life can only be taken in defense of life. That principle is as old as civilization itself, and it remains the bedrock of justice today. To kill another human being is justifiable only in imminent self‑defense or to protect the lives of innocent people. Yet the United States has recently crossed a troubling line: authorizing lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters. Dozens have been killed without trial, without legal counsel, and without certainty of guilt.

This is not justice. It is punishment without due process, death without defense or judicial review. It is, in plain terms, an extrajudicial killing. And it is appalling.

Keep ReadingShow less
USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less