Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fusion voting brings more people to the polls

Opinion

South Carolina voters

People wait to cast ballots in 2020 in South Carolina, which may put a halt to fusion voting.

Sean Rayford/Getty Images

Griffin chairs the Independence Party of South Carolina.

Last month, the South Carolina House unanimously approved a bill that would abolish fusion voting, which allows more than one political party to run a common candidate for public office. Our state has always permitted it.

Abolishing fusion would hurt the voters of our state, especially those in the African American community. Fusion allows for the building of electoral coalitions that include minor political parties along with the Democrats or Republicans, coalitions that appeal to the fastest growing (and often largest) group of voters: independents.


Fusion is key to bringing younger voters into the process, as they are much more inclined to identify outside the major parties. My daughters have often said to me that they wouldn’t dream of being a Democrat or Republican. Young people are looking for outside-the-box solutions!

This system is not unique to South Carolina. We can look to the 2005 mayoral campaign in New York for an example of the power of fusion for the African American electorate. A fusion between the Independence Party of New York and the Republican Party created a pathway for 47 percent of Black voters to vote outside the Democratic Party. This changed the fundamental dynamic in New York politics as Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration became more responsive to an African American agenda.

Abolishing fusion also narrows the public dialogue. The cross-endorsing of candidates, which fusion voting allows, has been a major way for smaller parties to get their views known among the broader electorate. In the 19th century, fusion voting was common throughout the United States. Currently, South Carolina is one of only eight states that still permits the practice.

It would be a great loss for the voters of South Carolina if the bill becomes law.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less