Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Partisanship outweighs even the most basic Washington traditions

Centrist House Democrats on Wednesday spurned invitations to the White House for a second consecutive day, while Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for delaying the State of the Union speech until the government is reopened.

The new House majority's twinned moves to create symbolic distance from President Donald Trump also reinforce this plain reality: The government is so riven by partisan antagonism that basic Washington behavioral norms are getting yet another downgrade.


Longstanding etiquette dictates that members of Congress decline an invitation to meet with the president – especially if any sense that deliberating policy differences is in the offing – only if gravely ill or away from Washington. And, without fail for more than a century, presidents have been welcomed at the Capitol to give an annual address.

And yet both veneers of at-least-ceremonial bipartisanship are getting new cracks. While seven Democratic members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus joined moderate Republicans at the West Wing on Wednesday, at least that many Democrats in the group stayed away. The day before, a handful of Democratic lawmakers from the moderate Blue Dog Coalition did not show up for their scheduled lunch with the president.

As the Problem Solvers prepared to meet Trump in the Situation Room, top House Democrats came close to outright rescinding their invitation to deliver his State of the Union in the House chamber Jan. 29. Pelosi, who as speaker is responsible for arranging such joint sessions of Congress, sent Trump a letter lamenting how security forces have been stretched thin by the partial government shutdown, now in its record 26 th day, and asked him to send his message in writing (the practice of the 19 th century) or delay the speech until after the impasse is resolved. But Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters the president should read the message as "the State of the Union is off" because "we're not going to have business as usual as long as the government is shut down."

Steering Trump away from taking a podium that looms over lawmakers, of course, also prevents him from using primetime television to admonish those who would not include $5.7 billion for hundreds of miles of border wall in the legislation to revive funding for a quarter of the government.

The House Democrats who agreed to meet with Trump issued a statement beforehand signaling they did not want to be used as presidential props for a photo op. "The possibility exists to work together and find common ground to tackle some of our country's type of problems and fix them," they said. "But that conversation can only begin in earnest once the government is reopened. We accepted the White House invitation to meet today to convey that message."

Three of the group were freshmen from Trump-friendly districts who voted against returning Pelosi to the speakership: Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and New Yorkers Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose. The others were Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Thomas Suozzi of New York, Vincente Gonzalez of Texas and Dean Phillips of Minnesota.

The Blue Dog Democrats known to have turned down the president's invitation Tuesday were Spanberger, Luis Correa of California and Floridians Stephanie Murphy and Charlie Crist.


Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less