Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The For the People Act might make it harder for some to vote

A person using a cell phone

Banning voting technology, like casting a ballot by mobile app, in the name of security is myopic, writes O'Brien.

Manuel Breva Colmeiro/Getty Images
O'Brien, a former treasurer of Massachusetts, is the principal of the O'Brien Advisory Group and an advisor to Voatz, which makes a mobile voting app.

The policy battle for voting rights is reaching a fever pitch. Republicans are arguing vociferously that greater safeguards are needed to prevent widespread voter fraud, with a wave of state legislative efforts that limit mail-in balloting, restrict early voting windows and reduce locations for easy ballot drop-off. We witnessed Texas Democratic lawmakers become fugitives from justice as they fled their state in protest over proposed restrictive legislation. Congressional Democrats are fighting for expanded voter access through the For the People Act, which would create national safeguards against barriers making it harder for many citizens to vote.

The discussion is now framed as a zero-sum game, one that pits security versus access. For me, there's only one factor that matters: The strength of our democracy depends upon the ability of our citizens to have their voices heard. But the devil remains in the details. Simplistically pitting security versus access is not only inaccurate, it may result in more people having their right to vote restricted.

A case in point is the wording of the For the People Act. In their battle to protect and expand voting rights by increasing polling places and vote-by-mail, Democrats have inserted language that could end up making access for millions of people more difficult.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Tucked into hundreds of pages of the bill is the following language: "Nothing in this section may be construed to allow the marking or casting of ballots over the internet." This attempt to enhance security by creating a national mandate for paper-only voting is an anti-technology provision that could stop progress many states have made to deploy an evidence-based approach to utilize proven technology and improve access for people who need it. In response to Covid last year, many states passed laws to utilize secure remote voting options to protect the rights of disabled citizens and overseas military members. This one line could create significant barriers for persons who need assistive technology to cast their ballot, and makes it more difficult for overseas military to have their votes counted when sending paper ballots from overseas.

Military personnel, overseas citizens and people living with disabilities vote in far lower numbers than the population at large. History has shown time and again that those who don't exercise their voice at the polls have their needs ignored by elected officials. Banning technology in the name of security is myopic, halting proven methods we already use in the voting process. Disabled voters, for example, use Americans with Disabilities Act-mandated assistive technology when they vote in person at polling places. Overseas military currently use fax machines and email, which are less secure and lack privacy. The proposed language could either limit them to mail-in ballots that often don't reach clerks' office in time to be counted, or possibly restrict the utilization of current email or faxed-in balloting.

Last month, we saw a great example of a bipartisan effort to improve access for active members of the military. It is no surprise that the co-sponsor of the bill is Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a combat veteran. With Republican Sen. John Cornyn, she introduced the Reducing Barriers for Military Voters Act, which would establish a secure electronic voting system for active-duty service members stationed in hazardous duty zones or rotational deployments.

While the Democrats have taken on a generational battle over protecting voting rights, they may be committing legislative malpractice by actually impeding voters' ability to cast a ballot through existing and proven technology that is highly secure, ADA compliant and offers privacy that is not afforded within a "paper only" framework.

Good legislation should mandate outcomes (e.g. a safe, accessible, and auditable election) rather than specific methods. Restricting remote marking and delivery of ballots utilizing state-of-the-art technology could mean that, in the future, millions of people who cannot safely walk into a polling station will be denied their most important right our constitution provides.

Read More

The Untold Costs of AI: The West Is Paying for the Future That Hasn’t Arrived

robot, technology, future, futuristic, business, tree, symbol

Getty Images//Stock Photo

The Untold Costs of AI: The West Is Paying for the Future That Hasn’t Arrived

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been heralded as a technological revolution that will transform our world. From curing diseases to automating dangerous jobs to discovering new inventions, the possibilities are tantalizing. We’re told that AI could bring unprecedented good—if only we continue to invest in its development and allow labs to seize precious, finite natural resources.

Yet, despite these grand promises, most Americans haven’t experienced any meaningful benefits from AI. It’s yet to meaningfully address most health issues, and for many, It’s not significantly improving our everyday lives, excluding drafting emails and making bad memes. In fact, AI usage is still largely confined to a narrow segment of the population: highly educated professionals in tech hubs and urban centers. An August 2024 survey by the Federal Reserve and Harvard Kennedy School found that while 39.4% of U.S. adults aged 18-64 reported using generative AI, adoption rates vary significantly. Workers with a bachelor's degree or higher are twice as likely to use AI at work compared to those without a college degree (40% vs. 20%), and usage is highest in computer/mathematical occupations (49.6%) and management roles (49.0%).

Keep ReadingShow less
What a health insurance CEO's murder reveals about America's pain

Cancer, healthcare and support with a woman holding hands with her man in the hospital. Medicine, insurance and trust with a couple in a clinic for treatment or help before death, mourning and loss

Getty Images//Stock Photo

What a health insurance CEO's murder reveals about America's pain

The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson represented a horrific and indefensible act of violence. His family deserves our deepest sympathy.

As a physician and healthcare leader, I initially declined to comment on the killing. I felt that speculating about the shooter’s intent would only sensationalize a terrible act.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Look Ahead at AI, privacy and Social Media Regulation under the New Trump Administration

Ai technology, Artificial Intelligence. man using technology smart robot AI, artificial intelligence by enter command prompt for generates something, Futuristic technology transformation.

Getty Images - stock photo

A Look Ahead at AI, privacy and Social Media Regulation under the New Trump Administration

Artificial intelligence harms, problematic social media content, data privacy violations – the issues are the same, but the policymakers and regulators who deal with them are about to change.

As the federal government transitions to a new term under the renewed leadership of Donald Trump, the regulatory landscape for technology in the United States faces a significant shift.

Keep ReadingShow less
Presidential promises, promises, promises....

Former President Donald J. Trump answers question from Pastor Paula White-Cain at the National Faith Advisory Board summit in Powder Springs, Georgia, United States on October 28, 2024.

(Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Presidential promises, promises, promises....

When Donald Trump made his first successful run for president in 2016, he made 663 promises to American voters. By the end of his 2021 term of office, he could only fulfill approximately 23 percent of his vows. Before we get too excited as to what will happen when Trump 2.0 takes effect on Jan. 20, let’s take a moment to reflect on covenants made by a couple of other presidents.

PolitiFact tracks the promises our presidents have made. PolitiFact is a non-partisan fact-checking website created in 2007 by the Florida-based Tampa Bay Times and acquired in 2018 by the Poynter Institute, a non-profit school for journalists. Here’s a report card on three presidents:

Keep ReadingShow less