Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Texas election security crackdown on the verge of death in the legislature

Voting rights advocates are breathing a cautious sigh of relief at the apparent (but not quite final) demise of legislation in Texas they viewed as among the most draconian to move in any state this year.

The bill gained notice not only because of its breadth of election law changes but because it was being pushed so hard by Republican leaders just as the second-most-populous state in the country is starting to turn purplish after a quarter-century in the bright red.

The state Senate passed it last month, but on Sunday the measure did not earn a place on the agenda for the final week the state House session for 2019.


The measure was a priority for the most influential Republican in Austin, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who hailed it as essential to assuring elections security. But the heart of the bill – giving counties five years to use voting machines that provide an auditable, voter-verifiable paper trail – was stripped out in recent days, causing the limited bipartisan support to evaporate.

Left in were a series of provisions that critics see as certain to scare away poor, elderly and disabled voters as well as the legions of volunteers needed to keep the voting lines moving on Election Day. The measure would make voting by someone ineligible a felony (it's now a misdemeanor). It would increase criminal penalties for providing false information on a registration application, boost police investigative powers over elections, allow partisan poll watchers into some voting booths and require those who assist people in getting to the polls to detail precisely why they did so.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

"This is a huge win for voting rights and against voter suppression," Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas, said in a statement Sunday after the bill was left off the calendar. "These fights are not over and we continue to be vigilant in watching for attempts to amend pieces of SB 9 onto other bills."

Although the entire package is dead, individual sections could still be tacked on to unrelated bills in the whirlwind of the Legislature's final week.

Read More

House members taking the oath of office in the chamber

Members of the House of Representatives are sworn in by Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Jan. 6, 2023.

Elizabeth Frantz/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

Call them ‘representatives,’ because that’s what they are − not ‘congressmen’ or ‘congresswomen’

Wirls is a professor of politics at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

For most of the nation’s history, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have been addressed as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” By contrast, a senator is referred to as, well, “Senator.”

These gendered terms for House members dominate in journalism, everyday conversation and among members of Congress.

The name Congress refers to the entire national legislature, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Gender identity aside, congressman and congresswoman are fundamentally inaccurate terms.

Keep ReadingShow less
Suzette Brooks Masters
Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation

‘Democracy is something we have to fight for’: A conversation with Suzette Brooks Masters

Berman is a distinguished fellow of practice at The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, co-editor of Vital City, and co-author of "Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age." This is the seventh in a series of interviews titled "The Polarization Project."

Is polarization in the United States laying the groundwork for political violence? That is not a simple question to answer.

Affective polarization — the tendency of partisans to hate those who hold opposing political views — does seem to be growing in the United States. But as a recent report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace makes clear, “many European countries show affective polarization at about the same level as that of the United States, but their democracies are not suffering as much, suggesting that something about the US political system, media, campaigns, or social fabric is allowing Americans’ level of emotional polarization to be particularly harmful to US democracy.”

Suzette Brooks Masters is someone whose job it is to think about threats to American democracy. The leader of the Better Futures Project at the Democracy Funders Network, Masters recently spent months studying innovations in resilient democracy from around the world. The resulting report, “Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy,” argues that one way to help protect American democracy from “authoritarian disruption” is to engage in a process of “reimagining our governance model for the future.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
The start of the 2024 men's 100 meter dash

"Notably, both in sports and in society, a prerequisite to fair and impartial competition is agreement and acceptance of a set of rules and regulations," writes Radwell.

Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images

A 'just' meritocracy – the keystone to the American dream

Radwell is the author of "American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the 12th entry in what was intended to be a 10-part series on the American schism in 2024.

I’m not sure if it is due to the recent triumph of the Paris Olympics or voters’ nascent love affair with Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, but the spirit of sports competition has taken center stage of late. Watching our young athletes reach their Olympic dreams and being introduced to Coach Walz seem connected in some mysterious but heartwarming way.

Behind every Olympic medal lies a story of young budding talent buttressed by a coterie of adults who chart the course. And in Walz, we recognize someone who has unmistakably demonstrated a profound developmental impact with kids both on the field and in the classroom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pete Buttigieg

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaks at the Democratic National Committee.

Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Mayor Pete didn’t say ‘gay’

Tseng is an equity strategy program manager at Google, a Paul and Daisy Soros fellow, and a public voices fellow of The OpEd Project.

In his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg never said the word “gay.” Not once. He didn’t mention his husband, Chasten, by name or even use the term “husband.” He never mentioned that he is a man who loves another man, nor did he give any explanation of why his family seemed like an impossibility just 25 years ago, beyond saying that it did.

In fact, the only thing that might have tipped you off about his sexuality was his mention of pro wrestling, a very queer sport. The omission of any aspect of his gayness made me long for a much broader pool of candidates onto whom I could project my hopes and dreams as a gay man.

Keep ReadingShow less
Flag of Ukraine alongside flag of United States

Flags of Ukraine and the United States

Alex Wong/Getty Images

In swing states, D’s and R’s agree U.S. should continue aid to Ukraine

Amid debates about U.S. international engagement, a new public consultation survey conducted in six swing states by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation found widespread bipartisan support for the United States continuing to provide military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats support the U.S. upholding the principle of collective security by helping to protect nations that are under attack; continuing to be a member of NATO; and continuing to abide by the longstanding international ban on nuclear testing.

Keep ReadingShow less