Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Nonprofits have the power to create a more inclusive democracy

People singing in a chorus

Nonprofits can help expand the voices in the chorus that is democracy, writes Miller.

tezzstock

Miller is executive director of Nonprofit VOTE, which works to help other nonprofits across the nation boost civic engagement and voter turnout among their allies.


Our democracy is a chorus, one that only improves when more and diverse voices join, adding richness to the sound. Despite the volume of last year's election — one that broke a century-old record for voter turnout — there were nonetheless missing and underrepresented voices. Those gaps in turnout are even more pronounced in local election cycles like 2021, resulting in an older, whiter electorate.

So how do we achieve a truly representative electorate? Voter-friendly policies are important, but they are not enough by themselves. Yes, everyone can have a right to a music stand and a song book, but who is conducting the auditions? In the end, voter turnout is largely a reflection of who is contacted about voting ... and who is not.

Political parties and campaigns have failed to close voter participation gaps because that's not their goal. Their goal is to win an election, not foster an inclusive electorate. Even the most well-meaning campaigns have to prioritize their resources on "likely" voters — the experienced singers who performed last time. The uninvited singers don't show and the cycle repeats itself.

So who has the capacity and motivation to expand the invite list and create the truly diverse and representative chorus of voices? One key to that question is America's nonprofits, from food pantries to housing clinics, which are motivated by broader values of inclusivity and ensuring the communities they serve are heard.

The newly-released Nonprofit Power Report, which details our work with 180 nonprofits across seven states in 2020, shows that nonprofits that marry voter engagement with their mission can help foster a more inclusive and representative democracy. It also provides a roadmap for nonprofit leaders eager to ensure our country lives up to its promise as a diverse chorus of citizenry.

The report explores nonprofit reach and impact on turnout among other things. Let's start with whom nonprofits reach.

Nonprofits typically offer their services to the very communities that are most underrepresented in our democracy. So it only makes sense that when those same organizations do voter engagement work, they are engaging a part of the electorate most often left out of the national conversation. In fact, the report shows that voters engaged by nonprofits in our program were:

  • More than twice as likely to be voters of color.
  • More than twice as likely to earn less than $30,000 annually.
  • Nearly twice as likely to be young (18-24).

Often described as "low propensity" voters, these groups are rarely contacted by political campaigns. They represent the choral singers who don't get invited. Without that contact, they don't show up to the polls and the next election sees candidates once again not engaging them — completing the vicious cycle of exclusion.

As trusted actors with a vested interest in uplifting the communities they serve, nonprofits can sow the seeds of real and inclusive political participation. Where campaigns see low-propensity voters, nonprofits see high-potential voters hungry for genuine engagement and respect.

The Covid pandemic also provided a learning opportunity as many nonprofits pivoted to online and digital strategies, while others continued in-person engagement with social distancing and PPEs. The organizations that did Covid-safe, in-person engagement were 1.7 times more likely to reach low-income voters and 1.4 times more likely to reach voters of color than those who relied on digital strategies.

But reaching voters is just the first step in ensuring our democracy lives up to its promise. What impact do nonprofits have in getting those newly engaged voters, some for the first time, to the polls?

The Nonprofit Power Report shows that voters engaged by nonprofits have a turnout advantage over voters not contacted by nonprofits. Even in a highly saturated election year like 2020, voters engaged by nonprofits saw their turnout increase by 3 percentage points. However, when we dialed into specific voter demographics, especially people of color, young voters and low-income voters, the results were even more encouraging:

  • Low-income voters saw a 7 percentage point boost.
  • Asian American and Pacific Islander voters saw a 6 percentage point boost.
  • Hispanic voters saw a 5 percentage point boost.
  • Young voters saw a 5 percentage point boost.

At Nonprofit VOTE, we believe in this work because we believe in the power of nonprofits. Whether that's through hands-on training, our webinar series, robust resource library or research, we know that organizations genuinely embedded in their communities can be powerhouses for democracy. That's why we encourage you to take a deep dive into the Nonprofit Power Report, including the Practitioner's Report providing a roadmap for your organization.

In the end, there is no question that nonprofits that commit to voter engagement can have a positive impact on the communities they serve and the nation at large. The only question is what role your organization will play to ensure our democracy is a song for all, by all.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less