Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A healthy democracy cannot discriminate against independent candidates and voters

Opinion

Virginia gubernatorial candidate Princess Blanding

Liberation Party candidate Princess Blanding interrupts the Virginia gubernatorial debate to protest her exclusion from the event.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Alper is the founder of Common Sense Strategies Group and a political strategist focusing on democracy and government reform.


The eyes of the political world were locked in when the candidates for governor of Virginia stepped on the stage for a debate on Sept. 28. With the race between Republican Glenn Youngkin and Democrat Terry McAuliffe tightening, the table was set for a dramatic, head-to-head affair. However, by debate's end, the showstopper unexpectedly was another candidate for governor: Princess Blanding.

Like her Democrat and Republican opponents, Blanding has secured a place on the November ballot. Running under the banner of the Liberation Party that she created, she will make history as the first Black woman to appear on the state's gubernatorial ballot. And yet, despite sharing a place on the ballot with Youngkin and McAuliffe, there was no such place for her on the stage. Rather than meekly accepting the refusal of debate organizers to leave her out of the — she was instead offered a placatory seat in the audience with the hopes she would sit quietly and watch her opponents participate — she protested her exclusion, claiming she had earned the right to be on the stage, and that explicitly leaving her on the sidelines was a form of censorship and voter suppression. Moderator Chuck Todd responded by calling security, who promptly removed Blanding from the venue.

Blanding is right to protest her censorship. Instead of being chucked out of the audience, she should have been on the stage in the first place.

Despite voter discrimination and suppression becoming a national issue that has been used by the two major parties to assail each other and rile up their political bases. In reality, the duopolistic system they have created and fought to maintain is designed to disenfranchise the largest coalition of voters in the country: independent and third-party voters. According to the most recent Gallup polling, 40 percent of registered voters self-identify as unaffiliated from either major party. By creating an election system designed to discourage and disadvantage independent candidates, the parties have left millions of politically homeless voters without a representative voice.

The parties have gotten creative with their tactics to keep independent candidates out of the process. Ballot access requirements, such as pay-to-play fees or petition signatures, are often dramatically higher for independent and third-party candidates and frequently result in candidates getting locked out of the general election.

Even when independent candidates manage to get on the ballot, they are forced to play catch-up in what is already an uphill battle. In states that hold partisan primaries, winning candidates transition into the general election with formidable resources and press exposure already banked, while independents must generate that momentum from scratch. Excluding independents from polls and debates is a tactic designed to keep such candidates on the sidelines, out of sight of the voters.

Even public election financing, long championed by reformers as a critical effort to reduce the influence of big money in our elections, discriminates against independent and third-party candidates. In New York City for example, candidates who participate in closed primary elections receive public funds for the primary and general elections, whereas independents who qualify are only eligible to receive general election grants, ensuring they will face a 2:1 spending deficit.

Instituting nonpartisan primary elections, standardizing ballot access and public financing rules, and mandating the inclusion of all general election candidates in public debates are all simple steps that can be taken to end the discrimination against candidates who have the audacity to run outside of the two parties, leveling the playing field for all candidates regardless of party affiliation.

These critical reforms must be made to achieve a democracy that is more healthy, equitable and representative of the American people.






Read More

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The Momnibus Act was previously known as the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act, but the word 'Black' has been removed from the title and appears only once across the latest package.

Emily Scherer for The 19th

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The word “Black” has been almost completely removed from a package of bills that have long been viewed as Congress’ main legislative vehicle to address the Black maternal health crisis, frustrating some advocates who feel Black women are being erased from the policy.

The key change this year is the title. The Momnibus Act — filed in mid-March — was called the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act in 2023; before that it was the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021 and the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020. None of the previous packages, which were championed by Democrats, have been enacted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Never Intended To Be Just

U.S. President Donald Trump on May 22, 2026 in Suffern, New York.

(Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Trump Never Intended To Be Just

Let us set aside, for a moment, the fact that in suing the IRS, Donald Trump initiated a lawsuit that was meritless, frivolous, and a blatant conflict of interest…in his own words, “I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself.” Let us further acknowledge, but look past the fact, that the settlement is filled with “illegal cookies” like his effort to exempt himself and his family members or family-controlled companies, from past or future IRS audits or any future obligations to ever pay federal taxes.

Please appreciate, but set aside for a moment, that this is the most corrupt administration in modern US history. Further, I would like to ignore the fact that this appears to be an effort to finance a private militia that has violently sought to undermine the US Government and the electoral capacity of the vote of the people of the United States of America.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fragile Promise of the Ballot
black and white love print crew neck shirt
Photo by Cyrus Crossan on Unsplash

The Fragile Promise of the Ballot

Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were not just redefinitions of election law; they marked a critical shift away from the federal government’s duty to ensure equal ballot access—a duty fundamental to democracy.

The consequences were swift and broad. Within hours, Shelby County, Texas, imposed strict voter ID rules that federal officials had previously blocked under the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions. Soon after, North Carolina reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Across parts of Alabama, Georgia, and other Southern states, polling places closed or moved, often in communities with large Black populations. What once required federal review could now proceed quickly.

Keep ReadingShow less