Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Restoring trust in elections

Opinion

Joe Biden speaking in Pennsylvania

President Joe Biden speaks in Pennsylvania, one day ahead of the third anniversary of the insurrection at the Capitol.

Anadolu/Getty Images

Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Three years after the Capitol riot, President Joe Biden headed to Valley Forge, Pa., where George Washington’s army endured a bitter winter before turning the tide in the Revolutionary War. Biden delivered a campaign speech that cited the founders’ collective resolve, as a not-so-subtle comment on our polarized era. He did not mention that these same men soon split into nasty and divisive factions that became America’s first political tribes and parties.

Smears and lies abounded. Loyalties were attacked. Vengeance was pledged. Sound familiar? Barbs were hurled by men who today are lionized as America’s founders. If you want details, read Ron Chernow’s “Alexander Hamilton.” Today’s polarizing splits — rural red vs. versus urban blue, federal vs. state, stoking or fearing mobs — are in our political DNA.

And so, it is no surprise on this infamous anniversary the latest brief from Donald Trump’s lawyers arguing that he can’t be prosecuted for any actions while president cited an authorless “ summary ” of long-debunked 2020 election grievances. The Washington Post spotted the footnoted document and refuted its allegations. However, the newspaper’s latest poll also found that Trump loyalists, now a third of the GOP, believe these myths more than ever.


Such is the season before us. There was more disturbing propagandizing this week. In Georgia, a federal judge found a right-wing voter vigilante squad, True the Vote, did not violate the Voting Rights Act when it challenged the credentials of 364,000 voters in 2020. (The judge wrote the allegations “ utterly lacked reliability,” but found they did not harm voters. Instead, they wasted untold hours of election workers’ time, as the workers ended up verifying most voters’ credentials.)

As 2024 begins, election facts are still losing ground to fictions, or to fantasy-filled narratives and vanities. The question is: What can be done to elevate public trust? The 2020 election and elections in every year since have been almost entirely free of errors that would have altered the legitimate results. But these days, the most fervent partisans are not thinking about the facts. Not when triumphant tribalism beckons.

“This [court] victory is a testament to every American's constitutional right to free speech and the importance of actively participating in the electoral process,” True the Vote’s press release proclaimed. That assertion handily overlooked the fact that the Texas-based group sought to block 360,000 Georgians from casting ballots — votes that altered the U.S. Senate majority.

The Democrats and their allies who sued lamented the decision. But their comments ducked the key question of whether their lawsuit was misconceived: It focused on harming voters, not election operations. As the Post’s poll showed, 2020’s false narratives have staying power. And now a group targeting voters and election workers feels newly empowered in a swing state.

What can conscientious citizens do? One answer, for those of us who know that American history has seen an evolution in the primacy of facts, science, law and democratic norms, is to arm oneself with more knowledge of how voting works and elections are run. Most people, of course, don’t want homework like this. But how else can trust in elections be rebuilt?

This column, Restoring Trust in Elections, will be a regular feature in The Fulcrum. It will delve into the nuts and bolts of how elections are run as claims, counterclaims, real and fake issues arise. We will highlight what is and isn’t reliable. We will say why. Our hope in describing these details is that more voters can know what they are seeing at voting sites, understand that the process is professionally managed, and trust its checks and balances – and outcome.

Whether or not you like Trump, what does it tell you when his lawyers cite documents in Supreme Court filings that contain known falsehoods? What does it say when liberals file suits that fail because they overreach, allowing voting vigilantes to celebrate their thuggery? Stay tuned. Trust in elections may be fragile. But it can be revived with clear thinking and civic knowledge.


Read More

A hand casting a vote in a ballot box for an election

A hand casting a vote in a ballot box for an election in the Kentucky, USA

Getty Images

Kentucky’s Independent Voters Are Growing. Why Are They Still Shut Out?

Kentucky’s political establishment has just been handed a number it should not be able to ignore.

In July, more Kentucky voters registered as independent or “other” than registered as Republicans and Democrats combined. More than 8,500 Kentuckians registered to vote, and the “other” category grew by 2,530 voters, compared with 2,483 new Republicans and a decline of 32 Democrats.

Keep ReadingShow less
US Supreme Court

US Supreme Court, Washington, DC

Getty Images

If You Can’t Win, Disrupt

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a decision overturning the stay issued by Judge Talwani of the US District Court for Massachusetts. The case was brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia to enjoin Executive Order No. 14399, issued by President Trump. The Executive Order (EO) was 90 pages long and is entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections”.

The purpose of the EO according to its proponents is to (1) enhance the verification of the citizenship status of the voting public and to explicitly prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote or vote in federal elections; (2) to utilize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements program (SAVE) to assist in verifying identity and voter eligibility. (3) Establish the transmission of state citizenship lists and prioritization of investigations and prosecutions related to election fraud. (4) Require the US Postal Service (USPS) to issue new rules on mail-in and absentee ballots. (5) Have the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of the SSA, and the Postmaster General, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, to effectuate all relevant aspects of the implementation of the Order. (6) Enforcement authority for this EO is vested in the Attorney General.

Keep ReadingShow less
Capitol building in Washington, DC

Government reform

Getty Images

Why One Young Engineer Rejects the Two‑Party Binary

When Joshua Summers was in elementary school, his dad would come to class to perform science experiments. One time, they did an experiment to show how lightning bugs lit up.

“That was pretty cool,” he says. There was never one moment that drew him to science, but it may have helped that his mother was a nurse and his father was a mathematician.

Keep ReadingShow less
people in a boardroom


Happy female entrepreneur with colleagues sitting at a desk in an office

Getty images

Understanding The Dissolution of Federal DEI Offices and Initiatives: Debate and Implications

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Background

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a buzzword often used in political spaces, and its implementations, or lack thereof, have repercussions on many groups. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts are organizational policies and initiatives that aim to equitably distribute opportunities and to create accepting workplaces for marginalized populations. These policies create hiring and recruitment guidelines to hire, retain, and promote individuals from those backgrounds. Supporters of these policies argue they are necessary in driving meaningful social progress, while critics argue they subordinate the role of merit in awarding opportunities.

Keep ReadingShow less