Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Reform in 2021: Vote at Home Institute sees state and federal opportunities

Amber McReynolds

Amber McReynolds hopes to find bipartisan support for vote-by-mail initiatives.

Courtesy Amber McReynolds

This is the sixth installment in our ongoing Q&A series on reform in 2021.

As Democrats take power in Washington, if only tenuously, many democracy reform groups see a potential path toward making the American political system work better. In this installment, Amber McReynolds, CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute, answers our questions about 2020 accomplishments and plans for the year ahead. Her organization is a leading proponent of voting of mail and had been advocated such systems prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. McReynolds' responses have been edited for clarity and length.

First, let's briefly recap 2020. What was your biggest triumph last year?

First and foremost, we really became a go-to resource for election officials and policymakers alike. Basically doubling the number of states and jurisdictions, including Washington, D.C., that mailed a ballot to every elector in the general election was a massive deal. The broad expansion and adoption of vote-at-home options for all voters across the country definitely stands out as the biggest triumph, because more people had the opportunity to vote by mail this year. And then they used it. It was the most widely used method of voting. So we accomplished a very big goal in the middle of a pandemic.


And your biggest setback?

One of the biggest challenges is the disinformation and deliberate attack on this method of voting and the "big lie." I feel like all year it was one thing after another. It's almost like they were throwing things at the wall to see what stuck, and voting by mail was part of that. There's just an overall impact that is detrimental to voters and their confidence in the election, and it certainly enticed many of the very destructive things that happened in 2020 and even in 2021, especially on Jan. 6. So while voting by mail had a big triumph, I would say the biggest challenge is the disinformation and being part of this big lie.

What is one learning experience you took from 2020?

Running a national nonprofit and having team members in lots of different states has been a learning experience. As a leader, it's been hard to adjust the model and the platform and to hire people that you've never in person met. It's a weird dynamic. Then the other aspect is more personal. I'm a single mom with two small kids, and when the pandemic started and they were home, I was trying to balance them being on Zoom calls for school and helping them, while working 18-hour days.

The other side of the personal piece is the threats that started to culminate online. I had death threats. I had to hire security guards outside my house. After the election, I was like, "OK, we're almost done." Then everything started with the big lie, which our vote by mail was very much wrapped into, and I was personally being attacked. It was a very stressful situation.

Now let's look ahead. What issues will your organization prioritize in 2021?

We are working with a set of states that we've divided into three tiers. And we're again reupping a lot of our policy work on expanding vote at home options to make some of the temporary changes that were passed in 2020 permanent. Many of the bills currently filed in state legislatures about vote by mail are actually expansions of the options or technical improvements. Some of the bills are trying to roll back voting by mail, and we're going to do our best to fight that stuff off. We're also working at the national level. We've been involved in these conversations for a few years. We'll definitely be providing input on the potential for federal legislation.

Our uniqueness as an organization is that we combine policy with implementation. So not only are we going to give you advice on procedures, but we can also help state and local election officials actually think about the best structures for implementing these changes. That's really what we're going to be doing, expanding on what we did in 2020. Right now the legislative sessions are really in high gear in a lot of states and so that is very intense at the moment. Some of them end in the spring and then we'll move into implementation. It's really a continuation and growth of our organization. And certainly regarding the spread of disinformation, we are going to continue to help educate lawmakers and the public about the real facts around vote by mail.

How will Democratic control of the federal government change the ways you work toward your goals?

With HR 1, we provided a lot of feedback when it was first filed two years ago, and now it includes some of the improvements we have suggested, so we're going to continue working on that. But there needs to be bipartisan support. I truly believe that election policy and legislation is better when there is bipartisan support, especially at the federal level, like with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. So we're really going to think strategically about the baseline reforms where there could be bipartisan agreement. We're going to try to fill the leadership void in terms of recommendations, and we will work with anyone who wants to work on voter-centric and pro-voter policies.

What do you think will be your biggest challenge moving forward? And how do you plan to tackle it?

I think education will be a main focus moving forward given the big lie. It's going to take a lot of time and effort to educate people on what's real and what's not, and how we can improve versus roll back. And it's also a matter of remaining a priority. There are some very ambitious priorities that the new administration wants to pursue at the federal level, so I think it's going to be a challenge to keep good election reforms moving given the many challenges our country has before it. Keeping focused and keeping the ball moving is really important. It's kind of crazy, but there's a very short window between now and 2022. So to make good election reforms and move things forward, now is the time to convince people to prioritize this issue.

Finish the sentence. In two years, American democracy will ...

be stronger.

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