Vote16USA is a national campaign, organized by Generation Citizen, that aims to support efforts to lower the voting age on the local level, help start new local campaigns, and elevate the issue's prominence on a national level.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
American flags fly near Washington Monument.
Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images
A personal note to America in troubled times
Jul 19, 2024
Harwood is president and founder of The Harwood Institute. This is the latest entry in his series based on the "Enough. Time to Build.” campaign, which calls on community leaders and active citizens to step forward and build together.
I wanted to address Americans after the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Consider this a personal note directly to you (yes, you, the reader!). And know that I have intentionally held off in expressing my thoughts to allow things to settle a bit. There’s already too much noise enveloping our politics and lives.
Like most Americans, I am praying for the former president, his family and all those affected by last weekend’s events. There is no room for political violence in our nation.
I'm not here to offer political commentary or make predictions about this act of senseless violence. That’s not my role. But here's the deal. We are all suffering these days. There is so much division, acrimony, recriminations and hatred in our land. Right now, my chief concern is this: How do any of us — how do you — maintain a sense of hope during this time? How do you stay grounded when things can feel so confusing and disorienting — when we can feel unmoored?
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Our nation is at an impasse. Things may get worse before they get better. But that does not mean there is no hope to be found. There is a way to find authentic hope during these tumultuous times and stay grounded at the same time.
I travel America almost weekly, working with community leaders and active citizens to support their efforts to catalyze and unleash change that addresses what matters most to people and strengthens their communities’ civic culture. In spite of the divisions we hear about every day, everywhere I go I see people from all walks of life, from all political persuasions, and from all faiths coming together to build. To figure out what they can agree on, amid our real differences, to get in motion and to take shared action. They are making a real, practical difference.
I take hope from these efforts. So can you. But to do so, you must first be willing to see them — that means you must actively look for them, lift them up and keep them in your heart and mind. You must be a guardian of these efforts even as the noise of the world seeks to crowd them out or devalue them. It does not matter how large or small the change is that they produce. What matters is that they are proof that we can restore our belief in one another and move forward together.
I am also traveling America on our campaign, “Enough. Time to Build.” The response to this campaign has been remarkable — and is growing by leaps and bounds each day. Honestly, it is spreading so fast I can barely keep up. Indeed, we are the only national campaign that is being invited to communities of all political persuasions — red and blue and purple. The important question is why?
It is a sign of just how hungry people are for a new path — a civic path — forward. Where change begins in our local communities and grows from there. This is how significant change has often started in our country. I take hope from people’s response to this effort. As Fanny Lou Hamer said, “People are sick and tired of being sick and tired.” You may be, too.
Staying grounded when you feel like things are coming apart is never easy. Platitudes only make things worse. Calls to simply bridge our divides are not enough. Raising the volume of our debate only adds more anxiety.
Being grounded requires that we see reality for what it is — and then put a stake in the ground about what we seek it to be. Progress during times like these throughout our history — from the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage to civil rights and voting rights to gay rights — has never been easy. But we have also never given up, or given in. We persevered. We came together around kitchen tables, in church basements and in civic halls — and we refused to settle. History teaches us that it is everyday Americans who are most responsible for our progress. That we can once again lead this country forward if enough of us come together around our shared aspirations rather than allowing our differences to overcome us.
Like me, you may be deeply troubled by what is happening in our country — and to our country. It keeps me awake at night. At times, my anxiety rises. I fear things coming apart. Until I think about what gives me hope and how I can stay grounded. Then, I rise up and do the work. I know you do, too. Every single day.
Keep looking for where you can find hope. Let’s put a stake in the ground about the kind of country we seek to build. And let’s go together.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Don’t Miss Out
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
How Chief Justices Roberts, Marshall responded to presidential bullies
Jul 18, 2024
Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”
This is the latest in “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”
Chief Justices John Roberts and John Marshall share more in common than their ordinary forename and stressful day job. They both fiercely defended the reputation of America’s courts; they both presided over thenastiest politicaltrials of their times; and they both couldn’t quite contain their disdain for some of the presidential antics that occurred under their watch.
And yet, tragically, it was their fundamental differences that were most on display with the court’s astonishing decision in Trump v. United States (2024). Roberts ran from a fight while Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), took one head on.
First, let’s set the stage. Both Roberts and Marshall led courts that were asked to define the breadth of presidential “immunity.” Both Roberts and Marshall were expected to issue their critical rulings during periods of enormous political anguish and discord. Both Roberts and Marshall gave legal victory to presidents who were seen by opponents as demagogic. Both Roberts and Marshall relied on procedural limitations to justify those victories. Both Roberts and Marshall will doubtless be remembered for the way in which they handled these two momentous cases.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Of course, all of those resemblances disguise the single crucial factor that differentiates the two jurists: Only one — Marshall — considered the greater good of the nation.
From an early age, most Americans are taught that John Marshall’s ruling in Marbury v. Madison changed the legal landscape because it formulated the courts’ power of judicial review. Few, however, recognize that it was also the first Supreme Court case to examine the scope of presidential prerogative, the close cousin to presidential immunity, presidential discretion and presidential privilege.
The facts are simple. After losing the presidential election to Thomas Jefferson and relinquishing majority control of Congress to the Jefferson-led Democratic-Republicans, incumbent John Adams sought to pack the one remaining governmental branch — the judiciary — with Federalist allies. He and the lame duck Congress thus passed a series of last-minute resolutions that permitted Adams to nominate Federalists to a few dozen newly created judicial openings. William Marbury was one of those “midnight appointments.” The problem arose when Adams ran out of time trying to deliver the commissions. Once in office, Jefferson instructed his secretary of state (John Marshall, interestingly) to bury Marbury’s contract. Marbury, without a commission or a job, threw up his hands and cried foul.
Jefferson’s defense for withholding Marbury’s commission was that he — Jefferson — was insulated from legal redress by some ambiguous conception of presidential discretion. He was immune. He could never be criminally or civilly liable for what he described as “political” acts, those that the Constitution may not enumerate, but that are part of the broad scope of Article II. The principle of presidential discretion, Jefferson insisted, was spacious enough to include keeping Marbury’s appointment in the proverbial drawer.
Marshall disagreed, and in an excoriating opinion told Jefferson so. Sure, Marshall admitted, a president has certain discretionary authority, “but when the legislature proceeds to impose on [him] other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others” (emphasis added). Sorry, Mr. Jefferson, but no. Your argument about presidential discretion is unconvincing. “The United States is a government of laws,” the great chief justice admonished, “not of men.”
Marshall scolded Jefferson for abridging Marbury’s rights. He humiliated the president for declaring that he was above the law. He denounced the Virginian for putting personal motivations above national interests. He essentially called Jefferson a bully. And then he allowed Jefferson to win. Indeed, Marshall’s brilliant ruling stuck precisely because the president emerged victorious. Jefferson could keep the commissions, but the judiciary would hold on to the power of judicial review. A profitable exchange for the courts, to be sure.
In contrast, the current chief justice cowered at the feet of America’s biggest bully. The conservative majority in Trump v. United States, led by Roberts, seemingly rejected all the lessons handed down by Marshall. They granted presidents immunity for all “official” executive actions, and in the process sanctioned potential violations of the law. They provided a shield for presidents to “sport away the vested rights of others.” As long as the president acts in their official capacity, the ruling concludes, rights, privileges and, yes, metaphorical commissions can be withheld. What is most heartbreaking about the outcome of Trump v. United States is that the court received nothing in exchange, except perhaps a further tarnished legacy.
Chief Justice Roberts’ haughty dismissal of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion says it all. “Fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President ‘feels empowered to violate federal criminal law,” he called the very real apprehension expressed by the three dissenting justices. Fear mongering. What all Americans should fear is a Supreme Court that repeatedly, and cavalierly, relinquishes power to an imperial president.
Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump and Joe Biden engage in the first debate of the 2024 election.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
American presidents only debate during presidential debates
Jul 18, 2024
Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
About 25 years ago, the noted political scientist and sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset invited me to lunch at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, D.C. I was a young academic teaching various courses in ethics and political philosophy at George Washington University. He asked me: "What do you think is the most important quality a person needs to be president?"
I thought for about 30 seconds and replied, "Give a great speech."
He said, "No, schmooze."
We discussed schmoozing at some length. Schmoozing, we agreed, had a great deal to do with building relationships with members of one’s own party and the opposition party, advocacy, building support, negotiation, and leadership. It was a private act, not one you could see on television or, today, on your phone.
One thing we did not discuss was the ability to perform well in debates. The truth is that apart from presidential debates, American presidents do not have to debate anyone, privately or publicly.
When, while in office, does an American president have to debate anyone? Does the president debate with members of Congress in a formal setting? Does the president debate with members of Congress in the Oval Office? Does the president debate with his Cabinet or ambassadors or foreign leaders?
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The president, of course, must engage in arguments with others, even heated arguments. He must negotiate, listen and persuade. At one extreme, one thinks of Lyndon Johnson physically, politically and psychologically dominating members of Congress in order to win their support on a bill. “The Johnson treatment” is the antithesis of schmoozing, but it is not debating either.
Whether a presidential candidate is a good or even fine debater actually tells us very little about whether he or she would be a good or even fine president. We do see certain skills in action, including the ability to just speak to the audience for a minute or two and think on your feet, if your staff did not prepare you for a question or attack. We do learn something about a candidate's knowledge of a range of topics, although most viewers are not very educated about many of the issues being debated.
At bottom, the debates are not really debates, certainly when there are five or 10 people on the stage. When it gets down to two, we do learn more. But it is still worth emphasizing that one person's ability to win a debate at most demonstrates skills that are, for the most part, not among the chief skills a president must use while in office.
The Lipset axiom — that schmoozing is the most important quality a president must possess — is of course never tested in a debate. This, in itself, is revealing, since it means that, at least in Lipset's opinion, the most important presidential skill is not open to evaluation during a presidential debate.
The recent debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden did present the viewer with some things worth seeing, notably how Trump is energetic but much of what he says is a gross exaggeration or a lie. It also showed how Biden, who has a stutter and had a cold going into the debate and, he said, suffered from “jet lag” from various foreign and domestic trips prior to the debate, is still able to make many good points of fact and moral points over the course of 90 minutes.
The presidential debates, which are designed to be available to all Americans after work, are nevertheless biased against many, especially those over 70, who are not at their best between 9 pm and 10:30 pm. Most presidents are in the family quarters at the White House between those hours, either sitting or lying down.
The entire presidential debate format is terrible. It is at the wrong time, it demonstrates the wrong skills and it gives the media an opportunity to blow things out of proportion. It may be time to put these debates to rest or else to have the Commission on Presidential Debates continue to make changes in the format. Some of the recent changes made for the CNN debate were good, notably turning off the microphones when a candidate's time is up. If there is a second debate, at the very least it should be held earlier in the evening or on a Sunday afternoon.
Keep ReadingShow less
Science Photo Library/Getty Images
A simple solution for Biden, for Trump, for America
Jul 18, 2024
Butler is a husband, father, grandfather, business executive, entrepreneur and political observer.
I have said it before, and I will say it again:We deserve better.
It is bad enough that our only real choices for president come November will be old, white, polarizing men tainted by scandal. After nearly four years in what is arguably the most demanding and stressful job in the universe, Joe Biden, whose cognitive capabilities were subject to question even in the last campaign, now appears even to ardent supporters to be too old for the job. Whether they question his ability to do the job or his ability to win the election is unclear.
And while it may be less obvious, Trump provides his own evidence that he is not the man he used to be, neurologically.
If he is up to the job physically, mentally, and neurologically, Biden could easily persuade most of America of this fact, and in doing so, would likely ensure his re-election. The solution? An exhaustive medical, cognitive and neurological exam with the results published in complete and transparent form to the American people. One has to question why he has not done so already. The obvious conclusion is that he and his team are convinced the results of such an exam would not be helpful to the campaign — if not devastating.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
If he were to take the exam, he should do it in the context of accepting Trump’s recent challenge that they both undergo a cognitive evaluation. Presumably, Trump refers to the relatively simple and short cognitive test he took when still in office. But the American people deserve more than just that. These two are old and the examinations should be complete and thorough, including age-affected physical parameters, cognition evaluations and in-depth neurological exams.
Should both candidates agree to this, to make it “fair,” each candidate could specify a general practitioner and a neurological expert to conduct the test. Those four could jointly select a third neurologist to ensure an independent expert is involved. Ideally, they would issue a single consensus report on each candidate. If necessary, each doctor could provide a separate write-up dissenting on any given result or including observations the larger group chose not to include in the report.
Of course, each candidate would need to sign HIPAA waivers to allow the information to be published.
The American presidency is arguably the most important executive position in the world. No public corporation would hire either of these candidates as their CEO without an exhaustive medical evaluation. Why should we be forced to do so?
What age should a president be? When inaugurated, George Washington was 57 years old. The youngest was Theodore Roosevelt, just 42 when taking office. Nine presidents were in their 40s including Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The first person inaugurated at the age of 70 was Donald Trump, while Joe Biden was 78. If he takes office again, in January 2025, Donald Trump will be the oldest inaugurated president in history, about five months older than Biden was in 2021.
For various reasons, modern men and women, especially those in developed countries, live significantly longer than people did 200 years ago. It is therefore natural that some public servants, including presidents, will be older than the historical norm. But how old is too old? The answer is, we do not know. But we do know that as we age, we have a higher and higher risk of debilitating medical conditions, including neurological and cognitive problems.
Beyond this election cycle, Congress should enact legislation that requires a similar in-depth exam and transparent public report for any presidential candidate who will reach the age of 70 during the term for which they seek election. This exam should be performed not more than one year before the first presidential caucuses or primaries, and the results released before those primaries. A similar requirement should be established for vice presidential candidates within 30 days of being selected for the ballot. Presumably, the results of an earlier examination would be part of the vetting process for selecting an older vice presidential candidate.
The results of the tests would not be disqualifying for any candidate. They should simply be required to have the exam and release the report. But the exam may inform their decision on whether to run, and the report would be part of the information available to the American people during the election cycle. Of course, there are no guarantees. Even a candidate with a perfect report could drop dead or become severely disabled shortly after taking office. But for older candidates, where the risk is higher and higher, we deserve to know the status of a candidate's current physical, neurological and cognitive health.
Keep ReadingShow less
Issue One
Meet the Faces of Democracy: Isaac Cramer
Jul 18, 2024
Minkin is a research associate at Issue One. Van Voorhis is a research intern at Issue One.
More than 10,000 officials across the country run U.S. elections. This interview is part of a series highlighting the election heroes who are the faces of democracy.
South Carolinian Isaac Cramer developed a passion for politics and elections at a young age, witnessing his mother cast her first vote after achieving her long-standing dream of American citizenship. He joined the Charleston County Board of Voter Registration and Elections in 2014 and began serving as its executive director in March 2021. He oversees election administration for more than 300,000 registered voters in South Carolina’s third most populous county. Charleston spans along the state’s southern coast and shares a name with the largest city in the state, where Cramer resides.
Cramer, who is not affiliated with any political party, has received prestigious honors for his extensive efforts to reform election administration and ensure elections are fair and secure. He earned a Clearinghouse Award from the Election Assistance Commission in 2022 and the J. Mitchell Graham Memorial Award from the South Carolina Association of Counties in 2023. He is also a two-time recipient of the state’s Carolina’s Excellence in Elections award. Earlier this summer, he was appointed president of the South Carolina Association of Registration and Election Officials.
In March 2024, Cramer testified before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, advocating for more robust and regular federal funding for election administration. Approaching the 2024 presidential election, he is particularly concerned about the high turnover rate of election officials, both in South Carolina and across the country, and about recruiting enough poll workers to help run elections.
Prior to his work at the county board of elections, Cramer studied political science and enjoyed various sports announcer positions at Wheaton College. He later served as an executive coordinator in the Indiana attorney general’s office. Since January 2024, he has been part of Issue One’s Faces of Democracy campaign, advocating for protections for election workers and for regular, predictable and sufficient federal funding of elections.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Issue One: How did you end up in this profession?
Isaac Cramer: In college, I knew I wanted to pursue a career in government and politics. I had been on the other side of politics working on campaigns. After running some campaigns and relocating for my wife, I was at a crossroads in my career. I saw a job posting for the board of elections, so I applied and got the job. In my first role, I got a taste of what it was like on the other side of an election, rather than being the person trying to get someone elected.
IO: What part of the election administration story in South Carolina do you think is not told or widely understood enough?
IC: In South Carolina, our election infrastructure is aging across the state. A lot of counties are struggling with the buildings they conduct their business in. The aging infrastructure has resulted in needs not being met and created some challenges. As we go into the future, resources will be needed for the local counties for conducting those elections.
Another is that we have had over 80 percent turnover among the election directors in South Carolina since 2020. There are a lot of new people in the role — maybe not necessarily new to elections, but new to a leadership role, which entails overseeing the election process from A to Z and being responsible for all of it. These stories are starting to come out more and more, but they are not sounding the alarm bells enough right now.
I am the president of the South Carolina Association of Registration and Election Officials, and one of my goals is to develop training for directors — not just how elections are conducted, but also the leadership, relational and communication skills that are needed in the role.
IO: In your job, how are you working to bring more transparency to the world of election administration?
IC: Transparency with security is a difficult balance. It is important to strike that balance and make sure we have secure processes and procedures while also talking to the public about how elections are run on the day to day.
Specifically in Charleston County, we invite community leaders in, we show them the process, and we talk to them. We launched a voter ambassador program to equip members of our community with the correct information so then they can go and talk to their friends, their neighbors, their churches, their civic groups about how elections are run. We empower people to be our voice.
IO: In the United States, election administration is not centralized, so 50 states have 50 different election administration systems. What are the key features or nuances of the system in South Carolina?
IC: The way that elections are run in a unique-though-sometimes-similar way across states makes our system great.
In South Carolina, each county has a board of elections. These range from five to nine members who are appointed by a legislative delegation with approval from the governor. Then, they appoint the executive director of each county. The county is responsible for conducting their respective elections.
The State Election Commission is the entity that oversees elections. We do not have a secretary of state that does that. The state commission also has a board and an executive director who is hired by the board, and the South Carolina Senate confirms that appointment.
Even though elections are run at the county level, the state has a supervisory role of policies and procedures, making sure the counties are being supported and that there is a standardized process. In South Carolina, we have a uniform system. No matter what county you go to, we have the same exact voting equipment and same voter registration system.
IO: How many voters are registered in your jurisdiction, and what are the main challenges of a jurisdiction of that size?
IC: We have over 320,000 registered voters, and one of the challenges of Charleston County specifically is that we have a lot of water around us. We have bridges, including draw bridges that get put up for a long time. For example, in James Island, one of our head poll workers got stuck trying to get to the office because the bridge was up. We are a very long county, with very rural parts and very urban and suburban parts. And there are islands. So that is very difficult, especially with hurricane season in October and November. We are prepared for what would happen in a hurricane situation in a November election.
Another challenge is making sure that we are serving voters in all areas of the county and not just focusing on where the population centers are. It is a challenge because we may not be able to have early voting in a certain part of the county if there is no suitable location or polling place. And we need to be ADA accessible for our voters, especially in the rural areas where there is not a lot of infrastructure.
Another challenge is our growing population. We have people who are coming from different backgrounds and are from out of state. You have to educate these new residents on how to vote and how to register to vote.
IO: You helped launch the “Adopt a Polling Location” program in Charleston County. Could you speak to what sparked the idea of creating such a program? And what has the impact of this program been in recruiting poll workers?
IC: Poll workers are the lifeblood of elections. We couldn't conduct elections without them. We are precinct-based in South Carolina, and we predominantly vote in person. In an in-person voting model, you need to have poll workers. We rely on close to 2,000 poll workers in a presidential election. In Charleston County, we are always looking for people to work. It seems like we never have enough poll workers.
I am focused on recruiting people who have never served as a poll worker before, people who are civically minded. These are the first people to volunteer at a food bank, the first people to do a neighborhood cleanup, to help organize a bake sale. The “Adopt a Polling Location” program fits right into serving the community.
I first learned about this program in Florida. A jurisdiction did it very well, so I called them to learn about the program, and I pitched it to our county. The essence is you find civically minded people who want to give back. They are not necessarily in it for the poll worker pay of $200. They want to actually give back to the community. One example of this is when we partnered with a local wrestling program that used this as a fundraiser for their team to buy jerseys and to fund their tournament travels. They told me that they look forward to every election because it helps them make their mark for fundraising instead of having to sell 5,000 brownies.
We also saw success with the local food bank and a couple other organizations that are very invested in Charleston County. We got the Stingrays, our local minor league hockey team, to all volunteer at a location. The mascot showed up with some players and the high fived the voters at that polling place, and it was just great. It was a great experience to have a hockey team at the polling place, the mascot, and people giving back. It was just a great environment for voters to see that voting is more than just casting your ballot. It is about the people that are around you. It is about exercising that civic responsibility you have to make your voice heard.
IO: Your office has partnered with Vet the Vote to recruit veterans as poll workers. What inspired you to seek out such a partnership, and what successes have you seen already?
IC: I previously worked for the adjutant general of South Carolina, and I saw firsthand the experience of servicemen and women who come back — the pain, the hardship, the tears. When I began working on the other side of the government, we launched “Vote in Honor of a Veteran,” and I introduced a new component, called “Your Vote, Our Veterans.” We had veterans go into local classrooms and teach students why voting is important and to make the connection to the sacrifice and service of those who have served to ensure we have that right to vote.
Fast forward to this year, I knew that we would need poll workers, so I drew back on the experience I had of seeing the men and women in uniform who have served their country. Finding an organization like Vet the Vote, that is inspired to bring in veterans to serve as poll workers, felt like a natural fit in Charleston County since we have a lot of military families.
We had some veterans who worked early voting for us who wore their hat or their shirt, and we got some of their testimonials before the program was even launched. One veteran, named Curtis shared a story about how every time he has his veteran hat on, people always come up and thank him for his service.
We used that connection point to launch “Operation Civic Duty.” Out of that, we realized we already have a lot of veterans who serve as poll workers, and they were so excited to recruit their friends, their neighbors, and the people they know. My hope is that we can get at least 50 veterans for the November election who have never served as a poll worker before.
IO: Many people are surprised to learn that the federal government doesn’t routinely fund the costs of running elections. Why do you think the federal government should routinely contribute to election administration costs?
IC: First, we conduct elections for federal offices. Every other entity that we conduct elections for pays for that responsibility. The state government reimburses counties for some of that cost. When we have municipal elections, the same thing. But what drives voters to the ballot box is the office of president. Voter turnout is highest during presidential election years. The No. 1 office is president. Then congressional races. On our ballots, they get the prime real estate. That is what people are showing up for. We have an increased number of people coming to polling locations and an increased amount of ballots that are being printed, and the security levels go through the roof. We anticipate that there will be threats in the upcoming election. There will be instances where things could turn to a protest. We just want to be prepared for that. Giving counties and municipalities the tools and money to be successful is important.
Also if the concern out of Washington, D.C., on both sides of the aisle is security of election infrastructure — security of our polling places and security of the vote — then we need to put our money where our priorities are. Supporting election administration is vital to the health of the United States of America.
We need to fund elections from the federal level because a lot of these smaller counties and jurisdictions may not have the resources necessary to secure their infrastructure. They may not have the ability to purchase new voting equipment because it is very expensive and their tax base is small. I am appreciative that there was $55 million in appropriations [passed by Congress earlier this year for election administration in all 50 states], but we need more. We need more to be successful.
IO: What is the price tag of running an election in your jurisdiction?
IC: I want to be very clear that we do not get adequate funding through our state either. The state legislature, through the budget process, allocates money to the State Election Commission, who then reimburses the counties for certain election expenses, not all expenses. We look to them for reimbursements for ballots, part of our poll worker pay, part of our early voting pay, and notices that we publish, but the county is on the hook for everything else that exceeds the minimum rate. For this presidential election coming up, I believe it is going to probably cost over $2 million between all the poll worker pay and ballot deliveries. We may get about $400,000 or $500,000 in reimbursement, and these are rough ballpark figures.
IO: If your jurisdiction had extra funding, how would you spend it?
IC: The grants that were given by nongovernmental organizations in 2020 were a lifesaver. We were able to purchase things that we could never purchase before that were critical to the success of our elections. We purchased a mail opener, which basically scans every ballot and takes an image, bringing more security to the voting process. We were able to have all our ballots done by midnight, which is unheard of. We were also able to better engage with our community and purchase supplies that we would not otherwise have been able to.
If I had that type of investment again, the number one priority would be security. There are some really awesome products out there that would give us RFID [radio frequency identification] or GPS tracking on every piece of equipment that leaves the building. We would probably put gates around our facility. We would invest in more technology for ballot tracking.
We would also invest in more training opportunities for poll workers and staff, and increase poll worker pay. During the pandemic, poll worker pay was $400, while the normal pay is $200. When that was the case, we got people who were never poll workers before who were willing to take a day off of work.
Finally, a goal of mine is to increase community engagement. If we had unlimited funds, I would hire a team of people to engage with the community. The more people that you are engaging with, the more the community can see and know the people actually conducting elections. There are so many opportunities, but a lot of it requires money.
IO: In recent years, election-related misconceptions, conspiracy theories, and lies have proliferated. How has this impacted your daily work?
IC: The biggest thing we saw in 2022 was that we had poll watchers who were harassing our poll workers on Election Day. There was a threat made on social media. Out of that movement, we have had a tremendous number of FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests. We’re just inundated with FOIA requests, and a lot of time has been taken away from us in order to dig out records and get legal advice.
The climate has changed so much. Poll workers do not want to mess up — they never wanted to mess up — but now they feel that every movement they make is under a microscope. If they look at somebody funny, if they do something that apparently is not in the playbook for a group that is observing, they worry they’re going to get in big trouble. That is not how it should be.
I remember when I first came into this job, poll workers and everyone always talked about how going to vote was like a big reunion. You saw your neighbors. You saw your friends. You saw your family. You saw the poll workers who had been working there for 10 years. Everyone knew each other. Now, it is not the same at all. You have people coming in who are just looking for what is wrong.
The distrust that has been sowed is now affecting the people who are working and is why we have lost people who don’t want to deal with it. I’ve heard them say, “I am retired, why do I need to stress out and have somebody think I am part of a mass conspiracy?”
We used to have public tests [of voting equipment] where nobody would show up. I want people to come see public tests for transparency. We used to never have anyone show up because it is like watching paint dry and nobody cared. Now, people show up with a binder and a list, asking questions that have nothing to do with the public test. They are coming with accusations like we are committing fraud.
IO: Given all these challenges, what inspires you to stay in this line of work?
IC: I am a son of an immigrant. My mom came here to visit, fell in love with the country, and became a U.S. citizen. I got to see my mom vote for the first time when I was a young kid. I have a sister who has special needs, and I have always known that I wanted to do meaningful work that has an impact on people's lives and be a voice for people who may not have a voice. What better role to do that? I am in charge of the avenue by which people exercise their right to vote to make sure their voice is heard. I am inspired by people's stories and ensuring that we give people the best voting experience while following the law.
I am very customer service based. I really want to serve people and make sure that we are doing a good job, to give them the best voting experience. There are so many people who died for the right to vote, who marched, and who sacrificed. We know many people who have wanted to come here for a better way of life, and I am part of that story.
Innovative ideas also keep me going. One idea that we are actually about to launch this summer is a children's book about the importance of voting. The bigger message is that it is okay to have differences of opinions, but voting is still important. It is one of those things that make me really love my job, being able to bring innovation in and reach all people regardless of where they are and their age.
I always remind myself of these things when it gets super stressful or when I have somebody who has a camera in my face trying to sow doubt in our election system.
IO: Outside of being passionate about running safe and secure elections, what are your hobbies, or what is a fun fact that most people might not know about you?
IC: I love sports. I grew up the biggest Yankees and Jets fan. I love watching baseball, playing baseball, and golfing. I also love going to the beach and spending time with my family. I have two very young kids. Watching them grow is so rewarding and amazing.
A fun fact is that I am half Brazilian and speak Portuguese. I also love Taylor Swift, and I actually went to Zurich, Switzerland, to see her.
IO: What is your favorite book or movie?
IC: I love chick flicks. Romantic comedies are my jam. I am also a big John Grisham fan. I love lawyer type novels.
IO: Which historical figure would you have most liked to have had an opportunity to meet?
IC: If it could be anybody, it would be pretty sweet to walk the earth with Jesus. I’d especially love to learn how to serve people.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More