Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Neither party will be happy with new voter ID study

Republicans and Democrats may not agree on much, but both parties are going to be equally frustrated by a new study from the widely respected National Bureau of Economic Research. The report concludes that strict voter identification laws are not doing much to depress registration or turnout overall or by any demographic group – but neither are they doing much to prevent voter fraud or increase confidence in the election system.

"Overall, our results suggest that efforts to reform voter ID laws may not have much impact on elections," authors Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons conclude.

Their findings create a potential stumbling block for House Democrats as they seek to make provisions easing registration and access to the polls (in the name of boosting turnout) a central selling point for their comprehensive political process overhaul bill, dubbed HR 1. But at the same time the study suggests that Republican-run states' moves to make access to the polls more bureaucratically complex (in the name of crime prevention and public credibility) are largely for naught.


The study was based on 1.3 billion data points about the past five federal elections including people who voted, those who registered but did not vote and those who were eligible but not registered. Looking at the population's political behavior over a decade, the authors said, is what allowed them to conclude there was no discernible change in registration or voting patterns in states that stiffened voter ID requirements.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

HR 1 would set new national standards for elections including automatic and same-day voter registration, the restoration of voting rights for felons, an expansion of early voting and mail-in voting, and a requirement that a sworn affidavit be an acceptable substitute for an ID card at the polls. The bill looks doomed to die in the GOP Senate after the Democratic House passes it this spring.

"No matter where you stand on the voter fraud-voter suppression controversies, these findings strengthen the case for dialing down outrage, reducing anxiety and generally recognizing that if we stopped pushing for these laws and stopped freaking out about how they supposedly doom democracy, voting in America would rattle along basically unchanged," the conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote. "But since it's conservatives and Republicans who are the prime mover here, because they're generally the ones pushing legal changes, they also have the primary obligation to step back and stand down."

Read More

The Fragile Ceasefire in Gaza

A view of destruction as Palestinians, who returned to the city following the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, struggle to survive among ruins of destroyed buildings during cold weather in Jabalia, Gaza on January 23, 2025.

Getty Images / Anadolu

The Fragile Ceasefire in Gaza

Ceasefire agreements are like modern constitutions. They are fragile, loaded with idealistic promises, and too easily ignored. Both are also crucial to the realization of long-term regional peace. Indeed, ceasefires prevent the violence that is frequently the fuel for instability, while constitutions provide the structure and the guardrails that are equally vital to regional harmony.

More than ever, we need both right now in the Middle East.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

The Committee on House Administration meets on the 15th anniversary of the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United v. FEC.

Medill News Service / Samanta Habashy

Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

WASHINGTON – On the 15th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and one day after President Trump’s inauguration, House Democrats made one thing certain: money determines politics, not the other way around.

“One of the terrible things about Citizens United is people feel that they're powerless, that they have no hope,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Ma.).

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independents as peacemakers

Group of people waving small American flags at sunset.

Getty Images//Simpleimages

Independents as peacemakers

In the years ahead, independents, as candidates and as citizens, should emerge as peacemakers. Even with a new administration in Washington, independents must work on a long-term strategy for themselves and for the country.

The peacemaker model stands in stark contrast to what might be called the marriage counselor model. Independent voters, on the marriage counselor model, could elect independent candidates for office or convince elected politicians to become independents in order to secure the leverage needed to force the parties to compromise with each other. On this model, independents, say six in the Senate, would be like marriage counselors because their chief function would be to put pressure on both parties to make deals, especially when it comes to major policy bills that require 60 votes in the Senate.

Keep ReadingShow less