Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What is your take?

What is your take?

Today, The Fulcrum continues its biweekly feature "What is Your Take?" where we ask our readers a question and share various responses. Last time, we posed the following question:

What should be next for voting and election reforms in the United States?

We look forward to engaging with our readers as we create a dialogue around different topics and issues that are important to all of us. Please share your responses by emailing

Y'all had some opinions!

Next week's question is: Which current investigations will be wrapped up by January, and which will drag into the mid-term season?

I have narrowed my election issues to three: vote by mail (vote at home) as conducted in Oregon; removing the de facto citizen status afforded by the Citizens United ruling from corporations (profit and nonprofit) so they cannot fund elections; and remove the artificial cap on the number of seats in the House using the Wyoming Rule so the number of representatives equitably reflects the number of citizens (making moot the gerrymandering dance we suffer every 10 years).

Laws are not enough. They can always be changed or circumvented. The Constitution allows states to control voting in the states. So we need a constitutional amendment that bans all forms of voter suppression and infringement, and requires significant penalties (such as life in prison).
~David H.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Voting and election reforms belong to the states themselves. No part of the Constitution authorizes the federal government authority on that. Any federal legislation on the subject is beyond its authority and unconstitutional.
~ John G.

Ranked order and make it easier to Vote (as we do in Colorado).

We at RepresentUs/New Jersey are doing everything we can to alert folks to the democracy threats to our nation and the imperative need for action on the Freedom to Vote Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and updating the 19th-century Electoral Count Act (from the Tilden-Hayes scandal).
~David Goodman
Chapter Leader
RepresentUs/New Jersey

We need to carve out an exception to the filibuster for voting rights, as we've done for certain budgetary matters and Supreme Court appointments, so this critical pending legislation can be passed.
~Morris E.

It is hard to know exactly which one/set of targeted measures will have the greatest impact, in the shortest period of time — and the urgency is underscored by states' ability to restrict voting rights as we have seen.

1. Voting reform: Modernize the system that is antiquated. Institute automatic registration and early voting — both key to ensuring that all can vote.

2. Legal measures: Raise the bar that states have to overcome before initiating any voter suppression laws.

3. Get the private money out of campaigns.
~Prabha S

The United States has always had an imperfect electoral system, run by states, counties and cities. We should think long and hard before imposing a top-down system that would be run to federal specifications, decided by government officials and lawmakers in Washington.

I believe that it should be easier to vote in many states and that elections should be held on holidays. But election security is a legitimate concern. When reporting restrictions in one state (Texas, for example), the media should compare its voting rules in others. We don't have early voting in New York and Connecticut. There are no drop-off boxes. It is easier to cast a ballot in many Republican-run states than in much of the North East and Mid West.

Too often, voting and election integrity have been reported as merely a partisan concern. While there are alarming cases of voting discrimination in some red states (Georgia and Texas are examples), and interference by state legislatures (Georgia and Arizona), the overall picture is less clear. Democratic-run New York City has an appallingly inefficient vote count, whereas Florida does very well. Utah, Oregon and Colorado are examples of red and blue states with efficient mail-in and online voting.

As with so many problems we face, the solutions are debatable, nuanced and complex.
~Richard D

We need to ensure integrity in the actual votes cast and counted. Electronic vote scanning and tabulation alone leave the system terribly vulnerable.

Linda Paine, founder of Election Integrity Project California, along with others such as Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True The Vote, would be people to engage for the details of how to do so. I know and trust them both.
~Michael M

It is hard to see a way forward on voting rights when those bills apparently lack the support of even moderate GOP senators like Mitt Romney and Susan Collins. I'm sure my calls to the offices of my Tennessee senators fell on deaf ears. Ending the filibuster might do more harm than good in the long run.

It is tough sledding for those of us who value middle ground, cooperation, and compromise. But keep trying; I support your efforts.
~Frank C
Murfreesboro, TN

In recent years, voting has been the subject of considerable debate, including whether voting is a right or a privilege. The reality is that voting is a right, a privilege, and more importantly, a responsibility. Although voting is a right, it is not a fundamental God-given right in the same way that life and liberty are. It is a right that is accorded under a democratic (small d) system by a governmental authority, in which the citizens engage in a measure of self-determination. Should self-determination be a fundamental right of every human being? The answer to that question may be "yes," but there are many more restrictive systems that seem to work, even separate and apart from open voting processes. That said, voting is a privilege, in that those citizens who choose to vote--to participate in the electoral process--are privileged to be able to have that right. Privilege, however, should not attach based on any restrictive factor; once given in a society, that privilege needs to be available on an equal and equitable basis, without regard to any particular classification and without discrimination. That said, the most important consideration is the operation of the voting process in a responsible manner and the responsible exercise of the right and privilege of voting.

In order to maintain the integrity of a voting system, the laws and regulations need to be sufficient to safeguard the validity of every legitimate vote and yet not be so restrictive that they prevent qualified voters from exercising their voting rights. This delicate balance has sometimes been difficult to maintain, and has often been abused in the interest of advancing a particular agenda or discriminating against particular classifications of individuals. It is, however, the responsibility of the governing authority to maintain that balance as best it can. Voting laws need to be viewed in context, and not simply as individual provisions. Measures that impose too many requirements or that cause voters to be too distant or the polling places to be too distant need to be re-examined and revised. If a law or regulation would impose an undue burden on those qualified to vote, then the law or regulation must be changed in order for the system to operate properly. Conversely, if a system is so lax that it allows for rampant abuse, the governmental authority has no choice but to impose reasonable restrictions.

Voters are responsible for ensuring that their voting rights are exercised with a clear understanding of the gravity of their actions. Whether a vote is exercised in-person or by mail, that vote needs to be submitted honestly and honorably, and with full knowledge and understanding of what that vote represents. Some measures, such as voter identification, are not overly restrictive and protect, not only the voting mechanism but the voters themselves, in that their vote is safeguarded against abuse by another person claiming their vote. Voters need to maintain an awareness that their vote matters, and that without their participation, the business of government would not proceed honestly, efficiently, and most importantly, effectively for making the lives of those living in the country better than they would have been without the vote.

Read More

Blurred image of an orchestra
Melpomenem/Getty Images

The ideal democracy: An orchestra in harmony

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. Starting this summer, he will serve as a Tarbell fellow.

In the symphony of our democracy, we can find a compelling analogy with an orchestra. The interplay of musicians trained in different instruments, each contributing to the grand musical tapestry, offers lessons for our democratic system. As we navigate the complexities of governance, let us draw inspiration from the orchestra's structure, dynamics and philosophy.

Keep ReadingShow less
David French

New York Times columnist David French was removed from the agenda of a faith-basd gathering because we was too "divisive."

Macmillan Publishers

Is canceling David French good for civic life?

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.

On June 10-14, the Presbyterian Church in America held its annual denominational assembly in Richmond, Va. The PCA created considerable national buzz in the lead-up when it abruptly canceled a panel discussion featuring David French, the highly regarded author and New York Times columnist.

The panel carried the innocuous-sounding title, “How to Be Supportive of Your Pastor and Church Leaders in a Polarized Political Year.” The reason for canceling it? French, himself a long-time PCA member, was deemed too “divisive.” This despite being a well-known, self-identified “conservative” and PCA adherent. Ironically, the loudest and most divisive voices won the day.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fannie Lou Hamer

Fannie Lou Hamer testifies at the Democratic National Convention in 1964.

Bettmann/Getty Images

60 years later, it's time to restart the Freedom Summer

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

Sixty years have passed since Freedom Summer, that pivotal season of 1964 when hundreds of young activists descended upon an unforgiving landscape, driven by a fierce determination to shatter the chains of racial oppression. As our nation teeters on the precipice of another transformative moment, the echoes of that fateful summer reverberate across the years, reminding us that freedom remains an unfinished work.

At the heart of this struggle stood Fannie Lou Hamer, a sharecropper's daughter whose voice thundered like a prophet's in the wilderness, signaling injustice. Her story is one of unyielding defiance, of a spirit that the brutal lash of bigotry could not break. When Hamer testified before the Democratic National Convention in 1964, her words, laced with the pain of beatings and the fire of righteous indignation, laid bare the festering wound of racial terror that had long plagued our nation. Her resilience in the face of such adversity is a testament to the power of the human spirit.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kamala Harris waiving as she exits an airplane

If President Joe Biden steps aside and endorses Vice President Kamala Harris, her position could be strengthened by a ranked-choice vote among convention delegates.

Anadolu/Getty Images

How best to prepare for a brokered convention

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

As the political world hangs on whether Joe Biden continues his presidential campaign, an obvious question is how the Democratic Party might pick a new nominee. Its options are limited, given the primary season is long past and the Aug. 19 convention is only weeks away. But they are worth getting right for this year and future presidential cycles.

Suppose Biden endorses Vice President Kamala Harris and asks his delegates to follow his lead. She’s vetted, has close relationships across the party, and could inherit the Biden-Harris campaign and its cash reserves without a hitch. As Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) suggested, however, Harris would benefit from a mini-primary among delegates before the convention – either concluding at the virtual roll call that is already planned or at the in-person convention.

Keep ReadingShow less