Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Election reform advocates regroup, plan next steps

Freedom to Vote Act, voting rights, election reform
Paras Griffin/Getty Images

Even though Democrats’ two signature election reform bills have once again been defeated in the Senate, advocates for change are vowing to press ahead on multiple fronts.

Republicans, as expected, blocked passage of the combined Freedom to Vote Act and John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act on Wednesday night. And Democrats’ effort to change the filibuster went down immediately after, as moderates Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema sided with Republicans in blocking the rules change.

Now some advocates are focusing on a limited set of federal voting reforms while others are taking aim at state and local changes. And a bipartisan group of senators has been discussing a handful of ideas that might be achievable in the 50-50 Senate.

Regardless of the path forward, many advocates seem to agree with RepresentUs CEO Johsua Graham Lynn, who on Wednesday said: “While the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act is the best way to protect America’s democracy in this precarious moment, it’s not the only way.”


A collection of five organizations that represent the left, right and cross-partisan communities released what is perhaps the most concrete proposal for moving forward on Thursday.

The Bipartisan Policy Center, Issue One, Unite America, the R Street and the American Enterprise Institute issued a report, “ Prioritizing Achievable Federal Election Reform,” which proposes policies across four areas: voter registration, casting ballots, vote-counting, and cyber- and physical security.

“The proposals outlined in this report are rooted in a deep history of broad support across the political spectrum, but we will only cross the finish line if Republicans and Democrats are able to set aside partisan differences and do what’s right for our country,” said Issue One CEO Nick Penniman. “We cannot allow inaction to continue. Passing key bipartisan election reforms is absolutely crucial.”

But rather than mandating specific policies, like the Freedom to Vote Act would have done, the report suggests providing grants to states that engage in certain practices, such as:

  • Regular maintenance of voter rolls.
  • Automatic voter registration.
  • Requiring a minimum standard for voter identification.
  • Seven-day early voting period.
  • Absentee voting options for all voters, with proper security measures.
  • Requiring mailed ballots to be received by the time polls close on Election Day.
  • Training and security for election workers.

“Elections must be trustworthy, and voting must be convenient,” said Matt Germer, R Street’s resident elections fellow. “This new legislative framework shows how long-standing Republican, Democratic and bipartisan priorities can work in harmony to improve our elections without overbearing federal mandates.”

While other groups also talk about continuing to work for federal reforms, much of their attention will be focused on state and local government in the days ahead.

“Though a path forward on the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act is unclear, we must continue the fight to protect voting rights city by city, state by state, and in the halls of Congress,” Jen Johnson, movement director for RepresentUs, wrote to supporters when inviting them to a strategy session next week.

That strategy includes stepping up what has been a successful series of state and local campaigns to pass anti-corruption and structural reforms, continuing to advocate for federal reforms, and launching a new effort to protect election administration.

“We'll create a countervailing force to the authoritarians/conspiracists in swing states who are trying to take over and ultimately subvert election administration,” said Ross Sherman, a spokesman for RepresentUs. “We are building the kind of deep relational organizing network that has proven to be a winning strategy, paired with recruitment and deployment of military veterans (Count Every Hero), the business community and faith leaders. We are coordinating closely with partners on this work.”

Similarly, the Campaign Legal Center will continue its work, one case at a time.

“Through litigation and work in the states, groups like Campaign Legal Center and our allies have already been scoring wins on multiple fronts in fights against gerrymandering and numerous barriers to voting,” said CLC President Trevor Potter. “Although these wins are mostly incremental, local wins and state work are critical as we push forward.“

Meanwhile, a handful of Republican and Democratic senators have been in talks about a few legislative ideas that could garner bipartisan support. Chief among them would be changes to the Electoral Count Act, which governs the role Congress and the vice president have in the certification of electoral votes.

Some supporters of Donald Trump wanted to take advantage of the bill’s vague language to undermine the process and keep him in office following the 2020 election. It should be nothing more than a ceremonial process, according to David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research.

“It’s most akin to the Oscars,” he explained. “They don't vote on Best Picture at the Oscars. They just open the envelope and annonce who won.”

Becker also backed another issue under discussion in the Senate. “I think we do need to see some protection for election workers,” he said, adding that there should be criminal penalties for offenders.

Meanwhile, for some, the battle for the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is not over.

“Today’s shameful outcome revealed who stands for, and who against democracy,” Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP, said Wednesday. “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 took three attempts to pass into law, so we will continue to fight. Anything short of protecting the right to vote is a death sentence for democracy. The fight is far from over.”


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less