Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less