Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

$425 million to secure elections included in sprawling federal budget bill

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (above), kept the pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell this fall and finally won his support for additional funding for election security.

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

After months of testy standoffs and high-pressure bickering, congressional leaders have reached a bipartisan deal to spend $425 million to boost election security in the next year.

The funding is included in a $1.4 trillion government-wide spending package unveiled Monday and on course for swift approval. The Democratic-led House of Representatives voted for it Tuesday afternoon, with the Republican Senate assured of going along in time to ward off a partial government shutdown this weekend.

President Trump has signaled he'll sign the deal. Once that happens, the Election Assistance Commission can begin delivering a new round of grants to states laboring to make the voting tamper-proof in 2020. Government intelligence experts are unified in predicting the Russians will be joined by other foreign agents in seeking to hack into the country's several thousand different election systems next year.


The grants may be spent on buying voting equipment so long as the new system creates a paper record of every ballot cast, to implement post-election audits and for cyber security training, among other uses.

The funding comes on top of $380 million in grants Congress approved in March 2018.

Initially, many Republicans opposed any additional funding. They argued that some states had not spent their allocation from last year and they feared the money would lead to an eventual federal takeover of elections now run entirely by state and local governments. In addition, they believed enough has already been done to secure the 2020 elections.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked security funding for months but faced tremendous pressure from advocacy groups, Democrats and others who said he was putting the credibility of the next presidential election at risk.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 election found that operatives attempted to hack into voting systems around the country and were successful in gaining access to a voter registration database in Illinois and to computers used by some election officials in Florida.

McConnell's blanket opposition to all election security bills — partly driven by his not wanting to infuriate the president, who hates any suggestion his victory was tainted — prompted some critics to label the Kentucky Republican as "Moscow Mitch," an epithet he reviles. But he changed his mind in September after several of the nation's most prominent conservative groups came out in support of boosting federal spending against hacking.

By that time, the House had passed a spending bill with $600 million for election security. McConnell initially got behind an allocation of $250 million. In one of the final budget deal's reflections of the realities of a divided Congress, the final number neatly splits the difference.


Read More

people filling out their ballots at voting booths and submitting their vote.

Independent voters may hand Democrats control of Congress this fall — but as history shows, they'll get nothing in return. Here's how to change that.

Pressmaster/Getty Images

Swinging Outcomes Is Not Enough

The midterms are six weeks away, and polls predict that independent voters, who broke for Donald Trump in 2024, are planning on voting for Democrats by wide margins. Among Latinos, the numbers are staggering, to the point that the Republican gerrymanders in Florida and Texas may actually result in Democratic victories.

If the Democrats take control of Congress, it will be because of independents. And what do independents get in return?

Keep ReadingShow less
Diverse People At Voting Booth. Vote Here Elections Sign

A political scientist examines how automatic voter registration is quietly turning non-affiliation into America's largest voting bloc.

AndreyPopov/Getty Images

When Neither Party Is the Default: Rethinking Representation As America’s Electorate Changes

For most of my career as a political scientist, representation was the central theme of my teaching and research. Early on, I studied how legislators understood their responsibilities to constituents — whether they saw themselves as delegates carrying out constituent mandates, trustees exercising independent judgment, or politicos combining both. That work asked a question that still matters: What does it mean to represent the public in a changing democracy?

Today I find myself asking a related question: What happens when the electorate changes but the institutions built to represent it do not?

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship

Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.

To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close-up shot of a Black woman's hands receiving a mail-in ballot to vote in a USA Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, or local election

An immigrant's perspective on why America's election debate over security vs. access is a false choice — and how USPS mail ballot rules fit in.

Jeremy Poland/Getty Images

Ballot Security and Voter Access Are Not Opposites: What the USPS Ballot Rule Gets Right

I came to the United States from India in 1982. In Indian elections, I watched officials check voter identity and mark a voter’s finger with indelible ink. Party representatives observed the process. The system was imperfect, as every large democracy is, but it sent a simple message: casting one vote is a serious civic act, and the process should make that clear.

When I later became an American citizen and cast my first ballot, the experience felt very different. A poll worker found my name on a list and handed me a ballot. In my precinct, there was no photo identification check. I was surprised—not because I expected voting to be difficult, but because I expected a system as consequential as an election to have clear, visible safeguards.

Keep ReadingShow less