Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democrats tweak For the People Act, but to what end?

Sen. Amy Klobuchar

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is managing the For the People Act, has circulated changes to the bill that would help election officials.

Al Drago-Pool/Getty Image

Democrats, seeking to shore up support for their expansive election reform legislation, have made some modifications to the bill -- but the changes appear unlikely to help get the legislation through the Senate.

Responding to the concerns of election officials who questioned whether they would have the time and resources to meet all of the requirements laid out in the For the People Act, Sen. Amy Klobuchar has drafted changes and circulated them among her fellow Senators, according to The Washington Post.

While the modifications offer waivers and later deadlines to ease states' path to implementing vote-by-mail systems, early voting and election equipment standards, they do not address the major complaints from Republican lawmakers, who claim the bill is an appropriation federalization of elections.


The legislation was passed by the House (where it is known as HR 1) in March without any Republican support. Now the bill faces a difficult, perhaps insurmountable, barrier in the Senate (as S 1).

As long as the filibuster remains intact, Democratic leaders need to keep all their members in line and pick up 10 Republican votes to advance the bill. Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia has called for bipartisan efforts to reform elections, indicating he might not support the bill since it has not received Republican support so far. And Manchin is one of at least two Democrats who oppose changing the rules to abolish the legislative filibuster.

The nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, which engages in advocacy and litigation to support ballot access, praised the changes but warned against further modifications.

"The Senate is incorporating recommendations from key stakeholders, adding flexibility to the timeline for implementing changes that will modernize and improve access to voting systems," said CLC President Trevor Potter, a one-time GOP member of the Federal Election Commission. " As the Senate moves forward with the markup, it must hold firm to the principle of national election standards which will ensure Americans can freely cast ballots and that everyday voters have a say, not just special interests. Failure to pass these important protections is not an option."

Similarly, the good-governance advocates at RepresetUs, were in favor of the changes.

"As expected, most changes proposed by the amendment grant flexibility for administration of some of the more costly and/or involved aspects of the For the People Act," said Damon Effingham, director of the federal reform. "We commend Senate leaders for continuing to improve the legislation by listening to election administrators."

Polling has found the For the People Act to have popular support, regardless of party affiliation. The bill would make it easier to register to vote and cast a ballot, establish fundamental changes to campaign financing, ban partisan gerrymandering, set election security requirements and institute new ethics rules.


Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less