Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Protecting voters in November means keeping polling places open

Atlanta primary voters June 9, 2020

Long lines, like those experienced by Atlanta primary voters on June 9, can be prevented by keeping more polling locations open and expanding early voting.

Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

Benson is Michigan's secretary of state and Underwood, a fellow Democrat, is a congresswoman from Illinois. Firestone and Palfrey are attorneys with the Voter Protection Corps.


After a series of deeply disrupted spring elections, it's clear that Covid-19 is the latest threat to voting rights in America. Many advocates and election officials, ourselves included, are working to expand vote-by-mail, which reduces risks of transmission of the coronavirus and can increase turnout. In recent primaries, mail-in voting rates have skyrocketed by 10 or even 20 times.

But protecting the November election requires an all-of-the-above approach that keeps polling places open. If we fail to act, we will disenfranchise the same Americans historically excluded from voting.

In the last presidential election, three-quarters of all Americans who cast a ballot — nearly 110 million people — did so in person at an early voting site or on Election Day. Members of historically marginalized groups voted in person at even higher rates. In a 2018 census report, Black Americans were the most likely racial group tracked to participate in in-person voting, at 88 percent, and the least likely to vote through the mail. Native Americans, younger voters with less stable mailing addresses, the homeless, voters with disabilities and those who need language assistance all use in-person voting more heavily.

Unfortunately, in primary after primary this spring, election officials have restricted or interfered with in-person voting, particularly in urban areas.

For Wisconsin's primary, Milwaukee slashed the number of polling locations open April 7 down to just five — down from 180. While turnout across the rest of the state dropped 4 percent from the 2016 presidential primary, turnout in the state's largest city dropped 37 percent.

Before Pennsylvania's primary June 2, Philadelphia eliminated 600 voting sites, citing poll worker shortages. A curfew that cut into voting hours was lifted only hours before polls opened. Turnout in the city dropped by 30 percent compared to 2016, six times the rate across the rest of the state.

During the April 9 primary in Georgia, thousands of voters in Atlanta were forced to wait in hours-long lines. Two weeks later in Kentucky, election officials opened just one in-person location in each county, causing concern about the potential for long lines impacting citizens voting in person especially in Louisville and Lexington, the state's most urban and diverse places.

Without preparation, we'll see the same dysfunction play out across the country 13 weeks from now. To ensure that voters are protected this fall, state and local officials must prepare now. Here are the most important four steps to take.

Keep neighborhood polling locations open. Closing polls creates longer lines, bigger crowds and higher risks. Officials should commit not to close polls and consolidate voting, which disproportionately impacts voters in urban areas. The vast majority of the country's Election Day voting places are multi-functional locations and the majority are controlled by local governments.

Election officials should begin planning now to reconfigure or relocate these locations and ensure all have access to cleaning supplies, hand sanitizer and protective materials. States and localities should also expand curbside voting, allowing voters in need to stay in their cars.

Recruit, train and protect new poll workers. This is a watershed moment to invite new generations to fill a critical civic role, including some of the millions of Americans who have joined peaceful protests. But we have to start asking now.

This spring, the coronavirus led to massive shortages of poll workers, and a 2017 report found that most jurisdictions already struggled to recruit the workers needed. In the last presidential election, more than half of the country's 918,000 poll workers were older than 60. Election officials need to create simple online sign-up portals for volunteers and expanded partnerships, like Adopt-a-Precinct, that allow businesses and nonprofits to recruit. Schools should allow high school and college students to take the day off to serve. Jurisdictions should relax or eliminate service requirements that bar otherwise qualified individuals. Poll workers need to be properly trained and provided with protective equipment.

Expand early voting. A straightforward way to protect in-person voting is to spread out the period of time when voters can cast their ballots. In 40 states, voters may already vote early, but the days and hours vary widely. Wherever possible, state and counties should expand early voting to include multiple weeks in October.

To accommodate working Americans, local jurisdictions should expand voting into evening hours and, to the greatest extent possible, allow early voting on both Saturday and Sunday in the final weekends before Election Day. In urban areas, communities should demand early voting sites in neighborhoods — not just central, downtown locations. Rural officials should also look closely at how best to ensure broad access.

Communicate clearly and repeatedly that voting is safe. Elected officials and voting rights groups must repeatedly assure the public that voting will be safe and secure. We've already seen Covid-19 weaponized as this year's voter suppression tactic of choice. Failure to clearly communicate will undermine public confidence and leave the door open to disinformation.

As America prepares for national elections in the middle of a pandemic, the strength of our democracy will be measured by how well we uphold the voting rights of the vulnerable. Do we allow the coronavirus to deepen existing disparities in voter turnout or do we plan and prepare to include everyone? To help ensure that all jurisdictions can afford to run a safe election, Congress should approve the $3.6 billion in aid that has already passed the House.

By acting now, in communities across the country, we can disrupt old patterns of disenfranchisement and make our elections more fair and free.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less