Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump linking of easing voting rules to GOP woes creates knowing fury on the left

Trump speaking at White House

President Trump said on "Fox & Friends" that Republicans would have difficulty getting elected if different "levels of voting" were implemented.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Progressive democracy reform groups are seizing on a brief comment from President Trump as smoking gun evidence Republicans oppose making it easier to vote because they fear doing worse with bigger turnout.

Preventing election fraud has been the GOP's singular public reasoning for supporting tight rules of access to the ballot box. Democrats and voting rights groups say that's a subterfuge, noting the scant evidence of criminality and the solid evidence that more people voting means fewer wins for Republicans.

Trump openly embraced that concept Monday when discussing proposals he said he blocked from the coronavirus economic rescue package — emphasizing his rebuff of the $2 billion Democrats sought to pay for nationwide voting-at-home, online registration and expanded early voting in person.


"The things they had in there were crazy," Trump said during an extended "Fox & Friends" telephone interview. "They had things, levels of voting that if you ever agree to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again."

"They had things in there about election days and what you do and all sorts of clawbacks," he added. "They had things that were just totally crazy and had nothing to do with workers that lost their jobs and companies that we have to save."

Negotiators settled on $400 million to make it easier to vote without getting Covid-19, but left out clear guidelines on how the states may spend their share.

"How anyone can oppose our enabling the states to have vote by mail raises so many other questions, but let's just be hopeful and have public opinion weigh in," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday . "It's necessary for our country to have a strong Republican Party, and I feel sad that the president does not have confidence that his party can convince the American people about a path to go forward."

Trump's comments suggest that good government groups may have an uphill battle securing such aid in the next coronavirus response package, which Congress is expected to put together in the next two months.

Beyond that, he became the highest ranking Republican to describe a partisan motivation for opposing easier voting — jumping ahead of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who last year derided the ballot access expansions in the House's sweeping good government package, known as HR 1, as the "Democrat Politician Protection Act" and "a power grab that's smelling more and more like exactly what it is."

Polling supports the supposition that higher turnout generally benefits Democrats. A study of people who weren't registered or did not plan to vote in the 2014 midterm by the Pew Research Center, for example, found 51 percent favoring the Democrats to just 30 percent favoring the GOP.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that all states "should be beginning to plan" to conduct the November election predominantly with vote-from-home ballots because of the coronavirus pandemic.

"I think we should be looking into all mail ballots across the board to begin with, because it's an easier way for people to vote, but whether or not that's required across-the-board in all 50 states and territories I'm not sure yet," the Democratic presidential front-runner said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Reactions to Trump from the left were particularly impassioned.

"The truth is more people voting isn't good or bad for either party. It's good for America," Ellen Kurz, who runs iVote, which finances campaigns of Democrats committed to voting rights. "But his sentiments bring into stark relief why Republican officials across the country have taken every opportunity to keep people from voting."

"A monstrous example of putting party ahead of America," said House Administration Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren. The California Democrat said "every American, regardless of party affiliation, should condemn the president's apparent belief that it's a good thing for American voters to risk their lives when safer voting alternatives are possible."

"Worth noting that Trump responds to a question about 'special interest projects' by talking about funding for VOTING.This is not a special interest project, it is our DEMOCRACY — and ensuring it can function should be a bipartisan emergency," Vanita Gupta, a former civil rights chief at the Justice Department who now runs the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said on Twitter.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less