Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

While combating suppression, be sure to call out states doing the right thing

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam

Voting rights are moving in the right direction in Virginia, where Gov. Ralph Northam will sign a landmark law modeled on the Voting Rights Act, writes Roath.

Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Roath is a voting rights attorney who recently ended his term as Common Cause Massachusetts board chairman.


Across the country, democracy is in retreat. By the end of last month, legislatures in 43 states were considering bills that would make it harder to vote — more than 250 of them, or seven times as many as a year earlier. This week, Iowa became the first state since the 2020 election to enact fresh election restrictions, a sweeping package focused mainly on curbing mail-in voting.

While the phenomenon has touched virtually every part of the country, the potential rollback of voting rights is most acute in states where Republicans hold legislative power but President Biden won in November. Lawmakers in these states are leveraging widespread but discredited conspiracy theories about the results of the election to fuel a new wave of race-targeted voter suppression. The Georgia House and Senate, for example, have both passed separate sweeping voter suppression bills that, among other things, target turnout efforts by Black churches. In Arizona, legislators are considering a range of bills that would constrain access to mail-in voting and disenfranchise the most vulnerable.

In short, members of an aggrieved minority are attempting to restrict voter access after an election with results disappointing to them. That is nothing new: Our history is replete with groups attempting to accomplish similar goals, often with success.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Federal legislation would be an obvious and appropriate response, but it is far from clear Congress will take action. Last week the House passed the For the People Act, a comprehensive bill that would impose new nationwide registration and access standards and guarantee same-day registration, among many other objectives. But it is unlikely to pass unless the Senate weakens the filibuster and allows the law to pass with the bare majority that Democrats currently hold.

So, what then?

In the regrettably likely event that Congress is unable to pass sweeping voting rights legislation, advocates and engaged citizens should look to lift up and support the pro-voting-rights efforts taking place right now across the country.

The voting rights progress being achieved in other states — red, blue and purple — amounts to a growing counter-narrative to the concerted disenfranchisement we see playing out in Iowa, Georgia and Arizona.

Three of the brightest spots on the voting rights heat map are Virginia, Kentucky and Massachusetts.

In Richmond any day now, Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam will sign a landmark law intended to create a Virginia mirror of the federal Voting Rights Act at the height of its effectiveness.

It replicates many key features of the national law and back-fills many of the provisions that, at the federal level, have been eroded by litigation and Supreme Court decisions. The innovative bill would grant the state's attorney general new authorities to police local elections changes designed to suppress the vote and prohibit local governments from establishing voting systems (such as "at large" elections) that disproportionately exclude minority voters.

Last year, for the first time ever, people in Kentucky could cast their ballots by mail or vote early and in person if they were concerned about contracting the coronavirus at the polls. Unsurprisingly, these reforms were popular and precipitated record turnout in the fall. Rather than rolling back these successful measures, Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear and the Republicans in charge of the General Assembly appear aligned in favor of extending them indefinitely — which would mean long-term progress on voter access in the South.

Then there's my home state, which is widely perceived as both blue and progressive but has traditionally been a laggard on voting reforms. Apart from emergency measures enacted during the pandemic last year, Massachusetts has no tradition of mail-in voting and has never permitted same-day registration.

But the story here now is much the same as Kentucky's. Thanks to dedicated advocacy and a positive experience with mail-in voting last year, there is widespread consensus that absentee ballots should become an enduring feature of state elections. Democrats in lopsided control on Beacon Hill are considering bills to allow people to register and cast a ballot on the same day along with various other long-sought reforms.

These efforts deserve greater national attention for several reasons.

First, if successful, these reforms would mean that more Americans have more voting options and greater access to democratic institutions. That, in and of itself, is a worthy outcome we should celebrate.

Second, these states can model what meaningful progress on voting rights can look like for the rest of the country. Once successful policies are rolled out, they tend to become popular, and can serve as proof points for advocates in other states. Based on my advocacy experience, it's very persuasive to point out to a lawmaker that 21 other states and the District of Columbia already have same-day registration and then say: "If they can do it, why can't we?" This kind of challenge tends to motivate people.

Finally, issue-based advocacy in the states can set up the playbook for how to effectively push for similar policies in Washington.

There is only so much "model" states can do to counteract voter suppression in other parts of the country. Ultimately, robust federal laws are needed to guard against abuses in a country where your voting rights are vastly different depending on where you live. Action by the states can build momentum for action by Congress — as we've seen in any number of policy areas, from health care access to the criminal code to the minimum wage

So pay attention to what's happening in all the states on voting rights — the good and the bad.

Pushing back against organized voter suppression in one place requires us to push forward in other places. We should be lifting up examples of policymakers, advocates and ordinary citizens who come together to advance the cause of a just, multiracial and well-functioning democracy. They are, in more ways than one, our model citizens.

Read More

Democrats Look to Independents for Help

A person voting, casting a ballot at a polling station, during elections.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Democrats Look to Independents for Help

Democrats are taking stock. Some are arguing for a major overhaul in light of growing defections of working-class, Black, and Latino voters. Others want to stay the course. Some want to work with Trump when possible while others advocate for a program of permanent resistance.

It’s a familiar conversation. With a new twist. If you listen closely, some Democrats are uttering words of blasphemy: Maybe we can’t regain our relevancy without the help of independent voters.

Keep ReadingShow less
What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

An engraving from a painting of Patrick Henry delivering an address before the Virginia Assembly. From the New York Public Library.

Getty Images, Smith Collection/Gado

What Would Patrick Henry Say Today?

In Federalist 10, explaining some of the protections of the new Constitution in 1787, James Madison observed that, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm….” The Founders defined tyranny as the legislative, executive, and judicial powers all being combined in the hands of a single individual or small group of people. So, they divided these three powers into separate and independent branches of the government that checked and balanced each other, preventing this accumulation of power. If, however, the people elected an authoritarian president and a legislature of toadies, who allowed this president to install a compliant judiciary, this protection could be lost. Hence, when asked shortly after the Constitutional Convention concluded in 1787 what the delegates had created, Benjamin Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Echoing Madison, the Supreme Court in 1866, in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), wrote, “Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln” as they overturned Lambden Milligan’s conviction before a military commission under martial law in Indiana during the Civil War. Milligan was charged with aiding a secret society that gave material support to the rebellion, conspiring to free Confederate prisoners, and conspiring to raid northern arsenals to come to the aid of the South. The Court’s five-member majority ruled that martial law could not be imposed in states where the civilian courts were open and functioning. Four members of the Court disagreed because state courts could be open and functioning but be in the hands of rebels. Martial law may again be tested, but more fundamental questions are how to prevent the rise of a tyrant in the first place and what remedies are available should the voters elect one.

Keep ReadingShow less
One Year After Total Child Marriage Ban, New Hampshire Considers New Exceptions
Equality Now

One Year After Total Child Marriage Ban, New Hampshire Considers New Exceptions

A new child marriage bill in New Hampshire is drawing attention from lawmakers and activists across the United States. Last year, the New Hampshire Legislature passed a landmark bill, amending the law to prohibit child marriage under the age of 18 without exceptions. The long fought for legislation was widely celebrated, despite some lawmakers in the state previously supporting child marriage. Now, during the current 2025 legislative session, lawmakers will vote on a proposal to amend the law by creating a military exception for 17-year-olds.

Child marriage, defined as a formal marriage or informal union before the age of 18, is a harmful practice that puts the lives, health, and futures of children at risk. Around the world, 12 million girls are married each year before they turn 18, often to adult men much older than they are. This practice is recognized internationally as a human rights violation and a form of violence against women and girls.

Keep ReadingShow less
silhouettes of people arguing in front of an America flag
'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings
Pict Rider/Getty Images

Is Civility in Politics Possible?

In an era of increasing political polarization, the need for civility in politics has never been greater. Engaging in constructive and respectful dialogue is essential for maintaining a healthy democracy, fostering unity, and ensuring that governments function effectively. Unfortunately, modern political discourse is often characterized by hostility, personal attacks, and a reluctance to find common ground.

President Donald Trump reminded me of this deterioration in political decorum when he sparred with Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, over transgender athletes during a meeting of governors at the White House last week.

Keep ReadingShow less