ACE

Category: Democratic Governance Policy

  • Understanding the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

    Understanding the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

    Background

    In November 2024, Elon Musk posted on social media, “There should be no need for [Freedom of Information Act] requests. All government data should be default public for maximum transparency.” His statement reignited discussions on the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, a federal law enacted in 1966 that requires federal executive branch agencies to disclose information in specific ways. Since its original passage in 1966, FOIA has been updated three times to tighten agency compliance, account for digital records, and allow citizens to request records online. Under FOIA, government agencies must disclose information by:

    • Publishing procedural rules in the Federal Register
    • Electronically disclosing certain frequently requested records
    • Disclosing all covered records not already available upon request

    FOIA includes nine exemptions to protect against harms that might result from divulging certain records; these exemptions include cases like invasion of personal privacy, information related to national security, and information that would interfere with law enforcement proceedings.

    History of FOIA

    Concerns over government secrecy grew in the aftermath of the Cold War. In response, Representative John Moss, a Democrat from California, introduced FOIA in 1955 with support from the journalism community. Despite opposition from President Lyndon B. Johnson and every federal agency, the House of Representatives passed the bill with a vote of 307–0. When Johnson signed the legislation in 1966, he included a signing statement emphasizing that the law allowed room for interpretation and exemptions related to national security.

    Over the decades, several amendments refined FOIA to make it what it is today. Most notably, the Privacy Act of 1974 was created in response to concerns about individual privacy rights In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, which required agencies to make documents available electronically. The OPEN Government Act of 2007, signed by President George W. Bush, expanded the definition of “journalist” to include web-based reporters and bloggers. It also established the Office of Government Information Services to oversee FOIA compliance. President Barack Obama further reformed the law with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, which required agencies to update their FOIA regulations and create a centralized online portal for requests. The FOIA Improvement Act also introduced the “foreseeable harm” standard, which prohibits agencies from denying FOIA requests unless they can sufficiently prove that disclosure of the requested records would lead to a specific harm.

    The FOIA Request Process

    FOIA requests are open to anyone, regardless of citizenship status. Requesters must submit their inquiries either electronically or in paper form to the appropriate federal agency. Upon submission, the agency provides a tracking number and begins searching for relevant records. If the requested documents contain sensitive information, agencies redact sections in accordance with the nine exemptions before releasing them to the requester.

    The processing time for a FOIA request depends on the complexity of the information sought. Simple requests are generally fulfilled more quickly, while those requiring extensive searches or redactions take longer. In certain circumstances, requests may qualify for expedited processing, particularly if a delay would threaten someone’s safety or if there is an urgent need to inform the public about government activities. While there is no initial fee to file a request, agencies may charge for search time beyond two hours or for duplicating more than 100 pages, depending on the requesting party. If a request is denied, the requester has the right to file an appeal at no cost.

    FOIA in the 21st Century

    As digital technology has advanced, FOIA has become a tool for journalists and advocacy organizations to uncover government behaviors and potential wrongdoings. Some FOIA requests eventually turn into lawsuits. For example, in 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit for the Department of Justice to turn over records on the government’s use of individual cell phones as tracking devices. In 2016, Color of Change and the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation for not responding to their FOIA requests, which they had submitted that same year for records about federal surveillance of Black Lives Matter protests.

    During the Trump administration, FOIA requests were frequently used to fact-check government statements, investigate the COVID-19 response, and examine financial conflicts of interest. In 2017, federal agencies redacted or withheld 78 percent of requested records, the highest rate in a decade. That same year, FOIA lawsuits rose by 26 percent, marking a 70 percent increase from 2012. 

    Under the Biden administration, FOIA request processing remained similarly restrictive. In fiscal year 2023, over two-thirds of requests were either redacted, withheld, or denied on the basis that no relevant records were found. Agencies received nearly 1.2 million FOIA requests that year, setting a new record. Approximately 40 percent of requests were only partially fulfilled, a rate comparable to the final year of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the number of requests fully granted dropped from 21 percent in 2020 to 16 percent in 2023.

    Arguments in Favor of FOIA

    Supporters of FOIA argue that the law promotes public transparency and holds government officials accountable for fraud, waste, and abuse. In a democratic society, access to government information is essential for maintaining trust between the public and its government. Proponents argue that government transparency is especially important in the post-9/11 era, as government agencies have expanded their data collection efforts while often keeping these activities secret.

    In addition to promoting the democratic ideal of an informed citizenry, supporters argue that FOIA is especially useful to potential voters. FOIA gives Americans access to in-depth knowledge about their political representatives, allowing them to make more informed choices at the polls.

    Finally, supporters argue that FOIA allows advocacy organizations to amplify and seek justice for government wrongdoing that would otherwise remain secret. They point to instances where FOIA requests have led to the discovery of misinformation campaigns, coordinated use of excessive force against protesters, and surveillance. In some cases, such as the aforementioned 2008 and 2016 lawsuits, FOIA requests can provide a foundation for victims of injustice to seek accountability. 

    Although FOIA initially faced challenges such as bureaucratic delays and inconsistent enforcement, proponents contend that amendments over the years have made the process more accessible. The rise of digital technology has also made it easier for agencies to share information with the public. 

    Criticisms of FOIA

    Opponents argue that FOIA places an excessive burden on federal agencies by requiring them to respond to requests within a short time frame despite limited resources and funding. They also argue that FOIA contributes to an overburdened judicial system, as courts must handle cases involving delayed or incomplete responses to FOIA requests. Another concern is that FOIA allows too many requests driven by personal curiosity rather than legitimate public interest, further straining agency resources. 

    On the other hand, some criticize FOIA’s broad exemptions, arguing that agencies frequently overuse them to withhold information. Exemption 5, which protects privileged communications between agencies, is particularly controversial. In 2013 alone, it was cited more than 81,000 times to deny FOIA requests. 

    Another longstanding issue is the excessive delay in releasing certain records. The FBI, for example, took nearly 25 years to release files on musician John Lennon following an ACLU request. The agency withheld the final 10 documents until 2006, citing concerns about “foreign diplomatic, economic, and military retaliation” against the United States. However, when the documents were finally disclosed, they contained only well-known information about Lennon’s connections to antiwar groups. ACLU legal director Mark Rosenbaum described the prolonged secrecy as “government paranoia at a pathological level.”

    Proposed Reforms

    To address some of these concerns, several reforms have been proposed to improve FOIA while balancing the government’s need for confidentiality. One suggestion is to limit the duration that records can be withheld under Exemption 5. Proponents of this reform suggest that setting a maximum withholding period of 12 years—the same limit applied to presidential records involving deliberative processes—could help prevent excessive secrecy while still protecting sensitive government deliberations. Another proposed reform is to implement a “balancing test” that requires agencies to weigh the government’s interest in confidentiality against the public’s right to access records. 

    Conclusion

    FOIA is a landmark law that changed the landscape of government transparency. While it has undergone reforms to improve public access to records, challenges such as delayed processing times and resource constraints hinder its effectiveness. Ongoing debates about FOIA reflect broader tensions regarding national security, government efficiency, and the public’s right to information. 

  • Pros and Cons of Congressional Term Limits

    Pros and Cons of Congressional Term Limits

    Background: What are Congressional Term Limits?

    While members of the U.S. House of Representatives serve two-year terms and U.S. Senators serve six-year terms, all Congresspeople are eligible for re-election indefinitely. As of 2023, U.S. Representatives served an average term of 8.5 years, while U.S. Senators served an average term of 11.2 years. 

    Congressional term limits are a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the number of terms a member of Congress can legally serve. Under Article V, the Constitution can be amended by either (1) a two-thirds vote of support in both chambers of Congress, or (2) a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of all states and ratified by three-fourths of all states. Term limits reached their highest level of political salience in the 1990s. In 1992, Arkansas voters attempted to impose term limits on their state’s federal congresspeople via an amendment to their state constitution. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the Supreme Court decided that this amendment was unconstitutional and that states cannot impose term limits on their own federal delegation; the only way to impose congressional term limits is to amend the U.S. Constitution. 

    Current Attempts to Impose Congressional Term Limits

    In 2024, Representative Ralph Norman (R-SC) introduced a joint resolution to amend the Constitution and enact a three-term limit for Representatives and a two-term limit for Senators. The resolution died in committee. In January 2025, Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Katie Britt (R-AL) introduced a resolution with the same provisions. Their proposed amendment was co-sponsored by 17 senators, all of whom are Republicans. 

    While the constitution has never been amended through a constitutional convention, some states are also taking that approach to impose congressional term limits due to limited success of prior joint resolutions in Congress. Indiana’s State Senate recently voted to approve a resolution calling for a convention to consider term limits. If the Indiana House passes the resolution, Indiana will become the tenth state to call for a constitutional convention, joining Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

    Arguments In Favor of Congressional Term Limits

    The case for congressional term limits centers on the following arguments: (1) Term limits motivate politicians to get more done while in office, (2) Congressional turnover eliminates the incumbent funding advantage, (3) Term limits reduce careerism in politics, and (4) Congressional term limits have widespread support.

    One common argument in favor of congressional term limits is that the policy will incentivize politicians to act more efficiently and effectively during their term given the knowledge that they cannot serve indefinitely. Some argue that today, legislators avoid taking immediate action on hot-button issues like immigration and healthcare because they know those issues drive voters to the polls. These proponents argue that congressional term limits would help shift lawmakers’ core objective from winning re-election to creating effective, long-term policy solutions. 

    Advocates for congressional term limits also express concern that members of Congress are unrepresentative of their constituents, especially in terms of economic status. They highlight that funding has become a barrier to becoming an elected official and that incumbency is often linked with disproportionately high campaign funds, making it difficult for newcomer candidates to win against an incumbent. Proponents of term limits say the policy would reduce this incumbent advantage, leveling the funding playing field every two or three terms so that candidates have more of an equal financial footing heading into their race. Supporters also suggest that term limits could indirectly decrease the role of corporate funders in politics by deterring companies from making major investments in lawmakers who will only hold power for a short period. 

    Other proponents of congressional term limits argue that the policy would limit careerism in Congress by making room for people with more real-world expertise to service. They highlight that the average duration of time served in Congress has been steadily increasing from 8.9 years to 11 years, arguing this demonstrates that congressional office is viewed as a career plan instead of a post of service. In the absence of indefinite congressional roles, proponents argue, everyday Americans with more recent connections to the job market would have more opportunities than career politicians who are “insulated from the communities they represent.”

    Finally, proponents of congressional term limits highlight that the majority of Americans support the policy. A 2023 Pew Research Center study found that 87% of respondents favored limiting the number of terms one person can serve in congress. A different 2023 study from the Maryland School of Public Policy found support for congressional term limits transcended political party, with 86% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 84% of Independents in favor of the policy.

    Arguments Against Congressional Term Limits

    The arguments against congressional term limits are primarily built around the three subarguments: (1) Term limits fail to address political corruption, (2) Term limits ignore the value of the incumbency and institutional knowledge, and (3) Frequent congressional turnover shifts power away from the legislative branch. 

    Some opponents argue that congressional term limits fail to curtail political corruption, and may even worsen the problem. They hold that imposing term limits will cause lawmakers to work more closely with lobbyists for two reasons. First, given that term limits will cause a sharp increase in the number of “freshmen” lawmakers with limited legislative experience, critics argue that more politicians will rely more closely on lobbyists and special interest groups to write or recommend laws to “fill [lawmakers’] own informational and policy gaps.” Second, critics warn that term limits will only exacerbate the “revolving door” phenomenon in which retired legislators seek to maintain political influence by securing careers as lobbyists or private sector government affairs consultants. They cite a 2023 study that found that state governments with term limits saw an increase in the frequency of political corruption events. The study observed a “penultimate effect”, where state legislators under a term limitation devoted more of their last term to securing their personal power than to passing policy. Given that the frequency of last terms will increase significantly under term limit policy, opponents worry about an accompanying increase in political corruption. 

    Opponents of term limits also argue that the values of political incumbency in the legislative process are taken for granted. They argue that policymaking is a specialized skill that must be developed over time, highlighting examples of how bills with loopholes and contradictions – the result of unskilled policymaking – harm the American public. They hold that incumbency’s value is its ability to maintain legislative efficiency and institutional knowledge. Given that federal policymaking is a skill that can only be learned on-the-job, critics say incumbency gives lawmakers the opportunity to become the specialized professionals their constituents deserve. They also argue that bipartisan partnerships among lawmakers take years to cultivate, and that term limits would hinder cross-party collaboration. 

    The third core criticism of term limits is that the policy would shift power to the executive and the private sector at the detriment of democracy. As lawmakers are denied longer tenures, opponents argue, lobbyists and staffers become the primary voice of experience in the legislature. Additionally, critics suggest that a decrease in experienced legislators with cross-aisle relationships will further hinder Congress’ ability to efficiently pass legislation, catalyzing an increase in executive orders and other executive branch actions. This will create hurdles to the traditional system of checks and balances. 

    Conclusion 

    The debate over congressional term limits is longstanding and complex. While proponents argue that the policy will increase legislative efficacy, decrease corruption, and represent the will of the people, critics worry that it could have a counteractive effect. As the debate continues, countless questions linger. How much do we value incumbency? How are money and careerism intertwined? Is the legislature representative enough? Is legislative efficiency worth risking? After all of those questions have been asked, there is only one question left: Should Americans be for or against congressional term limits?

  • Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

    Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

    Presidential Immunity: History and Background

    Presidential immunity is the long-standing idea that the president of the United States has exemption from liability or legal proceedings for acts related to the duties of presidential office. Contrary to popular belief, presidential immunity is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution; only sitting members of Congress are explicitly granted judicial immunity through the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. Rather, the concept of presidential immunity has arisen through the Department of Justice’s longstanding policy against prosecuting presidents in office and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article II, which has developed through a number of Supreme Court cases dating back to 1867.

    These cases are as follows:

    • Mississippi v. Johnson (1867): When Congress passed the controversial Reconstruction Acts of 1867, the state of Mississippi attempted to block their implementation by asking the Supreme Court for an injunction against President Andrew Johnson to prevent him from enforcing the Acts. The Supreme Court held that they had no right to prevent a president from acting in their official capacity, setting the stage for future immunity rulings.
    • Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): Arthur Fitzgerald was an Air Force employee who testified before Congress about the Air Force’s cost overruns and technical difficulties. When he was later fired during a departmental reorganization under Richard Nixon’s presidency, Fitzgerald sued Nixon on the grounds that his firing was retaliation for his testimony. The Supreme Court held that the president has absolute immunity from civil liability arising from any official action taken while in office, officially creating the privilege of civil presidential immunity.
    • Clinton v. Jones (1997): Paula Jones alleged that Bill Clinton had sexually harassed her while he was Governor of Arkansas. The federal judge assigned the trial delayed it until Clinton was out of office under the belief that sitting presidents are immune from all civil suits. However, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a civil lawsuit against a current president to proceed if it is unrelated to behavior that occurred during time in office. This is because executive immunity does not apply to actions committed outside of executive office.
    • Trump v. United States (2024): When indicted for his connections to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and his attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, former President Donald Trump claimed that he could not be prosecuted for his acts unless he had been impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate. The Supreme Court held that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office and that they are presumptively immune from criminal liability, in addition to civil liability, for their official acts. However, they also held that presidents have no immunity for unofficial acts and preserved the possibility of prosecuting presidents for some acts within their formal responsibilities.

    There are two important distinctions to make in examining these cases and their holdings. The first is between a civil suit and a criminal prosecution. Historically, presidential immunity has only been extended to civil suits. However, Trump’s recent Supreme Court case has now sparked a debate over the potential validity of criminal immunity. The second distinction is between an official and an unofficial, or private, act. An official act is an action taken within the scope of the president’s powers as outlined by Article II of the Constitution. All other actions undertaken by a president, even those which occurred during their term, are considered private acts. Much of the controversy around Trump’s claims of immunity arises from uncertainty as to whether his actions should be considered official or private.

    Arguments in Favor of Presidential Immunity

    One argument in favor of presidential immunity is that it prevents retaliatory and politically biased prosecutions against presidents. Without established immunity, politically biased prosecutors could unfairly target presidents for arbitrary reasons once they leave office. For example, most U.S. presidents are accused of insufficiently enforcing a federal law at least once during their term. Most of the time, these accusations go nowhere. However, without the privilege of presidential immunity, these accusations could turn into prosecutions by their political opponents.

    This contributes to another popular argument in favor of immunity — that it protects the ability of the executive branch to function effectively. Proponents argue that presidential immunity allows presidents to freely make decisions based on the public interest, rather than choosing a less optimal but “safer” option to avoid future prosecution. This protects the independence of the executive branch by giving the president free reign to exercise their powers and perform their duties without fear of the courts. Supporters of presidential immunity claim that it maintains the separation of powers between the three branches of government, allowing the president to act without excessive oversight from other branches or parties.

    Arguments Against Presidential Immunity

    Critics of presidential immunity, especially as defined in Trump v. United States, claim that it compromises presidential accountability. They state that it translates to an absence of legal consequences for the executive, and thus eliminates deterrents to breaking the law. President Joe Biden, a prominent critic of expanded presidential immunity, points to Trump’s alleged incitement of the January 6 attack as an example of something future presidents could do without legal consequences. Opponents also believe that expanded immunity empowers presidents to operate without oversight and increases the risk of corruption and abuse by shielding presidents from legal scrutiny.

    Opponents further argue that expanded presidential immunity weakens the American system of checks and balances. They claim that it eliminates a key check on executive power. Critics say that executive power has already grown out of proportion in relation to the other two branches, as seen in the increased use of executive orders in recent presidencies. They believe that expanded immunity only worsens that imbalance by diminishing the judicial branch’s ability to hold the executive branch accountable.

    Finally, critics of expanded immunity believe that it threatens democratic rule of law by placing the president above the laws that all citizens must obey. Under presidential immunity, they argue, the law is not equally applied to all. Some fear that this open exemption for the executive will cause citizens to lose faith in their ability to hold elected officials accountable, weakening collective faith in the democratic process. Opponents also believe that expanded immunity has already allowed Trump to get away with anti-democratic behavior, such as attempting to overturn the 2020 election. They claim that protecting actions such as these is a threat to American democracy.

    Conclusion

    In summary, the state of presidential immunity has changed over time due to various Supreme Court holdings. Those in favor of presidential immunity argue that it prevents retaliatory prosecutions and protects the ability of the executive branch to function. Those in opposition to the recent definition of presidential immunity argue that it compromises executive accountability, weakens checks and balances, and threatens the democratic rule of law.

    Given the Trump v. United States decision and Donald Trump’s recent reelection, the debate around presidential immunity is more relevant than ever. Due to his election as president, the cases against Trump will likely end, and it is improbable that we will see how far presidential immunity extends under the court’s 2024 decision. Trump’s election brings a new concern for critics, who believe that Trump may be more willing to stretch the law than he was during his first term due to the expanded immunity now afforded to presidents.
    However, expanded presidential immunity is not necessarily permanent. President Biden recently proposed a No President is Above the Law amendment, which would eliminate immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. This is unlikely to pass in the next few years due to a Republican-majority Congress, but it does raise questions about the future of criminal immunity for presidents in administrations to come.

  • Points-Based Immigration System: Key Debates Explained

    Points-Based Immigration System: Key Debates Explained

    Introduction

    In recent years, the idea of a merit-based immigration system has gained traction in the United States. Unlike the more familiar family reunification approach to immigration, a merit-based system would focus on ranking immigrants’ skills, qualifications, and potential contributions to the nation. One model of this approach, a points-based system, assigns candidates scores based on factors like education, work experience, and language skills. The higher the score, the better the chance of an immigrant’s admission. 

    Countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia currently use points-based systems. In the United States, the RAISE Act of 2017 proposed adopting a similar model by reducing family-based admissions in favor of skills-based rankings. The bill did not pass; however, its introduction highlighted a shift in thinking about immigration reform. The debate around merit-based systems persists today. Supporters of a merit-based system say it will strengthen the economy, but critics argue it could distance the U.S. from its long-held values of offering refuge and opportunity to those in need. The tension between economic benefits and social ideals sits at the heart of the ongoing debate about the future of American immigration policy. 

    Arguments in Favor of Points-Based Systems

    Proponents of a merit-based immigration system argue that the policy prioritizes skilled workers who can positively contribute to the economy. They claim that by focusing on applicants with valuable assets, the United States could address labor shortages in critical sectors and select individuals whose skills match its needs. Proponents emphasize that this ability to fill economic gaps will enhance the nation’s innovation and competitiveness on a global scale by reducing dependence on foreign supply chains and prioritizing the hiring of documented American workers. They add that merit-based immigration could more effectively diversify the professional workforce than family-based policies, since prioritized applicants will be of appropriate age and skill level to enter certain vocations. 

    Additionally, proponents argue that a merit-based system will speed up the U.S. immigration process. Proponents point to the fact that when Canada, Australia, and New Zealand shifted to points-based systems, they did not have to expand their immigration departments because the system was less resource-intensive. The new points-based systems elicited a decrease in family-based visa applications, requiring less government personnel and time expenditures on screenings and interviews. Supporters add that the ranking component of points-based systems discourages unqualified applicants from submitting applications in the first place. They say this allows the government to cut down the time required to screen applications and invest that saved time in supporting new immigrants once they arrive. 

    Supporters also contend that a merit-based system would be more just than family-based immigration because it rewards individual achievements rather than personal connections. They argue that merit-based systems create a more transparent and objective process in which immigrants are chosen based on their potential contributions to society. 

    Finally, supporters argue that merit-based systems are more adaptable and flexible than family-based systems because point categories can change based on the country’s needs. For instance, as industries grow or decline, the criteria for earning points can adjust to attract the necessary talent or skills. This adaptability allows the government to respond quickly to labor shortages and emerging economic sectors, ensuring that immigration policy aligns with national interests. 

    Arguments Against Points-Based Systems

    Opponents of a merit-based immigration system raise concerns about discrimination and inequity. They argue that points-based systems favor immigrants from wealthier regions with access to higher education and professional development opportunities. Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign proposed several measures for a merit-based immigration framework, one of which involved ideological screening as a step in issuing green cards. Critics criticized this step in the ranking process, saying it will discriminate against immigrants with diverse political beliefs. 

    Another primary concern with merit-based systems is that they overlook essential workers in the agriculture, construction, and service industries. These fields rely on a continuous supply of laborers who may not meet the high educational requirements typically emphasized in merit-based frameworks. Critics hold that by focusing solely on highly-educated immigrants, a merit-based system could create labor shortages in these critical sectors of the American economy, disrupting production and creating economic bottlenecks. For example, in the agriculture sector, labor shortages directly impact food supply and prices, with ripple effects down to consumers. Similarly, the construction industry relies heavily on manual labor, and could face slowed project completion rates and increased labor costs if faced with a shortage in workers. 

    Opponents also argue that the merit-based system’s emphasis on skills undermines family reunification, a core principle of American immigration policy. For many, the ability to bring family members together reflects the fundamental value that family units contribute to resilient communities. Families provide social and economic stability, help preserve cultural traditions, and contribute to the well-being of society. However, a points-based system makes it more difficult for families to stay together or reunite quickly, since not all family members may meet the skill criteria. 

    Finally, critics hold that merit-based systems do not adequately address the needs of refugees or asylum seekers. These categories of immigrants may not meet educational requirements, but require immediate protection from persecution, violence, or conflict. Opponents hold that denying entry to a person fleeing a dangerous environment on the basis of education or skills is deeply unethical. 

    Additionally, opponents disagree with the notion that the American immigration system must choose between increasing economic value and tending to humanitarian needs. They point to research that shows that refugees stimulate their host country’s economy by creating jobs, contributing tax revenue, and driving consumer spending. They emphasize that refugees often fill crucial roles in the healthcare, manufacturing, agriculture, and education sectors, where labor gaps are common. In 2019, 13% of refugees in the U.S. identified as entrepreneurs and collectively generated $5.1 billion in business income. Critics of points-based systems argue that refugees and asylum seekers also broaden the cultural landscape of society by introducing diverse perspectives, skills, and cultural practices. They contend that limiting their entry disregards ethical imperatives and the long-term benefits of their presence in the U.S.

    Conclusion 

    The debate over whether the United States should adopt a merit-based immigration system raises critical questions about the country’s core values and future economic priorities. While proponents argue that points-based systems offer economic benefits by attracting skilled workers and decreasing processing times, critics warn that they risk widening global inequalities and eroding the humanitarian principles central to American immigration policy. This tension will continue to shape the ongoing debate over the future of American immigration policy.

  • Protecting Our Democracy Act: Weighing the Pros and Cons

    Protecting Our Democracy Act: Weighing the Pros and Cons

    Background

    The Protecting Our Democracy Act (PODA) is a bill under consideration in Congress that aims to protect the integrity of the democratic process. The bill was originally passed in the House in 2021. It was received in the Senate in late 2021, where it failed to pass due to the use of a filibuster. It was reintroduced to the House in 2023, where it remains.

    PODA’s provisions center around three main goals:

    • Shifting power from the executive to the legislative branch: PODA would limit presidential powers, reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending decisions, and require congressional approval of presidential emergency declarations. PODA would also codify Congress’s subpoena and investigatory power, giving the legislative branch greater oversight of the executive branch.
    • Preventing corruption: PODA would require greater presidential transparency, enact new protections for both inspectors general and whistleblowers, and codify the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses, which prevent government officials from receiving profits from foreign officials or states. It would also reinforce the Hatch Act of 1939, which limits the political activities of federal employees and other government officials involved with federally-funded programs.
    • Strengthening election integrity laws: PODA also prohibits foreign election assistance in the form of donations and would require greater transparency in digital political advertisements.

    Arguments in Favor of the Protecting Our Democracy Act

    One of the main arguments in support of PODA is that gradual institutional decay has undermined congressional authority. PODA’s proponents point to resistance to congressional oversight by former Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama as evidence of this phenomenon. They argue that the recent growth of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch can be mitigated through PODA’s provisions, which give Congress clear authority to enforce subpoenas, reassert congressional power over federal spending, and restrict a president’s use of emergency declarations. Proponents believe that this would effectively reform the balance of power between the two branches and restore the democratic process to the federal government.

    PODA’s supporters also emphasize a need for greater defenses against corruption and abuses of power. They point to the Trump administration’s refusal to disclose tax returns, dismissals of inspectors general, and issuance of pardons for corruption charges against close associates as evidence of the need for greater oversight of the executive branch. They believe that reinforcing the Hatch Act would keep federal programs fair and non-partisan, reduce corruption, and prevent political patronage. Supporters also believe that government whistleblowers need greater protections. A poll conducted by Marist in 2020 found that 86% of American voters agree that there should be more legal protections for federal employees who report fraud. Whistleblower protections are also popular across party lines. Supporters of PODA believe that the bill would provide these popular protections by granting whistleblowers increased anonymity and a private right of action if outed by other government officials.

    Finally, proponents of PODA argue that the bill will prevent foreign interference in elections. The federal ban against foreign interference in national elections has not been updated since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which allowed corporations and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns and elections. PODA’s supporters believe that this outdated policy has allowed foreign interests to fund campaigns, pay for digital advertising, and conduct social media campaigns freely, potentially spending almost $1 billion total on U.S. elections in the past decade. If passed, the bill intends to decrease foreign influence by explicitly banning foreign assistance in elections and requiring political groups to report all attempts by foreign actors to influence campaigns or elections.

    Arguments Against the Protecting Our Democracy Act

    The main argument against PODA is that the bill interferes with the separation of power between the three branches of government. Opponents of PODA argue that its provisions diminish the executive branch by requiring congressional oversight of the presidential pardon, a constitutionally-granted presidential power. Critics also believe that PODA would diminish the judicial branch by attaching new definitions to constitutional language that courts have already ruled upon, overriding court decisions and further upsetting the balance of power. Specifically, they point to PODA’s new definition of emoluments, which expands the definition to include payments arising from commercial transactions at fair market value. In light of this, opponents believe that PODA’s passage would upset the American political system of checks and balances by tipping the scales too far in the direction of the legislative branch.

    Opponents of PODA also point to the bill’s protections for whistleblowers and inspectors general as a key reason to oppose the proposal. They believe that the increased protections and anonymity for whistleblowers make it difficult for the federal government to vet claims, shielding poorly-performing employees from scrutiny. They also believe that requiring congressional oversight for firing Inspectors General decreases government efficiency and intrudes on internal operations.

    Critics also believe that PODA is politically-motivated. They argue that the bill specifically targets former President Trump and his administration’s actions. As such, they believe that PODA’s proponents only support it with the intent of politically damaging Trump and that the bill’s provisions are unnecessary.

    Conclusion

    In summary, PODA supporters argue that the bill would restore congressional authority, defend against government corruption and abuses of power, and prevent foreign interference in elections. Critics argue that PODA is a politically-motivated bill that would interfere with the constitutional separation of powers, make it difficult to vet whistleblower claims, and decrease the efficiency of the federal government. 
    After its introduction to the Senate in December 2021, PODA entered committee, where it has remained for the last three years. Even with its recent reintroduction to the House, it is unlikely to pass the Senate in its entirety unless the filibuster is abolished.

  • Citizens United v. FEC: Understanding the Debate

    Citizens United v. FEC: Understanding the Debate

    Background

    Campaign finance laws are controversial and highly influential in the American election system. Before 2010, Supreme Court rulings in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC upheld regulations by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that restricted organizational political expenditures and electioneering communications, such as political advertisements. However, in 2010, a landmark case Citizens United v. FEC overturned these restrictions. The Citizens United case arose when a nonprofit organization titled Citizens United attempted to air a documentary critical of Democratic primary candidate Hillary Clinton just before the 2008 primary election. Anticipating FEC penalties due to regulations on organizational electioneering, Citizens United sued the FEC and argued that the documentary did not constitute explicit advocacy against a candidate. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the Court overturned its previous campaign finance rulings entirely. The majority opinion held that limiting political expenditures and electioneering communications by collective entities such as corporations, unions, and some nonprofits violates the First Amendment right to free speech. 

    Arguments in Favor of the Court Decision

    Defending Free Speech 

    Those in favor of the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC argue that regulating the spending of corporations and very wealthy individuals is the equivalent of regulating their rights to free speech and is therefore unconstitutional. Advocates argue that corporations represent the opinions of the individuals within the company and therefore should not be subject to different regulations than people.

    Increasing Civic Engagement

    In addition, supporters argue that heavy regulations on campaign finance would reduce the dissemination of information related to political candidates, effectively reducing civic engagement among voters. They argue that allowing unlimited corporate expenditures strengthens democracy by creating opportunities for the publication of more political content and information on candidates and their policies.

    Anti-Corruption

    Citizens United retained regulations that forbid coordination between corporations, nonprofits, PACs, and their favored candidates or campaigns. Thus, advocates argue that there is no greater risk of corruption under Citizens United v. FEC because the changes only serve to amplify the opinions of the masses and do not allow organizations to coordinate directly with political candidates.  Supporters also argue that many corporations will not want to exercise their right to participate in politics financially. The Supreme Court agreed with this logic and determined that, although certain expenditures could curry favor with a candidate, “ingratiation and access are not corruption.” 

    Arguments Against the Court Decision

    Corruption 

    Citizens United v. FEC allowed for the creation of Super PACs, or political action committees that may receive and spend unlimited funding from corporations, labor unions, people, and other PACs, as long as there is no formal coordination between the PACs and the candidate’s campaign. Critics of Citizens United disagree with the notion that the case’s safeguards against coordination are sufficient in preventing corruption, as there are apparent loopholes in the system. The most prominent of these are often referred to as “dark-money” groups — 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) nonprofits that are not required to disclose their donors and can contribute to super PACs. Critics argue that these non-profits endanger our democracy by opening a channel for anonymous financiers and foreign actors to influence our elections. They hold that deregulating campaign finance for anonymous corporations and individuals will create a top-heavy democracy benefitting the wealthiest few. 

    Difficulty Verifying Compliance

    While the FEC regulation against coordination is crucial for preventing quid pro quo corruption, critics argue that it is difficult to verify that coordination has not occurred between a candidate, their team, and a backer. While direct communication is prohibited, using the same consultation group as a political candidate or allowing ex-staff to attend meetings and fundraisers for a super PAC is not. Therefore, critics claim there are loopholes that allow candidates to engage in strategic communication with financiers without technically “coordinating” under FEC regulations. 

    Reinforcing Racial Inequalities 

    Opponents of the Citizens United decision also note that campaign finance structures that allow big-money influence may contribute to racial bias and underrepresentation in the campaign system, since there is a disproportionate representation of white individuals in both corporate executive roles and the affluent class of large donors. Critics argue that the financial freedom instilled by Citizens United will grant greater power to affluent individuals to serve their own interests, reinforcing the economic insecurity that people of color experience at disproportionate rates. 

    What’s Next? 

    There’s no question that political campaigns are becoming increasingly expensive. The 2020 presidential election cost roughly $3.1 billion more than that of 2012, and the midterm election in 2022 cost roughly $8.9 billion, a $4 billion increase from the 2010 election. Opponents of Citizens United blame rising campaign costs on the deregulation of corporate finance, claiming the 2010 decision rendered the cost of running for office inaccessible to the average American, while proponents of the Citizen United decision attribute rising campaign costs to inflation. Currently, a significant debate over Citizens United and its central topics endures. Groups such as End Citizens United advocate for a complete reversal of the 2010 decision and push ballot measures to reform state campaign finance laws. Some lawmakers have also tried to pass campaign finance transparency laws, such as the DISCLOSE Act. The debate over Citizens United v. FEC, and campaign finance law more generally, will undoubtedly continue to shape the future of American democracy.

  • Pros and Cons of the Youth Voting Rights Act 

    Pros and Cons of the Youth Voting Rights Act 

    Background 

    In the 2022 midterms, youth voters (ages 18 to 24) turned out in record numbers nationwide. In today’s political climate, the youth vote is becoming an increasingly elusive but crucial factor in winning campaigns. However, compared to other age groups, 18-24 year olds have the lowest participation rates.

    Many in this age group could only vote after Congress expanded the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. This change responded to public outrage that young people could be drafted for the unpopular Vietnam War but couldn’t vote. While President Nixon signed this into law, a Supreme Court decision ruled Congress had overstepped its power by mandating all states to lower the voting age. In response, Congress created the 26th Amendment, which was ratified by all states within four months. Despite this strong support for youth civic involvement, only 23% of voters in this age group cast a ballot in the 2022 midterms.

    The Youth Voting Rights Act 

    In response to low youth voter participation, the Youth Voting Rights Act was introduced to Congress in July 2022 by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Georgia Representative Nikema Williams. The bill has faced delays primarily due to the election of a new Congress. The act aims to enforce the 26th Amendment by addressing infrastructural voting issues that hinder young voters. Key policies include expanding voter registration services at public universities, allowing 16-17 year olds to pre-register in every state, requiring higher education institutions to have on-campus polling locations, prohibiting durational residency requirements for federal elections, accepting student IDs as valid identification, creating a grant program for youth involvement in elections, and collecting data on youth voter registration and participation.

    Arguments in favor of the Youth Voting Rights Act

    Proponents of the Youth Voting Rights Act argue that practices such as automatic registration and using student IDs have been effective in other states and could address youth voter disengagement nationwide. A Tufts University study found that youth registration is 9 points higher in states allowing pre-registration at age 16 or 17, but fewer than half of the states permit this. Proponents believe implementing this policy nationwide would have a broader impact.

    A CalTech and MIT study found that in 2008, about 3 million Americans couldn’t vote due to registration problems like missing deadlines. Voter ID laws also inhibit turnout, as younger voters often lack documents like birth certificates or proof of permanent residency. A study from the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that strict rules limiting student ID use in Wisconsin contributed to lower youth participation in the 2016 election. Allowing student IDs as valid voter ID would ensure more young people can vote.

    Additionally, proponents argue that young people are civically engaged but face practical obstacles to voting. A CIRCLE study found youth activism is rising. Common reasons for not voting include no time off work, difficulty finding polling places, and problems with voter ID. Addressing these issues could increase youth voter turnout, suggesting that apathy is not the root cause of low participation.

    Arguments against the Youth Voting Rights Act 

    Conversely, some argue that the bill’s policies overstep federal authority and undermine states’ autonomy in managing their voting practices. They point to numerous Supreme Court decisions in recent years that have eroded the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on the grounds of federal overreach. In many cases, the Supreme Court has sided with states seeking greater control over their voting regulations. Since the Youth Voting Rights Act is intended to enforce part of this overarching legislation, it could face similar constitutional challenges, as it limits states’ flexibility in implementing these changes.

    Additionally, some believe that infrastructural changes alone will not significantly increase youth voter turnout. Younger voters often view traditional civic engagement as ineffective and prefer non-traditional activism to create positive change. A 2022 Harvard Youth Poll found that 56% of voters aged 18-22 believe current politics cannot meet the country’s challenges, and 42% feel their voices do not make a difference. Critics argue that low turnout reflects a shift toward activism rather than voting, and making voting easier may not address this issue and could compromise voting security. If young voters do not believe voting will amplify their voices, there is little incentive for them to vote, even if it becomes more accessible.

    Conclusion

    This bill represents a greater debate surrounding youth civic engagement in the U.S. Some argue that the way to engage younger voters as a powerful untapped voting bloc is to make voting more accessible to them. Others argue that this will not fully address the problem and could present legal issues. Ultimately, the U.S. is left with the challenge of effectively engaging its young people. 

  • Pros and Cons of Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act

    Pros and Cons of Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act

    Infrastructure consists of an extensive network of bridges, dams, highways, and utilities, which are essential for connecting people, goods, and services throughout a nation. Recently, America’s infrastructure has become a hot topic due to its aging condition and the numerous issues that have emerged. There is a general agreement across political lines that the existing approach to infrastructure repair and maintenance needs a major overhaul. However, opinions differ on the methods and funding strategies for such an endeavor. A prime example of these challenges is the recent Infrastructure and Investment in Jobs Act (IIJA), proposed by the Biden administration. This act illustrates the complexities involved in defining and tackling various infrastructure issues. After considerable bipartisan negotiations and adjustments to address opposition concerns, the bill finally garnered enough support to pass. This represents a notable instance of cooperation in an otherwise complex and polarized area of policy discussion.

    Arguments in Favor

    Supporters of the bill highlight two major concerns related to the aging infrastructure in the United States:

    • The immediate and impending risk of infrastructure failures leading to humanitarian crises. Recent examples include the breakdown of transportation and plumbing systems in New York City during the severe flooding caused by Hurricane Ida, and the catastrophic structural collapse of a condominium in Surfside, Florida.
    • The escalating impact of climate change, which intensifies the likelihood of infrastructure failures. This places an even greater burden on already overstretched systems that may not be adequately prepared to handle extreme weather events and other unprecedented challenges.

    Advocates of the bill argue that numerous recent infrastructure disasters, exacerbated or caused by climate change, underscore the urgency of their position. They reference incidents like the 2022 water crisis in Jackson, Mississippi, to emphasize the impact on the accessibility and safety of basic necessities for everyday Americans. The human and material losses resulting from such disasters highlight the humanitarian dimension of the infrastructure issue. Supporters also draw attention to data on infrastructure maintenance, noting that out of approximately 591,000 bridges in America, about 27% are considered structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. This statistic is used to illustrate the immediate risk posed by the nation’s infrastructure, much of which dates back to the 1950s.

    Proponents of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) address concerns about the bill’s $1.2 trillion price tag by emphasizing the economic benefits it would bring. They point out that the bill will create new construction jobs with a focus on diversity, which are expected to positively impact both local and federal economies.

    Arguments Against

    Opposition to the bill primarily focuses on its high cost, the means of funding it, and the feasibility of its implementation. Critics in Congress point to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) could increase the national debt by up to $256 billion over a decade. There is also concern about the tax implications of the bill, which necessitates $550 billion in new expenditures. This amount is proposed to be covered through a combination of tax increases, reallocation of unused COVID relief funds, and other government revenues.

    Some adversaries of the bill suggest an alternative approach to funding infrastructure reform, advocating for a “user-pays” system. This would involve raising the gas tax to generate the required funds, placing the financial burden directly on consumers. Furthering this perspective, another analysis references the 2010 National Broadband Plan as a case study. This plan successfully expanded broadband infrastructure using incentivized private funding, without the need for any tax increases. This example is used to argue for the viability of private investment as a funding source for infrastructure projects, avoiding additional tax burdens on the public.

    Conclusion

    The numerous and varied arguments surrounding the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) played a significant role in shaping the infrastructure debate. Although the taxing methods debated were not ultimately incorporated into this legislation, they present potential avenues for future infrastructure funding. The successful passage of the IIJA sets a precedent for further collaboration and progress on this vital and often contentious topic. This development indicates a possibility for more concerted efforts and innovative solutions in addressing America’s infrastructure challenges in the future.

  • Food Security and Local Food Production

    Food Security and Local Food Production

    Background

    Generally, local food production refers to systems in which food is produced, distributed, and consumed within the same area. However, there is debate within the local food movement about this definition. For example, some call for local food systems to expand distribution—to sell food outside of the boundaries of the local community—while others fear that this kind of expansion would dilute local food’s impact. The looseness of the term local food production is perhaps indicative of its relatively new growth in the American food system. 

    Historically, local food (at least in the way that it is generally defined today) was not a major factor in American food production. Even today, it makes up a very small portion of total U.S. agriculture. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that in 2012, local food sales produced $6.1 billion, or about 1.5% of total U.S. agricultural production. This is an increase from 2008, where the USDA estimated that these sales accounted for $4.8 billion. However, the U.S. food system remains focused on globally integrated food production, where the places in which food is grown and processed and the places where it is eaten can be thousands of miles apart. 

    There are efforts to use local food production to address issues of food insecurity, which remains a significant issue in the U.S. The USDA reported that 10.5% of households in the United States were affected by food insecurity in 2020. The use of local food production as a means of addressing food insecurity has been contextualized differently in different national contexts. In Cuba, for example, it has been utilized as a means of bolstering the nation’s domestic food supply, particularly during times of crisis. In the context of the U.S., the focus of local food production appears to lie less on increasing the quantity of the food supply than it does on shifting the way in which the food supply is produced in order to improve food access and food system resiliency.

       USDA Estimates of Local Food Sales 2008-2012, Congressional Research Service

    Food Accessibility

    Proponents of local food production argue that it can improve access to food. One of the main arguments is that local food production, by siting food within communities, can make healthy food more accessible to those communities. In neighborhoods where healthy food vendors are scarce, residents may need to travel outside of their neighborhood to reach healthy food; local food production is intended to bring healthy food closer to people. 

    Another main argument made by supporters of local food production is that it can encourage the formation of political practices, within communities, that enable people to have greater agency in their food system, and make decisions about food distribution more equitably. Access-based local food production efforts can be seen through governmental policies in the form of USDA funds that are designed to support farmers markets and urban gardens. On the nongovernmental side, there are efforts to create local food systems that link consumers, producers, processors, and distributors with institutions to support the community through local food production and food-based businesses. 

    There are also efforts to form local food retail sites such as farmers markets. The evidence surrounding each of these elements of accessibility is conflicting. There is some evidence that local food production can have some impact on the diets of communities. For instance, there is research suggesting that proximity to farmers markets improves diet and exercise. Additionally, there is research showing that, in general, convenient access to healthy food causes incidences of overweight and obesity to decrease, and diets to improve. As farmers markets are designed to bring food (especially produce) from local farmers directly to consumers in a community, it has been argued that farmers markets can fulfill this role of providing convenient food access. However, it has also been argued that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that increasing access to local food improves either diets or food security. 

    A study of 24 farmers markets in Los Angeles found that the amount of fresh produce offered in farmers markets differs based on the racial and economic composition of the communities in which they operate, which raises issues about equity. In addition, local food is often as, or more expensive than, non-local food, which casts doubt on its potential to improve access through affordability. 

    At the same time, there is evidence showing that expanding local food production increases employment, among a number of other positive economic outcomes. For example, a study from Iowa State University found that re-localizing the production of staple food items (such as chicken or eggs) would add 50-75 jobs in Southeast Iowa. 

    Evidence of local food systems fostering more equitable food distribution and increased community agency is similarly conflicting. Research suggests that while local food production can increase equity and agency, it does not always do so, and some have argued that localized food systems may actually produce issues of inclusion. However, others argue that this criticism of local food systems makes generalizations that are too broad, and call for more research on different local food initiatives.

    Food Resiliency

    Advocates for expanding local food production allege that it can improve food security by strengthening the resiliency of the American food system. One of the main arguments is that expansion of local food production makes production sites more geographically dispersed, and introduces diversity in production and distribution, making the system less vulnerable to shocks. It is also argued that it shortens supply chains, thereby saving on energy costs and protecting the environment. 

    The USDA has invested some money into the resiliency aspect of local food production, including loans specifically intended to encourage private investment into local food processing. Additionally, in an endeavor that combines both the private and governmental sectors, there is a partnership between the Southeast regional supermarket chain Lowes Foods and the Center for Environmental Farming Systems that used U.S. government funding to engage in a partnership to increase the amount of local food available at Lowes Foods. 

    There is some debate about whether local food systems improve food system resiliency. While local food systems shorten supply chains, because they are generally meant to keep the distribution of food within a certain area, the claim that they reduce energy costs has been challenged. For example, some research suggests that the local deliveries made by trucks performing regional food distribution are relatively less efficient than the large-scale transportation used in the mainstream food system. Some have also argued that local food production may not be the most efficient use of agricultural resources, arguing that non-local producers make better use of them. 

    Additionally, an article from the American Enterprise Institute argues that, though local food production has its uses, a food system that makes use of international food trade is less vulnerable to disruption than a purely local one, because the shocks to global food systems that are the most important are weather-based issues affecting yields, and usually impact individual countries more severely than they do the world system as a whole. 

    There is evidence supporting the use of local food production as a means of strengthening food security, and actions are being taken within the federal government, as well as  outside of it, to expand it. However, an existing body of contradictory research suggests a potential need for further research on this topic, if local food production’s potential to impact food security is to be fully understood. 

  • Understanding the Absentee Voting Debate

    Understanding the Absentee Voting Debate

    While absentee voting in the United States can be traced back to the Civil War Era, the Pandemic created an unprecedented demand for absentee ballots as an alternative to traditional polling locations. Absentee voting or voting by mail is a process that allows voters to cast their ballots before election day either by dropping off or mailing in a completed ballot. Absentee voting has recently found itself at the center of election skepticism and denialism that is becoming an increasingly prominent part of our political climate. This was arguably most prominent during the 2020 election year, as approximately 70% of the 50 million votes cast were absentee. This increased use of absentee voting combined led to new discussions about election security implications, and resulted in a largely mixed record when it comes to absentee voting policies. While some states are attempting to make absentee voting more accessible, others believe absentee voting poses election integrity concerns, and want to restrict access to the process. 

    Arguments in Favor of Restrictive Absentee Voting Laws 

    Many laws that restrict absentee voting access aim to improve election security by ensuring only registered voters cast ballots. This is accomplished primarily through requiring stricter voter ID laws. Proponents argue that absentee ballots could provide a loophole for non eligible citizens to vote, as mail-in ballots are subject to less scrutiny than traditional voting. In particular, advocates of these laws often intend stricter policies to prevent non-citizens (including permanent legal residents), as well as those with certain felony convictions from casting an absentee ballot. One argument in favor of more restrictive laws is that these policies will signal greater election security to voters, and this will increase their faith in elections and in turn inspire them to participate in the democratic process. Proponents of ID absentee requirements argue that voters have little incentive to trust in the democratic process if illegitimate votes are cast and their voice is not prioritized. Supporters point to mistrust in elections as proof that these measures are necessary. For example, a 2020 poll found that 38% of Americans reported lacking confidence in election fairness. Proponents argue that if voters know elections are fair this will incentivize their participation. 

    Another argument typically proposed for more restrictive ID requirements for absentee ballots is that these requirements are routine for government procedures, and therefore should not pose an unnecessary burden on citizens who are eligible to vote. The reasoning is that presenting these identifying documents is commonplace, and the process of voting should not be less secure than procedures such as operating a vehicle. Proponents of these laws claim to prioritize increased voter security. Lastly, many Republican lawmakers argue that Democrats advocate for easier access to absentee voting for partisan gain. They point to the last presidential election as evidence of this, as a Pew Research poll found 58% of Biden voters voted by absentee, compared to only 32% of Trump voters. This partisan disparity is likely due to former President Trump discouraging his voters from mailing in absentee ballots, and public health concerns during the pandemic which followed some political lines. However, there was still a partisan divide in voting format in 2022, as Democrats cast more absentee ballots than Republicans. Critics argue that Democrats are simply trying to ensure more democratic leaning voters are able to vote in order to win elections. 

    Arguments Against Restrictive Absentee Voting Laws 

    Conversely, advocates of increased access to absentee voting argue that its convenience will increase turnout, particularly for groups that are least likely to vote like voters under 25 and voters of color. Proponents of this idea point to studies such as a Tufts voting law analysis that found youth voter turnout was highest (57%) and had the largest increase since 2016 in states that automatically mailed ballots to voters. Additionally this study found that the average youth voter turnout for states with the most restrictive absentee voting policies was significantly lower than other states. Similarly, an analysis of Colorado’s all mail in voting policy found that the largest increase in turnout following the institution of the policy was observed in the state’s Asian American and African American populations. Proponents of these laws argue absentee voting is proven to help bring formerly disenfranchised communities to the ballot box. Finally, some worry that more restrictive ID laws will disproportionately impact minority communities. They point to evidence such as a study examining Texas’ institution of more restrictive voter ID laws that show the majority of voters that were barred from turning in a mail in ballot were disproportionately African American and Latinx. Other studies also found that stricter ID laws disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters. Some believe that this disproportionate burden is indicative of racist sentiments, and absentee voting can facilitate more equitable civic engagement. 

    Additionally, many emphasize the infrastructural and practical problems that in person voting creates on election day, and consider this a reason to expand absentee ballots. The reasoning is that voters will anticipate problems like wait times and this ultimately disincentives voting. Proponents of this idea point to sources such as a Brennan Center for Justice article that found 3 million people waited in voting lines that exceeded 30 minutes in 2018. Additionally, a 2022 poll found that 61% of Americans said they did not vote because they would have to vote in person. Common grievances with in person voting included issues such as few voting hours outside of the workday, long wait times, and inability to get to a polling place. Proponents of expanded access to absentee voting point out that increased use of mail in ballots would alleviate many of these infrastructural issues.  

    Lastly, those who support increased access to absentee voting point out that there is no evidence of widespread election fraud, and therefore more restrictive measures such as requiring ID for absentee ballots simply make voting more difficult and disincentivize voters from participating. Numerous studies, including one from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analyzed the claims of election denialism candidates and found that none of these claims had factual basis. 

    As a developed nation with some of the worst rates of voter participation , American lawmakers and activists face the difficult challenge of engaging an increasingly diversifying public.While some believe increased absentee voting is the solution to increasing civic engagement, others find it to be a dangerous and counterproductive strategy.