Category: Election Policy

  • President-Elect Trump’s Day-One Promises

    President-Elect Trump’s Day-One Promises

    President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office Monday, January 20th for his non-consecutive second term. Along the campaign trail, Trump has made several promises that he plans to execute on his first day back in office. Such promises include initiating mass deportations, ending the war in Ukraine, combating inflation, and pardoning those who were charged for their participation in the January 6th insurrection.

    Mass Deportation

    While campaigning, President-elect Trump promised to carry out the country’s largest mass deportation program, stating that America must “make the border strong and powerful.” Trump’s appointed “border czar” Tom Homan explained that the Trump administration would implement a “Remain in Mexico” policy on Trump’s first day in office. This policy would force asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while waiting for their asylum status to be approved. Additionally, Homan expressed plans to deport all illegal immigrants even if their children are United States citizens, arguing, “having a U.S. citizen child doesn’t make you immune from our laws.” It is expected that these policies will be implemented through executive orders.

    Trump’s promised mass deportation program is estimated to cost around $86 billion. Without the guaranteed support of congressional funding, the budgets of executive agencies will need to be reworked in order to allocate enough funding to execute the policy. Given the impending increase in detained immigrants under his policy, the Trump administration is also preparing to work with county jails and private prisons to provide additional space for undocumented immigrants. In his Time Person of the Year interview, the president-elect also noted that he is prepared to call in the National Guard and local sheriffs to execute his deportation policies.

    Ukraine Russia War

    Donald Trump has repeatedly promised to take steps to end the war between Russia and Ukraine during his first days as president. In an interview with Fox news, Trump’s press secretary stated that on day one, Trump would bring “Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table to end this war.” While Trump has not elaborated on the specifics of his plan to engage both nations in negotiations, his campaign’s communications director has noted that the war is a “top priority” of Trump’s second term and that “Trump believes European nations should be paying more of the cost of the conflict.” Despite Trump’s promises, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations has argued that the conflict cannot be solved in “one day.”

    Economy and Inflation

    During his campaign for president, Trump promised to increase tariffs on foreign imports with the aim of decreasing costs for American consumers. In late November, Trump announced that he would implement a 25% tariff on all products coming into the United States from Mexico and China on his first day in office. Trump plans to keep the tariffs in place until illegal immigrants stop entering the United States. Moreover, Trump promised that he would leverage an “additional 10% tariff” against China until it stops the flow of drugs, particularly Fentanyl, from entering the U.S.

    China, Canada, and Mexico have all denied their alleged involvement in the flow of drugs across U.S. borders, reiterating their commitment to border security in statements to the press. Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum stated that “neither threats nor tariffs will solve the issue of migration or drug consumption,” arguing that Trump’s proposed day-one tariffs do not address the root issues underlying migration and the drug trade. 

    Despite promising to “bring [grocery] prices way down” during an interview with NBC in early December, Trump has also faced pushback from economists who warn that his proposed tariffs will instead increase the cost of goods for the American consumer. Chief market strategist at Corpay Cross-Border Solutions, Karl Schamotta, argues that the tariffs will “add approximately $272 billion a year to tax burdens, raise goods prices, [and] lift interest rates.” Trump recently backpedaled on his promise to lower grocery prices in his Time Person of the Year interview, stating that it would be “very hard” to bring down grocery prices due to broken supply chains. In the interview, Trump did not clarify his plans to fix the supply chain issue, but stressed that his day-one tariffs would strengthen the economy.

    January 6th Pardons

    On the campaign trail, Trump announced a plan to pardon all individuals charged for their actions related to the capitol insurrection on January 6th, 2021. In mid-December, Trump stated that he plans to issue pardons on a “case-by-case” basis, promising to look over each case within the “first hour that [he] gets into that office” to determine if the insurrectionists “actually caused death and destruction”. In the same interview, Trump claimed that most of the insurrectionists “should not be in jail” and have “suffered greatly.” At least 1,500 people have been charged or plead guilty to the attack on the capitol, and at least 645 people have been sentenced to jail time. 

    As January 20th approaches, critics and supporters alike wait intently to see whether the President-elect will follow through on his day-one policy promises.

  • Key Trump Administration Cabinet Picks

    Key Trump Administration Cabinet Picks

    What is the Presidential Cabinet?

    The President’s Cabinet serves as an advisory board for the President. It is made up of the heads of the 15 executive departments. These members are appointed by the President and must be approved by the Senate by a majority vote to confirm the nomination. 

    Trump is currently in the process of announcing his cabinet nominations. Some of the major positions he has announced so far include Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, and Attorney General.

    Secretary of State

    The Secretary of State is the head of the Department of State, whose role is to develop and implement foreign policy. The Secretary serves the President as their top foreign policy advisor and executes the President’s foreign policy. This department represents the United States in communications with foreign nations, develops foreign assistance and military training programs, works to combat international crime, and negotiates and interprets treaties and agreements.

    Marco Rubio was announced as Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State. In response to his nomination, Rubio promised to “deliver peace through strength” and to place the “interest of Americans and America above all else.” Rubio currently serves as a Senator from Florida and previously served as a member of Florida’s House of Representatives. He currently serves on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Rubio has taken hard-line stances against China, stating in a Washington Post op-ed that China is the “largest, most advanced adversary America has ever faced.” He has promoted tariffs, technology restriction requirements, and trade barriers against China. On Gaza, Rubio has consistently supported “Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas” and denied support for a ceasefire. On immigration, Rubio supports strong border protections and the deportation of illegal immigrants, claiming that America is being “invaded.”

    Secretary of Defense 

    The Secretary of Defense is the head of the Department of Defense, whose role within the Executive Branch is to bolster national security. The Department of Defense aims to protect national interest through war-fighting, humanitarian aid, and disaster relief services. The Army, Air Force, Navy, and the Pentagon all fall under the Department’s purview. The Defense Secretary is the President’s top advisor, and oversees the nation’s armed forces as. Their authority is second only to the Commander in Chief (President).

    Trump named political commentator and Fox News Anchor Pete Hegseth as his nominee for Secretary of Defense. Hegseth currently hosts the show Fox and Friends Weekend and has appeared on other Fox News daytime and primetime shows. He previously served in the Army as an Infantry Officer in the National Guard. Additionally, Hegseth formerly served as CEO of the veterans advocacy group Concerned Veterans for America. When speaking on the podcast The Shawn Ryan Show, Hegseth stated his belief that “[America] should not have women in combat roles” as he believes men are “more capable.” Additionally, he stated that he wanted to fire army generals who support “any of the DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion]” and he supports a “frontal assault” on DEI policies. He has also stated that the U.S. military would be more effective if it were to create a “real threat of violence.”

    Secretary of Homeland Security 

    As the head of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Homeland Security advises the President on how to protect the American people from foreign and domestic threats. This department is responsible for preventing terrorist attacks, protecting infrastructure, facilitating trade and travel, responding to natural disasters, and regulating the migration of people in and out of the country. Agencies under the department include U.S Customs and Border Protection, Citizenship and Immigration Services, FEMA, and Cybersecurity. 

    Kristi Noem was recently named the nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security. She currently serves as the Governor of South Dakota and previously served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the South Dakota House of Representatives. In his statement announcing Noem’s nomination, Trump stated that Noem “has been very strong on border security” and will protect America “from our adversaries.” In response to her nomination, Noem issued a statement promising to “secure our homeland” and falsely condemned illegal immigration alone for “[driving] up crime in the country” and increasing “drugs and human trafficking.”

    Director of National Intelligence 

    The role of the Director of National Intelligence is to advise the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council on national security matters. Additionally, the Director oversees the Intelligence Community’s 18 agencies including the CIA and NSA.

    Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence, previously served in the U.S. House of Representatives and ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2020 before leaving the party in 2022 to become independent and joining the Republican Party in 2024. Gabbard currently serves in the U.S. Army Reserve as Lieutenant Colonel. 

    Attorney General 

    The Attorney General serves as the head of the Department of Justice and acts as the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government. The Attorney General represents the U.S. in all legal matters.

    President-Elect Trump recently nominated Pam Bondi for Attorney General, praising her for work to “stop the trafficking of deadly drugs” and “reduce the tragedy of Fentanyl Overdose Deaths.” Bondi previously served as Florida’s first woman attorney general. She also worked as a defense lawyer for Trump in 2020 during his first impeachment trial. She currently serves as the Chair of the Center for Litigation for America First Policy Institute, a conservative nonprofit think tank. In November, she filed an amicus curiae brief to appeal the special counsel’s classified documents case against Trump, arguing that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed. 
    Before nominating Bondi, Trump had first nominated Florida Representative Matt Gaetz. Upon the news of his initial nomination, Gaetz announced his resignation from the House effective immediately. Since 2021, Gaetz has been under investigation by the House Ethics Committee on allegations that he “engaged in sexual misconduct and/or illicit drug use,” used campaign funds for personal use, and accepted bribes. Gaetz has denied all allegations. This past Wednesday, the bi-partisan ethics committee met to discuss whether or not the investigation report should be released to the public. The ethics committee could not come to an agreement about releasing the report, which may force the House to vote on its release. In light of the controversy, Gaetz withdrew from the Attorney General nomination on November 21st. He has since clarified that he does not plan on re-joining Congress.

  • What is the Department of Government Efficiency? 

    What is the Department of Government Efficiency? 

    President-Elect Donald Trump recently began announcing his presidential cabinet nominations, tapping Congresspeople, former Republican presidential nominees, and close allies. As the leader of the executive branch, the President must appoint about 4,000 officials, including the members of his cabinet, who serve as heads of executive departments. Some cabinet positions, including UN Ambassador, require confirmation by the Senate and typically involve confirmation hearings. In the midst of his cabinet nominations, Trump introduced an idea for a new executive department that has caused debates about executive power. 

    The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

    On Tuesday, November 12th, 2024, Trump announced that he would be creating a new executive department, the Department of Government Efficiency, led by billionaire businessmen Elon Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he is creating the new department to “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” Also known as DOGE, the department aims to provide “outside guidance” to the government and foster “an entrepreneurial approach” to government spending. The department is slated to last until July 4th, 2026, giving it a deadline to accomplish its objective of cutting government spending. It is still unclear as to how the department will officially be created or funded, as creating new federal departments requires congressional approval. If Congress does not move forward with establishing DOGE, Musk and Ramaswamy may act as advisors to the President rather than as leaders of an official executive department.  

    Who are the proposed heads of the Department of Government Efficiency?

    • Elon Musk: Musk is a businessman worth over 303 billion dollars and the co-founder of over seven companies, some of the most notable being Tesla and SpaceX. Throughout Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, Musk has been a staunch supporter, attending rallies, giving at least $130 million in campaign donations, and hosting a $1 million raffle in the swing state of Pennsylvania for those who registered to vote. At Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in October, Musk stated that he wanted to reduce the federal budget by “at least $2 trillion,” about 30% of the federal government’s total fiscal spending in 2024. 
    • Vivek Ramaswamy: Ramaswamy made political news in early 2023 when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination. His policy positions included militarizing the southern border, ending the funding of sanctuary cities, diversifying healthcare insurance options, abolishing the Department of Education, and increasing the voting age to 25. Ramaswamy founded Roivant Sciences, a biotech company focused on applying technology to drug development. He previously signaled support for cutting government spending when he announced his plans to cut the number of federal workers through “reduction of force” regulations when he was campaigning for president in 2023.

    Your opinion matters! Click Here to let us know how you feel about the issues discussed in this brief!

  • How News Organizations “Call” the Presidential Election

    How News Organizations “Call” the Presidential Election

    Tuesday, November 5th marks Election Day in the United States. As millions of voters cast their ballots, news organizations carefully analyze incoming voting data to determine the winner in several races, including the presidency. But even though news organizations such as the Associated Press can “call” a presidential election, their projections do not constitute official election results. Election results are instead certified by the government. However, due to the fragmented and often slow-moving design of the Electoral College, the official Electoral College vote does not usually occur until December. In order to fill the time gap between Election Day and the Electoral College vote, news organizations analyze vote count data from each state to determine state-level results, predict state Electoral votes, and ultimately declare one candidate the next President.

    The Long Road to Official Election Results

    Presidential election results in the U.S. are not determined by the popular vote, but instead by the Electoral College vote. As specified in the Constitution, each state receives a number of Electoral College representatives proportional to the state’s congressional delegation size. For example, Vermont has three electors since the state has two Senators and one Representative in Congress. As populations shift, census-based redistricting can cause states to gain or lose electors. However, Electoral College votes are not proportional to population size; for example, one Electoral College vote in Wyoming accounts for 195,000 people, while one Electoral College vote in Texas accounts for 700,000 people. 

    Before the November election date, each presidential party chooses its slate of electors for each state. There are few criteria to be an elector other than not having engaged in insurrection and not holding national Congressional office. Currently, all but two states operate under a “winner takes all” system in which all of that state’s electors are sworn to cast their Electoral College vote for the presidential candidate who won the majority of votes in their state. Faithless electors, or electors who cast their Electoral College vote for someone other than the candidate they swore to vote for, complicate the predictability of this system and are not currently regulated consistently across states. 

    After November votes are tallied and the winner in each state is made evident, electors meet in their respective states to cast their votes in mid-December. The results of the Electoral College vote are then sent to the newly-elected national Congress which meets to declare official election results on January 6th. 

    How News Organizations Calculate Timely Results

    In order to calculate the results of the presidential election on or soon after Election Day, the media tabulates votes as they are cast. Media organizations will typically use two methods to determine votes: national polls or data collected from local officials such as county clerks. Since 2003, news networks have worked together to create an organization called the National Election Pool to create exit polls that more accurately capture voting choices. After the 2016 presidential election results differed widely from polling projections, the Associated Press left this consortium of news networks in favor of conducting its own online polling. The Associated Press determined that because voting on Election Day is no longer more common than voting early or by mail, Election Day exit polls are disproportionate to the larger electorate. Thus, the Associated Press created its own polling methodology, AP VoteCast, to attempt to provide polling methods that better accounted for the votes casted prior to Election Day. 

    Through a combination of polling and collecting voting results, news organizations are tasked with determining the President-elect in real time. News organizations analyze incoming votes to determine if the trailing candidate can achieve the number of votes needed to catch up to the current polling leader based on the number of votes a county or state has historically received in previous elections, the demographics of the area, and past voting history. Based on this analysis, if a news organization determines that there is no chance the trailing candidate will achieve the number of votes necessary to overtake their opponent, the news organization will call the race. 
    In states where the race is close, news organizations may not call a clear winner until days after Election Day. This is because states have different voting laws. Some states do not start counting votes until Election Day, causing a delay in results compared to other states. Additionally, in some states, mail-in ballots received within a certain period after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. These discrepancies can cause delays in news media tabulations, as organizations wait for official state vote tallies. For example, the 2020 presidential election was called by most media outlets four days after Election Day due to the steep increase of mail-in ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated delays in vote counting.

  • 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.

  • Immigration Policies: Where Each Presidential Candidate Stands

    Immigration Policies: Where Each Presidential Candidate Stands

    As the upcoming election draws near, immigration remains a top issue of concern amongst voters. According to Pew Research, 61% of registered voters say immigration is a “very important” issue when considering their vote. Many presidential candidates have centered immigration reform in their platforms, addressing everything from the border wall to administrative reforms in immigration processing. 

    Donald Trump

    Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump has expressed the idea that there is a “massive invasion at our southern border that has spread misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction.” He plans to deputize the National Guard and local law enforcement to remove illegal immigrants and create a merit-based immigration system to limit the number of migrants entering the country. Additionally, in his keynote speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump promised to “close the border” and finish constructing his border wall with Mexico. He has also promised to apprehend and deport all illegal immigrants, arguing that their presence is “unfair” to those who entered the country legally. Trump also plans to reinstate policies from his previous term in office such as his “Remain in Mexico” policy which would force migrants seeking asylum to remain in Mexico until their court date with a U.S. immigration judge. Under his presidency, Trump promised to create the “most secure border in U.S. history” and to carry out the “largest domestic deportation operation in American history.”

    Kamala Harris

    Throughout her campaign, Kamala Harris has promised to secure the Southern border and to “reform our broken immigration system.” During her time as Vice President, she supported the bipartisan border security bill that, if it had passed, would have imposed limits on asylum eligibility, added over 1,500 new Customs and Border Protection personnel, and increased funding for cities and states to provide support for immigrants. She has promised to reintroduce that bill and sign it into law if elected President. As Vice President, she was also tasked with “dealing with the root causes of immigration” in Latin American countries, working with various nations to mitigate poverty and lower the number of migrants leaving those countries. In her speech at the Democratic National Convention this past August, she stated that she wants to create an “earned pathway to citizenship and secure our border.”

    Jill Stein 

    Jill Stein aims to overhaul the immigration system in the United States. She believes that border policy should shift from focusing on detention and enforcement to humane and effective asylum processing. She believes that migrants should initially be screened for criminal records before being granted entrance into the country. Stein’s reform policies include abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), constructing an Office of Citizenship under the Department of Labor, granting amnesty to every undocumented person in America, expanding refugee programs, and increasing the number of visas available to immigrants. Stein believes that immigrants’ rights are human rights that America has the duty to protect. 

    Cornel WestCornel West’s immigration policies aim to uphold principles of “dignity, respect, and human rights.” West wants to create clear and broad legal pathways for immigrants to seek residency within the country and dismantle the bureaucratic barriers that prevent immigrants from obtaining status. West also seeks to abolish ICE, demilitarize the border, and create a more humane path to seeking legal status. Additionally, West hopes to uphold asylum laws to ensure that those who flee persecution and violence have the opportunity to find safety within American borders so that America remains a “refuge for the oppressed.”

  • U.S. Census Citizenship Question: The Controversy and Its Lasting Impact

    U.S. Census Citizenship Question: The Controversy and Its Lasting Impact

    Background

    The citizenship question is a proposed addendum to the decennial U.S. Census. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the U.S. Census every ten years to determine the headcount of the United States. The results of the U.S. Census are used for several purposes, including:

    • Apportionment (the process of proportionally distributing the 435 seats in the House of Representatives to the 50 states)
    • Redistricting
    • Determining the distribution of federal funds to state and local programs. 

    The Census Bureau sends the decennial Census in the form of a survey that asks questions about the respondent’s date of birth, sex, race, and income. 

    The citizenship question, if it were added to the census, would additionally ask respondents if they and/or members of their household are citizens of the United States. The decennial U.S. Census previously included a question about citizenship beginning in 1820, but removed the question after 1950. The question does continue to appear, however, on the American Community Survey (ACS), another survey conducted by the Census Bureau which is sent to 3.5 million households annually.

    The citizenship question became a topic of debate in the lead-up to the 2020 Census when the Justice Department sent a letter requesting the inclusion of the citizenship question to then-Census director Dr. Ron Jarmin. Democratic critics accused the Trump administration of adding the question to depress political power in Republican-leaning areas of the country. After three federal judges blocked a Department of Commerce motion to include the citizenship question, the issue arrived at the Supreme Court. In Department of Commerce v. New York, the Court temporarily barred the citizenship question from the census, but held that the inclusion of the citizenship question in the U.S. Census is constitutional. 

    Arguments in Favor of the Citizenship Question

    Those who advocate for the addition of the citizenship question on the decennial U.S. Census argue that accurate counts of citizens and noncitizens are crucial for accurate redistricting and fair elections. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) states that racial discrimination in voting procedures and standards is strictly prohibited. In order to enforce this portion of the VRA and rectify instances of vote dilution, many argue that the Justice Department must know how many citizens of each race live in a jurisdiction. Multiple court cases have established that determining whether a minoritized racial group should hold the majority in a district should be based on the number of citizens of that racial minority, rather than noncitizens. 

    Arguments Against the Citizenship Question

    Opponents of the citizenship question believe that the question would undermine the accuracy of the decennial U.S. Census by lowering response rates. A Harvard Kennedy School study found that asking respondents about citizenship status on a mock Census study “significantly increases the number of questions skipped, especially among Hispanic populations, and makes respondents less likely to report having members of their household who are of Hispanic ethnicity.” The study estimated that at a national level, the decrease in responses spurred by the citizenship question would reduce the number of Hispanic and Latinx people counted in the Census by 6.07 million. Another study found that the inclusion of the citizenship question could potentially cause an overall 2.2% drop in Census response rates. The researchers involved in the study found that the main reason for this drop concerned respondents’ fear that their answer to the citizenship question would be shared with governmental agencies outside the Census Bureau.

    Since research suggests that including the citizenship question could significantly reduce Census response rates, some claim that doing so would violate the constitutional reasoning behind the Census. In 2020, 14 State Attorneys General sued the Trump administration for its efforts to include the citizenship question, stating that the question violated the constitutional requirement to “count each person in our country – whether citizen or noncitizen – ‘once, only once, and in the right place.’”

    Conclusion

    The issue of the citizenship question is likely to stay relevant at the legislative and judicial levels. Members of the House of Representatives have already begun discussing legislation on the topic. For example, Representative Chuck Edwards introduced the Voter Population Accuracy Act in January 2024, which would require the census to ask about citizenship status. The bill passed in the House of Representatives in May 2024, but has yet to pass in the Senate.

    The debate over including the citizenship question in the U.S. Census ultimately hinges on whether it would provide a more accurate count of the U.S. population and improve outcomes for funding, apportionment, redistricting, and elections in the years to come.

  • Podcasting for the Presidency: Candidate Interview Recaps

    Podcasting for the Presidency: Candidate Interview Recaps

    As Kamala Harris and Donald Trump continue on the campaign trail, both presidential candidates have attempted to reach new audiences of potential voters. In recent months, both candidates have tapped into the expanding podcast industry, appearing on popular shows to speak on political issues and encourage the expanding base of podcast listeners to vote. 

    Recap: Harris’ Interview with Call Her Daddy

    On October 6th, Alex Cooper, podcaster and co-creator of the Call Her Daddy podcast, released her interview with Vice President Harris. The Call Her Daddy podcast is Spotify’s second-largest podcast and attracts a predominantly female audience. Cooper, who interviewed Harris, stated that she had also reached out to Donald Trump for an interview. 

    To begin the Call Her Daddy interview, Cooper first inquired why the Vice President chose to sit down for an interview with her in the first place. Harris noted that Cooper had built up an impressive community where her listeners felt seen and heard as women. Harris then spoke about her time serving as a prosecutor and how that career choice stemmed from her desire to help those who were left vulnerable by abuse. She emphasized that her work has been about restoring survivors’ voices and honoring their right to justice. 

    The conversation then shifted to reproductive freedoms and voting. Harris emphasized that both are fundamental rights for women, asserting, “No one should take your power from you.” When questioned about how to make this country safer for women, Harris emphasized economic autonomy, stating her desire to “uplift the ability of women to have economic health and wellbeing.” Harris expressed that women in abusive relationships often cannot leave because they lack access to the financial means to support themselves. 

    On the topic of women’s health and freedom, Copper asked for Harris’s thoughts on a statement Trump had directed at the women attending his rally in Pennsylvania. Trump had stated, “You will be protected and I will be your protector.” This led Harris to argue that Trump’s statement was hypocritical, given that he previously ran on and delivered a promise to elect Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and remove the national right to abortion. Cooper then spoke on her perspective on post-Roe America, sharing an experience where she spoke to a woman who had experienced extreme harassment for trying to seek an abortion. Harris and Cooper both condoned the government’s authority over women’s bodies, calling the overturning of Roe “outrageous.” Harris also pointed out that many clinics that provide abortion, which have since been shut down, also provided access to other health services like pap smears and breast cancer screenings. She argued that abortion bans have therefore limited access to healthcare in general. 

    Harris then spoke on the practical applications of these abortion bans, arguing that abortion exceptions “if the life of the mother is at risk” do not actually protect women because they imply that the mother is “almost dead before you decide to give her care”. Harris cited the case of Amber Thurman, who died after doctors were prohibited from performing a life-saving procedure due to state abortion bans.

    Harris also shared her thoughts on Republican Vice Presidential nominee J.D. Vance’s comments about “childless cat ladies,” calling them  “mean spirited” and saying that the “strength of a leader is about who you lift up.”

    Harris wrapped up by addressing her plans to help young Americans. She shared that she wants to create tax incentives to build 3 million more housing units and provide $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers. She also wants to give young parents a “$6,000 tax cut for the first year of their child’s life.” Harris then reiterated her commitment to relieving student loan debt and preventing medical debt from impacting credit scores. Finally, when asked why people should trust her, Kamala Harris stated that she “believes in the promise of America” and that leadership is about “investing in the people” to lift up the whole.

    Recap: Trump’s Interview with This Past Weekend

    On August 20th, comedian and podcaster Theo Von interviewed former president Trump on his podcast This Past Weekend. The comedian interviewed Trump at the former President’s country club in New Jersey and discussed a variety of topics such as healthcare and border security. Notable past guests on This Past Weekend include Mark Cuban, Bernie Sanders, and Tucker Carlson.

    Theo Von began the interview by inquiring about Donald Trump’s sons, seeing as Barron Trump is a fan of the podcast. Trump spoke about all of his sons’ various ventures before the conversation shifted to Trump’s abstinence from substance use. Trump stated that he does not drink or do drugs because of his brother, Frank Trump Jr., who struggled with an addiction that eventually led to his death. Von and Trump bonded over their shared avoidance of substances, as Von had previously struggled with substance use himself but has been sober for two years. 

    The conversation then pivoted to a discussion of the opioid crisis. Trump shared his thoughts on allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television and his plans to curtail opioid-related deaths. Trump stated that during his time in office, he formed committees to attempt to combat the opioid crisis. Trump also claimed that “the establishment” is trying to “sink” him, which he claimed is part of the reason why so many of his supporters continue to back him. Trump claimed that he had prepared an executive order that would have “forced hospitals and insurers to publish all their prices”, and blamed Biden and Harris for not continuing the order during their administration. Trump also accused democratic Senator and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of keeping medical prices high and taking financial contributions from healthcare lobbyists.

    Von then asked Trump if he ever considered having Robert F. Kennedy as a potential running mate, an idea which Trump shut down immediately. Trump shared that though he liked the guy, he firmly believes that the American electoral system is a two-party system, and Kennedy is a third-party candidate. Von and Trump also discussed Biden’s performance in the first presidential debate and Kamala Harris’ subsequent rise to Presidential nominee. Trump speculated that the Democratic leaders forced Biden out of the race, calling the debate “a good debate for me and a bad debate for him.” He then went on to label Harris the “worst Vice President in history.” 

    Discussing border security, Trump brought back the idea of his border wall, arguing that the wall “works” and provides a rest stop for border security agents. He then claimed that Harris wanted open borders and that other countries’ crime rates were lower because they are “sending all their criminals here.” In closing, Trump stated that he would seal the border and that the border was safest under his previous administration. 

  • North Carolina’s Voter ID Law: Unpacking the Debate Over SB 824

    North Carolina’s Voter ID Law: Unpacking the Debate Over SB 824

    Introduction

    In the United States, voter ID requirements vary widely by state law. Currently, thirty-eight states strictly require residents to present ID before they can cast a countable ballot. Voter ID laws fall into four types: strict photo, strict non-photo, non-strict photo, and non-strict non-photo. Strict photo ID laws require voters to present photo identification (e.g., state ID or driver’s license) for their ballot to be counted. Strict non-photo ID laws accept non-photo identification like utility bills. Voters without acceptable ID in strict-law states must cast a provisional ballot and take additional steps after election day for their vote to be counted. On the other hand, non-strict non-photo and non-strict photo laws allow voters without preferred identification to cast a regular, countable ballot. Regardless of state laws, first-time voters must always present ID under federal law.

    North Carolina’s SB 824

    In 2018, North Carolina amended its state constitution to adopt a strict photo ID law in a referendum vote that passed with a 55.49% majority. Around 3.7 million of North Carolina’s 7.1 million registered voters (around 52%) voted on the referendum, which was implemented via North Carolina Senate Bill 824. SB 824 requires all residents to show a form of identification with a photograph in order to cast a countable ballot at a polling place. Those without ID can cast a provisional ballot, which is counted only if they present ID to the county Board of Elections by the end of vote counting. SB 824 also initiated a statewide program to provide free photo ID cards to registered voters at all county Boards of Elections. 

    Contention and Court Battles

    SB 824 has been met with contention at all stages of the legislative process. North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper vetoed SB 824, calling the law “a solution in search of a problem”. However, the North Carolina House of Representatives overrode the veto soon after and enacted the law. In an initial legal challenge through the state court system (Holmes v. Moore), the North Carolina Supreme Court suspended the law after finding it unconstitutional because it was enacted with discriminatory intent. After a shift in the composition of North Carolina’s Supreme Court, the case was re-argued and the decision reversed in 2023. Following this decision, the voter ID law was enacted once again in concordance with the House of Representatives veto override.

    Most recently, in May of 2024, a separate court case (NAACP v. Hirsch) has begun trial. This case also challenges North Carolina’s voter ID law–but on a larger scale. While Holmes v. Moore was argued through the state trial courts, NAACP v. Hirsch is being argued through the federal court system, and challenges the constitutionality of SB 824 under the U.S. Constitution rather than the North Carolina State Constitution. This case has not yet been decided.

    Arguments Against

    Opponents of SB 824 argue that the strict photo-ID law unnecessarily restricts access to voting. In his veto announcement, Governor Cooper claimed that the law “puts up barriers to voting that will trap honest voters in confusion and discourage them with new rules”. Some civil rights organizers agree, arguing that the law effectively imposes a voting fee for voters who lack photo ID through the indirect costs (transportation, time away from work, etc.) associated with obtaining a new ID. They state that the added voting requirements will disproportionately burden Black voters, who are “more likely to be employed in a job that does not allow time off during the normal business hours when government offices that issue IDs are open”. North Carolina State Representative Marcia Morey voiced concerns about the bill impacting other marginalized groups, stating “This amendment could disenfranchise 300,000 voters, including people with disabilities, elderly citizens, college students and those who do not drive”.

    Opponents also argue the provisional ballot system disenfranchises voters. In 2022, witnesses testified that some votes went uncounted due to inadequate follow-up with voters who cast provisional ballots. Moreover, opponents highlight the lack of public awareness about the new rules, citing reports that suggest North Carolina residents’ unfamiliarity with the new laws led to valid ballots being incorrectly rejected. Citing low levels of in person voter fraud and North Carolina’s history of enacting voting laws with discriminatory intent, opponents argue that SB 824 is an unnecessary deterrent to political participation.

    Arguments in Favor

    Those in favor of SB 824 rebuff claims of racial discrimination surrounding the law, stating that there is insufficient evidence proving SB 824 disproportionately burdens voters of color. Proponents call SB 824  “common sense” for election security, and note that voter fraud is likely underreported and could be a bigger problem than what their opponents suggest.

    Supporters also hold that SB 824 is the will of the people, given that a majority of voters cast ballots in favor of the amendment in the 2018 referendum. They argue that infringing upon a referendum supported by a democratic majority is an affront to democratic values in their state. Furthermore, since a national poll shows that voter fraud is perceived as a major problem by nearly half of the American public, supporters claim that voter ID laws are necessary because they have the potential to increase the public’s trust in the election process. They hold that by increasing the perceived security of elections, SB 824 will encourage North Carolinians to show up at the polls and make their voices heard.

    Conclusion

    The debate over North Carolina’s SB 824 reflects the broader national conflict surrounding voter ID laws and their impact on election access and security. Proponents see these laws as essential for maintaining the integrity of elections, while opponents argue they create unnecessary barriers for marginalized communities. As the legal battle over SB 824 moves through federal courts, its outcome could set a significant precedent, shaping future voter ID laws across the country. 

  • Pros and Cons of New Hampshire’s SB 418: How the New Voter ID Law Affects First-Time Voters

    Pros and Cons of New Hampshire’s SB 418: How the New Voter ID Law Affects First-Time Voters

    What is SB 418? 

    On June 16, 2022, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed a new piece of voting legislation: Senate Bill 418. Before SB 418, first-time voters who could not provide documents proving their identity at a polling place could still cast a ballot by signing a Qualified Voter Affidavit under oath. SB 418 eliminated the Qualified Voter Affidavit, requiring first-time voters to fill out a provisional ballot if they are unable to submit proof of identity. Under SB 418, a voter’s provisional ballot will only be counted if they submit proper identification documents to the Secretary of State within seven days of the election date. If the required documents are not submitted on time or do not correctly verify the voter’s identity, the provisional ballot is not counted. 

    Arguments in favor of SB 418 

    Proponents of SB 418 argue that the bill marked a necessary step towards election integrity. They say the prior system invoked a degree of trust in the individuals who signed the Qualified Voter Affidavit and argue that SB 418 eliminates the potential for false testimonies of identity or residency. Supporters cite several instances of election fraud in New Hampshire since 2016 as the basis for their support of the bill. A spokesman for the state Attorney General emphasized that New Hampshire elections are sometimes determined by a small number of votes, so any instance of fraud can be detrimental to the validity of elections

    Supporters also argue that SB 418 strengthens collective trust in elections. They claim that the bill implements a system that is already widely supported, seeing as one poll predicts that 79% of Americans support photo ID requirements to vote. Additionally, given that several other states have already implemented similar strict voter ID policies, supporters claim that SB 418 is not a departure from popular norms across the country.

    Arguments against SB 418 

    Critics of SB 418 contend that the bill places an unnecessary burden on voters who may not have the financial means or accessibility to provide documentation of their identity. They highlight that obtaining an ID involves costs associated with document copies, postage, and having a permanent address. Thus, opponents argue that SB 418 suppresses voting access for individuals who may not have access to photo identification, such as the homeless or new citizens of the state. Further, opponents assert that New Hampshire had not experienced sufficient voter fraud to merit a change in voting laws.

    Critics also contend that SB 418 risks violating voter privacy. Under SB 418, provisional ballots must be verified by election officials once the voter has submitted the correct documents. Opponents argue that giving government officials access to an individual’s voting preferences is an unconstitutional violation of the right to privacy. Additionally, opponents argue that SB 418’s procedure for ineligible provisional ballots risks divulging private information to the general public. Under SB 418, once a ballot is determined to be ineligible due to failed identity confirmation, the ballot is then released as public knowledge. Critics of the bill warn that this violates the right to a secret ballot, pointing to a few cases where voters’ publicly released ballots could easily be traced back to them. 

    ConclusionWhile SB 418 is still in effect, it has been met with several legal challenges. Two previous lawsuits by voter advocacy groups that were dismissed on procedural grounds are now being appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Moreover, in April, a judge denied the state’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought forward by the Democratic National Committee. These cases represent the core topics surrounding SB 418, including election security, voter privacy, and equal voting access. Despite the legal challenges against SB 418, efforts to regulate elections continue to emerge in New Hampshire; the legislature has proposed a new bill requiring proof of citizenship prior to voting.