ACE

Tag: election

  • 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.

  • Should Election Day Become a Federal Holiday? Weighing the Benefits and Drawbacks

    Should Election Day Become a Federal Holiday? Weighing the Benefits and Drawbacks

    Election Day is always held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November during an election year. Congress codified this tradition in 1845 to account for the nation’s largely agrarian labor force who needed most other days of the week to tend to their crops, travel, or worship. 

    In modern times, many argue that a Tuesday Election Day poses significant inconvenience to working people, and should therefore be designated as a federal holiday.  If Election Day were declared a federal holiday, all federal government employees would gain a paid day off on Election Day. Recently, lawmakers have introduced bills to codify Election Day as a federal holiday. These bills have not gained traction in Congress, despite the fact that 65% of Americans favor making Election Day a federal holiday. Given that weekday workers may struggle to find time to vote on a Tuesday, some argue that a federal holiday would provide more benefits than risks. Conversely, others believe it would have little impact on voter turnout and might harm hourly workers.

    Arguments in Favor of Federal Voting Holiday

    Proponents of making Election Day a federal holiday argue the policy would promote higher voter turnout in elections by allowing more people to vote without sacrificing a day off work. In the 2020 election, one poll found that 13.1% of participants who were registered voters did not vote because they were busy or had a scheduling conflict. If Election Day was granted federal holiday status, all federal employees – numbering over two million Americans – would be able to vote without worrying about missing a day of work. Although the federal government cannot require private companies to observe holidays, around 75% of civilian workers receive paid holidays that often align with the federal schedule.

    Considering that the United States had considerably lower voting-age turnout in 2020 than many comparable countries with weekend or holiday election days, some argue that a federal Election Day holiday would help align the U.S. with the rest of the world. Additionally, proponents argue that creating a national holiday supports democratic ideals and serves as a reminder of the importance of elections. Creating a federal Election Day holiday, according to its supporters, celebrates democracy and instills civic values in American citizens. 

    Arguments Against Federal Voting Holiday

    Those against making Election Day a federal holiday argue that such a large focus on one day is misguided, since almost 70% of ballots in the 2020 presidential election were cast before Election Day. 

    Many argue that advocates should redirect their efforts to create early voting options in states like Alabama and Mississippi, where early voting is prohibited. Since early voting policies give working people the freedom to cast ballots on weekends or other convenient days, opponents say these policies would eliminate the need for a federal voting holiday. 

    Additionally, opponents emphasize that private employers are not required to recognize or give paid time off for federal holidays. Numerous employees, especially those who are part-time or blue-collar workers, would likely not be included in the paid time off associated with federal holidays. Discrepancies between federal and private holiday policies might make it especially difficult for working parents who might have to find childcare if their kids had the day off school. Finally, opponents argue that making Election Day a federal holiday would be costly, with one analyst estimating that the added day of compensation would cost $818 million every other year. 

    Conclusion

    The debate over making Election Day a federal holiday reflects broader concerns about voting accessibility and voter turnout in the U.S.. Proponents argue that a federal holiday would encourage more participation in the democratic process and align the U.S. with other countries. Opponents counter that a holiday may not significantly increase turnout and could even create challenges for some workers. As discussions continue, the decision to designate Election Day as a federal holiday will hinge on whether its perceived benefits outweigh its potential drawbacks in promoting a more inclusive democracy.

  • Freedom to Vote Act: Pros, Cons, and Impact on U.S. Elections

    Freedom to Vote Act: Pros, Cons, and Impact on U.S. Elections

    Background

    The Freedom to Vote Act (FTVA) is a bill under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives that would expand protections for voting rights in the United States. The bill was originally introduced in 2019 during the 116th U.S. Congress as the For the People Act (FTPA). After being blocked in the Senate, the FTPA underwent revisions and became the FTVA. Despite these changes, the bill still failed to pass due to the use of a filibuster. Its current iteration remains stuck in committee today.

    The FTVA includes an expansive set of provisions that, were the bill to pass, would impact many different components of voter law.

    • Expanding ballot access: The bill includes a set of policies that aim to expand ballot access across the United States. These policies would require all 50 states to offer a minimum of two weeks for early voting, establish a standardized vote-by-mail system for all eligible voters, and provide more options for identity confirmation in states with voter ID requirements.
    • Expanding voter registration: The bill seeks to expand voter registration options by mandating that all 50 states offer online, automatic, and same-day voter registration. It also introduces a standardized review system for purging voter rolls to ensure eligible voters are not mistakenly removed during post-election voter roll cleanups.
    • Addressing election security: The FTVA focuses on enhancing election security by requiring voter-verified paper ballots and creating standard procedures for post-election audits. It would make threatening, intimidating, or coercing election workers a federal crime, and would also safeguard against interference with voters. The bill would create federal grants for the recruitment and training of non-partisan election officials.
    • Reforming campaign finance: The FTVA targets campaign finance reform, diminishing the power of super PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations and strengthening the power of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It aims to eliminate dark money, or funds spent to influence elections that cannot be traced due to the anonymity of a donor, by incorporating provisions from the DISCLOSE Act to increase donor transparency. Additionally, the FTVA seeks to enhance FEC enforcement by requiring a majority vote to dismiss campaign fraud cases early and by extending the statute of limitations for campaign finance crimes from five to 10 years.
    • Addressing redistricting: The FTVA offers several policy directives to address redistricting, including a federal prohibition on “mid-decade” redistricting, or the practice of redrawing pre-established district lines using the same census information.  It also aims to ban partisan gerrymandering by defining gerrymandering through statistical analysis and authorizing legal challenges against it. Under the FTVA, states would be required to publish district map proposals, and the data used to create them, for public transparency. 

    Arguments in Favor of the FTVA

    Supporters of the bill emphasize its role in safeguarding against restrictive voting access laws. 

    They highlight the hundreds of state-level bills that aim to impose restrictions on voting access and argue that the FTVA offers a national remedy. Given that many argue strict ID requirements, inconvenient registration options, and limited voting methods disproportionately impact communities of color and disabled people, supporters see the FTVA as crucial for increasing equal access to voting in the U.S..

    Proponents also argue that the FTVA could increase trust in the American election system by providing a guardrail against administrative malpractice by state election officials. They hold that election certification has become increasingly political, with multiple election boards attempting to delay or refuse the certification of election results since the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Since the FTVA contains provisions that limit election officials’ ability to interfere with local election administrators, supporters claim that the bill will restore trust in the legitimacy of election results. 

    Finally, proponents of the FTVA reject the argument that the bill upsets the power balance between state and federal authority. They point to the Election Clause of the Constitution which gives Congress authority over states’ voting procedures for members of the House and Senate. They argue that this clause allows the FTVA standards to override pre-existing state election standards in the case of federal congressional elections.

    Arguments Against the FTVA

    Arguments against the bill largely concern the efficacy of its provisions. Both a study by American University in 2008 and a study from the University of Wisconsin found that early voting, a provision of the FTVA, decreased voter turnout. Critics argue that these studies suggest the early voting provisions in the FTVA may hinder rather than encourage voter turnout, making them obsolete. In addition, evidence from Princeton University indicates that making Election Day a federal holiday – another provision of the FTVA – would privilege middle- and upper-class voters. Opponents use this to argue that the FTVA might not promote equal access to voting to the extent its supporters claim. 

    Opponents also argue that the FTVA’s provisions encroach on states’ rights, because they would transfer consolidated power over election procedures to the federal government. Given that the states currently have the right to pass their own election laws, critics claim states might lose freedom to control their own election standards if the FTVA were to pass. 

    Conclusion

    After its reintroduction by Senator Amy Klobuchar in July 2023, the current iteration of the FTVA was referred to committee, where it remains today. Given that support and opposition for the bill run largely along partisan lines, the likelihood of the FTVA being passed likely depends on the composition of future congressional sessions.

  • Journey to the White House: Kamala Harris’s 2020 Campaign Unpacked

    Journey to the White House: Kamala Harris’s 2020 Campaign Unpacked

    As Vice President Kamala Harris ascends to the spotlight amid President Joe Biden’s decision not to run for reelection, she is beginning to separate herself from the Biden Administration, making the pitch of a new face with similar policies.

    However, Kamala Harris did not always agree with President Biden, especially when they went head to head in the 2020 Democratic primary. As voters attempt to understand a new candidate in such a short window of time, it is important to take a look at Vice President Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign and the vision she had for America before joining Biden on the ticket.

    Harris, the junior U.S. Senator from California, officially began her bid for the White House on January 21, 2019, Martin Luther King Jr. Day. She made the announcement in an appearance on “Good Morning America,” with a rally in Oakland later that day which drew a crowd of over 20,000 supporters.

    Here were her views on key issues:

    Immigration

    Kamala Harris’s immigration policy during her 2020 presidential campaign was characterized by strong opposition to the Trump administration’s hardline stances and a commitment to humane and comprehensive immigration reform.

    She was a staunch advocate for reinstating DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) protections and supported providing a path to citizenship for DREAMers, young undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

    Harris was highly critical of the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents when illegally crossing the southern border. She called for increased oversight of detention centers and opposed the detention of pregnant immigrants.

    One of Harris’s most notable stances was her support for making illegal immigration a civil offense rather than a criminal one. She claimed that it would reduce the harsh penalties associated with border crossings and shift the focus toward civil procedures and protections.

    Harris also expressed support for re-evaluating and possibly abolishing ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). She criticized ICE’s practices under the Trump administration, which she viewed as excessively aggressive and inhumane. Harris proposed restructuring immigration enforcement to focus on serious criminal activity rather than indiscriminate raids and deportations.

    She called for a comprehensive immigration reform package that included a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Her plan emphasized humanely securing the border, protecting asylum seekers, and expanding legal immigration channels.

    Economy/Taxes

    In 2019, Harris proposed several changes to the tax code which aimed to support low- and middle-class families while increasing taxes on the wealthy. Her plan, which she called the “LIFT Act,” included a new refundable tax credit that would provide up to $500 per month to families making less than $100,000 per year.

    Along with this, she proposed an increase in the top marginal income tax rate from 37% to 39.6%, targeting the top 1% of earners. This increase was part of her broader plan to ensure the wealthiest pay their fair share of taxes, a sentiment that was echoed constantly in the Biden Administration. 

    She proposed increasing the corporate tax rate from 21%, set by Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, up to 35%, arguing corporations should contribute more to federal revenue to support public service and infrastructure. Her plan also included imposing a financial transaction tax on stock and bond trades, and derivative transactions.

    Healthcare

    Harris initially supported Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan, which proposed eliminating private health insurance in favor of a government-run system. However, she later moderated her stance, proposing a plan that allowed for regulated private insurance alongside a public option​​, aiming to balance progressive goals with practical implementation.

    Harris emphasized the need to address the maternal mortality crisis, particularly among Black women, and called for increased investments in maternal healthcare services and policies to reduce these disparities​.

    She also proposed measures to reduce prescription drug costs, including allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies and importing cheaper drugs from other countries​.

    Gun Control

    Kamala Harris’s stance on gun control during her 2020 presidential bid included several progressive measures aimed at reducing gun violence.

    She supported implementing universal background checks for all gun purchases, including private and public sales. She advocated for renewing the federal assault weapons ban, arguing these weapons are often used in mass shootings and have no place in civilian hands. Harris also supported laws that allow law enforcement to temporarily seize firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others, aiming to prevent potential tragedies.

    She also proposed stricter regulations on gun dealers, including mandatory background checks for those selling more than five guns a year and enforcing penalties for violations.

    Criminal Justice and Social Justice

    In the wake of the killing of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement, racial inequality and injustice became hotbed topics of the 2020 Democratic primary. The Black prosecutor from California used this issue to her advantage.

    Harris pledged to end mass incarceration by eliminating private prisons, abolishing mandatory minimum sentences, and promoting alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders, which she claimed disproportionately target Black and brown Americans.

    Following the killing of George Floyd, Harris supported a comprehensive package of police reforms, including banning chokeholds, requiring body cameras, and establishing a national standard for the use of force. She also advocated for increased accountability measures for police misconduct. She focused on addressing racial disparities in the criminal justice system, proposed measures to combat racial profiling, expanded anti-bias training for law enforcement, and supported community-based public safety programs.

    She also aimed to address economic inequalities exacerbated by the criminal justice system. She proposed a plan to provide financial support to individuals returning from incarceration to help them reintegrate into society and reduce recidivism.

    Environment

    Harris supported the Green New Deal and called for aggressive action to combat climate change. Her plan included transitioning to 100% clean electricity by 2030 and achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2045. She also advocated for rejoining the Paris Agreement.

    She proposed a nationwide ban on fracking, citing the environmental and public health risks associated with hydraulic fracturing, and emphasized the need to address environmental racism, arguing that low-income and minority communities are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards.

    Harris called for substantial investments in green energy infrastructure and technology. Her plan included federal funding for renewable energy projects, incentives for electric vehicle adoption, and the development of sustainable public transportation systems.

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Harris’s campaign faced significant challenges and, citing a lack of funds, she suspended her campaign on December 3, 2019, before the Iowa caucuses. She immediately endorsed Joe Biden and was selected to be his running mate on August 11, 2020.

    As Vice President, Harris has had to align her previous campaign positions with the broader goals of the Biden administration, sometimes leading to perceived backtracking on issues like healthcare and criminal justice. She is the first major party nominee in history to never win a single presidential primary election.

    As she prepares for her 2024 presidential run, it remains to be seen whether she will revert to her previous progressive stances or aim for a more centrist approach to appeal to a broader electorate. Her selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate suggests she is trying to energize the Democratic base rather than pivot to the center. This choice indicates a strategic decision to rally core supporters while also leveraging Walz’s appeal in the Midwest, neutralizing JD Vance’s rustbelt appeal.

    Harris’s 2024 campaign will have to find a way to balance her past progressive proposals with a pragmatic approach to executive governance. Voters will watch closely to see if she maintains her strong positions on healthcare, immigration, and criminal justice reform or adjusts her policies to attract a wider range of voters. The challenge for Harris will be to unify the Democratic Party while presenting a clear and compelling vision for the future of all Americans.

    With just over two months until the election, it is crunch time for both Democrats and Republicans. As Republicans have struggled to shift their focus from Biden to Harris, Democrats have seen a surge in momentum in polling and fundraising. The key questions now are whether this momentum will last for Harris and the Democrats and if the Trump campaign can find a messaging strategy against her that resonates with the American people.

    Although there is little time left on the calendar, a lot can happen in two months. Just look at how much the political landscape has changed since July. As the debates between Trump and Harris approach in September, Americans will finally get to see their choices and make a decision.

    Be prepared for potential September, October, and maybe even November surprises. A lot can happen in a short amount of time, and pundits will be quick to put their spin on events before you have a chance to think for yourself. Stick with us for all the information without the spin. Stay engaged, stay informed, stay critical.

    Questions to ask yourself after reading?

    • Has my view of Vice President Harris changed now that I know what she ran on in 2020?
    • Do I support her 2020 policy positions on healthcare, immigration, the economy, criminal justice, gun control, and the environment?
    • Do I think Governor Tim Walz was a good choice as her running mate?
    • Am I more or less likely to support her 2024 presidential bid based on her past and present policies?
    • Do I believe Harris will return to her progressive stances or move towards the center to appeal to a broader electorate?
    • How important are the issues of healthcare, immigration, and criminal justice to me in evaluating Harris’s candidacy?
    • Do I feel confident in Harris’s ability to unify the Democratic Party and present a compelling vision for the future?
    • Do I feel confident in Harris’s ability to unify the entire nation and present a compelling vision for the future?