ACE

Tag: voting

  • 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.

  • Automatic Voter Registration: A Closer Look at the Ongoing Debate

    Automatic Voter Registration: A Closer Look at the Ongoing Debate


    In all states except North Dakota, eligible voters must register to vote before casting a ballot in any election. Each state’s voter registration requirements vary, but most states retain voters’ name, date of birth, address, and party affiliation. While the 1993 Voter Registration Act (also known as the “Motor Voter” law) allowed eligible voters to fill out a voter registration form at the same time they sought or renewed their driver’s license, it was not until 2015 that some states adopted fully automatic voter registration. Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) is a process whereby eligible voters’ registration information is automatically submitted or updated when they interact with government agencies like the DMV or Department of Health. Essentially, AVR makes voter registration an opt-out, rather than an opt-in, process. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia currently use some form of AVR. 

    How AVR Works

    There are two main types of Automatic Voter Registration (AVR): front-end opt-out and back-end opt-out.

    • Front-end opt-out: When eligible voters interact with a government agency, they can choose whether to register by filling out a form or checking a box. Some states confirm registration afterward with a notification.
    • Back-end opt-out: Government agencies automatically register voters unless they decline. After the interaction, voters receive a notification giving them a chance to opt out within a certain timeframe.

    Sixteen states and D.C. use front-end opt-out, while eight states use back-end opt-out.

    Arguments in Favor of AVR

    Supporters argue that AVR increases access to elections and ease of voting. They claim non-automatic voter registration procedures are inefficient and contribute to low voter turnout due to the need for potential voters to take an extra step before they vote. Moreover, proponents argue that by automatically updating voter addresses during interactions with government agencies, AVR decreases the likelihood that voters show up to an incorrect polling place due to outdated registration information. Supporters claim that up-to-date voter registration information not only reduces confusion on election day, but also prevents jurisdictions from misallocating resources across polling places based on outdated records. Those who endorse AVR also claim it significantly reduces costs associated with paper forms, postage, provisional ballots, and same-day registration. 

    Moreover, proponents of AVR assert that it increases the number of registered voters compared to non-automatic registration. A case study conducted by the Center for American Progress found AVR to be an effective means of engaging voters. According to the study, Oregon’s AVR program registered 116,000 people who were otherwise unlikely to have registered. Moreover, it found that Oregon’s electorate became more representative of the state’s population after AVR was put into place. Another case study from Georgia found that AVR registered and updated voter information at a higher rate than other registration sources, increasing the state’s registered voter population from 78% in 2016 to 98% in 2020. 

    Arguments Against AVR

    Critics of AVR argue that as more agencies coordinate to access and update voter information, the risk of errors and security breaches increases. They cite one 2018 instance when the California DMV was overwhelmed by an influx of potential voters, resulting in errors such as duplicate registrations and incorrect information being input into voter records. Opponents argue inaccuracies like those in California may cause more work for election officials because duplicate registrations must be corrected individually. Critics also claim an electronic system is vulnerable to major security risks, citing an incident when California’s new DMV voter registration system appeared to have been targeted by foreign hackers. In light of the risk of data breaches, some opponents of AVR argue that the automatic collection of voter information puts citizens who intentionally do not register, such as domestic violence survivors, at risk. 

    Opponents also question the extent of AVR’s impact on voter registration rates and voting behavior. They argue that the increased voter registration numbers cited by supporters of AVR fail to account for voters who would have updated their registration without AVR. Additionally, they claim that even if AVR increases the amount of registered voters, newly registered voters who typically do not vote are still unlikely to vote. 

    Conclusion

    AVR remains a key issue nationwide, with several states adopting or adjusting AVR policies. In 2023 Minnesota, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania became the newest additions to the list of states that use AVR in some form. As the conversation over AVR’s pros and cons continues, costs, data security, and voter turnout are likely to remain central topics of debate.

  • A Guide to the DNC: Day 4

    A Guide to the DNC: Day 4

    The fourth and final night of the Democratic National Convention featured the theme “For the Future,” encapsulating the forward-looking message that has defined the event. While the night included appearances by high-profile celebrities, Democratic officials, and party elites, the spotlight was firmly on Kamala Harris as she officially accepted the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

    As calls for freedom and the promise of a new future echoed through the United Center in Chicago, here’s what the Democrats had to say as they closed out their convention and introduced their new leader.

    Key Speakers of Night 4:

    Elizabeth Warren

    Elizabeth Warren emphasized Kamala Harris’s commitment to making life more affordable for working families. She highlighted Harris’s efforts to tackle price gouging during crises like the California wildfires and the pandemic. Warren portrayed Harris as a determined advocate for women’s rights, stating, “Kamala will protect abortion rights nationwide,” and concluded with a vote of confidence: “Kamala Harris is someone we can trust.”

    Members of the Central Park 5

    The Central Park 5 spoke about their wrongful convictions and subsequent exoneration, using their story to underscore the importance of justice and voting. They expressed their belief that Kamala Harris would continue to fight for fairness in America, with one member stating, “Vice President Kamala Harris has also worked to make things fairer. I know she will do the same as President.”

    Former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords

    Gabby Giffords, a survivor of gun violence, expressed admiration for Kamala Harris’s resilience and dedication. Giffords praised Harris’s ability to challenge the gun lobby and protect abortion access, portraying her as a leader with the strength to enact meaningful change: “Kamala can beat the gun lobby. She can fight gun trafficking.”

    Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly

    Mark Kelly focused on Kamala Harris’s dedication to national security and support for the military. He emphasized the importance of America’s alliances and the challenges a second Trump presidency might bring. Kelly commended Harris’s understanding of foreign policy, noting, “Kamala Harris knows that standing with our allies means standing up for Americans.”

    Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer

    Governor Gretchen Whitmer highlighted Kamala Harris as a leader who understands the struggles of ordinary Americans, particularly working women. Whitmer drew parallels between their shared experiences of caring for ill mothers, and emphasized Harris’s commitment to healthcare and elder care, stating, “Kamala Harris knows who she’s fighting for too.”

    Maya Harris, Kamala’s Sister

    Maya Harris provided a personal glimpse into Kamala Harris’s upbringing, sharing stories about their mother’s influence. She described their mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, as a trailblazer who instilled in them a belief in their potential and a responsibility to fight for justice. Maya highlighted Kamala’s lifelong dedication to these values, saying, “Kamala’s entire life has been about fighting for each of us to have that freedom.”

    North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper

    Governor Roy Cooper spoke about Kamala Harris’s determination to stand up for everyday Americans against powerful interests. He recounted how Harris, as California’s Attorney General, secured $20 billion for California families during the foreclosure crisis. Cooper praised Harris as a leader who “does exactly what she said she’s going to do,” urging Americans to support her as she would fight for them.

    Kamala Harris

    Kamala Harris’s speech was the crowning moment of the convention, blending her personal story with a strong policy vision. She began by acknowledging her roots, particularly the influence of her mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, and her immigrant upbringing. Harris spoke at length about the values instilled in her by her family, such as community, faith, and the importance of justice. She linked these values to her professional journey, highlighting her work as a prosecutor and attorney general, where she fought against sexual abuse, big banks, and elder abuse, emphasizing that “a harm against any one of us is a harm against all of us.”

    Harris laid out her vision for the economy, promising to build a strong middle class through an “opportunity economy” that would create jobs, lower the cost of living, and provide access to capital for small businesses. She sharply contrasted her vision with Donald Trump’s, accusing him of serving only himself and his billionaire friends, while she pledged a “middle-class tax cut.”

    Harris underscored her administration’s commitment to supporting Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. She recalled her direct engagement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, warning him of Russia’s impending invasion: “Five days before Russia attacked Ukraine, I met with President Zelensky to warn him about Russia’s plan to invade.” She highlighted how the Biden administration successfully rallied over 50 countries to defend Ukraine, declaring, “I helped mobilize a global response… to defend against Putin’s aggression.” This, she argued, is essential to upholding democratic values and international law.

    On the Israel-Gaza war, Harris expressed unwavering support for Israel’s right to self-defense while acknowledging the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. “I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself,” she stated, while also describing the devastation in Gaza as “heartbreaking.” Harris emphasized the administration’s diplomatic efforts to achieve a ceasefire and secure a hostage deal, noting, “President Biden and I are working around the clock because now is the time to get a hostage deal and a ceasefire deal done.”

    Outlining her broader Middle East strategy, she focused on countering Iranian-backed terrorism and strengthening U.S. alliances. She criticized Trump for being easily manipulated by autocrats like Kim Jong Un, warning, “They know Trump won’t hold autocrats accountable because he wants to be an autocrat himself.” Harris pledged to maintain U.S. leadership in critical areas like space and artificial intelligence, vowing, “I will make sure to lead the world into the future on space and artificial intelligence that America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century.”

    She reaffirmed her vision of America as a global leader that champions democracy, human rights, and strong alliances. She contrasted this with Trump’s isolationism, urging, “In the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand and I know where the United States belongs.” Harris called on Americans to support her leadership to secure the nation’s future and uphold the values that define American democracy.

    Harris also spoke on women’s reproductive rights, positioning it as a fundamental freedom that is under unprecedented attack. She directly linked the current state of reproductive rights in America to Donald Trump’s influence, stating, “Donald Trump handpicked members of the United States Supreme Court to take away reproductive freedom. And now he brags about it.”

    Harris recounted stories from women across the country who have suffered due to the erosion of reproductive rights, highlighting the human cost of these political decisions. “Women have told me those stories… of miscarrying in a parking lot, developing sepsis, losing the ability to ever again have children,” she said, painting a vivid picture of the stakes involved.

    Harris also warned of Trump’s broader agenda: “As part of his agenda, he and his allies will limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion, and enact a nationwide abortion ban with or without Congress.” In contrast, Harris pledged to restore these rights, asserting, “When Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom, as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law.”

    Vice President Harris concluded her speech with a call to action, urging Americans to embrace a future defined by freedom, opportunity, and unity. She contrasted this vision with the divisive rhetoric of her opponents, stating, “In the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand and I know where the United States belongs.”

    “Let us show each other and the world who we are and what we stand for: freedom, opportunity, compassion, dignity, fairness, and endless possibilities.” Harris called on Americans to rise to the occasion, saying, “It is now our turn to do what generations before us have done… to fight for the ideals we cherish and to uphold the awesome responsibility that comes with the greatest privilege on earth, the privilege and pride of being an American.”

    With this rallying cry, Harris sought to unite the nation around a vision of progress and inclusivity, urging all to vote and contribute to writing “the next great chapter in the most extraordinary story ever told.”

    The stage is now set. The candidates are locked in, and there is no going back.

    Coming off a historic convention, Kamala Harris seems to have all the momentum heading into November. But now, she faces the real test.

    In just under three weeks, Harris will face Trump on the debate stage. For the first time, Americans will have the chance to see the contrast between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, compare their visions for the country, and decide who they want to lead them into the future.

    Get ready, America, because we’re in for a ride.

    Stay here to get all your news without the spin. Stay engaged, stay informed, stay critical.

    Questions to ask yourself after reading

    Do I agree with Vice President Kamala Harris’ vision for the country?

    Do I agree with her policy in regards to the economy, foreign policy, abortion, etc?

    Do I know enough about VP Harris’ policies?

  • A Guide to the DNC: Day 1

    A Guide to the DNC: Day 1

    Monday, August 19th marks the first night of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago, Illinois. The theme of the night is “For the People.” The start of this convention marks one month and a day since President Biden announced he would not be running for re-election and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency. 

    The first major event of the convention was the ceremonious vote to confirm Tim Walz as the Democratic Party’s nominee for Vice President. In this ceremonious vote, the Democrats’ delegates reaffirmed the nomination of Tim Walz. Walz is expected to officially accept the nomination in his speech Wednesday night. The delegates officially nominated Kamala Harris and Tim Walz as the Party’s nominee for President and Vice President in a virtual meeting earlier this month. The convention will hold Harris’ ceremonious confirmation vote on Tuesday night. 

    The convention then moved into agenda-setting measures in which the Democratic Party committees gave their committee reports and plans for the Democratic Party’s platform. The convention then moved into hearing speakers pledging their support for Vice President Harris and Governor Walz, speaking on the Democratic Party’s platform for 2024, and criticizing Donald Trump and the Republican Party’s political agenda.

    Around 8:10 pm Central Time, Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance on stage. During her quick appearance, she thanked President Joe Biden for his service as president and urged her supporters to unite and turn out to vote this November, stating that “When we fight, we win.”

    The host for the first night of the DNC, actor and director Tony Goldwyn, followed Harris, giving a speech in which he argued that this election is about the future of America and that Harris and Trump each represent “two very different futures” for America. He then stated that Harris represents the “future of the middle class, the future of reproductive rights, the future of the climate, security, and schools, and the future of our very democracy.” He describes Harris as a leader who will fight for the futures of all Americans, amping up the crown as he continued to mark Harris’ accomplishments throughout the night.

    Key Speakers:

    Mallory McMorrow, Michigan State Senator: Addressing Project 2025

    State Senator McMorrow came on stage with a copy of Project 2025, a policy plan for a Republican lead administration. She then read excerpts from the plan in which she argued Project 2025 sets the stage for a Trump dictatorship as the policy plan would allow him to appoint an “army of loyalists” to positions of power within the government and weaponize the Department of Defense, going so far as to argue that Trump could make the “FBI his own personal police force” through Project 2025’s policies. She then claims that another Trump presidency would make him “immune to the law” and prosecution because he “handpicked” the current Supreme Court. She then stated that Kamala Harris would protect American democracy, reiterating Harris’s campaign message of “not going back” to a Trump administration.  

    Steve Kerr, Team USA Men’s Basketball coach and Golden State Warriors coach

    Steve Kerr first recapped his experience watching the men’s and women’s Olympic Basketball teams winning gold and the pride he felt for his country in that moment. He then relates his experience as a coach and former basketball player helping him know what kind of leader he and his fellow Americans need. He underscored that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have the leadership qualities the “country needs.” He also urges unity, comparing the success of twelve Americans winning gold in Paris in Men’s Basketball to the success America could have when its citizens put aside their party identities. Kerr then encourages people to vote, using Stephen Curry’s catchphrase to emphasize his hopes that on election day this November, “we can tell Donald Trump ‘night, night.’”

    Shawn Fain, President of the United Automobile Workers

    Shawn Fain first thanked President Biden for walking the picket line with Union Automobile Workers in September of 2023. He then praised Kamala Harris, stating that she is “one of us” and a “fighter for the working class” while calling Donald Trump a “scam,” causing the crowd at the DNC to begin chanting “Trump’s a scam.” Fain criticized Trump’s ability to bring back automobile jobs, claiming that “Donald Trump is all talk, and Kamala Harris walks the walk because “Trump did nothing” while union workers were on strike in 2019 while Kamala Harris stood alongside union workers on the picket line.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, New York

    Ocasio-Cortez first shared her experience working as a waitress, fighting bills and home foreclosure due to her father’s unexpected death, before being elected congresswoman for the House of Representatives. She states that like herself, Kamala Harris is “from the middle class and for the middle class.” She states that Harris is committed to not only protecting reproductive rights and civil rights and taking down corporate greed but is also committed to “securing a cease-fire in Gaza and bringing hostages home.” Ocasio-Cortez then criticizes Trump for only “fighting for the wealthy and big businesses” and urges Democratic supporters to not only vote Harris and Walz into the White House but to vote to get strong democratic majorities in Congress. Ocasio-Cortez finishes her speech by underscoring Harris’ campaign messages, stating that “the people of this nation will not go back” and that this nation will create a path that is “for the people and by the people.”

    Hillary Clinton, Former United States Secretary of State

    Hilary Clinton first spoke of women’s first throughout America’s political history, from when women finally gained the right to vote in 1920 to acknowledging Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for President. Clinton marked the historic nature of her run for office in 2016 and Kamala Harris’ current run for office, stating that both of their parents would urge them to “keep going” as Clinton urges the American people to “keep going” in order to send Harris to the White House. Clinton then draws similarities between her and Harris as they both got their start in politics as “young lawyers helping children who were abused and neglected,” describing Harris’ background as a prosecutor and contrasting that background to Trump’s status of becoming the first convicted felon to run for president. Clinton’s speech reiterated Harris’ commitment to being “for the people” and highlighted the parallels between her run for the presidency and Harris’ run.

    James E. Clyburn, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, South Carolina

    James Clyburn began his speech by announcing the accomplishments of the Biden-Harris administration, including their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the nation’s infrastructure. He then targets Project 2025, calling the policy plan “Jim Crow 2.0” and arguing that Trump is only “falsely pleading ignorance” on the subject. Clyburn then quotes the Bible to demonstrate America’s perseverance and that under Harris, America will “march to a more perfect union.”

    Jamie Raskin, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Maryland

    Jamie Raskin first criticized the Republican party, stating that Republican leadership converted the party from a “party of Lincoln” to a “cult of personality.” He then references the January 6 attack on Congress in 2021, highlighting his concern for the protection of democracy if Trump were to be re-elected, citing Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election results as evidence that Trump does not wish to maintain a peaceful democracy. 

    Jasmine Crockett, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Texas

    Jasmine Crockett criticizes Republicans for holding legislation that would “secure the border and send aid to Ukraine.” Crockett then states that Harris has “lived the American Dream” while Trump has been “America’s Nightmare,” arguing that Harris is the only candidate qualified for the position of president. Crockett then draws parallels between her career as a public defender to Harris’ career as a prosecutor, telling the story of how Harris gave her advice when Crockett was first elected to the House of Representatives, leaving an impactful mark on the congresswoman. She states that when Harris is elected as president, “America will be a beacon of hope once more.”

    Joint Remarks: Amanda and Josh Zurawski, Texas; Kaitlyn Joshua, Louisiana; Hadley Duvall, Kentucky

    The Zurawskis, Kaitlyn Joshua, and Hadley Duvall each shared their experience with receiving reproductive health in their respective states. They pledge their support for Kamala Harris and desire for a national bill to ensure the right to an abortion and reproductive freedom. 

    Andy Beshear, Governor of Kentucky

    Andy Beshear first criticized Trump and Vance’s stance on abortion rights and the Supreme Court’s overturning of Row vs. Wade, arguing that “all women should have the freedom to make their own decisions.” He remarked on Harris’ call and action of unity, stating that Harris acts to support all Americans, not just the ones who vote for her. He reiterated the need for Americans to “love thy neighbor” in a time of division. 

    Reverend Raphael G. Warnock, United States Senator, Georgia

    Raphael Warnock highlighted the Democrats’ accomplishments in 2020, stating that they not only sent Biden and Harris to the White House, but they also “vaccinated [their] citizens” and “stood by [their] small businesses.” Warnock criticized Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and his instigation of the January 6th insurrection that led to “voter suppression laws in Georgia and around the country.” He argues that this election decides if the nation will “embrace all of us or just some of us” and that Trump seeks to divide the American people while Kamala Harris and Tim Walz represent “the new way forward.” 

    Chris Coons, United States Senator, Delaware

    Chris Coons praised President Biden’s accomplishments during his presidency and thanked Jill Biden for her continued support of Joe Biden. He describes Biden as a compassionate man and friend who has “done so much for this country” and thanked Biden for his courage in “fighting for our democracy.” 

    Dr. Jill Biden, First Lady of the United States

    Dr. Jill Biden compared Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ character, stating that they know how to “heal wounds” and “serve the community.” She urges Harris supporters to “fight and win” together, throwing her support behind Harris and reiterating the Democratic Party’s commitment to the transfer of power between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. 

    Joe Biden, President of the United States

    Introduced by his daughter Ashley Biden, Joe Biden gave the keynote speech for Night 1 of the DNC. He walked onto the stage to chants of “We love Joe” from the crowd and replied, “America, I love you.” He then moved to attack Trump’s response to losing the 2020 election, stating that “you can’t only love America when you win” and arguing that the change in leadership allowed “democracy to prevail” but in this new election cycle the people must ensure that “democracy is preserved.” Biden then spoke on the rise of extremism and anti-semitism that has occurred in this country since Trump’s presidency, citing the Charlottesville riots in 2017 as one of the compelling factors that encouraged him to run for President in 2020. He then reiterated his commitment to the middle class and dedication to “all Americans.” Biden also addressed the protesters outside the convention, who are calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, stating that they “have a point” and promising that his Secretary of State is working to bring the hostages home and increase the amount of humanitarian aid entering Gaza. Biden also called for a ceasefire and an end to the war in Gaza. 

    Crediting his administration with getting control of the COVID-19 pandemic, creating the “strongest economy in the world,” creating record jobs and small business growth, passing stronger gun control, reducing the cost of higher education, and lowering inflation, Biden claims that America is “moving in the right direction.” He then closes with the remark that “America is a nation of possibility” and that Harris and Walz understand that about America, reiterating his commitment and support for Kamala Harris’ campaign for president.

  • 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?
  • Pros and Cons of Florida’s SB 7066 

    Pros and Cons of Florida’s SB 7066 

    What is SB 7066?

    On June 28, 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066 into law. Previously, convicted felons in Florida could only regain voting rights through a special appeal to the state’s clemency board. In 2018, Amendment 4 was passed, granting voting rights to most convicted felons, excluding those convicted of violent felonies like murder or sexual assault. SB 7066 was then enacted to clarify the terms of Amendment 4.

    SB 7066 requires convicted felons to pay all legal and logistical fees, known as Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs), accumulated during trials or prison time before they can vote. While Amendment 4 allowed over 1.4 million non-violent felons the right to vote in Florida, SB 7066 mandates that all terms of their sentencing, including LFOs, must be completed before they can register to vote.

    Arguments in favor of SB 7066 

    Proponents argue that SB 7066 is necessary to clarify the language of Amendment 4. Amendment 4 stated that individuals could vote after completing their imprisonment, probation, or parole. However, critics claimed that the amendment lacked clear language for restoring felon voting rights broadly, leading to unfair and inconsistent enforcement. Without SB 7066, each Florida county might interpret the amendment differently, causing statewide inconsistency.

    Proponents of SB 7066 argue that the bill supports the principle that voting rights can be restricted for ex-felons who have broken the law. In the United States, a person’s right to vote can be legally revoked if they commit a crime, just as other freedoms can be restricted when they are jailed. Supporters believe that voting is a privilege and can be rightfully denied to those who have shown disregard for the law.

    Arguments against SB 7066

    Critics of SB 7066 highlight the confusion caused by its implementation. There is currently no uniform system to inform ex-felons if they have met all voting requirements. Consequently, ex-felons who attempt to vote but are ineligible under Amendment 4 or SB 7066 risk arrest, as state law makes it illegal to vote if one is not eligible. Critics cite the arrest of 20 individuals ineligible due to violent felony convictions as evidence of the bill’s ambiguity. Additionally, the uncertainty may discourage individuals from voting if they are unsure about their eligibility.

    Critics argue that SB 7066 discriminates against individuals and restricts hundreds of thousands of voters. Since the bill requires the payment of all LFOs, many see this as a form of voter discrimination akin to a poll tax. They point out that SB 7066 effectively undoes Amendment 4, as only an estimated 360,000 of the 1.4 million restored voters are eligible due to unpaid LFOs. Additionally, critics contend that the bill disproportionately impacts Black people and people of color, who are convicted of felonies at higher rates than white individuals and tend to have lower incomes.

    Constitutional Controversy over SB 7066 

    Following the passage of SB 7066, the bill faced court challenges on claims of unconstitutionality. Florida lawyers and voting rights groups filed lawsuits to block or eliminate SB 7066, arguing that requiring convicted felons to pay off their LFOs to vote violated their constitutional right to expression and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which abolished poll taxes. In the case of Jones v. DeSantis, Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that it was constitutional to require payment of LFOs if the felons had the financial capacity to pay but that ex-felons who were “genuinely unable” to pay could not be denied the right to vote. However, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Judge Hinkle’s decision, ruling that there was no constitutional violation. As a result, SB 7066 remains part of Florida law.

    Conclusion

    Since the passage of Florida’s SB 7066, there has been controversy surrounding whether or not such a piece of legislation proves to be a positive or negative contribution to their democratic processes. On one hand, proponents argue that the bill clarifies the vague language of Amendment 4 while enforcing that felons must take responsibility for their actions before regaining their rights. On the opposing side, critics assert that SB 7066 creates mass confusion in determining voter eligibility and discriminates against individuals while significantly limiting the number of eligible voters.

  • Is Online Voting the Future? Pros, Cons, and Key Considerations

    Is Online Voting the Future? Pros, Cons, and Key Considerations

    Introduction

    As internet technology advances and digital literacy increases, more daily activities such as shopping, learning, and bill paying are moving online. While online voting is currently unavailable for most voters in the United States, experts and researchers are debating its viability. Online voting is conducted remotely from the user’s own device, often through a third-party application. 

    Who Uses Online Voting?

    There are several examples of online voting abroad, especially in Estonia, Switzerland, and Australia. In Estonia, about half of registered voters choose to use the online platform to cast their ballot. Estonian online voting is only available for early voting, and includes the option for voters to change their choice up until the voting deadline.

    Within the U.S., 10 states allow remote voting reserved for specific groups of people. Voters living abroad gain the right to vote remotely through the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and several states allow voters with disabilities to cast their ballots online as well. Recently, several states opened remote online voting options for local elections in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Pros of Online Voting

    Proponents of online voting say that it would make elections more accessible, and therefore increase voter turnout. Online voting decreases the amount of time it takes to vote—both by removing travel time for those who choose that option, and shortening lines at polling places for those who still opt to vote in person. This in turn has the potential to increase turnout, because long lines at the polling place negatively impact turnout. 

    Advocates contend that online voting will increase flexibility and privacy for voters with disabilities who would normally vote by mail—especially for those with impaired vision. Additionally, online remote voting platforms allow voters to cast their ballots from their own devices, and research suggests this would convince some people to vote who would not do so were the online option unavailable. Indeed, one study shows a 3.5% increase in voter turnout (and another an 8.2% increase) when the online option for voting is available.

    Online voting also has the potential to reduce the costs of elections for governments and voters. One study found online voting to be the most cost-effective form of voting, based on data from Estonian elections. According to the study, since usage of online voting decreases the time people take to vote, it also decreases indirect cost in terms of lost wages from time taken off to vote. As online voting is conducted remotely, it also gets rid of transportation costs from voters physically getting to the polling place. Online voting would also reduce the number of printed ballots needed, which reduces the cost of elections for the government. 

    Online voting could remove some human error from the election process. Supporters argue that online voting could prevent “messy elections” like the 2000 presidential election. There would be no uncertainty from physical counting errors, like the ones that arose in the 2000 election with “hanging chads.” Supporters say that online voting, without confusing physical aspects, would result in higher accuracy. 

    Online voting could also ensure election results are available more quickly to the public, as software and online platforms can count votes nearly instantly, unlike human counters, who require more time. Lastly, online voting could prevent voters from misunderstanding and spoiling (or even mistakenly invalidating, in the case of mail-in voting) their own ballots, therefore streamlining the election process.

    Cons of Online Voting

    The main concern of opponents of online voting is the overall security of an election, chief among these concerns being election fraud. Internet technology is complex and rapidly developing, and cybersecurity measures are often reactive and do not develop as fast as the innovations of hacking themselves. Many are concerned that elections without a paper trail are more vulnerable to election fraud, and that casting ballots over the internet would make recounts (in the event that they are needed) futile, as there would be no physical ballots to recount. Without physical proof of any particular voter’s ballot, it is possible that election fraud could occur and not be noticed, because of the lack of sufficient security protocols. Because of this, there is the possibility that hackers could change votes to manipulate election results. These vulnerabilities raise privacy concerns as well as fraud concerns. Voters’ ballots would also no longer be confidential.

    Opponents are also concerned with the involvement of third-party voting software companies in the election. Online voting is often run by for-profit companies who may value profit over election security. There is evidence of voting software companies lacking adequate security, which would compromise the integrity of an election. There is also the added potential of system failure, in which a crash of the voting software would prevent people from voting, or even invalidate their votes.

    A final potential drawback of online voting is the lack of trust that people have in the results produced from such a platform. Recently, there has been a decline in trust in U.S. elections, and online voting could exacerbate the issue because of the concerns surrounding security, privacy, and accuracy due to the threat of fraud. In the current climate of uncertainty, many believe it may be beneficial to stick with familiar voting methods.

    The Future of Online Voting

    The current election system is not without fault, but would adding online voting to the equation make things better or worse? Despite concerns, more than 300,000 registered U.S. voters used an online platform of some sort to vote in the 2020 elections, and many states have plans to increase the number of voters eligible to vote online in the coming years.