SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
voting rights act
Stop Trump and His Supreme Court From Tightening the Circle of Personhood
The right-wing Supreme Court, in rulings on Trump administration policies, has done its best to murder what's left of civil rights in the United States.
Sep 26, 2025
Warning: dangers in the mirror are often closer than they may appear. In other words, the next few paragraphs may seem to be hyperbole but are, in fact, expressions of reality (animated by a cold fury).
On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court did its best to murder what’s left of civil rights in this country. As Charlie Savage of the New York Times reported, in an unsigned 6-3 ruling, it overturned a lower court’s order forbidding Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol in Los Angeles from stopping, interrogating, and detaining people based on any of four factors: “apparent race or ethnicity; the fact that they speak English with an accent or speak Spanish; their presence at particular locations like farms or pickup sites for day laborers; and the type of work they do.”
Those six conservative justices might as well have stood in front of the court and set fire to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed segregation and discrimination based on race, religion, sex, or national origin in a wide variety of venues and actions, including public accommodations, education, the provision of government services, housing, transportation, and voting. The Civil Rights Act outlawed exactly the kind of racial profiling now being practiced—and permitted by our highest court—in the Trump administration’s war on immigrants.
While they were at it, those six robed arsonists might as well have burnt the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which outlaws unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a court-issued warrant for arrests. They could have added the 14th Amendment to their bonfire, which was one of three passed and ratified during the Reconstruction period following the Civil War. Those three amendments established full citizenship rights for emancipated Blacks and future generations of US denizens, regardless of race. The 13th Amendment, of course, outlawed slavery, and the 15th secured voting rights for all (male) citizens regardless of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude. The 14th Amendment, while establishing birthright citizenship, also guarantees “all persons” (regardless of citizenship status) due process under the law—including those suspected of being in the country illegally.
Centuries of Struggle Undone
No one gave us those rights. Successive generations of Americans fought for them, starting in the late 1780s and in the 1791 passage of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to our Constitution. That’s when the Fourth Amendment established the rights that centuries later would be invoked to prevent people from being stopped for “driving while Black” or seeking work while looking Latino. (It’s also when, thanks to the First Amendment, we secured freedom of speech and the press, which gives me the right to state publicly, even in the wake of his despicable assassination, that the founder of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, built his organization on explicit contempt for women, especially women of color, and LGBTQ people.)
It took a civil war and the deaths of almost 700,000 soldiers on both sides to end legal slavery in this country and give us those three Reconstruction amendments, passed between 1865 and 1870.
As we’ve seen repeatedly, the hard-won legal remedies for racism are now being turned against both the historic and present-day targets of racism.
And it took decades of mostly nonviolent struggle and sacrifice (and more deaths) to win passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Those two laws essentially reiterated the same rights that had been secured back in the 1860s but had been denied in practice in the Southern states of the former Confederacy. “Denial” is a weak word for the life-destroying discrimination and segregation that was then systematically enforced by state-sponsored terrorism (all too often in the form of lynching) against those accused of violating the Jim Crow regime of that era.
The Supreme Court had already torn the guts out of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, deciding in Shelby County v. Holder that states with a history of race-based voter suppression would no longer have to seek “preclearance” from the Department of Justice for changes to their voting procedures. The court’s argument was essentially that voting discrimination no longer exists in the states named in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, observing that ending preclearance was like “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
The fact that a storm of suppression was indeed still raging became clear almost immediately, as affected states began passing laws making it more difficult for people of color to vote. Ironically, US President Donald Trump’s crew hasn’t yet completely purged the Department of Justice’s website of support for voting rights. You can, for instance, still find there a 2023 blog post by Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke lamenting the depredations of Shelby and praising the Biden administration’s support for the—never passed—John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act as a remedy.
Now, in a one-paragraph decision, the six right-wing justices, appointed by a series of Republican presidents including Trump, have made another contribution to his administration’s all-out attack on race and gender equality. Justice Brett Kavanaugh found it necessary to amplify the court’s decision in a lengthy concurrence. In words untethered from the real world, he wrote:
The Government sometimes makes brief investigative stops to check the immigration status of those who gather in locations where people are hired for day jobs; who work or appear to work in jobs such as construction, landscaping, agriculture, or car washes that often do not require paperwork and are therefore attractive to illegal immigrants; and who do not speak much if any English. If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a US citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go.”
Let me repeat that: “If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a US citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go.” Tell that to Kilmar Abrego García.
Oh, California
In the last few decades, some very bad ideas have come out of my own state, California. This may surprise readers who think of Californians as living in a great blue expanse on the country’s “Left Coast.” They may think our governor, Gavin Newsom, is an avatar of liberalism. (Despite my criticisms of the man, I will admit that his recent trolling of Donald Trump’s ALL-CAPS MEDIA STYLE is pretty funny.)
Nevertheless, some seriously bad ideas have triumphed as ballot propositions here. In 1978, there was Proposition 13, which made it all but impossible to raise taxes in the state—especially property taxes, which provide almost half the funding for our public schools. That “taxpayer revolt” (as it came to be known) spread rapidly to other states. Then, in 1994, Republican Gov. Pete Wilson transformed his flagging reelection campaign by inflaming white anxiety about immigration in California. He launched a series of TV ads with the tag line “they keep coming,” a reference to people crossing the Mexican border looking for work in my state. Weaponizing white anxiety was something Donald Trump would borrow when he ran for president in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
To ramp up his 1994 gubernatorial campaign, Wilson endorsed the anti-immigrant Proposition 187, or “Save Our State” initiative. And Californians then indeed did reelect him, while passing the proposition, which outlawed the provision of any government services—including healthcare and education—to any undocumented immigrant. Government employees at any level were required to report anyone (including schoolchildren) they suspected of being in the country illegally. In language forebodingly similar to the rhetoric of both of Trump’s presidential campaigns and his two administrations, Proposition 187 began:
The People of California find and declare as follows:
That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal aliens in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.
What happens in California doesn’t always stay in California. As the Washington Post reported 25 years later, “Since 1994, 65 initiatives and referendums to change state immigration laws were attempted via direct democracy mechanisms.”
Almost immediately, federal courts prevented the implementation of most parts of Proposition 187. Three decades later, however, the Supreme Court has effectively validated Proposition 187’s premise, permitting the use of racial profiling to identify possible “illegal aliens.”
The right wing wasn’t done with legislating racism in my state. In 1996, Proposition 209, also known by the (completely unironic) ironic title its proponents gave it, the “California Civil Rights Initiative,” outlawed affirmative action at any level of government in the state, including access to public colleges and universities.
Though it faced legal challenges, Proposition 209 remains in force today. There’s no doubt that earlier Supreme Court decisions, including the 1978 finding in University of California v. Bakke, had indeed laid the groundwork for it. In it, a 30-year-old white man had challenged his rejection by the medical school at the University of California, Davis. He sued and was eventually admitted. In his case, the court upheld the principle of affirmative action to address racial or other discrimination against protected classes of persons, but outlawed specific numerical quotas.
By 2023, however, an ever more right-leaning Supreme Court had ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that affirmative action violates the equal protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. As we’ve seen repeatedly, the hard-won legal remedies for racism are now being turned against both the historic and present-day targets of racism.
Then, in 1998, another ballot initiative outlawed most bilingual education in California public schools (though it was finally repealed at the ballot box in 2016).
Disparate Impact
By 2003, however, in part because of changes to the demographic makeup of the electorate, California voters had had enough of legally weaponizing white anxiety. They roundly rejected Proposition 54, known as the “Racial Privacy Initiative,” which, as the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California put it, “would have banned most agencies from collecting data on race, ethnicity, and national origin, with disastrous consequences for health, education, public safety, and civil rights.”
But in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the right-wing strategists for a second Trump presidency made it very clear that their plans included implementing a national version of the Racial Privacy Initiative. The author of the section on labor advocated prohibiting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, from collecting employment data based on race. The mere existence of such data, he wrote, “can then be used to support a charge of discrimination under a disparate impact theory. This could lead to racial quotas to remedy alleged race discrimination.” In other words, if you can’t demonstrate racial discrimination in employment (because you’re enjoined from collecting data on the subject), then there’s no racial discrimination to remedy. Case closed, right?
I used to suggest to my philosophy students that you could view the last 2,000 years of “Western” history as a gradual widening of the circle of beings who count as full persons.
It seems that Donald Trump agrees. In April 2025, he issued an executive order entitled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.” In it, he noted that “disparate-impact liability all but requires individuals and businesses to consider race and engage in racial balancing to avoid potentially crippling legal liability.” Trump and his handlers don’t see taking systemic racism and contemporary bias into consideration as a solution to a problem. Such consideration is the problem. “It not only undermines our national values,” says the order, “but also runs contrary to equal protection under the law and, therefore, violates our Constitution.”
Whatever Trump may decree, current employment law (as implied in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, affirmed in 1970 by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., and codified in the 1991 Civil Rights Act passed under the presidency of George H.W. Bush) supports the use of disparate impact. As of now, plaintiffs can still seek to prove discrimination by demonstrating the disparate impact of a company’s “facially neutral” hiring, firing, or promotion policies. How long will it be, however, before this Supreme Court reverses decades of progress in equal employment?
We’ve already seen the “disparate impact” of Trump and his Department of Government Efficiency’s destruction of the federal workforce, which has disproportionately affected Blacks, and especially Black women. It’s a major factor explaining why 300,000 Black women have lost jobs since Trump took office.
If you have any doubt whether race (and sex) bias continues to exist at the highest levels in this administration, consider the words of a man Trump thought of as “sort of like a son,” the recently assassinated right-wing firebrand Charlie Kirk:
If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
And about a list of prominent Black women, including Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Kirk said: “You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”
Circling Backwards?
I used to suggest to my philosophy students that you could view the last 2,000 years of “Western” history as a gradual widening of the circle of beings who count as full persons. At first, that circle contained only high-born men. Centuries of struggle saw the inclusion of men without noble birth, and later without property. Racial concepts, themselves a human invention, long excluded men who were not deemed white. Eventually, fitfully, they, too, were admitted to the circle of personhood. Most recently, women seem to have become persons, and with that addition, people of a variety of genders and sexual orientations have also joined the circle.
But right now, six people on the Supreme Court, along with the Trump administration, are doing all they can to tighten that previously ever-widening circle of personhood and Donald Trump is on board in a big-time way. Let us hope that we can stop them from turning that circle into a noose.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Will John Roberts Be Remembered? As a Democracy Destroyer
It is unlikely that any Chief Justice in history played more of a role in destroying more of our nation’s democracy rules than this man.
Sep 15, 2025
Chief Justice John Roberts is smart and skilled. He will be remembered, however, as a historic failure.
This is not a claim to make lightly, but his record compels it, because Roberts’ legacy will be defined by two catastrophic roles he played.
First, Roberts has played the lead role in destroying indispensable rules of our democracy.
Second, Roberts has played the lead judicial role in serving as the handmaiden to President Trump’s efforts to turn our democracy into an autocracy. (This historic failure will be detailed next week in Part II).
Roberts’ role in destroying essential rules of our democracy
Chief Justice Roberts has taken the lead in writing a series of opinions that have destroyed essential rules governing our democracy. They deal with:
- The sacred right of every eligible citizen to vote.
- The integrity and honesty of the political system.
- The right of citizens to have an unrigged opportunity to choose their representatives.
- The idea that public officials should not be allowed to sell influence with their office.
- The foundational principle that no person is above the law.
The following opinions, written by Roberts and joined in all but one case only by the Republican-appointed majority on the Court, have done unprecedented harm to our democracy.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion for a 5–4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). It declared key sections of the landmarkVoting Rights Act of 1965, the most consequential voting rights law ever enacted, to be unconstitutional. The Act was reenacted periodically over decades until the Shelby County decision.
The Roberts opinion unleashed a wave of regressive and discriminatory voting changes by states and local jurisdictions that disadvantaged minority voters and impeded their voting rights and their ability to fully participate in the democratic process.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
Roberts wrote the majority opinion for a 5–4 decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014) which struck down the aggregate limit on all contributions by a donor in an election cycle, a provision previously held constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.
In Buckley, the Supreme Court had found that unlimited contributions given to support candidates were inherently corrupt. The McCutcheon decision, however, eviscerated the limits on individual contributions to candidates by unleashing billionaires, millionaires, and other big money donors to give unlimited, often huge, contributions to Super PACs to benefit specific candidates.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion for a 5–4 Court decision in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), in which the Court decided that it could not act on challenges to partisan redistricting plans. The decision claimed that the Court is incapable of establishing standards for determining when partisan maps become unconstitutional, no matter how extreme.
The Rucho decision means that there are no constitutional restrictions on partisan gerrymandering, no matter how rigged the plans are. The result is that politicians get to choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives.
Roberts wrote the unanimous opinion in McDonnell v. United States, (2016), which vacated the conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell for honest services fraud and extortion. In his opinion, Roberts said that McDonnell’s actions did not constitute “official acts” under the applicable laws, including the bribery law.
In its decision, the Court adopted a narrow, unrealistic construction of the term “official act” to exclude various acts of an officeholder that should be covered, even when those acts are done in direct exchange for gifts or other benefits. For all practical purposes, the Court has left the country without effective bribery laws to prevent public officials from selling their office for financial benefits.
Roberts wrote the opinion for a 6–3 majority in Trump v. United States (2024), which gave Trump presidential criminal immunity. The decision violated a guiding principle of our Founders that no person is above the law. The Roberts opinion placing Trump above the law and also giving him personal control of the Justice Department and FBI can be seen in such outrageous Trump pronouncements as the statement that he has “The right to do anything I want to. I’m the president of the United States,” and “I run the country and the world.”
It is unlikely that any Chief Justice in history played more of a role in destroying more of our nation’s democracy rules than Roberts. And that is how he will be remembered.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voting Still Matters, But Only If We Fix It
A 20-step blueprint for rebuilding the foundation of US democracy.
Sep 06, 2025
Recent voices insist that federal elections are meaningless, corrupted beyond repair, and no longer worth defending. Their evidence is grim: More than $5.5 billion was spent in the 2024 presidential race while Wisconsin’s legislature stayed locked by gerrymander regardless of the statewide vote. A Senate where about 588,000 in Wyoming cancel out 39.4 million in California. An Electoral College that twice in 25 years handed the White House to the loser of the popular vote. Voting restrictions crafted to suppress minorities. Federal courts that see partisan gerrymandering and refuse to act.
On the facts, they are right. On the conclusion, they are dangerously wrong.
To say elections no longer matter is to surrender the battlefield. It is to tell millions that nothing they do will change anything. That is exactly the message authoritarians want Americans to believe. If people stop fighting for elections, those elections will not be stolen. They will be abandoned.
At the signing of the Voting Rights Act, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared, “The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice.” Months earlier, on the road from Selma, Martin Luther King Jr. had proclaimed, “Voting is the foundation stone for political action.” One spoke from authority, the other from struggle. Yet they spoke of one shared truth. The vote is the cornerstone of freedom.
Our democracy is under strain. Its foundation unsettled, its cornerstone cracked by distortion and distrust. Yet it stands. It can be repaired.
What We Can Agree On
The failures often described are undeniable. Gerrymandered maps keep parties in power regardless of popular will. The Senate’s imbalance gives a permanent veto to sparsely populated states. The Electoral College warps presidential contests. Voting restrictions disenfranchise millions. Campaign finance turns federal races into billion-dollar spectacles. Even when majorities vote for change, legislatures rewrite the rules after the fact to strip power from those elected.
The result is predictable. Citizens see futility everywhere. Why vote if the outcome is predetermined? Why care if Congress’ approval rating was 15% in 2023, when 95% of incumbents still won reelection the following year? These questions cannot be ignored. They demand an answer that is better than surrender.
Where the Conclusion Goes Wrong
History shows what happens when people believe elections are meaningless. They disengage. And when they disengage, minority rule hardens into permanent rule. This is not theory. It is the story of every society where cynicism took the place of resistance.
Americans are not exempt. We too have often waited until crisis forced our hand. As Winston Churchill allegedly observed, you can count on Americans to do the right thing, but only after they have tried everything else. That is a weakness, but also a pattern. Delay does not mean defeat. In the end we have always found a way to repair what was broken.
Concerned citizens are right that federal elections have become distorted. They are wrong to say they cannot be repaired. Consider Poland. In 1989, Solidarity forced elections that dismantled one-party rule. In 2023, Polish voters once again removed an illiberal government at the ballot box. Chile’s 1988 plebiscite ended Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship. Serbia’s 2000 election, defended in the streets, forced Slobodan Milošević to step down. South Korea’s generals conceded to constitutional change in 1987, opening the door to real elections. These are not anomalies. They are proof that entrenched systems get broken when ballots are defended.
Lessons from Abroad
Other democracies once faced problems strikingly similar to our own. Britain, Canada, and Australia abolished partisan gerrymandering through independent commissions. Germany rebuilt its democracy with proportional representation and strict constitutional limits. France capped campaign spending to prevent billion-dollar elections. Most advanced democracies automatically register citizens to vote. Many hold elections on weekends or declare them national holidays to ensure participation. Dozens of countries restrict donations and enforce transparency that makes dark money impossible.
These reforms are not utopian dreams. They are daily realities elsewhere. They show that systemic flaws get corrected when citizens demand reform and refuse to accept a rigged game as permanent.
The Blueprint for Reform
Democracy cannot be rebuilt with slogans. It requires structure: foundations that carry weight, pillars that resist pressure, walls that shield citizens from abuse.
King warned against waiting for a more convenient season for change. “We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”
Now is the time to plan and to lay the foundation for that change. What follows are 20 pillars of reform. Each is a proven step in healthy democracies.
Pillar 1: Universal Voter Registration
Millions of eligible citizens are kept off the rolls by bureaucratic hurdles. Automatic registration would eliminate these barriers. Congress could update the National Voter Registration Act to require enrollment at age 18 using Department of Motor Vehicles, Social Security, and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, with strong privacy protections. Oregon and Colorado already run this system successfully. Registration should be a feature of citizenship, not an obstacle course.
Pillar 2: Preregistration at 16 and Civics Integration
Young voters often begin adulthood unregistered and disengaged. Preregistration ensures that turning 18 means being ready to vote. States can collect data at 16, activate it at 18, and pair the process with high school civics classes that teach how voting works in practice. Hawaii and Colorado already do this. A culture of participation starts in the classroom.
Pillar 3: National Voting Access Standards
Access to voting differs wildly by state. Some citizens enjoy weeks of early voting, others face closed polls and endless lines. A federal baseline would guarantee two weeks of early voting, secure drop boxes, no-excuse absentee ballots, and Election Day as a paid holiday. Congress has the constitutional authority to set these standards. Democracy should not depend on a ZIP code.
Pillar 4: Restoring the Voting Rights Act
The US Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County decision gutted preclearance and unleashed a wave of suppression laws. Without federal oversight, discrimination spreads unchecked. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore preclearance and force states to prove their laws are not discriminatory before enactment. History shows this works. Thousands of bad laws were blocked under the old system. We need that protection again.
Pillar 5: Independent Redistricting Commissions
Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their voters instead of the other way around. Independent commissions dismantle this scheme. States like Arizona, Michigan, and California already use commissions that draw fair maps with transparency and citizen input. Congress could require them nationwide for House districts. Abroad, countries like Canada treat neutral commissions as the democratic norm. We should too.
Pillar 6: Ranked-Choice Voting
Plurality elections reward division and spoilers. Ranked-choice voting (RCV) ensures winners have majority support. Voters rank candidates, and if no one wins outright, the lowest is eliminated and votes reallocated until someone secures a majority. Maine, Alaska, and dozens of cities already use it. RCV rewards broad appeal, reduces negative campaigning, and gives voters real choice.
Pillar 7: Proportional Representation
Winner-take-all districts exaggerate partisan dominance and silence millions. Proportional representation matches seats to actual votes. Congress could repeal the 1967 single-member district law and allow multi-member districts using proportional systems. Germany and New Zealand use hybrids that balance local representation with fairness. This reform opens space for independents and new voices while reducing polarization.
Pillar 8: Expanding the House of Representatives
The US House has been capped at 435 seats since 1910, while the population has more than tripled. Districts now average about 761,000 people, based on the 2020 Census. Expansion would reduce district size, bring representatives closer to constituents, and reduce Electoral College bias. Congress could adopt formulas like the cube-root rule, which would expand the House to 600-700 seats. In the last hundred years, Canada grew its House by over 50%. Germany by about 60%. Italy by nearly 20%. The US House has not moved at all.
Pillar 9: Small-Donor Public Financing
Money tilts politics toward the wealthy. Matching small donations with public funds shifts power back to citizens. A $50 gift could be matched 6 to 1, turning it into $350. New York City’s program has proven this model. Candidates who opt in agree to limits on large contributions. Public financing amplifies everyday voices and reduces dependence on billionaires and PACs.
Pillar 10: Dark-Money Transparency
Secret spending corrodes trust. Voters deserve to know who is paying for influence. Congress could require disclosure of major donors behind election ads, the IRS could tighten rules for nonprofits, and the Securities and Exchange Commission could require corporations to disclose political spending. California already maintains an online ad library. Sunlight is not optional. It is the minimum.
Pillar 11: A Constitutional Amendment on Money in Politics
Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United equated money with speech and gave corporations free rein to spend. Without an amendment, reforms remain vulnerable to judicial veto. An amendment authorizing “reasonable limits” would secure lasting change. Amendments are difficult but not impossible. The 26th, lowering the voting age, passed quickly once demand surged. A similar movement would reset the rules of political finance.
Pillar 12: Electoral College Reform
Twice in 25 years, the loser of the popular vote won the presidency. This undermines legitimacy. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact offers a realistic fix. States pledge to award their electors to the national popular-vote winner once the compact reaches 270 votes. The compact total is 209 electoral votes as of April 2024 (NCSL). Once enacted, every vote counts equally, and no state is ignored.
Pillar 13: Statehood for Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico
More than 4 million citizens in DC and Puerto Rico live under federal law without full representation. They pay taxes, serve in the military, and yet remain second-class. Congress could fix this with admission bills. For Puerto Rico, a binding referendum would confirm the people’s choice. Statehood is not a partisan gift. It is a recognition of citizenship.
Pillar 14: Senate Filibuster Reform
The filibuster allows 41 senators representing as little as 11% of the population to block laws supported by majorities. This is minority rule hiding behind procedure. At the start of a new Congress, the Senate could change its rules by simple majority. Carve outs for democracy and civil-rights laws, or a return to the “talking filibuster,” would restore accountability. Without reform, every other measure in this blueprint remains hostage.
Pillar 15: Restoring Voting Rights for Citizens with Felony Convictions
Roughly 4 million Americans could not vote due to felony convictions in 2024, disproportionately African Americans. This is the direct legacy of post-Reconstruction suppression. Congress could restore rights for federal elections upon release from prison, with states following suit. Maine and Vermont already allow incarcerated citizens to vote without disruption. Reenfranchisement strengthens reintegration and affirms that citizenship is not permanently stripped.
As King declared during the Selma march, “So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind, it is made up for me.”
Pillar 16: Professional, Nonpartisan Election Administration
Partisan control of elections erodes trust and invites abuse. States should establish independent boards with balanced membership and fixed terms. Congress could tie federal funds to adoption. Protecting election workers is equally critical, with legal penalties for harassment and security resources for threatened staff. Canada and India already run nonpartisan election commissions that command trust across divides. Administration must be neutral, or democracy will never be trusted.
Pillar 17: Paper Ballots and Risk-Limiting Audits
In an age of hacking and conspiracy, trust depends on evidence. Paper ballots provide a physical record that gets checked. Risk-limiting audits verify results before certification. Colorado already runs statewide audits successfully. Congress could require paper ballots nationwide and tie funds to compliance. This is not bureaucracy. It is proof. Without it, lies about stolen elections thrive.
Pillar 18: Anti-Subversion and Certification Safeguards
When local officials refuse to certify results, democracy hangs by a thread. The 2022 reform of the Electoral Count Reform Act helped at the federal level, but state rules remain vulnerable. States should set binding timelines, automatic court enforcement, and criminal penalties for willful refusal. Certification is a ministerial duty, not a political choice. This pillar locks the foundation against sabotage.
Pillar 19: Supreme Court and Ethics Reform
The court cannot remain above the law. Without binding ethics rules, recusal standards, and disclosure requirements, legitimacy collapses. Congress could pass a code of ethics and set staggered 18-year terms for justices. Expanding lower courts will reduce manipulation by partisan litigants. Other democracies enforce judicial standards. The United States must do no less. The court should protect democracy, not place it at risk.
Pillar 20: Strengthening Local News and Voter Information
Citizens need information. Yet local news is collapsing, leaving hundreds of counties in news deserts where disinformation thrives. States could fund independent civic-information consortia. Congress could provide tax credits for subscriptions and newsroom hiring. Nonprofits and libraries could publish voter guides. Switzerland and New Jersey already invest in public-interest media. Without informed citizens, no electoral system will function.
Critics’ Corner: Answering the Naysayers
And yes, there are alternative solutions. Every serious reform agenda will meet resistance. Some critics attack from cynicism, others from realism, and some from outright bad faith. Growth, discourse, and compromise are hallmarks of a strong democracy.
Bring them into the open and address them directly. Put them on the record and meet them with evidence.
“These are liberal fantasies.”
No. These reforms are not partisan dreams. They are basic democratic standards already working in red, purple, and blue states. Maine and Alaska use ranked-choice voting. Florida voters overwhelmingly approved rights restoration for people with felony convictions. Arizona voters created an independent redistricting commission. If these reforms were only “liberal,” they would never have passed in conservative states. They are about fairness, not ideology.
“You can’t reform until you’re in power, and you can’t get into power without reform.”
Yes, this is the chicken-and-egg problem. The answer is incremental and state-based change. Marriage equality, marijuana legalization, Medicaid expansion: Each began in a handful of states and spread until the national system had to adapt. Reform builds in layers, not in one stroke.
“We tried this before and it failed.”
It is true that campaign finance reform was gutted and the Voting Rights Act was weakened. But that is not proof that reform is futile. It is proof that stronger safeguards are needed. Failure is not a reason to give up. It is a reason to come back with better armor.
“The courts will strike it down anyway.”
Courts block progress, but courts are not immune to public legitimacy. When movements gain strength, courts bend rather than risk collapse. That is why judicial reform itself belongs in the blueprint: term limits, ethics codes, and lower-court expansion.
“America is unique. You can’t import foreign models.”
Yes, America is unique. But uniqueness is no excuse for dysfunction. Every advanced democracy has figured out how to prevent minority rule, gerrymandering, and billion-dollar elections. Ours will too.
“The people in power will never vote away their own power.”
They often do, when public pressure leaves them no choice. Incumbents in Maine fought ranked-choice voting, and they lost. Florida politicians resisted rights restoration, but 65% of voters demanded it. History is clear: Power yields when people force it to.
“Voters don’t care about this.”
Reform is not separate from people’s daily concerns. Gerrymandered legislatures block policies that majorities support, from wages to healthcare to climate action. Electoral reform is not abstract. It is the condition for getting anything else done.
“Too complicated. Ordinary people will never support it.”
The technical details are complex, but the principles are simple. Majority rule. One person, one vote. Transparency. Fairness. Citizens voted for ranked-choice ballots, independent commissions, and rights restoration because they understood the basic value, not because they mastered the math.
“This is too radical. It will never all pass.”
True. Not all at once. But reforms are cumulative. The civil rights movement did not win everything in a single bill. It won through steady pressure and incremental victories that reshaped the landscape. A blueprint is not a one-day project. It is a guide for decades.
“Polarization will remain even if reforms pass.”
Polarization is real, but bad rules intensify it. Gerrymandered districts reward extremism. Winner-take-all systems punish compromise. Fair rules do not erase division, but they blunt its sharpest edges.
“Liberals only want reform when they lose.”
False. Independent commissions, voting rights expansions, and redistricting reforms have passed with bipartisan coalitions and often in conservative states. The test is simple: If a party or movement opposes fair elections, it is admitting it cannot win in a fair fight.
“It is already too late.”
Authoritarians want nothing more than for you to believe that. History says otherwise. Franco ruled Spain for nearly four decades before democracy returned. South Korea’s generals held power for decades until protest cracked their hold. It is never too late unless people surrender.
The critics are not wrong about the difficulty. Reform will be hard. Entrenched interests will resist. Courts may obstruct. Cynicism will whisper that it is all impossible. But every democracy that has clawed its way back from authoritarian drift faced the same voices of defeat. And these are different, deadly, critical times that try men’s souls. And the prescription may need to be sweeping and comprehensive and great and radical.
The Real Choice
The design flaws are serious. In other countries similar strain has brought unrest and uncertainty. Here it calls for reinforcement, not retreat. The danger is not that elections no longer matter. The danger is believing they cannot. Despair cedes the field to those who want democracy to die quietly. History proves that elections topple dictatorships and open paths to reform. But only when people defend them and demand change.
Local elections matter, yes. They are vital. But abandoning federal reform is not an option. The presidency, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court shape the lives of every citizen. If we concede those arenas as theater, we concede the nation itself.
The Path Forward
The truth is stark. American democracy is rigged, tilted toward minority rule, and riddled with flaws that delegitimize outcomes. But stark is not hopeless. Other nations have faced crises as severe and rebuilt their democracies from the ground up. So will we.
The fight ahead is not about abandoning federal elections but transforming them. Automatic registration. Independent redistricting. Campaign finance reform. Proportional representation. Expanded access. Professional administration. Ethical courts. Informed citizens. These are not slogans. They are the pillars of a rebuilt democracy.
As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Silence is not an option. Nor is delay. King called it “the fierce urgency of now.” He reminded us that “this is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.”
That is the choice in front of us. To retreat into despair and let cynicism rot the foundation, or to rise and defend the ballot as the most powerful instrument of justice ever devised.
The question is no longer whether change is possible. The question is whether we will summon the will to fight for it. Whether we will defend the ballot or surrender it. Whether we will prove that democracy can be realized in this generation by acting, organizing, legislating, and refusing to give up.
Voting still matters. But only if we make it matter.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular