More data from the 2012 election is in, and it’s tough to deny that the health of democracy and safety of your voting rights vary widely depending on where you live.
That finding comes through clearly in a new report from Nonprofit VOTE, a nonpartisan group that encourages nonprofits to engage voters. The report parses the latest data on the 2012 elections, and it should be required reading for the legion of state lawmakers considering changes to election laws this year.
When Barack Obama won a second term in the White House in November 2012, many observers concluded that new voting ID laws hadn't had much effect on turnout. After all, the election had swung in Democrats’ favor, and young and minority voters comprised a larger share of the electorate than four years earlier. So identification requirements aren’t the threat to voting rights that many feared, right?
When it comes to Election Day, Minnesota and Montana are very different animals. Despite its size, most of Minnesota’s increasingly diverse population resides in the state’s major cities, while three-quarters of Montana voters live in a county with fewer than 100,000 residents. And while Montana is solidly red in presidential elections, Minnesota hasn’t thrown its weight behind a Republican since Richard Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972.
The push for Same Day Registration has encountered a curious adversary in some states this year – county clerks.
The latest example is Utah, where the state Senate killed a SDR bill last week on an 18-10 vote. Under current state law, Utahans must register at least 15 days before an election if they want their ballot to be counted. Since many voters don’t tune in until the waning days of a campaign, arbitrary deadlines like this come as an unwelcome surprise to a lot of people who hope to participate in elections.
An influential state lawmaker in North Carolina is launching an effort to make it harder for his state’s citizens to vote. It’s a development that should trouble voters, especially because North Carolina’s election process has been improving lately.
An influential state lawmaker in North Carolina is launching an effort to make it harder for his state’s citizens to vote. It’s a development that should trouble voters, especially because North Carolina’s election process has been improving lately.
The National Voter Registration Act set the first ever national standards for mail-in registration and increased the number of places people could register to vote, including motor vehicle and public assistance offices.
Many people on public assistance do not know that it is federally mandated—under the National Voter Registration Act—that they receive the opportunity to register to vote every time they visit a public assistance agency.
The North Carolina legislature has had a remarkable session. In fact, the amount they have been able to accomplish is almost jaw-dropping—not because it was particularly productive but because it was so bold and unabashed it its attack on low and middle income families and basic elements of democracy. Among the legislative lowlights:
When Congress reconsiders the Voting Rights Act this session, they should consider the few pages of history conspicuously missing from Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion—an opinion that relies not only on bad logic but also bad history.
Forty eight years ago today President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed into law what would become the most effective civil rights provision in the history of the country: the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Back in June, that law was rolled back by a conservative Supreme Court majority who argued that the country had moved beyond discrimination in the voting process. This despite an election year rife with states introducing voter suppression legislation, which continues unabated, most recently in North Carolina.
Democracy North Carolina put together a one-page report that summarizes HB-589, the bill the General Assembly passed in late July despite the mass demonstrations outside the capitol that came to be known as Moral Mondays.
With today's big higher ed speech, it's becoming clearer what President Obama's most important legacy may be: He could be the guy who finally stopped runaways costs for two of life's biggest necessities: healthcare and higher education.
This would be a big deal, because -- quite apart from issues of access and fairness -- the United States is putting itself at a global disadvantage by squandering so many resources on grossly overpriced services in both sectors.
“More than half of education and related expenses at public universities is now paid for through tuition, up from about 35 percent in 2001,” wrote study author Robert Hiltonsmith, Demos’ senior policy analyst.
In essence, public universities are no longer public, he said: They have become de facto “subsidized private institutions.”
The nation’s yawning wealth gap is a major reason why minority students end up borrowing more for college. Structural racism has created disparities in home ownership rates, income and other wealth-building vehicles, providing minority borrowers with fewer resources to tap to pay for college, on average.
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson vowed that no student wishing to attend college would "be turned away because his family is poor."
Half a century later, a shift in the way college is funded and the declining fortunes of minorities and poor families since the recession have created a college-debt system that the left-leaning think tank Demos calls "deeply biased along class and racial lines."
Because college is increasingly financed by debt taken on by students, it's creating a system that's impacting differen
Most students go into debt to pay for college. And while no one wants to be in the red, a new report from left-leaning think tank Demos argues that the increasingly debt-financed higher education system in the United States is especially harmful to low-income, black and Latino kids.
