The Trump administration’s controversial removal of several inspectors general during the coronavirus pandemic signals a new front in its attack on oversight.
As state leaders try to expand programs that would provide child care, education, and other support for families with children, the politics of gerrymandering stand in their way.
States Should Embrace Vote by Mail and Early Voting To Protect Higher-Risk Populations From Coronavirus
By failing to adopt commonsense measures to fortify elections against the coronavirus pandemic, lawmakers put countless lives at risk.
In Expanding Vote by Mail, States Must Maintain In-Person Voting Options During the Coronavirus Pandemic
Although expanding vote by mail is critical, in-person options must be preserved to prevent disenfranchisement.
Elected officials must make it easier and safer to register and vote amid the pandemic.
Big reforms are necessary to protect public health, mitigate the risks of future outbreaks, and ensure the eventual recovery benefits most Americans.
In response to COVID-19, actions should be taken to protect elections and Americans’ right to vote.
States can receive federal funding to expand Medicaid eligibility, but gerrymandering keeps hundreds of thousands of people uninsured.
Donald Trump’s attacks on the legitimacy of America’s legal system are growing increasingly dangerous and brazen.
States could save lives by passing tougher gun laws, but gerrymandering keeps progress out of reach.
Putting an end to gerrymandering could lead to tougher gun legislation at the state level—and, as a result, safer communities.
A troubling trend suggests serious evidence of corruption at the Justice Department is going unexamined by its watchdog.
One year out from the 2020 election, American voters support a range of pragmatic government actions to expand health care access and reduce costs; increase taxation on the wealthy; help low-income families with basic living necessities; and check corporate power.
These fact sheets examine the lack of diversity in the federal judiciary.
The federal judiciary does not reflect the population that it serves, which has severe consequences for both the institution’s legitimacy and the parties who come before it.