Wisconsin voters this month approved a constitutional amendment banning the use of private grants to offset the cost of election operations, effectively guaranteeing that local administrators will be short-staffed and cash-strapped for the foreseeable future. The policy is a blow to democracy but a win for Republicans, who sought to restrict the use of outside money based on their own conspiracy theory that an influx of municipal grants disproportionately benefited Democrats in the 2020 election. This is dumb and untrue, which might matter if things like that still mattered. But they don’t, and that’s why 28 states now restrict the use of outside funding in elections, per Stateline.
Thank you for voting though. (Photo by Morry Gash/The Associated Press)
Those policies, all enacted in the last four years, remove a key funding stream for local election offices without providing a replacement. (The lone exception is Pennsylvania, which passed a compromise measure that banned private grants but also invested $45 million in local elections.) Only a handful of states allocate a portion of their budgets to municipal election officials, most of which goes toward general operations rather than major equipment upgrades or replacements. Some states use federal grants to offset costs, but others are leery of spending that money until they know for sure that more is coming. Usually, it isn’t. This year, Congress approved just $55 million in grant funding for local elections nationwide — roughly the cost of a single gubernatorial recall election in Los Angeles County.
“This is an unfunded federal mandate, the only part of our critical infrastructure that does not have sustained federal funding,” Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said in February during a meeting in D.C.
The uncertainty is untenable, according to Tammy Patrick, chief executive officer for programs at the National Association of Election Officials. Elections require consistent funding for things like equipment maintenance, security measures and adequate staffing levels, which are all key parts of providing a safe and efficient voting experience. None of this should really require explanation, particularly to the “election security” crowd. It shouldn’t require begging for cash, either, Patrick said.
“Ultimately and ideally, we wouldn’t need to run such a critical function of our democracy relying on volunteers or donations,” said Patrick, who is leading a national initiative to promote election funding. “Everyone wants our elections to be secure, accessible, legitimate. And in order to have that, we have to support our election administrators.”
Also seeking support. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)
This will, I’m sure, fall on the same deaf ears that ignore every other political alarm bell, including recent warnings that alarmist descriptions of immigration — particularly claims of a pending “invasion” from Mexico — are likely to spur racist violence. Republican candidates have largely ignored those concerns in favor of donning flak jackets and posing for photos in Texas border cities, where rates of violent crime tend to be lower than average and the ever-present threat of “invasion” has yet to materialize, the Ohio Capital Journal reported.
The rhetoric stems from the very real problems at the southern border, where patrol agents have been struggling for months to manage unprecedented numbers of undocumented migrants seeking to enter the country. That surge began with the expiration of COVID-era restrictions that had limited border crossings, even among asylum-seekers. Our broken immigration system was simply unable to handle the influx, which experts characterized as one piece of a broader asylum crisis affecting countries across the world. But there’s no inherent danger in the situation, because undocumented migrants are not inherently dangerous. Research has consistently shown that they are, in fact, less likely to commit crimes than Americans.
Those facts are inconvenient for Republicans, who decided months ago that 2024 would be the Year Of Campaigning On Immigration and have not, for the most part, deviated from that message. Among the faithful is Bernie Moreno, an Ohio Republican and U.S. Senate hopeful who once called for “commonsense” immigration reform but has since chugged whatever flavor of MAGA Kool-Aid turns you into a Donald Trump-endorsed clone of Donald Trump.
“No matter how badly the establishment media wants to claim otherwise to protect Joe Biden and [U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)], over 7 million illegals flooding into our country since 2021 is indeed an invasion,” Moreno said in an email. “Every crime committed by an illegal is a crime that should have never happened in the first place … It’s embarrassing how the media continues to twist President Trump’s statements about illegal immigration in an attempt to deflect from the damage Biden and Sherrod Brown have caused to our country with their open border policies.”
(The border is not open.)
When you find a photo of Jelly Roll and Sherrod Brown, you use the photo of Jelly Roll and Sherrod Brown. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
Brown has so far been loath to criticize that type of language — or even to respond to it. When asked if Brown agreed that the conditions at the border constitute an “invasion,” or if he was concerned that using the term could spur violence, a spokesperson skirted the question with dull, only-sort-of-relevant talking points.
“Sen. Brown is working with Republicans and Democrats to secure the southern border, stop fentanyl from coming into the country, and keep our country safe,” the spokesperson said. “Sen. Brown was a key backer of the bipartisan border security bill, which earned the endorsement of border agents and would have given law enforcement the tools and resources they need to finally secure the border.”
Yeah, that isn’t helpful, according to Lindsay Schubiner, program director at the anti-extremism Western States Center.
“As this dangerous rhetoric becomes increasingly normalized, it’s imperative our elected officials not feed into it,” she said. “Instead, they should use the power of their office to firmly reject it, whether it comes from white nationalists or their colleagues.”
Remember when Ron DeSantis ran for president? Yeah, me neither. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Not to be outdone (never to be outdone) Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday unleashed some falsehoods of his own, claiming that a proposal to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution was written to obscure its true purpose of “mandating” the procedure “up until the moment of birth,” the Florida Phoenix reported.
The remarks, delivered at an environmental press conference (because sure), came hours before Biden visited Tampa on a campaign swing that focused on the state’s six-week abortion ban. DeSantis had previously declined a request from the New York Times to comment on that visit but was happy to chat about it at a wetlands research center in Naples (because sure), where he proclaimed that Florida voters “are not buying what Joe Biden is selling,” by which I guess he meant “the proposed amendment.”
“Now, [Biden is] coming down to try to support a constitutional amendment that will mandate abortion up until the moment of birth, that will eliminate parental consent for minors and that’s written in a way that’s intentionally designed to deceive voters,” DeSantis said. “In November, we’re going to play an instrumental role in sending him back to Delaware where he belongs.”
All of which is nonsense, except maybe the part about belonging in Delaware. (Biden just … really loves Delaware.) As written, the proposed amendment would prohibit laws that restrict abortion “before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s health care provider.” It would not “mandate” abortion (what would that even mean?) at all, let alone “up until the moment of birth” (what would that even mean?). It would also explicitly not eliminate parental consent for minors, which would still be required under the legislature’s unchanged “constitutional authority,” per the proposal.
