Page 13 – Democracy Fund

Blog

Key to Healthy Democracy: Modern, Secure Elections

Adam Ambrogi

September 28, 2017

Democracy Fund is proud to announce a new grant to the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT). With demonstrated expertise in data privacy and a deep understanding of the unique challenges of election administration, CDT is positioned to be critical bridge builder to help experts and policymakers better communicate, collaborate, and respond to threats to our election system.

Before I describe CDT’s voter registration and campaign data cybersecurity project, I’d like to offer a small window into our thinking about the importance of this line of work and how it supports Democracy Fund’s strategic priorities.

Voter Registration & the Increasing Challenges for Data Security

Increasing access to the Internet, the growing civic tech community, and improved technologies have paved a path for states to modernize voter registration systems. These modernization policies are appealing to many legislators and election experts who view them as a step toward cost-efficiency and an improved voter experience. For the last 15 years, states have been modernizing voter registration systems by offering online voter registration to citizens, facilitating collaboration between election officials and government offices covered under the National Voter Registration Act, and joining state-driven efforts like ERIC to keep voter rolls clean and identify eligible voters. As our systems map shows, these changes to registration systems help make voter lists more accurate, which leads to better election planning, and fewer problems experienced or perceived by voters on Election Day.

From an administrative perspective, modernizing voter registration improves the voter experience by allowing the voter to type in his or her own information into a database and streamlines the transfer of registration data between government agencies and elections departments. Registration data also helps political campaigns better understand the electorate and strategically reach out to potential voters. As these modernization policies are implemented in the states, election officials and other managers of election data have the enormous responsibility of maintaining these digital systems and protecting them from cyber-attacks—all while operating on limited budgets, preserving voting rights, and protecting individual privacy.

Election Integrity, Trust, and the 2016 Election

The tone and tenor of the 2016 presidential campaign raised our concerns about public trust in elections. While it is not unusual for the public to be concerned about possible voting fraud, the allegations from both presidential candidates that the election system was “rigged” or “hacked” in favor of a particular candidate or outcome felt atypical and worrisome. Irresponsible campaign rhetoric may have created (or reinforced pre-existing) misconceptions about the way elections are run. After the election was over and as fears about foreign interference in our elections were mounting, matters were further complicated by the NSA’s apparent documented evidence that the Russian government attempted to infiltrate voter registration systems in several states.

Calling into question the legitimacy of the election outcome without evidence of actual wrongdoing is harmful to the public’s faith in government and undermines our democracy. To reiterate: public concerns about election integrity are not unique to this past election cycle. However, public misconceptions about the way elections work and the real threats of foreign interference make the cybersecurity risks faced by campaigns and election officials even more significant. We must work toward sustainable solutions that give election officials and others the tools needed to protect the voices and votes of the American electorate.

Though difficult, it is not impossible to allay the public’s concerns. The increasing use of technology in election management makes the system more complex than ever before. It requires listeners to understand very technical administrative processes and makes it difficult for the news media to report about. However, election officials play a key role in shaping the public’s understanding of election process, and voters are very likely to listen. For these reasons, it is vital for stakeholders to balance the need to be responsive to public concerns with the needs of under-resourced election departments that could benefit from doable, sustainable best practice recommendations from the cybersecurity and civic tech communities.

Why We Invested

At Democracy Fund, we believe that every eligible American should have an equal opportunity to vote in elections that are free, fair, accessible, and secure. A healthy democracy requires election administrators and other government officials provide voters with confidence in the integrity of election outcomes and assurance that they have a voice in our democracy. Data-driven policies and new technologies can help reduce barriers to voting and improve the efficiency and security of our election system.

Based on analysis captured in our Election Administration & Voting System map, Democracy Fund invests in organizations and projects that are focused on expanding modern and secure voter registration systems; supporting voter-centric practices and tools in election administration to improve the voter experience; and fostering the public’s trust in elections by supporting a system that’s worthy of their trust.

We invested in the Center for Democracy and Technology because technology experts and election professionals need a reliable and trusted cybersecurity resource. With our support, CDT will:

Conduct a 2-year research effort to identify opportunities and challenges with cybersecurity in state election offices and national political campaigns;
Generate a set of best practices for election officials and the public; and
Distribute “campaign data hygiene” recommendations for all political parties.
Convene experts and stakeholders to learn from each other and co-create solutions to election security challenges.

You can learn more about these efforts in CDT’s press release announcing our grant and the project.

Political professionals should be able to keep discussions about campaign strategy internal; election officials should have the tools necessary to combat any type of outside interference; and voters should feel confident that our elections result in legitimate outcomes. We believe Joe Lorenzo Hall and the CDT team will fortify the field with research that deepens our shared understanding, create opportunities for learning and collaboration, and equip election officials and the managers of voter data with the solutions they need to protect voters and encourage participation in future elections.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Five Nonpartisan Ways Religious Leaders Can Support the 2020 Election

Chris Crawford

September 4, 2020

This November, the United States will hold an election amidst a pandemic that has claimed over 180,000 American lives. Religious leaders can play a crucial role in ensuring a safe, accessible, smoothly-run election.

There are over 380,000 houses of worship in the United States and 228,000 religious nonprofits. Religious leaders are some of the most trusted leaders in their communities because of their ability to stay above the partisan fray. Throughout American history, religious communities have stepped up to protect access to voting, to care for our communities in the face of illnesses, and to bring people together. This year they can play a crucial role in ensuring an accessible election where every eligible voter can participate safely, in providing accurate information and resources about the election, and set an example on how to come together across differences.

Below are five nonpartisan, nonpolitical actions religious communities can take to support our democracy this fall.

1. Promote Working at the Polls this November

Our polling locations have relied on the service of older Americans, most of whom cannot work this fall because of the dangers of COVID-19. As our election system faces a shortage of poll workers, the enormous civic contributions of religious communities can be put toward preserving safe, accessible voting this fall.

In most states, poll workers are paid for their service. For religious community members who are out of work, serving as poll workers is a way to make money in these challenging economic times.

Take action: Encourage community members to sign up for Power the Polls. This organization makes it easy to sign up, and they have signed up over 300,000 people to date. Your denomination or house of worship can go further and become an official partner here.

2. Be a source of truthful information

Religious institutions are sources of trusted information in our communities. In a complicated election, they can step up in a sea of confusion and disinformation.

Take action: Promote and partner with National Voter Registration Day to register your members and Vote Early Day so members know how to cast their ballots before Election Day. Post links to “Election 411” or The National Association of Secretaries of State’s “Can I Vote?” guide fors easy access to accurate up-to-date information so they can:

Check voter registration status;
Find their polling location;
Request an absentee or mail-in ballot; and
Keep up with changing information related to the election.

Religious leaders should encourage their congregations to ease the burden on our election systems by requesting and returning ballots as early as they can, taking advantage of early voting opportunities, and make a plan to vote.

Many religious organizations distribute voter guides to their membership. These guides should incorporate nonpartisan information on how to vote in this year’s election.

3. Feed the hungry – people waiting in long lines to vote

Feeding people who are in need is a central tenet of many American religions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, religious communities have stepped up to provide food in their communities. On Election Day, some precincts will face long enough lines that people will be tempted to leave. Religious communities can take on the call to feed the hungry in a new way: providing food and water to people waiting in line to vote.

Take action: Raise funds for Pizza to the Polls, one of most efficient ways to provide food to people waiting in long lines at the polls. Talk to your local election officials about how your religious community can provide food and water for people at the polls, being sure to follow all local election laws.

4. Offer space as an early voting or Election Day polling location

No matter how much absentee voting is expanded, our communities will continue to need in-person polling locations on Election Day. Polling locations need to be ADA-compliant, large enough for voters to maintain social distancing, and able to meet the sanitation requirements set by local officials. Houses of worship often meet the standards for a polling place. While some local governments only allow government buildings to serve as polling locations, houses of worship can offer their space as a polling location in many others.

Take action: Call your local election officials to offer your space as a polling location. Read about how AME churches in Georgia are stepping up to serve as polling locations.

5. Model ways to overcome divisions in a polarized country

Public polling shows shocking levels of polarization in the United States. Religious communities are often made up of people from different backgrounds and political ideologies who still come together to take part in their religious rituals. Religious communities can be a model for how our country can come together across our differences and maintain support for our civil institutions no matter who wins the election.

Take Action: Learn more about how to build bridges and promote belonging:

The Better Arguments Project helps communities and organizations to bridge divides – not by papering over those divides but by helping Americans have “better arguments”.
One America Movement equips leaders with the skills to confront the challenges facing their communities by working together and engaging differences meaningfully.
Northern Virginia Hebrew Congregation’s “Rebuilding Democracy” project provides an example of how religious communities can promote democratic ideals through their own rrituals and traditions.
Read these two excellent reports that describe how Christians can contribute to our democracy: Christianity and a Healthy Democracy by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Christianity, Pluralism, and Public Life by The Trinity Forum.

Meeting this Challenge

Religious leaders and their communities can play a crucial role in meeting the unprecedented challenges we face in this election. All of the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans — including our religious freedom — depend on the integrity of our elections. Americans of all faiths and of no faith at all have a stake in ensuring safe, accessible voting and a strong system to receive and count those votes.

Back to Ideas

Blog

New Report Shows Ways Funders Can Engage Christian Leaders to Promote Pluralism

Chris Crawford

April 10, 2020

As Christians prepare to celebrate Easter, they are facing a challenging environment in which church doors will be closed and families will be gathered over FaceTime and Zoom rather than in person. Some families have loved ones suffering from the novel coronavirus — and thousands are mourning a loss of someone they love.

But no matter the obstacles, faith leaders play an important role in strengthening community connections — not just within their own congregations, but within the wider world.

For the past three years, Democracy Fund’s Faith in Democracy initiative has engaged with and empowered faith leaders around building bridges, overcoming polarization, and promoting pluralism. As we have listened to leaders at the intersection of faith and politics, we have consistently heard that Christians in the United States have an opportunity to lead our country toward a future in which everyone feels like they belong. Making up roughly 70 percent of the population, Christian leaders and their organizations can often play a harmful role in driving polarization in our country, but they also have an opportunity to play an important role in efforts to overcome those divisions.

At Democracy Fund, we wanted to understand more: where do common ground and aligned visions exist when it comes to engaging in politics through the lens of faith? Where do divisions persist? Most importantly, we wanted to know how we and our partners could support Christian leaders to make pluralism a priority in their ministries and in the ways they engage in public life.

Trinity Forum fellow Michael Wear and Wheaton College Professor Dr. Amy Black have conducted significant research around these questions. On February 24th, Trinity Forum released their report, “Christianity, Pluralism, and Public Life in the United States: Insights from Christian Leaders,” with financial support from Democracy Fund. Wear and Black interviewed a diverse group of more than 50 Christian leaders from across denominational, racial, and political lines about how they engage with our public institutions, and their views on the topic of pluralism.

In addition to providing a framework for religious leaders to engage in politics, the report also sheds light on how philanthropy and our civic institutions can empower Christian leaders to achieve the shared goal of a stronger, more pluralistic democracy.

The Mutual Benefits of Promoting Pluralism

While there are deep disagreements among Christians themselves in the United States — from theology to political leanings and policy stances — Wear and Black “were somewhat surprised to find such commonality” as it relates to pluralism and bridge-building.

They found that Christians have a shared moral language and vocabulary that span across denominations and perspectives. This framework as well as the way their houses of worship are rooted in their communities means that Christian leaders are in a unique position to conduct bridge building work at the local level. According to the report:

“One of the most resounding themes…was the importance of working at the local level. Although local communities are not immune from some of the negative effects of polarization, direct service and grassroots activism provide opportunities to work across political, racial, socio-economic, religious, and other differences.”

Funders have an opportunity to identify effective models of local bridge-building in Christian communities, invest in their long-term development, and use lessons learned to scale them across the country.

We are used to thinking about the ways in which religious pluralism can serve as a bedrock for better civic engagement, greater social cohesion, or desirable policy outcomes. While interviewees shared this sentiment, they also expressed something else: religious pluralism strengthens individual faith communities in their own right. Rather than supporting religious pluralism simply as a framework for policy advocacy or their own religious freedom, these leaders said that religious pluralism actually strengthens the practices of their individual faith communities. In other words, when individual Christian denominations seek to understand their neighbors from different faith traditions, they grow stronger in the knowledge and practice of their own faith.

This finding creates an important opportunity for both religious and nonreligious funders: investing in religious pluralism simultaneously strengthens our democratic institutions, creates a greater sense of belonging in our communities, and strengthens individual faith traditions.

Opportunities for Funders

With their report, Michael Wear and Amy Black have created a compelling framework for the ways in which Christian leaders, institutions — and funders — can strengthen American pluralism. Funders without a religious mandate often shy away from investing within specific faith traditions. But at Democracy Fund, we have learned that one of the best ways to support pluralism and belonging — which are critical to our democracy — is to invest in credible, influential faith leaders who can make the case for pluralism through values and language that resonate with their denominations. This report confirms that this leadership exists in America, and we know from experience that their efforts are under-resourced.

In 2020, faith leaders can play a crucial role in protecting our civic institutions when it is needed most — and funders should seize the opportunity to engage with faith-based communities to protect our democracy. Together, we can empower faith leaders to build stronger communities and a more inclusive America.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Pursuing Diversity and Representation Among Local Election Officials

Paul Gronke, Paul Manson, Jay Lee, and Heather Creek

May 20, 2021

Part of “Stewards of Democracy,” a series on findings from the 2020 Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials

With growing recognition of the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion, organizations across many economic and government sectors have been re-examining the makeup of their teams. Diversity has known benefits to decision making and innovation, and in the administration of a representative government, it is arguably essential to carrying out the values of, as well as building trust and engagement in, a diverse constituency. The representative bureaucracy model, for example, argues that with diversity in the workplace, the public is better represented in administrative decisions. As the American population becomes increasingly multiracial and multiethnic, a governmental discipline whose workforce does not reflect the country’s diversity may indicate that it is constrained for some reason in its appeal or its recruitment pipeline. Related, a lack of diversity in an area of public service raises ethical concerns about whether all Americans have genuine access to that office.

In this post, we present information on diversity in the local election community, focusing primarily on the demographic categories of gender and race/ethnicity. It will surprise few familiar with this community to learn that the average local election official is white and female and that this description has not changed in some time. We suggest some possible explanations for this enduring demographic profile and also spotlight some of the nuances of a complex election system that could challenge efforts to increase its diversity. To take just one example, over half of local election officials are elected to their positions, as are other local officials, so candidate recruitment and voter choice also shape these demographics. Some jurisdictions require that candidates for this role reside in the local area, further limiting the pool of potential candidates.

Finally, there is an important caveat to our findings. Our survey focuses on the single official in charge of election administration within each jurisdiction. We know nothing about the composition of their staffs, which may be more diverse and may, in medium and larger offices, be the public’s main point of contact. From other research, we know a bit more about the racial makeup of poll workers, and that having more poll workers of the same races as voters can improve voter confidence. Interactions with staff and volunteers in the election process who better reflect local diversity may reduce some concerns about representation and enhance legitimacy and confidence.

There is much more to learn. In the final section of this post, we identify some outstanding questions about staff, mobility, and recruitment as important research areas for the future.

A Little-Changing Demographic Makeup

Who are the professionals doing the day-to-day work of running American elections? As we touched on in a preceding post, local election officials are not a population that mirrors the American public. The average local election official is far more likely to be white, a woman, and over age 50 than the general public, or even the voting-eligible public, which skews whiter and older.

The 2020 Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials found that almost 75 percent of these officials are over age 50, 80 percent are women, and over 90 percent are white (and non-Hispanic). Almost half had a college degree or even further education, and 44 percent identified as Republican — compared to 33 percent who identified as Democrat and 22 percent who described themselves as Independent (among the 72 percent of respondents who shared any party identification). Only 45 percent make more than $50,000 a year, and 60 percent are elected to their positions.

Before diving into this post’s exploration of gender and race/ethnicity diversity in particular, it’s helpful to understand the demographic stability among local election officials over the past 15 years, as well as a few areas where we see changes.

To do this, we look to three years of our own survey data and that of three surveys from the mid-2000s conducted by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). While changes observed over time can provide important information about developments in the community of local election officials, we warn against overinterpreting small changes in consecutive surveys, which may be due to sampling variability rather than to actual demographic shifts.

With this in mind, we see notable patterns since 2004. First, there is almost no movement in the racial diversity of chief local election officials. With the exception of our survey in 2020, all other mentioned surveys found that about 95 percent of officials were white. There is also minimal change in the proportion who are elected to their position, female, and Republican (or conservative, in the CRS surveys).

The patterns of race and partisanship are in part explained by the decentralized and federalized nature of election administration and the jurisdictions where local election officials come from. While local election officials as a collective do not reflect the diversity of our nation as a whole, they do tend to be more representative of their jurisdictions.

Where we do see notable changes are in age, education levels, and pay rates. In 2020, 74 percent of local election officials are over age 50, compared to 62 percent in 2008. In 2020 dollars, over 60 percent of local election officials were earning more than $50,000 in 2008 compared to just 45 percent now; apparently, their salaries have not kept pace with inflation. Finally, formal education is on the rise. Half of local election officials in our most recent survey reported having a college degree, compared to only 40 percent in 2004.

The race and partisanship of local election officials changed little over six years of surveys

Demographic	2004	2006	2008	2018	2019	2020
Female	75%	77%	76%	85%	83%	81%
White and non-Hispanic	94%	95%	94%	95%	94%	90%
College	40%	41%	44%	46%	51%	50%
$50,000 or more^*	53%	61%	63%	43%	46%	45%
50 or older	63%	62%	62%	77%	74%	74%
Republican^†	51%	47%	44%	—	43%	44%
Elected	65%	58%	53%	—	58%	57%

^*CRS surveys reported salaries greater than $40,000. Due to inflation, $40,000 in 2006 is approximately $50,000 in 2019.

^†CRS surveys reported whether respondents considered themselves to have a conservative ideology, rather than asking about a partisan identification.

Women and Local Election Administration

When we look across the entire U.S. political landscape, we find durable patterns of under-representation of women in public roles. Recent research shows that women currently hold 27 percent of U.S. Congressional seats, 31 percent of state legislature seats, and 30 percent of statewide elected offices, and only 32 of the 100 largest U.S. cities have women serving as mayor. According to 2019 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data, only 42 percent of county or local officials and administrators are women.

Yet, among local election officials, over 80 percent are women. Why do we see such a different gender composition of local election officials, more than half of whom are elected to their posts, compared to other elected and appointed office holders? There are at least three possible explanations.

First, election work may be filtered by gender in ways similar to other offices in government. For example, a national survey of municipal clerks found an even higher proportion of female clerks (90 percent) than we found in our survey of local election officials. Meanwhile, women make up only 1 percent of sheriffs in the U.S. Even district school boards, which are often perceived as more aligned with women’s interests, have just 44 percent of their seats held by women. Election administration has increasingly become a complex administrative occupation with a diverse skill set. But elections work may have been traditionally viewed as a more clerical role, particularly the registration component. Women may have been directed toward or been more willing to accept positions in election administration. We also note that, historically, some of the more important roles in the conduct and adjudication of elections has been assigned to roles dominated by men, such as sheriff or judge. These patterns may account for the historical and current gender balance of the profession.

A second possibility is a gatekeeping effect among local party leaders combined with the structures that help candidates win elections. In this scenario, women would be differentially allowed “through the gate” to run as local election officials, possibly because elections work is unlikely to translate into higher office. As a potentially related point of reference, our survey asked local election officials if they have an interest in running for elected office (different from their current role, if elected). Overall, only 11 percent indicated they were interested, a number that drops to 9 percent among only female respondents. We lack good comparative data on other local elected offices to conclude that these totals are high or low and whether gatekeeping is going on.

Third, elections work may be sought out by women and less so by men for some reason. It could be that elections administration, especially in smaller offices, offers flexibility that supports a better balance between work and responsibilities at home, which other studies report still fall disproportionally to women in American society. While this may seem to be a surprising notion to local election officials who have just completed an incredibly time-consuming election year, women who responded to our survey were somewhat more likely than men to say that they can balance work and home priorities. Of note, women in larger offices were more likely to tell us that work-life balance was a problem than were women in smaller offices. What we are seeing in these findings may not be a preference among women, but rather a signal that they are more often forced to balance priorities because of fewer career options or cultural norms and expectations.

Gender Differences by Jurisdiction Size

The responsibilities of a local election official vary greatly by the size of the jurisdiction, and not surprisingly, so does the “average” local election official. Those in larger jurisdictions are significantly more likely to be men, non-white, college educated, paid more than $50,000 a year, Democrats or Independents, and appointed to their positions than those in smaller jurisdictions.

Local election officials in larger jurisdictions are more likely to be male, less likely to be white

		Jurisdiction by number of voters
Demographic	Overall	0 to 5,000	5,001 to 25,000	25,001 to 100,000	100,001 to 250,000	>250,000
Female	81%	84%	85%	69%	65%	47%
White and non–Hispanic	90%	90%	91%	89%	93%	80%
College	50%	43%	55%	58%	77%	82%
$50,000 or more	45%	23%	69%	80%	98%	95%
50 or older	74%	77%	70%	66%	68%	61%
Republican	44%	44%	50%	42%	30%	17%
Elected	57%	64%	54%	36%	32%	18%

Being the chief elections officer in a larger jurisdiction often has more prestige. It often requires more steps up the ladder or winning what is likely a more competitive and expensive election — all of which may influence the gender of those chosen or self-selecting for such a position. Large-jurisdiction positions are also more likely to involve stresses that challenge work-life balance. Indeed, local officials serving in larger jurisdictions were less positive on the question of balancing work and home priorities.

We see that female local election officials also, on average, earn less than their male counterparts, but these averages may be driven at least in part by jurisdiction characteristics. That is to say, the observed pay differences between men and women may be a function of differential pay by jurisdiction size combined with men’s greater likelihood to serve in larger, better-paying jurisdictions.

Despite this disparity, a majority of local election officials, male and female, told us that they were satisfied with their pay. Women were slightly more likely to raise concerns about pay, but not markedly so.

Women are over-represented overall in our data — and in any survey of local election officials — primarily because of the number of small jurisdictions. It may be that women find the role attractive in these smaller jurisdictions because it is more likely to be part time, supporting work-life balance. It may also be that the nature of the work in a small jurisdiction is perceived to be more appropriate for women through the lens of traditional gender roles, as misguided and outdated as these perceptions may be. Perceptions that operate within thousands of counties and municipalities nationwide would have a powerful effect.

This brings us to a concern: If work-life balance is a key factor in women’s participation as local election officials, threats to that balance could cause a shift in gender composition. The 2020 election created some cracks in the veneer of job satisfaction. If this continues, the cost/benefit calculation could shift, and so could the demographics of the local election community.

“I would recommend [becoming a local election official to others] … I think as long as you have a good understanding of what you’re heading, and what you’re in for, and you have a plan for that, you can have a life balance with family and friends and work. You need to have a plan for that. Then yeah, I would still recommend it.”

– LOCAL ELECTION OFFICIAL, OCTOBER 2020

Race, Ethnicity, and Representative Bureaucracy

Next we explore racial and ethnic under-representation. Approximately 90 percent of local election officials are white and non-Hispanic. That is substantially more than the proportion of white, non-Hispanic people within the U.S. citizen voting age population, according to data from the 2020 Congressional Election Survey (CES). This difference persists even when we compare local election officials to other state and local officials and administrators. Just under 78 percent of state and local officials and administrators across the country are white according to 2019 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data.

Local election officials are disproportionately white when compared to the general population

Demographic	Proportion of local election official population	Proportion of U.S. public (CES, 18+)
Female	81%	52%
White and non-Hispanic	90%	69%
College	50%	41%
$50,000 or more	45%	51% (family)
50 or older	74%	49%
Republican	44%	40%
Elected	57%	—

Drawing any conclusions about the reasons for these patterns is a challenge for our study because there are so few non-white respondents in our survey. In the subsequent figures, we have pooled the three years of the Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election Officials so as to make some comparisons. We also use “white” to refer to the white and non-Hispanic population.

As a first cut, it’s important to recognize that a vast majority (70 percent) of local election jurisdictions have a citizen voting-age population that is over 90 percent white, according to the most recent American Community Survey. Three-quarters of the smallest jurisdictions have voting age populations that are 93 percent or more white, while 50 percent of the largest jurisdiction have populations that are 65 percent or less white. As a point of comparison, the citizen voting age population in the United States overall is 68 percent white.

The reason these numbers come out the way they do is that non-white voters in the United States are relatively concentrated in metropolitan areas and certain states and regions. To illustrate how this works, we randomly selected one voter from each jurisdiction to be a local election official. The result was that our hypothetical workforce of local election officials was still 88 percent white — nearly the same as the 90 percent that we observed in our survey.

The federalized and decentralized nature of election administration (and many other governmental functions) combined with some jurisdictions’ requirements that election official candidates be local residents creates a structural barrier to a more diverse and nationally representative population of local election officials. Efforts to diversify this field may require extra emphasis on recruiting job applicants for staff positions, leadership positions, and candidates from outside the jurisdiction. What we don’t know — and where we think more research is necessary — is how these structural barriers impact local government more generally, and whether and how some local governmental agencies have overcome these barriers.

If we flip our lens and look from the perspective of voters, the situation appears a bit different. Our survey, combined with Census data, shows that non-white voters are somewhat more likely to be served by non-white local election officials.

The majority of white local election officials serve predominantly white jurisdictions. Black local election officials serve a much more racially and ethnically diverse population. Because of small numbers, we combined local election officials in other racial categories (including Native American, Asian American, and Hawaiian or Pacific Islander) and find they too serve a more diverse population. The starkest under-representation in our data is among Hispanic local election officials: We find so few that we are unable to compare these officials with jurisdiction populations.

The size of the jurisdiction once again appears to drive much of these dynamics. Smaller jurisdictions are less likely to have significant populations of non-white voters — and are also more likely to be served by white local election officials.

The overall population of local election officials is significantly more racially homogenous than the voting age population, but local election officials who are not white do serve more diverse populations. Here our survey sheds further light: When we asked if election officials “should work to reduce demographic disparities in voter turnout,” 80 percent to 90 percent of non-white local election officials responded in the affirmative — almost twice as high as white local election officials asked the same question.

For Further Research

As we have described, understanding diversity and enhancing representation among local election officials and their staffs is a complex undertaking. There are many potential reasons for the findings we report here, and further research is needed to reveal complexities and patterns more completely, to understand the reasons behind them, and identify productive steps. We look forward to engaging the practitioner and research community on these questions in the months and years ahead.

We are limited in our ability to investigate some of the potential reasons for the gender and racial disparities we found due to the limited number of officials who are non-white overall and across jurisdiction size categories, but more broadly, due to the inherent limits of survey sampling for a population of 8,000 officials spread across states, counties, and townships and municipalities. Qualitative research involving focus groups and in-depth interviews may be necessary to probe how current officials, those who appoint them, and even those who vote for them, think about the role of a local election official as compared to other local offices.

One complexity we confront in this post is whether or not the overrepresentation of women in local election administration is a good thing, given the traditional underrepresentation of women in positions of power, especially in elective offices, or whether it indicates that women are being channeled to an area of local governmental work that has been historically undervalued and underfunded. Our suspicions, based on our data and other patterns of gender representation in local government more broadly, is that both are somewhat true. There is some evidence that job mobility is lower for women than for men in the election community. Among the local election officials we surveyed who serve in jurisdictions with greater than 100,000 registered voters, 45 percent of men said they have worked in another election jurisdiction, while only 20 percent of women answer similarly. Overall, 18 percent of men say they have worked in more than one jurisdiction versus 13 percent of women. It remains important for further research to explore if these differences result from barriers to upward mobility, filtering by gender, or other factors.

Also with respect to gender, we believe future research should focus on understanding the personal experiences and pathways for local election officials across their careers. While our study is informed by various theories on why women are over-represented in this field, interviews and discussions with local election officials could better explore the dynamics that result in a role overwhelmingly served by women. Turning to race and ethnicity, as noted, our research is focused on the person holding the chief local election official position. While the individual in this role can be influential, we also know that the race and ethnicity of the rest of a local government office staff matter. Further research on the composition of local election office staff and volunteers could better detail the diversity and inclusion of these offices, as well as voter experience.

We were able to show that non-white officials are more likely to be serving in communities with higher percentages of non-white voters, but the still-high level of homogeneity indicates that the elections community, especially in smaller jurisdictions, has too narrow of a recruitment pipeline. Describing the career pipeline, highlighting successful efforts that have been made in expanding recruitment pools, and understanding who constitutes the pool of staff and elections officials of the future are all fertile areas for research.

If the elections community seeks strategies for encouraging diversity in its ranks, it will need to wrestle with the multiple paths that people take to assuming this role. A heavy reliance on elections as a selection method in the smallest jurisdictions puts a damper on hiring-based methods for promoting diversity in a profession, and efforts to bolster diversity may require coordination with former elected positions and political parties (if the races are partisan).

Efforts to expand and diversify the pipeline for service in local election administration will need to take into account substantial structural barriers due to the federalized and decentralized nature of American election administration and the significant gaps in pay, prestige, budgets, and administrative powers between small and large jurisdictions. We know from conversations with officials that state recruitment rules or residency requirements may be one barrier. But we do not know the steps local election offices take to broaden their recruitment for all positions, and if diversity and inclusion is something they focus on in these hiring practices. Related, larger jurisdictions are well positioned to hire an internal candidate like a deputy director who has been “training up” through the department for several years, or to run nationwide recruitment searches for new officials. Still, the vast majority of jurisdictions are not running national-scale job searches for an open position.

In a previous post, we more deeply discussed the age of local election officials, which is another important aspect of their demographic makeup. These professionals are older as a group than they were even 15 years ago, while at the same time being better educated yet earning comparatively less. Age and pay satisfaction are two things that can cause local election officials to leave the profession. How do decreases in compensation, especially in combination with the increase in qualifications that we also see, affect who sticks with the job or moves on? What is, in fact, the “normal” rate of retirement of officials after a presidential election, and how does the rate of retirement in 2020 compare? Further research pursuing these questions will fuel a robust dialogue about what the future of local election administration should look like in the United States.

There is much yet to learn about how recruitment and advancement in election administration helps or hinders diversity. Our 2020 survey findings point to challenges here, as well as potential opportunities. This is just the beginning of the data-driven story, and we hope to see future research engage these questions.

The authors wish to thank Bridgett A. King, associate professor of political science at Auburn University, for her feedback on this research.

Back to Ideas

Blog

How journalism funders can move past the pipeline myth

Areeba Shah

September 2, 2021

Table of Contents
Intro
Pipeline Myth
Newsroom Culture
Power Building

Journalists of color make up less than 17 percent of newsroom staff, and account for just 13 percent of newsroom leadership. Why are these numbers still so low? And what is our responsibility as funders?

As we’ve said before, there are serious inequities that need to be addressed to create a culture of journalism that helps people meaningfully participate in our democracy. One of the most persistent is this lack of diversity in newsrooms. This is a problem because newsrooms that do not reflect their communities are not able to serve their communities. Full stop.

So what’s going on? The leadership of majority-white newsrooms still latches onto the myth that there’s a pipeline problem — blaming the lack of diversity on a lack of job candidates. But past research has shown that graduates of color are hired by newsrooms at lower rates than their white counterparts, while a recent survey shows a disturbing trend of mostly mid-career, Black women exiting the industry. Namely, the candidates are there, but newsroom leadership is failing to hire and retain them. Let’s dig into why this pipeline myth is so persistently harmful, what’s really happening, and what funders can do.

A look under the hood of the pipeline myth

Basically, what’s happening is that some newsroom leaders are relying on exclusionary recruiting efforts, such as:

Prioritizing applicants from elite journalism schools that are often alienating institutions themselves
Trying to attract talent via unpaid internships that are prohibitive for professionals from low-income backgrounds
Calling on their existing networks that reflect and replicate the same inequities

When instead they could be lifting barriers by:

Looking beyond top-ranked journalism schools (or even college degrees!)
Shifting recruiting efforts to focus on the talent found inside groups like the Asian American Journalists Association, National Association of Black Journalists, National Association of Hispanic Journalists, National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, Native American Journalists Association, South Asian Journalists Association – by building authentic relationships, not just reaching out when newsrooms want to circulate a job posting.
Hacking the hiring process.

But the real myth of the “pipeline problem” is that diversifying newsrooms is all about hiring. It’s not. It’s also about building an inclusive culture that supports the growth and leadership of journalists from all backgrounds.

The deeper issue: newsroom culture

For years, journalists of color have been sounding the alarm on an industry that consistently undermines their lived experiences, excludes them from leadership roles, and pushes them out when they dare to push back.

Last summer, when Black reporters spoke up about the emotional trauma of covering the killings of Black men and women, editors responded by disqualifying them from being objective. They failed to provide them with the support that covering these traumatic stories require. And still, many Black journalists bore the burden of reporting on civil unrest and racism in this country in newsrooms that lacked a deep understanding of racism. Journalists of color, and specifically Black women in journalism, are disproportionately targets of the worst online abuse and harassment when covering these issues. These stories made front pages and headlines, but they came at a steep personal and professional cost.

These issues contribute to hostile environments for journalists from marginalized communities, who are expected to leave their identities at the door until they’re forced to educate their colleagues on issues that hit close to home.

There are many things that newsrooms can do to create a more inclusive environment — from turning to guidance from groups like Journalists of Color on Slack and the Journalists of Color Resource Guide that offer a community for minorities to access support and resources that help them navigate the field, to engaging in difficult conversations about media industry biases that hinder journalists of color. One of these is the myth of “objectivity”, which is rooted in the lens of white men and largely ignores the perspectives and expertise of Black and brown reporters.

As funders, it is our responsibility to follow the lead of these reporters. It is critical that we center the experiences of those most frequently and deeply marginalized within their newsrooms and journalism in our grantmaking practices. We must ensure our investments are not propping up harmful institutions with bandaid solutions, and instead supporting genuine, radical change.

Funding power building is key

If you’re going to fund efforts around increasing newsroom diversity and building more inclusive newsrooms, you must also invest in the power building and sharing efforts that journalists of color are leading. This means funding programs who address retention, mentorship, promotion, leadership, safety, and community building for journalists of color. This is the only way to move from surface-level representation to centering equity and justice in journalism.

Some organizations we currently fund that seek to build and share power with traditionally excluded journalists include:

The Ida B. Wells Society, an organization dedicated to increasing and retaining journalists of color in investigative reporting.
Press On, a Southern media collective that catalyzes change and advances justice through the practice of movement journalism through solidarity with oppressed communities that birth social movements.
OpenNews, a community of journalism peers strengthening relationships across organizations to build a more equitable future for journalism.
Free Press, whose Media 2070 team is inviting all of us to reimagine the future of journalism with reparations and justice.

Talented job candidates from Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and women’s colleges across the country are ready to launch their journalism careers. Funding these organizations will provide support to journalists of color to stay in the industry long enough to build power: become editorial decision makers, become hiring managers, and mentor new staff. They are building the structures, culture, and practice that will help become the next generation of newsroom leaders.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Featured

Introducing Democracy Fund’s New Government Accountability Strategy

Rudy Mehrbani

July 26, 2023

Back in 2017, we realized we needed better ways to defend the rule of law and hold our leaders accountable – and fast. We were seeing abuses of power almost daily. They included things like the “Muslim Ban,” threats to ignore court orders and the disparaging of sitting judges, and coordinated efforts to obstruct an independent investigation into the foreign interference in the 2016 election. Politicians and government officials were repeatedly violating the institutional norms that underpin our foundational democratic values. Democracy Fund made its first government accountability-focused grants in direct response to this disturbing trend. We hoped that a swift response by leaders across the ideological spectrum would reverse it. Yet, it became clear that the incentives for abusing power were too strong and the existing guardrails were too weak.

Over the last five years, we explored ways to strengthen these guardrails, balance government powers, and bolster accountability measures to deter future abuses. Democracy Fund grantees worked tirelessly toward these goals by:

Helping Congress conduct more effective, fact-based oversight;
Spearheading groundbreaking litigation to impose limits on executive power;
Defending transparency measures to expose wrongdoing;
Highlighting the consequences of unethical, illegal or abusive acts;
Defending an independent counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and obstruction of justice by President Trump; and
Helping secure significant legislative reforms, including those that strengthen the ability of inspectors general and whistleblowers to expose wrongdoing in the executive branch and clarify the rules for certifying presidential elections and conducting transitions of power.

Despite these efforts, some of our worst fears were realized. The magnitude of the abuses multiplied, culminating in a mob attacking the Capitol in an attempt to prevent the peaceful transition of power on Jan. 6, 2021.

In the two years since these attacks on our democracy, we built a strategy to address the growing threat of authoritarianism to our institutions. We are deeply troubled by how the authoritarian playbook is being implemented and replicated across states, cities, and towns across the country that are insufficiently resourced to respond. The communities often targeted include communities of color, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, the working class, and others who have been historically disenfranchised or intentionally marginalized by those in power.

Building toward a more accountable government

In 2021, Democracy Fund announced a new organization-wide vision to strengthen and expand the pro-democracy movement, while also working to weaken and dismantle those who threaten our republic and oppose a multi-racial democracy. In alignment with this vision, we examined our government accountability work.

After deep consultation with experts in the field, we realized a new approach was needed to address the sustained efforts of the increasingly authoritarian bloc in our politics. The existing guardrails in our system depend on the willingness of political actors to tolerate dissent and difference. But as we saw on January 6th, authoritarian movements have no patience for long-held norms, cross-ideological discourse, or even respect for legitimate electoral outcomes. We need to bolster our system to respond to abuse and deter future political violence. We also need to expand the coordination and reach of organizations responding to authoritarian actions and defending their communities’ rights and interests at all levels – including the state and local level.

We have transitioned our accountability work into two new initiatives. The first, Preventing Authoritarian Abuse of Power, may look familiar to those who have followed our work to date. This initiative will build on existing efforts to strengthen our federal institutions against abuses by the authoritarian movement. It will:

Work with Congress and through the courts to create robust guardrails against abuse. This includes developing and advancing reforms that would limit executive power, improve government transparency, protect whistleblowers, and firmly defend Congress’s constitutional role as a check on executive branch abuse.
Build more resilient federal institutions that can withstand future efforts to politicize their work. This includes strengthening internal and external accountability mechanisms that ensure these institutions work in the public’s interest, not solely in the interests of those in positions of power.
Hold accountable those who have engaged in unethical or illegal conduct. This includes deploying a range of tactics to deter and to respond to abuses, including civil litigation, support for independent investigations, public education, or other efforts.

Stopping abuses at the federal level remains essential — but focusing on federal institutions alone overlooks serious risks at the state and local levels, where abuses are spreading and disproportionately impact communities of color and other historically disenfranchised groups. Community organizers and advocates have long been under-resourced in their fight for accountability. To begin solving for this, we have created a new State and Local Accountability initiative that will:

Support state and local groups responding to authoritarian abuses of power. This will include direct support of groups working on the ground, particularly those groups addressing priority issues for communities of color or other historically disenfranchised groups. We recognize that local leaders and organizations are often in the best position to identify the key concerns for their communities and the tools and tactics that hold the most promise.
Create connective tissue across the accountability field. This will include efforts to build partnerships and connections between accountability groups working at the state and local level with groups working nationally to share knowledge, resources, and tools to improve accountability across all levels of government.

These areas of focus build on our learnings from the last five years. They are informed by conversations with our grantees about how philanthropy needs to respond in this moment of democratic crisis, and what is on the horizon if we fail to act.

Some changes you will see in our funding

Over the next five years, we are committing to building capacity and resilience to withstand future attacks on our democracy by the authoritarian movement.

While we’re not making any major changes, some key shifts you’ll see include:

Breaking the cyclical nature of accountability funding. We are committed to funding this work for the next five years. This means transitioning the work in our temporary special project on Government Accountability, Transparency, and Oversight to permanent initiatives at Democracy Fund. This will enable us to provide multi-year support to core accountability organizations.
Supporting organizations working on the ground at the state level. Previously, we focused on federal level policies, abuses, and interventions. Our State and Local Accountability initiative, however, will enable us to broaden the ways we think about stopping the authoritarian movement and build a more diverse field of allies.
Greater focus on connecting groups across sectors and silos. The authoritarian threat does not have clean boundaries, and neither can our grantmaking. Stopping this threat requires interventions across all levels and branches of government, and between government and community. It also requires a greater degree of coordination and collaboration between groups working at the federal level and those working in the states and resourcing those network- and field-building efforts.

As we move into our new strategies, we’re committed to continue learning and growing, and to being transparent, accessible, and accountable along the way. We are excited to invest in organizations that are fighting for a government that is accountable to the people, and that push back against abuses of power at all levels, and especially those abuses that most impact communities of color and marginalized groups.

Moving into the next five years

We are in a troubling new era of political and government malpractice that threatens to topple the pillars of our democracy. From the Tennessee state legislature’s expulsion of two lawmakers for protesting gun violence, to bills that ban teaching about racial history and LGBTQ+ issues, to the Supreme Court’s rollback of reproductive rights, we are seeing the authoritarian movement exert its power across the country. As their influence grows, so must our response to it. We are deeply grateful for your ongoing partnership, and as always we welcome your input to hold us accountable to our values.

In the coming months, we will have more to share as our full Governance program strategy takes shape. Stay tuned for updates, and please don’t hesitate to reach out to our team with any questions.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Key to Public Trust: A Congress that Looks Like America

Laura A. Maristany

July 12, 2017

Let me tell you a quick story.

As a young political science major at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, I always dreamed about working in the policy space. While my great grandparents on both sides were involved in politics in Cuba, no one in my family had pursued a career in U.S. politics until me. Needless to say, I didn’t have a robust network of well-connected people who could help me get my foot in the door. So in 2005, when my mother heard about a paid congressional internship program, she immediately encouraged me to apply. Fortunately, I was accepted into the program and given the opportunity to work in the office of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico – one of the busiest offices in the House of Representatives. This experience offered me a once in a lifetime opportunity to learn how Congress functions from the inside and build a network of peers and mentors, which eventually led me to a full time job on Capitol Hill.

In “this town” it is difficult to climb the Washington D.C. career ladder without having done your time on Capitol Hill. My paid internship opportunity and subsequent experience working in Congress is a staple of my resume that continues to open doors for me. But while internships continue to be a reliable path towards working for Congress, many are unpaid jobs – and there are very few young people with the means or ability to move to Washington, D.C. for a semester or summer to work for free. This is an especially acute problem for young people from low income and minority communities.

The result? A Congressional staff that currently does not represent the diversity of our nation.

At the Democracy Fund, we believe that healthy democracy demands vibrant public discussion and participation in our nation’s civic life. Robust public participation signals that people believe their voice and the institutions of our democracy matter. So we support programs and projects aiming to put people back at the center of our democracy in ways that give them the visceral experience of feeling heard and included.

Because it is the institution tasked with elevating the voice of all Americans to the national stage, Congress must make an effort to incorporate all the communities it serves. To truly represent the diverse people of this great nation, Congress should be committed to hiring the diverse people of this great nation.

It’s Time for Congress to Take a Long, Hard Look in the Mirror

In 2015, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (Joint Center) took the first steps to quantify the lack of diversity in Congressional staff through a study focusing on top staff leadership in the U.S. Senate. The results confirmed what is visible to anyone visiting their Member of Congress; minorities are grossly underrepresented in the institution tasked with representing all of us.

The Joint Center report found that of 336 top Senate staffers (Chiefs of Staff, Legislative Directors, Communications Directors, and Staff Directors), only 24 staffers were people of color – 12 Asian Americans, 7 Latinos, 3 African Americans, and 2 Native Americans.

The Joint Center’s chart shows the disconnect between what our country looks like in comparison to the top leadership in U.S. Senate offices.

Importantly, this is a problem for both Democrats and Republicans. For example, although African Americans account for 22% of Democratic voters, they account for less than 1% of Democratic top staff. Of the 6 Black top staffers in the U.S. Senate, only two are Democrats (the other four are Republicans).

As you digest these numbers, keep in mind that, aside from its duty to work with the House of Representatives on legislation, the U.S. Senate has the final word on who sits on our Supreme Court and on who leads the agencies in charge of implementing our national policy. Therefore, lack of diversity in Congressional staff has long lasting ripple effects throughout our nation’s institutions, and pretty much every facet of our lives. (The Joint Center plans to release similar information related to the House side in 2017.)

To correct the imbalance found by the Joint Center and to ensure Members of Congress are responding to the communities they represent, seeking out and hiring more diverse staff is more crucial than ever.

The Path Forward: Congressional Staff That Looks Like America

Regardless of your views on size and scope, when it comes to government, we as citizens long for institutions that carry out the will of the people, for policies that help our communities thrive, and for systems that improve our daily lives. As the representative institution in our system of government, Congress is in a unique position to elevate our voices, but to do that, it must continue to listen to us – all of us.

A Congress that looks like the people it represents is a crucial part of the strategy to rebuild public trust. Understanding that diversity is key to healthy organizations and institutions, Democracy Fund plans to make significant investments to organizations uniquely positioned to tackle these challenges and, hopefully contribute to breaking this vicious cycle.

Two of these organizations – the Joint Center and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund – are already leaders in this space and, with support from the Democracy Fund, will be able to scale their programs to ensure Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle prioritize diversity in their teams. New funding will allow these organizations to expand programs that help Congress recruit, train, and place qualified candidates for positions in congressional offices that better reflect the demographics of the constituencies they represent. They will also work to modernize congressional hiring practices, collaborate with existing diversity efforts to foster more relationships across the aisle, and promote professional development resources that help congressional staffers learn new skills, deepen their understanding of issues, and succeed in their careers.

Ultimately, we believe these programs can begin to move the needle towards a more representative Congress and help Members of Congress become more responsive to the communities they represent.

To learn more about these projects or to get involved, please email us at info@democracyfund.org.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Featured

Transforming Media through Press Forward: Democracy Fund’s Priorities

Josh Stearns, Angelica Das & Teresa Gorman

September 8, 2023

A national coalition of 20 funders announced an exciting new initiative on September 7th. Press Forward plans to invest more than $500 million into local news and information over the next five years, aiming to transform media across America in profound and lasting ways.

Press Forward’s goal is to revitalize local news and civic media in the short term while spurring even more support for people’s access to information in the long term. We hope $500 million is just the starting place and that Press Forward will help spark a movement across philanthropy to raise millions more.

Democracy Fund is contributing to this effort because we believe pro-democracy journalism, especially led by and serving people of color, needs far more resources. We have been blown away by the work our grantees have done to reimagine local news and with more support we know their impact can be transformative. This vision will require significant shifts in philanthropy and public policy — Press Forward can be the spark.

Guided by our vision and strategy

We want you to know that our involvement in Press Forward is an addition to Democracy Fund’s existing strategy, not a departure. Our core values and vision remain central to our work with Press Forward, and our current grantmaking strategy will continue uninterrupted.

Democracy Fund has been a guiding partner in the Press Forward coalition for over a year, and we will continue to actively participate in this work. We are finalizing our financial contribution to Press Forward, which will be new dollars above and beyond our existing funding for local news.

While Press Forward’s announcement was a significant milestone, it is just the beginning of this work. There is still much to do to build this new effort. As the coalition prepares to distribute resources in the coming years, we are filled with a sense of purpose and excitement for the journey ahead.

Centering racial justice in coalition work

Equitable journalism is a priority for us at Democracy Fund. Press Forward plans to deploy half a billion dollars to local news, and we are committed to advocating for investments that move us toward a more inclusive, multi-racial democracy.

In ten years, we envision a thriving local news landscape where civic media organizations provide the reliable information people need. These organizations will be essential in helping individuals lead meaningful lives, address challenges in their communities, and actively participate in our democracy.

At Democracy Fund, we hope to foster a public square that is anti-racist and community-centered, where voices that have been marginalized for far too long have a platform. By placing racial justice at the heart of our work with coalitions like Press Forward, we aim to create a media landscape that reflects the diversity of our communities and serves them wholeheartedly.

Listening and learning every step of the way

Civic media and local news are a growing priority for many funders and donors, including those new to journalism. Thanks to the pioneering work of trailblazing organizations, we’re living through the most significant and hopeful expansion of civic news since the establishment of public broadcasting over fifty years ago. Press Forward builds upon that foundation.

When Democracy Fund shared our five-year strategy last year, we reinforced our commitment to deeply listening to our grantees. They told us about the history of racism in media, how philanthropy has perpetuated harm, and how our news and information landscape can be reimagined — these conversations continue to guide our approach to this work. We brought these lessons and inspiration from our grantees to every Press Forward meeting, as did many other partners.

We continue to trust those who know what’s most needed for their communities. In Press Forward and all our efforts, we take our cues from grantee leadership, wisdom, and creativity.

A shared commitment to impact

An unshakable belief that we can achieve lasting, meaningful change guides our path. We are energized by Press Forward’s shared commitment to pursue collective impact. We look forward to further developing and deepening partnerships toward a more resilient, diverse, and deeply impactful media landscape.

We know you’re likely to have questions, and we’ve had some of our own along the way. Press Forward is a complex new campaign with many stakeholders. It won’t always get things right. As Press Forward evolves, Democracy Fund is committed to ongoing relationship-building, listening, and sharing what we’ve learned.

Our door is open for conversation; we invite your questions, feedback, and ideas.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Featured

Democracy Fund’s New Just and Inclusive Society Strategy

March 21, 2023

Climate change is here. Unfortunately, that means that many of us across the globe will soon need to leave our homelands. Within the United States, people are already leaving the rising waters of the Gulf Coast to seek refuge further north. Others are fleeing the wildfires and droughts of California for safer places. And at the southern border, migrants from all over the world (no longer just points further south) are seeking a safer life in the United States. Last year, 100 million people were displaced globally due to conflicts and crises — a new record. Climate change is multiplying this crisis. The UN estimates that over the next 30 years, about one billion of us will need to move.

What does this displacement mean for democracy in the United States? In a nutshell: as global migration reaches unprecedented levels, white supremacy is rising to meet it. This has dangerous consequences.

From the start, the founders of American democracy designed our political system to exclude everyone but white, elite, male landowners. They built racism into our public institutions and society to exclude and marginalize people of color. As a way to protect this power structure, white nationalists have always pointed to migrants as a primary target for scapegoating. Today, white nationalists are using hostile, racist language to dehumanize migrants. This often leads to acts of discrimination and violence. It’s not surprising — this cycle has happened many times throughout this country’s history. But now that climate change is accelerating, we’re seeing it at a larger scale. It affects both migrants entering the United States from other countries, and migrants within the country.

Another factor to consider: our democracy is land-based. A person’s rights and representation are tied almost entirely to where they live. When we suddenly have to move, this becomes a problem. For example, an American citizen who flees a hurricane in South Carolina and takes refuge with family in Virginia still has a passport and basic protections under the Constitution. She could request an absentee ballot from her town in South Carolina, assuming the town is still functioning. But what happens when the impact of climate change is so extreme that an entire town or city is displaced? What would it mean for a city councilor, a state representative, or a member of Congress whose constituents all leave their districts?

At Democracy Fund, we are working to address these challenges. In April 2022, Democracy Fund announced our new organizational strategy with a commitment to investing in the power and leadership of communities of color to strengthen and expand the pro-democracy movement and undermine those who threaten the ideals of our inclusive, multiracial democracy. Over the past year, our Just and Inclusive Society program has revised its strategies in line with this new organizational strategy to better meet the moment we are in while building for the best version of our shared future.

Our new five-year strategy is the result of many thoughtful conversations with our grantees and experts from across the field. We cannot overstate how much we appreciate the experience, passion, and creativity of these organizations, whose staff are working on the frontlines of these issues. We look forward to continuing our collaborative approach with our grantees, as we aim for transformative impact together.

We are interested in hearing your thoughts on what elements excite you, and we know we have a weighty responsibility to help make these ideas a reality.

Building power for a welcoming and inclusive American democracy

We are working toward our vision of an American democracy that is welcoming and inclusive of all migrants and refugees, that actively supports their resettlement in a just and humane manner, and that builds social cohesion in the face of massive internal and external migration. To get there, we believe we need to support a broad-based intersectional social movement capable of inspiring hope over fear, instilling cooperation over competition, and instituting a sense of shared abundance over scarcity. At every step, the movement needs to be led by marginalized and most impacted communities who are integral members of the pro-democracy coalition fighting for a just and inclusive multi-racial democracy.

In support of this future, we will fund this intersectional movement through our Power-building in Marginalized Communities initiative. This initiative will focus on the intersectional movements led by refugees, migrants, and Black and brown communities. Our investments will support organizations and leaders to: (1) elevate stories and shift narratives around migration and refugeehood, (2) build a shared strategy and solidarity across movements, communities, and geographies, and (3) build power in marginalized communities.

This area of focus is a natural outgrowth of the work we began in 2017 to protect the civil rights and liberties of Black, African, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian (BAMEMSA) communities who were targeted by the Trump Administration. This earlier work provided legal and policy support to immigrant rights and racial justice work, and helped mitigate the risks of political violence resulting from a resurgent authoritarian faction.

Our new strategy has been informed by our conversations with our grantees and partners about how philanthropy needs to meet this moment in our democracy. We listened deeply to what grantees said is happening now, and what is on the horizon. Our new strategy takes those challenges head on, guided by an advisory group including the Rise Together Fund, El Hibri Foundation, the Pillars Fund, Ford Foundation, and Unbound Philanthropy.

Some changes you will see in our funding

In the next five years, we are reorienting our focus from BAMEMSA communities to include broader refugee and migrant communities that have been and will be displaced by climate change, as a subset of our wider interest in supporting all marginalized communities. Key to that work will be a shift from providing direct services, to building capacity, power, and momentum across communities that will be sending and receiving migrants.

A few of the key shifts include:

Moving from prioritizing litigation to a power-building framework. We’re shifting from a responsive posture to one that proactively works to change the system. As the numbers of migrants increase, so too will the political rhetoric driven by fear, subverting or suppressing civil liberties and rights. We plan to focus on intervention points emerging from the increasing flow of migration and rising xenophobic and racist attacks by the authoritarian faction.
Focusing on intersectional movement building led by migrant, refugee, and impacted communities. The growing number of organizations working in this arena are disconnected and insufficiently funded. To bolster the movement, we will begin investing in refugee organizing work, engage grassroots and national network organizations, and explore intermediaries that also have footprints at the regional, state, and local levels.
Engaging place-based organizations. We will support organizations located in geographies that either are “sending” people to other places or “receiving” incoming migrants by funding the implementation of existing or experimental models of support for migrants and refugees (e.g., transitional justice mechanisms, mutual aid, community sponsorship, or resilience hubs).

As we begin implementing our new strategies, we’re motivated by the opportunities for learning and growth. We will be transparent, accessible, and accountable along the way. We are excited to invest in organizations that: demonstrate excellence in building and executing programs aligned with our strategic priorities; exhibit a solid racial justice analysis; employ BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) in senior leadership roles; and work in concert with aligned efforts to build the power of marginalized communities.

Moving into the next five years

It’s clear that climate-induced mass migration and white nationalist authoritarianism are on a collision course, but efforts to protect vulnerable communities are also gaining momentum. The support we have seen in Washington, DC and New York City in response to migrants bussed there from Texas and Florida, is a powerful example. Community organizations are recruiting volunteers, enlisting local charities and churches, pressuring municipal governments, and controlling narratives. The community leaders in these cities are building a moral social movement that responds to need, supports the integration of migrant communities, and turns a tactic of division into an opportunity for solidarity and unity.

The challenges we face as a country and as a people over the coming decades are enormous. A key part of our new strategy will also be to partner with more and more funders to meet this moment.

There are still many decisions left about who and how we will fund to make this vision a reality. We’ll be sharing more information, updating our website, and considering new grantees in 2023 and we welcome your partnership and accountability along this journey. If you have questions about our new strategy, don’t hesitate to reach out. We are grateful for your partnership and energized for our collective future.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Improving Forms for Military and Overseas Voters

Stacey Scholl

March 11, 2015

This post is co-authored by Stacey Van Zuiden and Adam Ambrogi.

For the thousands of American voters who live abroad or who are in the military stationed away from their homes, the process of casting a ballot can be full of challenges. For those without regular Internet or in a region without routine postal service, where do you tell your U.S.-based Election Official to send the ballot? And can you receive it in time to vote? Do you need a witness to sign your form? Or will your signature be enough?

These challenges, plus many more, contributed to approximately 21,000 rejected absentee ballot requests made using the standard federal form in 2012, according to the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), which is the Department of Defense program charged with assisting military and overseas voters. It is unclear exactly why these rejections happen, and FVAP is doing additional research, but if the design of the federal form is a factor, there’s something we can do.

With the goal of helping to alleviate confusion or problems for voters, the Democracy Fund recently submitted comments in response to FVAP’s open comment period on the two federal forms used by this community, the FPCA and FWAB.

The Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) is used to both register to vote and request an absentee ballot, and the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) is essentially a back-up ballot most often used when a voter did not receive an official ballot in time to return it. The variance in election rules across 55 states and territories means that FVAP has the ongoing challenge of making the forms straight-forward and user-friendly, but specific enough to accommodate state law. FVAP has made major advancements to help voters use the forms by creating highly successful online tools, but the fact remains that not all voters will have access to the Internet, so the paper forms should be as useful as possible.

We believe that our recommendations could have lasting and long-term benefits for all overseas voters. The following are some of the areas of high priority. (Read our full comments here and here.)

First, clarify that military and overseas voters who request a ballot by email or fax must still provide a current absentee address.

In 2009, Congress enacted the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE Act) requiring these voters have the option to receive their blank ballots electronically, potentially cutting ballot transit time in half. On both FVAP forms there are fields labeled: “Where to send my ballot”/“Where to send my election materials.” Voters could easily assume that an email address or fax number is sufficient for this box. However, most election officials require a foreign or absentee address so they can confirm a voter is away from their home jurisdiction, even if the voter is requesting to receive their ballot electronically. Instead, we recommend this box be labeled: “Absentee address/ Where you reside now.”

Second, keep the affirmation tailored to the voter and don’t make voters “swear” to more than they have to.

Each form also has an affirmation section where the voter must attest to meeting certain eligibility requirements. The affirmations are written broadly to cover variations in election laws across the states. However, as the terms try to cast a broad net, the affirmation length grows and may require a voter to swear to a requirement not applicable in their state on penalty of perjury. And the longer the affirmation paragraph becomes, the less likely voters are to read it. We believe there are three key things a voter should need to affirm: 1) the information is true and accurate to the applicant’s knowledge, 2) they are a U.S. citizen and they meet other state eligibility requirements, and 3) they are not registering to vote or voting in any other U.S. jurisdiction. We can solve the qualifications question by “incorporating by reference” the state-specific requirements.

Third, FVAP and states should do more to reduce unnecessary hurdles for these voters by eliminating witness requirements.

There is an area on the forms for a witness to sign underneath the voter’s signature, but there are only a handful of states that require witness signatures. Unbelievably, in Alabama, absentee voters are required to have two witnesses sign the form. In 2012, less than half of the military and overseas ballots submitted by voters from Alabama were counted in the November General Election.

The MOVE Act banned notary requirements, but witness requirements are an archaic holdover from a time when there were less sophisticated ways to validate a voter’s signature. Today, election officials can more easily compare signatures from DMV files. The Democracy Fund recognizes that the witness lines must stay for now because of these remaining state-based requirements, and we challenge FVAP to talk to these states and the public about the burden this places on voters who are often working with early deadlines to send their forms home.

Fourth, simplify the ballot portion of the FWAB. Voting shouldn’t be overly complicated—the cleaner the design, the better the experience.

We believe there are significant design flaws with the ballot portion of the FWAB. The area where a voter writes the office or issue on which they are voting does not clearly correspond to where the voter writes the name of their preferred candidate or ballot choice. While not quite as bad as Florida’s famous “butterfly ballot,” this format has the potential to produce confusion.

It is worth noting that FWABs are more likely to be rejected than regular state absentee ballots, making up 33.1% of rejected military and overseas ballots even though they are only 7.4% of the total ballots submitted. And while there could be a number of reasons for this, such as whether a voter’s state ballot is returned in time, we believe the design of the FWAB could be adding to the total number of rejections. Because this is a basic usability issue, we recommend FVAP consider incorporating arrows or another design element that makes the form clearer. There are ballot design resources available with guidance on how to make election forms much easier to use.

These are four primary recommendations DF made to FVAP as part of the official comment process. We commend FVAP for both running a meaningful open comment period — where actual engagement was requested. They are required to update the form from time to time — we believe they have a real opportunity here to take several clear steps forward. For some, these changes may seem small, and perhaps inconsequential, but if one imagines the improvement overall for tens of thousands of individuals using these materials to register and request an absentee ballot—every way the forms are improved increases the likelihood that they will have their vote count.

When considering the testimony for the MOVE Act, the Senate heard from Air Force Lt. Col. Joseph DeCaro (in his own capacity). He reflected that service members wanted to vote. The challenge, he indicated, was navigating the complexities of the rules and requirements to receive a ballot. It is with that spirit that we continue to support FVAP’s effort to make voting a little bit easier for Mr. DeCaro and others like him.