Archives: Ideas

Back to Ideas
Press Release

Democracy Fund, Humanity United, and Omidyar Network Denounce U.S. Family Separation Policy

Democracy Fund
/
June 1, 2018

In response to the U.S. government’s policy separating parents and children seeking asylum, Democracy Fund, Omidyar Network’s Governance and Citizen Engagement initiative, and Humanity United released the following statement. The organizations are part of the Omidyar Group, a diverse collection of companies, organizations, and initiatives, each guided by its own approach, but all united by a common desire to catalyze social impact, founded by Pierre and Pam Omidyar.

As three organizations working for change, we stand for upholding the United States’ long-standing commitment to fundamental human rights and protecting the most vulnerable.

The U.S. action separating families fleeing persecution and exploitation at the border is an affront to human dignity—theirs and ours. We believe that forcibly separating mothers and fathers from their children is inhumane.

The United States is a powerful symbol of acceptance for the marginalized, of safety for those fleeing persecution, and of hope for those inspired by the democratic ideals cherished by its people. The U.S. leads the world by example, and when we fail to act with dignity and decency, others take note.

“The families fleeing to our country have often endured the unthinkable and deserve the best of America: kindness, respect, and protection. What we are instead seeing is a response that dehumanizes and traumatizes these children and their parents. This policy turns children into pawns and statistics, when they are kids just like our own—who love and need their families. The U.S. must not fail its basic responsibility to protect children from being exploited, trafficked, and persecuted. We must be better than that,” said Randy Newcomb, President and CEO of Humanity United.

“Breaking up migrant families isn’t just an immigration and humanitarian crisis, it undermines the democratic norms that our country was founded on. All people, regardless of where they’re from, deserve to be treated with dignity,” said Joe Goldman, President of Democracy Fund. “It is essential that all of us – from elected leaders to civil society and citizens – stand up to protect the intrinsic value and basic rights of all people.”

“The emotionally and physically damaging practice of separating young children from parents is abhorrent. The U.S. response to families seeking asylum and refuge further traumatizes families and impedes access to a fair process for seeking asylum. These policies do not advance American democracy or values,” said Stephen King, Omidyar Network partner, and global lead for its Governance and Citizen Engagement initiative.

###

Back to Ideas
Blog

Increasing Trust in Elections: Democracy Fund’s Election Validation Project

Tammy Patrick
/
May 29, 2018

What motivates voters to participate? The love of a charismatic candidate? The disgust of a less-than desirable one? Passion for a specific ballot initiative? Habit? The answer is as varied as the voting population, as is the reason that voters do not participate. Research shows that while voters’ confidence in their own vote being counted accurately remains relatively constant, their belief that results at the national level are correct is in decline. The threat of interference in our elections by another nation-state has heightened this sentiment.

At Democracy Fund, we believe that our election system can remain both accessible and secure. We invest in organizations working to bolster public confidence in our elections through modern, voter-centric election administration and registration, as well as other projects that are helping to identify and elevate best practices and protocols to improve the American voting experience. With these goals in mind, Democracy Fund is launching the Election Validation Project which aims to increase trust in elections through rigorous audits, standards, and testing.

Jennifer Morrell, a nationally recognized election official with over eight years of experience managing local elections, has joined Democracy Fund as a consultant to lead this project. Jennifer’s work in Colorado was instrumental in the successful implementation of the first statewide risk-limiting audit and she has been an outspoken advocate of implementing election audit standards beyond just post-election audits and has a vision of creating uniform audit and testing standards for all critical components of the voting system.

According to Jennifer, “Many states do a tremendous job testing voting equipment and performing post-election audits, but the scope and method vary. Improving trust in elections requires a uniform set of audit standards that go beyond auditing ballot tabulation equipment.”

The Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA) called for the review of testing and auditing being done by the states in their 2014 report as well as the need to replace aging voting equipment—another reason why testing and auditing is so critical. Jennifer has been a proponent of testing and audit standards as the next iteration of guidelines to boost confidence and trust in our elections—and the election administration profession. In her experience as an election official, PCEA served as the foundation for collaboration amongst the profession and transformed it into a field of public service.

As states purchase new voting equipment and implement improved audit requirements, our hope is that we can provide information and guidelines about risk-limiting audits tailored to election administrators as well as policy makers and the voting public through our work. Jennifer’s work will include:

  • Creating a collaborative of election officials and subject matter experts to identify best practices for pre- and post- election audits, standards, and testing.
  • Completing an assessment of the current state of post-election audits and outlining a path towards risk-limiting audits.
  • Meeting with election officials to illustrate the pros and cons of different types of audits and providing a plain language explanation of what a risk-limiting audit is and how it works.
  • Most importantly, Jennifer will be working directly with a handful of states that can benefit from observation and informing their auditing and testing policies.

This new project comes at a critical time in election administration, and Jennifer understands what needs to be done to be successful, “This is a complex project that will take some time and some trial and error before it is successful. But starting the discussion is the first step. I am optimistic that election professionals at all levels will be willing to collaborate and lend their ideas and expertise to this endeavor. The table for this discussion needs to be large. We need researchers, we need technologists, we need policy experts and statisticians, but most importantly we need election officials who understand the complexity of running a successful election.”

Democracy Fund is thrilled to engage with Jennifer on this project and to be able to offer additional tools and guidance for election officials to use. We are confident that the collaboration will serve to inform the field and make certain that our elections continue to demonstrate the validity and integrity of the Great American Experiment.

If you are interested in working with Jennifer, she is available to work with states and present at association meetings on these topics. For more information, reach out to jmorrell@democracyfund.org.

Back to Ideas
Blog

2017 Lessons Can Improve the Vote-By-Mail Experience in 2018

May 14, 2018

“Vote-by-mail” is a growing trend in the United States. According to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), more than 33 million voters in the 2016 Presidential Election voted by mail. Voters registered in Oregon, Washington and Colorado already automatically receive their ballot in the mail, and California will join their ranks once they implement legislation that passed in 2016. As vote-by-mail is becoming more widely used, it’s important for elections administrators to educate the public on the process and continue to find ways to improve the voter experience.

One great place to start is a report published by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Democracy Fund grantee, that highlights the ways voting by mail and absentee voting has changed and what voters, legislators, election officials, and the United States Postal Service (USPS) can do to ensure that type of voting remains a viable option for the American electorate.

Another useful resource is the 2014 report (PDF) from the Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA), which includes several recommendations to improve the voting experience for voters.

USPS has played a key role in the development of election administration best practices for the vote by mail process and has instituted some of their own. During the final days of ballot return postal employees sweep processing plants hourly looking for mail pieces bearing the official election material mail logo to ensure that ballots are being processed within their delivery standards. In 2016 they embraced a new tool to communicate with election officials. Electionmail.org was developed by Democracy Fund grantee Democracy Works and provides a channel for administrators to communicate issues directly with postal leadership.

Why does this matter?

We live in an increasingly digital era where most people go online to communicate, pay bills, and transact business. The volume of mail – while still in the billions of mail pieces each year – no longer required the supporting infrastructure that was in place. Because of this, the U.S. Postal Service consolidated its processing plants and streamlined the sorting of mail. All mail now goes through the centralized processing plants, is sorted, and redirected to its destination. This automation allows for election ballot tracking, a PCEA recommendation, but it has also contributed to the delivery standard changes that happened in 2015.

Has this had a significant impact on a voter’s ability to cast an effective ballot? The EAC reports that, in 2016, more than 47% of rejected ballots were due to missing or invalid signatures, and roughly 23% of the rejected ballots were because they were returned after the deadline. Historically there are always some people who miss the deadline to return ballots in time to be counted in a given election, but the EAC data shows that the number of late ballots has decreased since 2012 even though greater numbers of voters are choosing this method of voting and we have longer delivery standards.

If voters fail to get their ballot mailed with enough time for delivery to their election office, many have the option of dropping their ballot off at their polling site. In addition to offering this drop-off option, some states allow for information on the envelope to be used to ensure that the voter did, in fact, mail the ballot before the polls closed on Election Day. Iowa and Indiana have passed legislation allowing for the use of Intelligent Mail Barcode data. In Ohio, the Secretary of State issued a directive that the orange USPS processing marks could also be used—and because of this Cuyahoga County was able to count an additional 73 ballots in the 2016 Presidential Election.

Close elections bring scrutiny, and Virginia is the perfect example of how crucial process is to ensuring and retaining voter participation year after year. In 2017, the state experienced elections with razor-thin margins in vote counts—in one instance the winner was determined by a draw after a tied result. The day after Election Day, election officials in Stafford County picked up 55 ballots at their post office box, and questions were raised about whether the ballots arrived in time, and who exactly was responsible for ensuring they were counted—the voter, the Postal Service, or the jurisdiction.

What have we learned from last year’s election in Virginia?

First, ballot tracking is important and election officials should use it. The state of Virginia recently implemented a statewide election mail tracking system called BallotScout—a project by Democracy Fund grantee TurboVote—as a way for both voters and election officials to determine where the ballots are in the process. Indeed, Virginia Registrar Dave Bjerke from the City of Falls Church posted on social media that a voter called to complain that they had not gotten their ballot. The tracking showed that the mail had been delivered to the voter; and with the Registrar on the line they began to dig through the piles on their desk and subsequently found the missing ballot. The question we should ask regarding the close election in Virginia is: was election mail tracking used to the full extent—and if not, why?

Social media post from Virginia Registrar Dave Bjerke from the City of Falls Church, VA
Social media post from Virginia Registrar Dave Bjerke from the City of Falls Church, VA

Second, ballot envelopes should have the official election material mail logo on them so that the voters know it is official information and USPS can recognize it as an important mail piece.

Election mail logo
Election mail logo

 

Third, voters need to have information to make informed decisions. Voters may be prone to procrastination and need to have options the week before Election Day if they fail to get the ballot mailed in time. Data can be used to identify whether ballots have been put into the USPS system. Some jurisdictions make available secure ballot drop off sites, and some allow vote by mail ballots to be turned in at the polls on Election Day.

Eligible voters will greatly improve their ability to “vote by mail” successfully by following these recommendations. At Democracy Fund, we are committed to supporting election officials in their work to run elections and improve the voter experience. For more info on vote by mail best practices, visit the resources page at electionmail.org and the election mail page at USPS.gov.

 

Back to Ideas
Blog

DF-LEO: Understanding Elections through Local Election Officials

Natalie Adona
/
April 24, 2018

Democracy Fund, in partnership with Reed College, is excited to announce a new survey of local election officials (LEOs) on issues relevant to election administration, integrity, and reform. Beginning the week of May 7, 2018, participants will be chosen randomly and will receive an email invitation to complete the survey. Below, we explain our goals for the DF-LEO survey, provide a sneak peek into its content, and explain why we think it will be a valuable resource to local and state election officials, policy experts, advocates, and others interested in American democracy.

We have two main motivations for the survey. First, we want to better understand LEO’s views about the roles, responsibilities, and challenges of their work. By tapping into their experience and deep knowledge of election administration, we hope to uncover new ideas to improve the capacity and quality of elections, and address LEOs’ most urgent needs.

Second, we want to amplify the voices of LEOs in national, regional, and state conversations about election administration, integrity, and reform. Far too often, these conversations don’t consider the “street view” realities of election administration. The insights of LEOs from across the country are vital and should be considered in the national dialogue about improving and securing our elections.

We’ve purposely kept the DF-LEO survey brief (only 10 minutes long) and easy to complete. The survey is conducted using Qualtrics, a state of the art, secure platform for survey administration. The survey covers several topics that include:

  • Changes in election administration over time, and whether these changes have made the elections process easier or more difficult for local election officials and voters;
  • The role of technology and whether the integration of tech improves elections overall;
  • The impact of voter registration modernization policies; and
  • The availability of financial, human, and other resources needed to make elections run smoothly.

DF-LEO was inspired by previous efforts to better understand the views and needs of the LEO community. Over ten years ago, the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office surveyed LEOs about their perspectives on the implementation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), among other things. Most readers know HAVA’s requirements 1) to designate a state official responsible for the creation and maintenance of a statewide voter registration database; and 2) to replace old voting equipment—specifically punch card ballots—with newer forms of voting technology, had a long-lasting impact on the conduct of elections at the local level. The CRS and GAO surveys helped us understand how local election officials were adapting to the new law.

We also relied on the survey work that MIT Professor Charles Stewart shepherded for the Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA) in 2013. The PCEA was prompted by President Obama’s call to promote the efficient administration of U.S. elections. The PCEA’s mission was to make public new recommendations for improving our elections—which it did in a 2014 report. The PCEA sought to include LEO input in crafting their report and recommendations, and we continue in the same spirit of inclusion.

Democracy Fund is committed to supporting election officials through grant making, research, and educational activities—especially in the lead up to an election where the integrity of our election system remains under close scrutiny. The best way to meet that commitment is to listen to their opinions, perspectives, concerns, and needs. DF-LEO is an important part of this effort.

In constructing the survey, we’ve consulted experts including local election officials, state election directors, and scholars who are experienced in survey research. These reviewers have provided us with constructive feedback on the survey questionnaire and are committed to working with us on interpreting and reporting the results.

We hope that you are as excited as we are to see the results of the survey. All individual responses to the survey will remain confidential, but broad findings from the DF-LEO will be published this summer. We look forward to sharing the results with policy experts, researchers, and advocates so they will better understand the perspectives of election officials and can collaborate alongside them to ensure a modern, secure, and trustworthy election system for the American people.

For those with questions and comments about DF-LEO, please feel free to reach out to:

NATALIE ADONA, JD/MPA
Senior Research and Learning Associate, Elections Program at Democracy Fund
nadona@democracyfund.org
202.420.7931

PAUL GRONKE, PhD
Professor of Political Science, Reed College
Director, Early Voting Information Center
paul.gronke@reed.edu
503.517.7393

Back to Ideas
Blog

A Special Project to Defend America’s Fourth Estate

Josh Stearns
/
April 24, 2018

Journalism plays many roles in our democracy. At its best, it informs people about critical issues in ways that builds agency; it reflects the diverse lives of our nation back to us in ways that strengthen communities; it provides a public square where ideas can be debated; and it interrogates systems and institutions in ways that hold power to account.

Since Democracy Fund was founded, we have been investing in people and organizations who are working to strengthen journalism and local news to ensure a brighter future for our democracy. We are helping rebuild local news business models, fostering bold new collaborations, and reimagining the social contract between newsrooms and communities.

That long-haul work continues, but one year ago Democracy Fund announced a new effort focused specifically on bolstering and defending journalism’s ability to serve as a robust fourth estate. Alarmed by the escalating political attacks against journalists and concerned about what those threats meant for the public’s access to information, we made the largest grants in our organization’s history.

Defending America’s Fourth Estate

In March 2017, along with our colleagues at First Look Media, we committed $10 million over two-years to the Center for Investigative Reporting, Center for Public Integrity, the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, and ProPublica. Recognizing the essential role of local and state investigative journalism we also contributed $1 million to NewsMatch, which helped 109 nonprofit newsrooms raise nearly $5 million in the last few months of 2017 (read more about the results of NewsMatch here). Together these grants make up our special project on investigative reporting, which seeks to ensure nonprofit newsrooms are prepared to face new and mounting challenges.

The last year has been a profound reminder of the critical role of a bold, trustworthy, and free press. Our grantees have produced hard hitting public interest reporting on the financial conflicts of interest in the current administration, social media’s impact on democracy, the rise of hate crimes, as well as on the upheavals and changes shaping education, environmental issues, and immigration.

  • Every single one of our grantees had at least one story that revealed conflicts of interest or wrongdoing that resulted in meaningful policy change, divestments and resignations.
  • ProPublica’s reporting on social media platforms and algorithms sparked Facebook to change its advertising policy and spurred NYC to pass the country’s first bill to address algorithmic discrimination in city government.
  • The Center for Investigative Reporting and Center for Public Integrity launched a “Citizen Sleuths” program to engage thousands of people in digging into the financial disclosure records for more than 400 appointees.
  • The Center for Public Integrity compiled state disclosure reports into a searchable library, revealing how state lawmakers use their position to enrich themselves.

These are just a few of the headlines from the past year. Our grantees also produced life-saving reporting on maternal health, revelations about housing discrimination, and an Oscar nominated film on the opioid crisis that was picked up by Netflix.

Accountability Reporting and Being Accountable Ourselves

All of these investments were general operating grants, which means there were no strings attached to how the grants had to be used. Grantees had total freedom to use the funds as they saw fit for the unique needs of their organizations, communities, and beats. In addition, Democracy Fund has an editorial policy written into our grant agreements that mandates we cannot speak to our grantees about content decisions. We believe this kind of independence is critical, especially with grants of this size.

In the end, the freedom these grants provided didn’t just produce more journalism, but also created opportunities to rethink and reimagine how that journalism was done. In an era of dwindling trust for journalism, integrity has to be at the heart of newsrooms and foundations. Each of these newsrooms have opened up their process to their readers, engaging people in the reporting process, and bringing profound transparency to their process.

The Center for Investigative Reporting held community forums and opened up a text message line to answer questions from communities across the country about their investigation into modern day redlining. ProPublica built a crowdsourcing app called the Facebook Political Ad Collector which collects ads on Facebook to enable ProPublica to better monitor political ads on social platforms. The Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University paired journalism students with NPR and Frontline journalists to investigate the housing crisis.

These are not just clever innovations, but critical interventions that put the public at the heart of investigative journalism. The ability of the press to serve as a check and balance on power is rooted in the legitimacy and trust bestowed upon it by the public. As such, to hold our leaders accountable, we need to hold our communities close and be accountable ourselves.

We look forward to continuing to share, and to be accountable, as this special project continues.

Grantees of the Investigative Journalism Project include the following:

Back to Ideas
Blog

Ensuring Language Access for Minority Voters Relies on a Fair and Accurate Census

Terry Ao Minnis
/
April 17, 2018

​We are a mere two years out from “Census Day” 2020 — April 1, 2020 — and we need all hands on deck to ensure a fair and accurate census. The census is paramount for a multitude of reasons — the data are used to make critical decisions in distributing over $600 billion annually in federal spending, developing legislation, making business decisions, and for federal, state, and local planning. On a more foundational level, the census is a pillar of our democracy. Census data are used to appropriate seats for the U.S. House and in turn, the Presidential electoral college, and in redistricting to redraw lines. The Census has major implications for our federal elections and voter confidence as it is integral to demonstrating the system is fair and representative. It is also vital to language minority voters and their active and meaningful civic engagement.

​While the census strives to get a fair and accurate count of everyone in the country, the reality is that some are missed in census after census. Now, if different communities are missed equally, then the resulting census would still be fair, if not as accurate. Unfortunately, decade after decade we have seen a persistent, disproportionate undercount of certain population groups, including people of color, young children, and renters. Thus, when there is a differential undercount in communities of color, voters of color are further marginalized. Rights are unrecognized and unrealized when people are undercounted in these communities.

​Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) are used to make Section 203 determinations under the Voting Rights Act every five years. It dictates which jurisdictions are required to provide language assistance during the voting process. The ACS – an ongoing survey that provides vital socio-economic characteristics on a yearly basis about our nation and its people – allows us to know more about topics including: jobs and occupations, educational attainment, veterans, language ability, and whether people own or rent their homes. While the ACS is conducted separately from the decennial census, an unfair and inaccurate census will negatively skew the ACS. Because the ACS is sent to a sampling of households, the data collected uses a weighting methodology that forces consistency of ACS estimates with official population estimates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. The population estimates are based on the most recent decennial population results (currently, the 2010 census) updated with annual changes in births, deaths, domestic and international migration.

​Since there is a higher risk of an undercount in immigrant and limited English proficient communities, as indicated in the Census Bureau’s own research, language minority communities are more likely to refuse to participate. This lower participation by language minorities could mean missed jurisdictions for Section 203 coverage that should be covered throughout the decade. During the most recent determinations in 2016, a total of 263 political subdivisions nationwide are now covered by Section 203, with a total of 214 political subdivisions in 26 states providing assistance in Spanish, 15 political subdivisions of Alaska providing assistance in an Alaska Native language, 35 political subdivisions in nine states providing assistance in an American Indian language, and 27 political subdivisions in 12 states providing assistance in an Asian language. Inaccurate census data would result in less language assistance across the nation.

​Census data are also important for jurisdictions working to comply with their Section 203 obligations. For example, Census data are often one factor taken into consideration in making the determination of the language for written assistance, as well as the languages for oral assistance at the polls. Additionally, jurisdictions can target their language assistance. For example, translated materials and bilingual poll workers can be placed in those polling locations that serve covered language minority voters as opposed to all polling locations. Jurisdictions can look to census data to inform their planning to determine which polling locations should offer language assistance.

​Census data are also important for jurisdictions looking to provide voluntary language assistance to their constituents. For example, Fairfax County, VA decided to voluntarily provide language assistance in Korean in addition to their Section 203 obligations under Spanish and Vietnamese. Recognizing that the county has a growing Korean population, the county looked to Census data which indicated that approximately 35,000 of the million or so county residents spoke Korean at home, with about 55 percent of them not speaking English very well, for confirmation that this was a community that had a significant need for language assistance.

​The Census Bureau continues to face several challenges this decade that have put a fair and accurate census at risk, including funding shortfalls for virtually the entire decade. These funding shortfalls have led the Census Bureau to make tough decisions, like cancelling all on-site field tests in 2017 and curtailing its End-to-End Test in 2018. While the decades-long reduced funding has had consequences, both Congress and the Administration — recognizing the deficiencies in funding to date and the challenges facing the Census — have taken steps to move the Census Bureau in the right direction. Congress recently boosted Census Bureau funding in the recent Fiscal Year 2018 omnibus spending bill, nearly doubling the 2017 funding level and providing $1.13 billion more than the administration’s adjusted request for 2018. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross stated that “an efficient 2020 Census that provides a full, fair and accurate count has been one of [his] highest priorities since being confirmed,” in asking for an increase in funding for the 2020 Census. It is imperative that the 2020 Census gets back on track as an inaccurate count weakens our democracy with just two years to finalize and implement the decennial census. For all these reasons, a fair and accurate census is important for language minority voters and for those who work to protect their voting rights. We can all pitch in and take steps to ensure everyone gets counted when Census Day 2020 arrives!

​Terry Ao Minnis is a Senior Fellow and Consultant at the Democracy Fund where she advises staff on emerging needs and opportunities to improve voting for all—specifically for those who face unique challenges under our current system. Terry currently serves as the Director of the Census and Voting programs for Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), and co-chairs the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights’ Census Task Force. She received her Juris Doctor, cum laude, from American University Washington College of Law and her Bachelor’s degree in economics at the University of Chicago.

​Follow Terry on Twitter @Tao_Minnis.

Back to Ideas
Blog

Strengthening Democracy by Supporting a Just and Inclusive Society

April 16, 2018

​At Democracy Fund, we believe in the dignity of every individual and in the equal protection of their rights under the law. All people have intrinsic value and dignity, and bigotry in any form undermines our democracy. When these values are threatened, we will stand up to protect and preserve fundamental individual rights as enshrouded in the United States Constitution.

Though bigotry and prejudice are not new phenomena, the 2016 presidential campaign marked a turning point in the tone and tenor of modern political conversation — including a sharp increase in charged rhetoric across cultural, ideological, and partisan divides. Subsequently, findings from Democracy Fund’s Voter Survey Group, have revealed that existing political divides were super-charged by a seemingly renewed cultural anxiety related to Americanism, race, immigration, and Islam/Muslims.

Like many who care about the health of our political system, we at Democracy Fund have been increasingly alarmed by what has followed the election — from the implementation of policies targeting immigrant and minority communities to the rise in hate-crimes against communities of color and Muslim, Arab, and South Asian (MASA) communities.

In response to these disconcerting developments, Democracy Fund has followed the lead of extraordinary Americans throughout the country who are working to ensure the resilience and safety of targeted communities by launching our Special Project on Fostering a Just and Inclusive Society. Through this initiative, we aim to help protect those whose civil rights and safety are endangered in this volatile political landscape—particularly Muslim, Arab, and South Asian (MASA) and immigrant communities. This project centers around a few main objectives:

  • Funding honest and positive communications efforts that support MASA and immigrant communities and promote civil discourse.
  • Creating bipartisan community networks to help and defend MASA communities in the face of threats.
  • Challenging infringements on civil rights through litigation, legal services, and legal education.

Since we began supporting these projects in June of 2017, our grantees have made significant progress building relationships across the field and providing legal support. For example:

There is a tension inherent in this work. Every day we see headlines that remind us of the profound urgency of supporting organizations working on the front lines of our communities and our courts ensure the safety of targeted communities and to defend the dignity our democracy demands. And yet, we recognize that the work of building resilience and combating hatred is long haul work and that the daily struggles of our grantees are steps in a long road toward a more perfect union. We are grateful for their work and pleased to be able to support it.

Grantees under the Just Inclusive Societies Project include the following:

  • Asian Americans Advancing Justice — Asian Law Caucus
  • Business Forward Foundation
  • Civic Nation
  • Faith in Public Life
  • Georgetown University: Institute for Constitutional Accountability & Protection
  • Hopewell Fund: Over Zero
  • Human Rights — Vets for American Ideals
  • Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law
  • Movement Law Lab
  • NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
  • National Immigration Law Center
  • Proteus Fund — Security and Rights Collaborative
  • ReThink media
  • The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
  • USCRI — Freedom to Believe
Cover Photo: Protestors assemble to push for racial justice. Photo by Forrest Walker.
Back to Ideas
Blog

Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network Support Independent Analysis of Facebook’s Role in Elections

Tom Glaisyer
/
April 9, 2018

Today Facebook announced a new initiative which will provide independent researchers access to Facebook data to study the impact the social network has on our elections and our democracy. Democracy Fund, along with the Omidyar Network, Hewlett Foundation and several other leading foundations have come together to support the research efforts that will be enabled through this program. We believe that independent funding of this research is critical, and hope that the program will help the public and policymakers better understand how Facebook is shaping our elections, social fabric, and democratic life.

This announcement comes amidst a firestorm of attention focused on the social media giant’s role in allowing vast amounts of personal data to be released, data which was then used to target shady and divisive political ads at Americans. Last week Facebook revealed that tens of thousands more people were affected by that breach than was first reported. As a foundation fundamentally concerned with the health of our democracy, we have been following this story closely.

In fact, Democracy Fund and the Omidyar Network have been raising the alarm about these issues for sometime. Late last year, the organizations published an in-depth paper asking, “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy?” and identifying six ways in which digital platforms pose direct challenges to our democratic ideals. We have signed on to support this research initiative, but are realistic about the complexities and risks of supporting this effort and are approaching it as one part of a multipronged strategy to create a safer, stronger and more meaningful digital public square.

We are deeply committed to working on meaningful solutions that help rebuild trustworthy spaces for communities to connect, share information and participate in our democracy. We currently fund a range of efforts focused on combating hyper-partisanship, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and fostering a robust fourth estate locally and nationally.

Grantees like Prof. Zeynep Tufekci and ProPublica are doing powerful work on algorithmic accountability. Prof. Young Mie Kim tracked political ads on Facebook in 2016 and Politifact is helping sort truth from fiction on the platform. The German Marshall Fund is tracking Russian misinformation and Free Press is organization diverse communities around the rights to connect and communicate. The Center for Democracy and Technology is helping strengthen election cybersecurity, and spreading best practices for data privacy in voter registration databases and campaign data. Launched in 2017, the Social Science Research Center’s Media & Democracy program encourages academic research, practitioner reflection, and public debate on all aspects of the close relationship between media and democracy, including how changes in the political landscape, such as increasing polarization, have affected the media.

However, in our work with activists, organizations, and scholars in the field we have consistently heard that we can’t address what we don’t know. Through this new research effort Facebook says it will give researchers unpresented access to its data in ways it never has before. The research will be driven by a diverse coalition of scholars. Research projects will have to go through relevant university Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviews, will be rigorously peer reviewed, and may be vetted to ensure Facebook lives up to its legal and ethical commitments to users. Crucially, the research results themselves will not be subject to approval by Facebook

The emphasis of this first announcement is on Facebook’s role in elections, but the committee is also expected to address how Facebook’s systems influence viral deceptions, polarization, and civic engagement. Democracy Fund believes the American people must have effective ways to understand and be a part of the democratic process. As the internet transforms political life, it opens exciting new pathways for public engagement but has also created a fertile ground for abuse, harassment and manipulation that hurt our communities and our society. As this research is planned Democracy Fund will pay special attention to ensuring that the voices and the priorities of those disproportionately harmed by social media are included.

The flood of news about bad actors gaming the system have revealed a troubling disregard for the critical responsibility social media companies have had over our personal privacy and public debate. Facebook, and other platforms, need to acknowledge the oversized role they play in our society and truly prioritize privacy, embrace transparency, and accept accountability. We are realistic about the complexities here, but see this research partnership as a key step towards that goal. Through this program, and in separate endeavors, we are deeply committed to working on meaningful solutions that help rebuild trustworthy spaces for communities to connect, share information and participate in our democracy.

Back to Ideas
Press Release

Democracy Fund, Omidyar Network Support Independent, Diverse, and Transparent Analysis of Facebook

Democracy Fund
/
April 9, 2018

Research Aimed at Identifying Actions and Policies that Affect Elections and Democratic Norms

Washington, D.C. and Redwood City, CA (April 9, 2018) – Earlier today, Facebook announced the launch of a new research initiative that will enable independent researchers to perform an assessment of the role the social platform plays in elections. Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network have joined an effort led by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to support this potentially important step toward addressing how Facebook’s algorithms and vast storehouses of data are shaping elections, the social fabric, and democratic life.

The two organizations’ support is a continuation of the collective work Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network have done to address the unintended consequences of technology and its impacts on democracy. Democracy is under attack from many directions, and the influence social media has on elections is a critical front. While the full extent and impact of the role of malicious domestic actors on the 2016 election remains unknown, it has been verified that social media platforms were misused and that networks including but not limited to Facebook – violated the public’s trust. It’s now incumbent on these platforms to regain trust by urgently implementing technology solutions and supporting policy solutions where appropriate.

Key to finding these solutions will be Facebook’s support of independent, peer-reviewed analyses performed by a diverse committee of academic researchers, including voices who have been disproportionately harmed by social media. In particular, the committee must have diversity across ideology, race and ethnicity, geography, gender, expertise, and life experience. Today’s announcement is a first step in that direction. Notably, the research committee will independently solicit and prioritize research. They will have access to secure, privacy-protected data, which will be critically important in understanding the dynamics and effects of social media on the public square and arriving at informed recommendations about potential solutions. Ultimately, the academics will publish their findings without prior review or approval from Facebook.

The committee is expected to address misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda; polarizing content; promoting freedom of expression and association; protecting domestic elections from foreign interference; and civic engagement. It will answer two critical questions: Does Facebook have the right systems in place to fight misinformation and foreign interference? And how can Facebook help make social media a net positive for democracy?

“Each new story of nefarious actors abusing the platforms – often to foster divisiveness and intolerance – proves just how critical it is that social media companies take responsibility for securing our personal privacy and protecting public debate,” said Tom Glaisyer, managing director of the Public Square Program at Democracy Fund. “If the social media platforms are going to regain the public’s trust and live up to the outsized role they play in our democracy, the platforms must truly prioritize privacy, embrace transparency, and accept accountability. To protect and uphold meaningful rights we need richer, better informed research into the digital public square.”

“At Omidyar Network, we believe that technology can be a massive force for good, but that technologists must take broader responsibility for the implications of their products on society,” noted Paula Goldman, vice president and head of Omidyar Network’s Tech and Society Solutions Lab. “It is urgent that we find solutions that are based on sound analysis, which we cannot do without access to data. We’re hopeful this is first in a series of efforts by platforms to open up their data in a responsible way to help find robust solutions to the problems at hand.”

Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network, both part of The Omidyar Group, are deeply committed to determining how to leverage the potential of technology while addressing its unintended consequences. Late last year, the organizations joined forces to ask “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy?” identifying six ways in which digital platforms pose direct challenges to democratic ideals. To help address these and other issues, Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network are pursuing multi-pronged strategies to help ensure the public square is vibrant, trusted, and informative in the digital age.

Omidyar Network’s Tech and Society Solutions Lab is designed to test, build, and scale solutions that address the unintended consequences of technology – and, more importantly, help maximize the tech industry’s contributions to a healthy society. For example, the Lab has invested in Tristan Harris, a former Design Ethicist at Google, who co-founded the Center for Humane Technology in part to develop new models for how technology could contribute to individual and public health. The Lab is also partnering with tech, media, and civil society leaders to support a grassroots campaign to create a code of ethics for the data science community to adopt principles of responsible data use and sharing.

Democracy Fund believes the American people must have effective ways to understand and be a part of the democratic process. As the internet transforms political life, it opens exciting new pathways for public engagement while challenging models that used to work. Democracy Fund is deeply committed to solutions that combat hyper-partisanship and ensure that elections have integrity. Some examples of this work include Professor Zeynep Tufekci’s research on algorithmic accountability and the “Eye on Elections” project led by Professor Young Mie Kim. Democracy Fund has also supported a number of specific efforts to address misinformation in news including Politifact, Hoaxy Bot-O-Meter, the Social Science Research Council’s Media & Democracy program, the Documenters Project by City Bureau and more.

All of these projects have the shared goal of increasing the accountability and responsibility of the technology industry and social media platforms. Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network are realistic about the complexities and risks of supporting this effort, but believe it has the potential to be a new avenue through which the public, platforms themselves, and policymakers will be able to better understand the implications of social media for the future of democracy.

***
ABOUT DEMOCRACY FUND

Democracy Fund, part of The Omidyar Group, is a bipartisan foundation created by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar to help ensure that our political system can withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people. Since 2011, Democracy Fund has invested more than $70 million in support of a healthy democracy, including modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square. To learn more, visit www.democracyfund.org or follow @democracyfund.

ABOUT OMIDYAR NETWORK

Omidyar Network, part of The Omidyar Group, is a philanthropic investment firm dedicated to harnessing the power of markets to create opportunity for people to improve their lives. Established in 2004 by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam, the organization invests in and helps scale innovative organizations to catalyze economic and social change. Omidyar Network has committed more than $1.2 billion to for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations that foster economic advancement and encourage individual participation across multiple initiatives, including Education, Emerging Tech, Financial Inclusion, Governance & Citizen Engagement, and Property Rights. To learn more, visit www.omidyar.com, and follow on Twitter @omidyarnetwork #PositiveReturns

CONTACTS:

Jessica Harris
202-448-4503
media@democracyfund.org

Libby Smiley
415-990-314
lsmiley@omidyar.com

 

Back to Ideas
Blog

Defending Democracy and the Rule of Law through Accountability and Oversight

Lara Flint
/
April 2, 2018

Checks and balances. Separation of powers. Rule of law. Accountability.

These are terms that are thrown around a lot in D.C. But what does upholding these fundamental tenets of our system of government look like in practice? Last year, Democracy Fund embarked on an effort to tackle this difficult question, investing $6 million over the course of two years.

Through our special project on Government Accountability, Transparency, and Oversight we aim to defend and strengthen the democratic norms that underpin our system of government. Our democracy is strongest when each branch of government serves as a check on the other to ensure there is a balance of power that allows no single branch to dominate the others.

Governmental watchdogs and other institutions of civic life play a critical role in monitoring our government and holding it accountable to the Constitution, the law, and the people. They are engaged in education, advocacy, litigation, research, and other actions that reveal abuses and improve Congress’ ability to conduct oversight. Ultimately their work should lead to increased public demand for action, and more effective checks and balances across the three branches of government.

This special project is an expansion of the critical work we are already doing to improve our institutions. The Governance Program at Democracy Fund has worked for years to strengthen Congress’ capacity to conduct constructive oversight of the executive branch—the type of oversight that helps government better serve the American people. But the current political environment poses new threats to the rule of law and to the system of checks and balances. The question is: Can we protect the rule of law through a constructive approach that brings people together to support the foundation of our system of government? In this partisan moment, can we find bipartisan approaches to protecting democratic norms and holding the government accountable to the American people?

We believe the answer to these questions is “yes.”

We must do all we can to ensure that the structural safeguards of checks and balances established by our Constitution—and the mechanisms that influence and support those safeguards—will work as intended. This holds true regardless of the party that controls the White House, or the two chambers of Congress.

With that in mind, Democracy Fund is investing in a few different areas through this special project. We are working to strengthen the capacity of Congress to engage in effective oversight through watchdogs like the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). Executive branch oversight is a core function of Congress, but congressional capacity to conduct effective oversight has suffered from the same institutional weaknesses—hyper-partisanship, lack of capacity—that have imperiled Congress’ ability to legislate effectively. POGO, along with the Levin Center and the Lugar Center, train congressional staff on both sides of the aisle about how to do effective, bipartisan oversight. That could include working with federal whistleblowers, who are a critical source of information about government wrongdoing. Federal employees who witness waste, fraud, abuse, or who are ordered to engage in actions they believe to be unlawful—and refuse to go along—are a key backstop to ensure accountability. They deserve strong legal protections and representation, which is why we have invested in organizations like the Government Accountability Project (GAP).

Other key elements of accountable government are transparency, and strong ethics rules. We are working to enhance the transparency of government actions and decision-making through our investments in groups like Open the Government and the National Security Archive, and to provide independent fact-checking of government statements on complicated issues through groups like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. We are likewise supporting organizations like Issue One, who identify and enforce ethics violations, conflicts of interest, and other forms of corruption to ensure government decisions are made for the benefit of the American people—not to enrich a few.

The current climate has shown that we cannot take for granted the rule of law. To strengthen our constitutional system of checks and balances, we are supporting organizations who are working to strengthen our democratic system and prepare for and respond to potential crises, such as the R Street Institute and the Protect Democracy Project.

The fundamental goal of our special project is to ensure that checks and balances, separation of powers, rule of law, and accountability aren’t just Washington buzzwords, but rather, that they remain the principles that form the foundation of our democracy. And if nothing else, we should all be able to agree on that.

Grantees under the Special Project on Government Accountability, Transparency, and Oversight Include the Following:

  • Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System — Project DATA
  • Brookings Institution — Lawfare
  • Center for Responsive Politics
  • Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
  • German Marshal Fund — Alliance for Securing Democracy
  • Government Accountability Project
  • Issue One
  • National Security Archive Fund
  • Open the Government
  • Partnership for Public Service
  • Protect Democracy Project
  • R Street Institute
  • The Constitution Project at POGO
  • The Lugar Center
  • The Project on Government Oversight
  • Wayne State University — Levin Center
  • William J. Brennan Center for Justice

Democracy Fund is a foundation working to build an inclusive, multiracial democracy that is open, just, resilient, and trustworthy.

Democracy Fund
1200 17th Street NW Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20036
© 2025 Democracy Fund — Founded by The Omidyar Group