Blog

A $100 Million Commitment to Healthy Democracy​

/
June 26, 2018

This Fourth of July, Democracy Fund will celebrate its fourth anniversary as an independent foundation. Little did I know in the summer of 2014 just how profound the threats facing our country would turn out to be or the degree to which the health of our nation’s political system would become a near-universally recognized problem. Lately, I find myself thinking that this organization was created for this moment — though I did not realize it was coming.

Fittingly, July Fourth will also mark an important milestone in our growth as an institution — $100 million in grants made to organizations strengthening U.S. democracy. It has been our privilege to make these resources available to a remarkable group of leaders working to ensure that our democratic institutions deliver on their promise to the American people.

While Democracy Fund’s core mission has not changed from its founding, this organization looks very different from four years ago when we had a staff of three and a dozen or so grantees. The events of the past two years demanded that we clarify our core convictions and to dramatically expand our commitment to strengthen American democracy and defend the United States Constitution.

The purpose of this open letter is to share how we have changed, to demonstrate an ongoing commitment to our core programs, and to explain why we think it is so important that philanthropy stand up patriotically in this moment.

With today’s publication of our vision for a healthy democracy, I acknowledge that our commitment to bipartisanship cannot come at the expense of our core values. Indeed, we believe that being bipartisan cannot mean being neutral when actions are taken that threaten our republic.

At Democracy Fund, we believe a healthy democracy requires at least two competitive political parties — and that democratic institutions work best when they have broad support from across the political spectrum. We deeply value our ability to work with Republicans, Democrats, and independents to find ways to ensure that our democracy works for all Americans.

But we also believe in the dignity of every individual and in the equal protection of their rights under law. We believe that checks and balances, as well as respect for the rule of law, are critical to protect against abuses of power. We believe that political leaders bear an uncommon burden to act with integrity. And we believe that threats to the health of our democracy — as well as solutions to these — can come from all sides of the political spectrum.

Over the past two years, I have seen alarming and sometimes unprecedented violations of our country’s democratic norms. For an organization committed to strengthening democracy on behalf of the American people, this isn’t just disturbing — it’s humbling.

Over the past two years, I have seen alarming and sometimes unprecedented violations of our country’s democratic norms. For an organization committed to strengthening democracy on behalf of the American people, this isn’t just disturbing — it’s humbling.

With this in mind, Democracy Fund convened its National Advisory Committee and board of directors in the early months of 2017 to consider how we would stand up to urgent, new threats facing our Constitution.

Our first priority was to articulate the beliefs that underlie our work, and clearly assert those core democratic principles for which we stand. Working with our advisors and a diverse group of scholars, we created a healthy democracy framework to help explicate the values that motivate our efforts. The framework will serve as a compass, inform decision-making, and provide clarity about the principled positions underlying our actions for ourselves and others.

Having articulated these beliefs, we knew that staying the course in the face of new and widening gaps between our vision for a healthy democracy and the realities of America today was not an option. We rebooted some of Democracy Fund’s core programs and added new, bipartisan initiatives to stop abuses of government power, secure our elections, defend press freedom, and combat misinformation. We increased our staff by more than 40 percent and tripled the size of our grantmaking budget. We also created three new special projects that include two-year commitments of:

In addition, we launched the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group to help policymakers keep in touch with the beliefs and attitudes of ordinary Americans.

Even as we continue our ongoing work to strengthen American democracy, we’re taking a stand against real and direct threats to our Constitution.

Combatting the Abuse of Power

Core to our understanding of a healthy democracy is the notion that constitutional checks and balances protect against abuses of power and preserve the rule of law. Over the past year, Democracy Fund has worked to reinvigorate government accountability in a challenging environment in which government leaders have openly flouted ethics rules and challenged the independence of everything from the courts to the Justice Department.

Democracy Fund’s grantees are fighting back aggressively. Collectively, they have participated in more than 35 lawsuits targeting government corruption, secrecy, and ethics violations. In addition to exposing abuses, these legal actions are helping to protect institutions that have come under attack. For example, a FOIA lawsuit filed by Lawfare helped secure the release of 100 F.B.I. emails that contradicted the White House’s false narrative that former F.B.I. Director James Comey had lost Bureau support before his firing.

Other grantees, like the National Security Archive, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), and the Government Accountability Project, have filed more than 2,300 FOIA requests to expose government corruption, misconduct, waste, and conflicts of interest. Work by POGO and Open the Government has led the Department of Homeland Security to release an Inspector General report criticizing initial implementation of the Muslim travel ban.

POGO, the Lugar Center, and the Levin Center are also continuing to encourage bipartisan congressional oversight by training nearly 300 Hill staffers on how to hold the executive branch accountable. In addition, POGO and the Government Accountability Project have distributed whistleblower education materials to more than 2,100 federal employees, NGO employees, journalists, and engaged citizens.

Another grantee engaged in especially urgent work is the Protect Democracy Project, which was established in February 2017. In its first month of operation, the Project successfully helped force the Trump administration to release a policy restricting communications between the White House and the Department of Justice. Then, it helped expose instances in which the White House had violated those restrictions. In just a year, the Protect Democracy Project has forced important public disclosures on issues ranging from potential executive overreach into a major healthcare merger, to alleged intimidation of federal workers, to the legal rationale behind military strikes in Syria.

Three grantees of our affiliated 501(c)4, Democracy Fund Voice — R Street Institute, Stand Up Republic, and the Niskanen Center — are working to build bipartisan networks to push back against threats to our democracy. These networks are working to stand up for democratic norms while building consensus on a vision for American democracy over the long term.

To stop the abuse of political power, our grantees are cutting deep into the weeds of government. But we are confronted by threats that go deeper still, undermining the most basic feature of our democracy: free and fair elections.

Securing Our Elections

We believe that voting is the cornerstone of our democracy; but when it comes to elections, Democracy Fund worries less about who wins than about whether people have faith in the outcome. False claims that millions of fraudulent votes were cast in 2016 have the potential to undermine faith in our elections — while creating a spurious justification for erecting barriers that make it more difficult for Americans to vote.

M.I.T.’s Election Data and Science Lab and the Center for Election Innovation & Research played a leading role in pushing back against these false claims that the Pence-Kobach Voter Fraud Commission sought to justify. These efforts to correct the record — alongside legal actions by Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, the Campaign Legal Center, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund, and others — contributed to the eventual dissolution of the Commission.

We believe that voting is the cornerstone of our democracy, but when it comes to elections, Democracy Fund worries less about who wins than about whether people have faith in the outcome.

At the same time, we know malicious foreign actors made a concerted effort to undermine the 2016 presidential election and that the security of our next election cannot be taken for granted. For more than 12 months, Democracy Fund Voice worked with its partners to persuade Congress to provide state and local election officials with the resources and training necessary to maintain the highest possible security. This work paid off last month, when Congress included $380 million in grants to the states to improve cybersecurity, replace paperless voting machines, and perform post-election audits (among other measures). Lawmakers also approved $10 million in funding for the Election Assistance Commission — a 10 percent increase — and provided the F.B.I. with an additional $300 million to bolster election cybersecurity.

Democracy Fund grantees have also found innovative ways to get ahead of the next attack on our election infrastructure. The bipartisan duo of Robby Mook and Matt Rhoads (former campaign managers for Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, respectively) launched a new program at Harvard to help campaigns and election officials protect sensitive data against intrusion. The effort is organizing “tabletop exercises” that simulate attacks on election systems — and allow election officials and security experts to practice their response.

Additional grantees with a focus on money in politics have also played important roles. The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) developed a symposium and report about whether current laws are sufficient to prevent or deter future intrusion. Campaign finance complaints filed by CLC and Common Cause forced other actors, including President Donald Trump’s lawyer, to disclose more information about alleged foreign interference than otherwise known. Additionally, CLC and others have done important work to promote greater disclosure on social media platforms.

Defending the Fourth Estate

At a moment when journalists face profound economic and political threats, Democracy Fund is helping to ensure our fourth estate remains free and resilient. In the healthy democracy framework, we assert that journalists provide a critical check on power, holding our leaders accountable and revealing corruption, wrongdoing, and conflicts of interest. They provide Americans with the information they need to uphold the promise of a democracy of, by, and for the people. That’s why Democracy Fund has made a two-year commitment of $11 million to strengthen investigative reporting. It’s also why we’re supporting press freedom watchdogs, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reporters Without Borders, and the Student Press Law Center.

Grants to the nation’s premier investigative watchdogs have enabled these nonprofit newsrooms to pursue a wide range of stories that have held administration officials accountable for wrongdoing, forced divestitures, and changed laws.

ProPublica has taken on biased algorithms, forced changes in Facebook’s advertising rules, and prompted New York City lawmakers to pass the country’s first bill to address discrimination produced by social media algorithms. And Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross divested from his global shipping company after an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity showed significant conflicts of interest.

Too often, journalists become targets for threats and abuse as a result of their work to advance the public interest. Trump administration officials have gone so far as to call out Democracy Fund grantees by name. One grantee, the Pulitzer Prize-winning newsroom ProPublica, faced a cyberattack that took down its entire email system — an attempt to silence ProPublica journalists in retribution for hard-hitting reporting on hate crimes and extremists groups. In the face of these attacks, Democracy Fund’s support provided these grantees with the resources and independence they needed to stand firm, fix their systems, and continue their indispensable work.

Local newsrooms are, in many ways, the building blocks of our democracy, covering stories that matter to residents and holding local leaders accountable in a way that no other organizations can.

Local newsrooms are, in many ways, the building blocks of our democracy, covering stories that matter to residents and holding local leaders accountable in a way that no other organizations can. Yet, across the country, we’ve seen an increase in “trickle-down” attacks on the press, where those in power use their positions to undermine — or even encourage violence against — local journalists. These attacks have come at a time of severe economic turmoil for many local newsrooms, when their business models are failing — and their continued viability is in serious question.

That’s why Democracy Fund has worked hand-in-glove with peer funders to launch NewsMatch — an unprecedented campaign to strengthen nonprofit journalism and make 2017 a record-breaking year for giving to local investigative news. With the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and a partnership of five additional funders, we matched donations to nonprofit newsrooms for the last three months of 2017, helping journalists raise more than $4.8 million. Among the more than 100 nonprofit newsrooms that participated, nearly all raised more dollars from more donors than ever before.

 

Even as we work to ensure that all Americans have access to quality local news and investigative reporting, Democracy Fund’s grantees are also striving to combat the misinformation that pollutes our public square. For instance, long before Cambridge Analytica captured national headlines, we published a report examining the ways in which social media platforms exacerbate information disorders, spread hate, and threaten our democracy.

But declining trust in media is not only a product of this political moment. It also stems from the ways journalism has at times stood apart from communities and failed to deliver stories that matter to them. Grantees in our Engaged Journalism portfolio continue to experiment with tools that foster a deeper connection between newsrooms and the public. In the context of that work, we’ve made significant commitments to making newsrooms more diverse and representative of their readership.

Through all of our efforts in this space, Democracy Fund is working toward a future where we can trust the headlines we see — and the democracy we shape together.

Protecting the Dignity and Rights of Each Individual

First among our core beliefs is a fundamental dedication to the dignity of every individual in our democracy, and the protection of their rights under the law. Without a recognition of our common humanity and a common American identity, our democracy cannot function. All too often, however, divisive rhetoric targeting Muslims and immigrants — rhetoric that has been embraced, over the past year, by policymakers, government officials, and media figures — encourages bigotry among the public while creating political momentum for policies that demean individuals and threaten to violate basic civil rights.

Nationally, as well as in individual communities throughout the country, Democracy Fund grantees are fighting for greater inclusion — and pushing back against policies that undermine what it means to be an American. While some leaders in government and the media blamed the hate-motivated violence we saw in Charlottesville on “both sides,” Democracy Fund grantees like Faith & Public Life were training clergy in nonviolent strategies to protect peaceful demonstrators from gun-wielding white supremacists. In the aftermath of that conflict, Georgetown University’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) acted to prevent it from happening again. ICAP lawyers discovered provisions of Virginia law — dating back to 1776 — that prohibit “paramilitary activity.” This discovery became the basis of a 79-page lawsuit ICAP filed in Charlottesville last October.

As activist groups, members of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian (MASA) communities, and allied organizations came together, over the past year, to challenge the Trump administration’s Muslim and refugee ban, the Proteus Fund’s Security & Rights Collaborative (SRC) played a critical coordination role. Through the #NoMuslimBanEver campaign, SRC helped facilitate mobilization efforts across the country — and also provided direct monetary and strategic support to MASA organizations. Their and their grantees’ work continued this spring, when ICAP’s Neal Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued against the ban before the Supreme Court.

 

In our effort to maintain a just and inclusive society, Democracy Fund has also partnered with Freedom to Believe, an organization that brings people of all faiths and backgrounds to mosques to learn more about Islam and forge connections with Muslim communities. Similarly, our grantee Veterans for American Ideals is using proven strategic communications tactics to promote tolerance. Their #WhatIFoughtFor campaign showcases moving collaborations between refugees and military service members that are helping to make America, in every sense, a more perfect union.

In recent months, Democracy Fund staff have also worked closely with Civic Nation and NBCUniversal to support the re-launch of their “Erase the Hate” campaign to combat prejudice, hate crimes, and the spread of hate speech online.

Understanding the American Public

The concept of robust representation is embedded throughout our healthy democracy framework and is fundamental to the proper function of our democratic republic. In this unique and consequential moment, it is as important as ever before that America’s leaders — in public office and at every level of civil society — hold a nuanced understanding of the American public, their experience and preferences, and how their changing attitudes are reshaping our politics. To this end, Democracy Fund created the Voter Study Group to dig deep into public opinion data — and then to analyze and share those results with policymakers, government officials, and the media.

There are two key attributes that distinguish the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group from other polling efforts. First, the group itself is made up of a diverse group of scholars from across the political spectrum, ranging from the Center for American Progress and the Brookings Institution on the left to Heritage Action and the American Enterprise Institute on the right. This remarkable diversity of opinion not only increases the quality of our analysis; it also means we have been able to gain attention and interest from media and policymakers in important and unusual ways. Second, the use of a longitudinal dataset — which surveys the same group of people who have been questioned since 2011 — has yielded deep insights into how the American electorate is changing in ways that are quite unique. We believe that the collaborative nature of this project lends itself especially well to the vigorous, informed dialogue across ideological difference that is necessary to sustainable policy and sustainable politics.

 

Since its launch, the Voter Study Group has released ten reports. Initial analyses focused on understanding the 2016 electorate, examining the composition of President Trump’s political base, and considering how party coalitions are changing. More recently, the group published “Follow the Leader,” a report that sought to assess the health of American democracy by better understanding authoritarian attitudes among the public.

What we found was alarming. Nearly one in four Americans say it would be good to have a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections. Nearly one in five say the same of military rule. In aggregate, 29 percent of respondents showed at least some support for an authoritarian alternative to democracy.

And yet, the cause for hope was clear: when offered a direct choice, the overwhelming majority of Americans chose democracy. Moreover, we didn’t see a correlation between dissatisfaction with democracy and support for authoritarian options.

Frustration and anger at the state of our democracy are well founded; openness to autocracy is not. The big question for us — as an organization and a leader in the philanthropic space — is what more we can do to strengthen our democracy, both for the next election and for the next generation.

Our Commitment to a Healthy Democracy

We live at a time when the principles articulated in our healthy democracy framework are threatened by uniquely dangerous circumstances. At Democracy Fund, we firmly believe these threats demand a full-throated response.

Admittedly, the approach I have outlined above is far more aggressive — necessarily so — than the one we took during our first few years of operation. In the face of unprecedented threats, philanthropists — including Democracy Fund — can’t just do what we’ve been doing. This moment demands something more than business as usual. That’s why Democracy Fund is calling on our peer organizations to take action — and why, moving forward, we will be proud to serve as a partner and resource to any funder willing to stand up and speak out for our Constitution.

Even as we respond to the current crises, we know the conditions that gave rise to this moment will still be with us for the foreseeable future. So we all need to commit to the long-term health of our democracy. Beyond the work outlined in this letter, Democracy Fund continues its work to reduce polarization, modernize elections, diversify newsrooms, and perform other essential tasks to strengthen our political system. Our hope is that peer funders will also join us on these longer-term projects.

At a time when our political institutions are under tremendous strain, Democracy Fund and its partners have been inspired by ordinary Americans who are standing up in extraordinary ways to help protect our republic. Their examples are proof that the vision outlined in our healthy democracy framework is not too much to hope for. That is why we’re rallying experts, activists, political leaders, and patriotic philanthropists to renew their personal responsibility for the greater good of our democracy.

Blog

New Report: A Growing Gap in Philanthropic Support for Newsroom Diversity

/
June 19, 2018

Journalism has long struggled to reflect the diversity of the communities it serves, and over the past decade, most efforts to support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in news outlets have been unsuccessful in creating meaningful change within the stories, sources, and staff of newsrooms across the United States.

New research released today by Democracy Fund traces half a decade of philanthropic investment in organizations, programming, and research aimed at increasing DEI in journalism. We commissioned this report to learn from the important work undertaken up to this point, to guide our future investments, and to spark discussions across philanthropy regarding the urgent need to address these challenges with significant new resources.

This report is based on data from the Foundation Maps for Media Funding, created by the Foundation Center for Media Impact Funders. The data set has some important limitations due to the nature of self-reporting and challenges around how grants are categorized. Even so, Katie Donnelly and Jessica Clark at Dot Connector Studio have done great work to reveal larger trends in the field.

From 2009 to 2015, $1.2 billion was invested in journalism, news and information in the U.S.
From 2009 to 2015, $1.2 billion was invested in journalism, news and information in the U.S.

Recent research by the Shorenstein Center at Harvard and Northeastern University, using the same Foundation Center data as well as a study of foundation 990 tax forms, found that there is simply not enough philanthropic dollars flowing into journalism to make up for the gaps in what has been lost from legacy newsrooms. Amongst the funding that does exist there are troubling gaps and disparities. Our report provides a deeper look at one of those gaps, showing that there are even fewer dollars are going to DEI efforts within the industry.

Here are a few interesting takeaways, according to data as of February 2018:From 2009 to 2015, there were 1,105 grants totaling $105.6 million from 274 funders to 294 recipients pertaining to either racial and ethnic groups, women and girls, or LGBTQI populations.

  • Funding has declined in these areas overall, both in terms of dollar value by $1.3 million and total number of grants by 18.
  • When it comes to funding that serves racial and ethnic groups, relatively few dollars go towards financial sustainability compared to programming and project-specific funding.
  • There has been significantly less investment in gender-related news and staffing compared to racial and ethnic groups.
  • Funding serving LGBTQI populations in journalism remains extremely limited.
Here’s a breakdown of philanthropic support strategies for funding DEI in journalism.
Here’s a breakdown of philanthropic support strategies for funding DEI in journalism.

The past efforts represented in these numbers faced stiff headwinds and real challenges, including a dramatic financial downturn that strained the news industry. But tight budgets alone cannot explain the persistent gap in employment opportunities between minorities and their white counterparts seeking jobs in journalism. Nor does it excuse the historic leadership failure of legacy outlets to fulfill their promise to diversify their ranks.

Reviewing this history, we are left with more questions than answers: How should we think about supporting programs and investigative projects looking at inequality when they may be housed at news outlets with a weak history of supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion internally? How do we rethink equitable funding so that program-specific funds at ethnic media outlets don’t exacerbate financial and structural uncertainty? And how do we ensure that investments in diversity, equity, and inclusion have broad and measurable impact across the industry?

Prior to this research we created a public database of organizations invested in diversity, equity, and inclusion in journalism, and we’ve got more research on the way that we hope will provide a better snapshot of the field of ethnic media and the challenges and opportunities facing those outlets.

Democracy Fund isn’t represented in the data released today because we only became an independent foundation in 2014. However, in our first few years we’ve prioritized this work. So far we are:

  • Working with News Integrity Initiative, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, and Gates Foundation in diverse leadership training from the Maynard Institute;
  • Collaborating with Google News Initiative to help revamp the ASNE Diversity Survey led by Dr. Meredith Clark;
  • Investing in new models like City Bureau with the MacArthur Foundation
  • Partnering with funders like Knight Foundation and Open Society Foundations to support data training from the Ida B. Wells Society;
  • Co-funding the National Association of Black Journalists with the Ford Foundation;
  • Working alongside the Heising-Simons Foundation to support paid internships for aspiring journalists of color through the Emma Bowen Foundation.

Together with these funders, we are learning from the research we released today to ensure that our strategies are as effective and equitable as possible. We are committed to supporting innovations in engaged journalism through grantmaking, partnerships, and collaboration. This report is part of that commitment.

Blog

Introducing the Engaged Journalism Lab

/
June 18, 2018

The ability of journalism to serve as our Fourth Estate—to be a check and balance on government and powerful interests—is under increasing threat. Journalism today faces multiple challenges: a faltering business model with shrinking resources; a political environment in which they find themselves under attack; and a climate of deep distrust by the American people.

In a 2017 survey, the Poynter Institute, a Democracy Fund grantee, found that only 49% of Americans have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the media. We believe this distrust is connected to another problem: journalism’s lack of deep engagement with its audience, exacerbated by news organizations whose staff and coverage do not represent the communities they serve.

At Democracy Fund, one of our goals is to ensure that every American citizen has access to audience-centered, trusted, resilient journalism. To meet this goal, we are working to build a media landscape that truly serves the public interest. Through our Public Square Program, we support projects and organizations that enable newsrooms to build meaningful, trusted relationships with their communities through audience-driven storytelling, inclusion, and transparency. We call this work “Engaged Journalism” and have seen firsthand how practical investments in these organizations and ideas can have a transformative effect on newsrooms.

As a part of this effort, we’re re-launching the Democracy Fund Engaged Journalism Lab on Medium. The Engaged Journalism Lab will focus, not on how to get a grant from Democracy Fund, but rather on what our grantees and partners are doing and learning. We’ll also discuss the big ideas shaping the field and shine a spotlight on the people helping to make journalism more collaborative and engaged with its community. We hope it will serve as a resource for those working at the intersection of media and democracy.

Managed by Paul Waters and Lea Trusty, the Engaged Journalism Lab will feature content on a variety of subjects, including how newsrooms can better:

  • Engage their communities in content generation, production, dissemination, and discussion;
  • Address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion within journalism through inclusive newsroom policies and practices, including recruiting, retaining, and promoting diverse staff and supporting minority ownership of independent media properties;
  • Experiment with new tools and technology that aim to help the public and news distribution platforms identify quality, trusted news; and
  • Rebuild and fortify trust between the media and Americans.

We recognize that these are not small goals—and we know we can’t do it alone. We believe that collaboration is the only way we can begin to solve journalism’s most pressing challenges, and as a systems change organization, we are committed to learning, iterating, and partnering in ways that strengthen both our work and the field at large.

It is our hope the Engaged Journalism Lab becomes a place to highlight new ideas and uncover new solutions that we haven’t thought of yet. If you have a question or a thought, please share it. If there’s an idea or project that we should know about, please let us know. We don’t pretend to have all answers to journalism’s problems, but we hope this will be a place where we can work through them together.

Blog

Democracy Fund Announces 2018 National Advisory Committee

/
June 7, 2018

We are excited to announce the new cohort of the Democracy Fund National Advisory Committee. This group of leaders from across the political spectrum brings expertise in politics, academia, media, culture, and philanthropy, and are committed to helping us find achievable solutions to our nation’s biggest problems.

Three years ago, shortly after Democracy Fund became an independent foundation, we established our first National Advisory Committee to help us think big, identify gaps in our work, and dig into the tough questions facing our political system. We are deeply grateful to our first cohort for their advice, candid feedback, and partnership. We look forward to elevating the expertise and ideas of our new committee, which includes new and returning voices, in our work to support a healthy democracy.

The Democracy Fund’s 2018 National Advisory Committee includes:

Hon. Robin Carnahan, National Advisory Committee Co-Chair
The Honorable Robin Carnahan leads the State and Local Government Practice at 18F, the team of digital technology consultants housed within the General Services Administration. Carnahan was twice elected Secretary of State of Missouri and served as senior director at the global strategy firm Albright Stonebridge Group.

Brett Loper, National Advisory Committee Co-Chair
Brett Loper is Senior Vice President, Global Government Affairs, for American Express. In that role, he coordinates the Company’s engagement strategy with policy makers in the United States and countries around the globe. Before joining American Express, he held the position of Deputy Chief of Staff to U. S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).

Kristen Soltis Anderson, Member
Kristen Soltis Anderson is a researcher, pollster, and political analyst and co-founder of Echelon Insights, an innovative research and analysis data analysis firms. She is a leading expert on the millennial generation and is author of The Selfie Vote: Where Millennials are Leading America (And How Republicans Can Keep Up).

Francis Fukuyama, Member
Francis Fukuyama is Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and the Mosbacher Director of FSI’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at Stanford University. He is professor (by courtesy) of political science.

Lanhee Chen, Member
Lanhee J. Chen, Ph.D. is the David and Diane Steffy Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution; Director of Domestic Policy Studies and Lecturer in the Public Policy Program at Stanford University; and Lecturer in Law at Stanford Law School. Chen served as the Policy Director of the Romney-Ryan 2012 presidential campaign.

Cherie Harder, Member
Cherie Harder serves as President of The Trinity Forum. Prior to joining the Trinity Forum in 2008, and previously served in the White House as Special Assistant to the President and Director of Policy and Projects for First Lady Laura Bush.

Lisa Leingang, Member
Lisa Leingang has worked in the media and entertainment business for over 25 years and is currently Senior Vice President of Scripted Programming at First Look Media. With senior executive roles ranging from production to development executive, she has held posts at various media companies including HBO, NBC, CBS and Viacom, discovering, nurturing and developing creative talent from all over the world.

Kierna Mayo, Member
Kierna Mayo is the Senior Vice President of Lifestyle Content + Brands at iOne Digital, Inc. A veteran culture writer/editor and brand architect, Mayo has been recognized by Folio, The Root, and the NAACP among others as a modern media trailblazer.

Hon. Mellissa Mark-Vivierito, Member
Melissa Mark-Viverito is Senior Advisory to the Latino Victory Fund (LVF) and former Speaker of the New York City Council. In her current capacity, Mark-Viverito works with LVF to identify and recruit progressive Latino candidates, expand the Political Action Committee’s fundraising and state infrastructure, and help launch state chapters in Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. Her work will focus heavily on the 2018 midterm elections.

Raju Narisetti, Member
Raju Narisetti is the new director of the Knight-Bagehot Fellowship in Economic and Business Journalism and professor of professional practice at the Columbia Journalism School. He was most recently the CEO of Gizmodo Media Group, a portfolio of digital journalism sites that included some of the web’s most beloved and authentic brands, including Gizmodo, Jezebel, Deadspin, Lifehacker, The Root. A media executive with a track record in creating, rethinking and managing major media organizations in North America, Europe and Asia, Raju was also previously Senior Vice-President of Strategy at News Corp.

Chip Sullivan, Member
Chip Sullivan serves as Executive Vice President, Communications, at NBC Entertainment where he is responsible for strategy, development and execution of public and media relations for the network and Universal Television.

Sonal Shah, Member
Sonal Shah is an economist and entrepreneur. She is the Executive Director of the Beeck Center of Social impact and Innovation at Georgetown University. She led policy innovation at the White House for President Obama and the Treasury Department for President Clinton.

Anthea Watson Strong, Member
Anthea Watson Strong designs and builds technology that supports our shared civic infrastructure as a Project Manager for News at Facebook. She leads a new program that establishes stronger ties between Facebook and the news industry. She previously lead the Civics team at Google and launched products in over 30 countries, reaching hundreds of millions of users.

Charlie Sykes, Member
Charles J. Sykes is a an author/commentator. He is a contributing editor of the Weekly Standard and a contributor to NBC/MSNBC. A former conservative talk show host, Sykes has been published in the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Review of Books, Politico, Newsweek, and other national publications. He is the author of nine books. His most recent book, How the Right Lost Its Mind, was published in 2017; an updated paperback edition will be published in October.

Geneva Overholser, Member
Geneva Overholser, an independent journalist in New York City, is a senior fellow at USC Annenberg’s Center for Communication Leadership and Policy. She was until 2013 director of the USC Annenberg School of Journalism. She serves on the boards of the Rita Allen Foundation, the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, the Women’s Media Center, and the Academy of American Poets.

Rev. Starsky Wilson, Member
The Reverend Starsky D. Wilson is a pastor, philanthropist and activist pursuing God’s vision of community marked by justice, peace, and love. He is pastor of Saint John’s Church (The Beloved Community), president & CEO of Deaconess Foundation and chair of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

 

Democracy Fund National Advisory Committee members serve for three-year terms and meet twice yearly to advise Democracy Fund on matters of organizational strategy. They play a critical role in helping the Democracy Fund develop effective strategies that ensure the American people come first in our democracy.

***
 

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.

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 BallotScouta 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.

 

Blog

DF-LEO: Understanding Elections through Local Election Officials

/
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

Blog

A Special Project to Defend America’s Fourth Estate

/
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:

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.

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.
Democracy Fund
1200 17th Street NW Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20036