"The Freedom to Vote Act — the most significant voting rights bill in generations — would be a giant step toward our goal of creating a just, inclusive, multiracial democracy."
The Build Back Better Act would dramatically help working people and families. Now, the passage of this once-in-a-lifetime framework is in the hands of a few legislators who are beholden to corporations and the ultrarich.
Tomorrow the United States Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case that has great relevance for our efforts to build an inclusive, multiracial democracy.
"For the sake of millions — people watching their rents go up while their wages don’t, parents who need support in tackling the ever-rising cost of child care, and seniors who regularly must decide whether they can afford their bills or their pills — the Senate must pass this legislation.”
This case study follows the Texas Organizing Project as it worked to build power and equity for working-class Black & Latino communities in greater Houston after Hurricane Harvey—ultimately implementing a winning 3-part inside-outside strategy.
Organizers from the Texas Organizing Project (TOP) have been working to change the balance of power in the county to ensure a more equitable distribution of disaster funding, so that the people most impacted by climate change have the most say in how that funding is spent.
This case study highlights how New Economy Project and the Public Bank NYC coalition are pressing for the creation of a public bank for New York City, as part of a broader vision for economic and racial justice.
This case study follows the coalition For Us Not Amazon (FUNA) and members of the Athena Coalition as they organized to prevent one of the biggest corporations in the world from taking over the civic, social, and political life of Northern Virginia and beyond.
We know that curbing the influence of lobbyists, money, and organized interest groups while strengthening working families' voices in our political system is the only way to end the devastation of gun violence in America.
Justice Thomas’s egregious actions are part of a long pattern of justices with deep ties to wealthy, politically motivated far-right donors. Congress must act.
The Supreme Court today turned back a constitutional challenge to spending limits for student government campaigns at the University of Montana, denying review of a June 2007 ruling by the Ninth Circuit that upheld the limits. The Supreme Court's action is a victory for the Associated Students of the University of Montana ("ASUM") and the University, which argued that the limits on campaign spending serve to assure all students, regardless of their financial circumstances, an equal opportunity to win election to student government.
WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court today announced its decision in Randall v. Sorrell, a case addressing the constitutionality of Vermont's comprehensive campaign finance law, passed in 1997.
Stuart Comstock-Gay, Executive Director of the National Voting Rights Institute, which defended the law alongside the state of Vermont, had this statement on the decision.
With 25 million people still unable to find full-time jobs and unemployment insurance close to running out, it's shameful that Republicans in Congress waged ideological warfare over what is typically a pro forma exercise of the Congress.
Boston, MA — The National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI) and the State PIRGs Democracy Program released a study today that found there is no support for the notion that campaign contribution limits hurt challengers. In fact, according to the study, contribution limits can work to reduce the financial bias that traditionally works in favor of incumbents.
Boston, MA — A Poll commissioned by the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI) revealed overwhelming support for election campaign spending limits as a way of improving the fairness, honesty and integrity of elections.
New York – Today’s narrow 5-4 decision in McComish v. Bennett continues the Roberts Court’s retreat on fairness in elections, striking down trigger provisions that allowed publicly financed candidates in Arizona to receive additional funds for their campaigns when their spending was outstripped by their privately financed opponents.