Latest Jobs Posts

Election and Politics #197 | Nate Iglehart | September 19, 2025

With only nine months of his presidency in the books, President Donald Trump has undertaken a radical reshaping of American democracy. From its courts to its liberties, Trump is actively pushing for an American society that serves him and his movement.

This push, however, has a price that he and his supporters are beginning to see on the horizon; the possibility of a blue wave in the 2026 midterm elections. Historically, the opposition party in the U.S. tends to gain ground at the midterms, with 20 of the last 22 adhering to this trend.

Trump and the Republican Party know this well, and are taking steps to ensure as large of an advantage as they can ahead of time. But they aren’t the only ones, as foreign interference has been a consistent electoral threat since the 2016 election. In order to secure safe and fair elections, the United States needs to empower poll workers, ensure election rules are set and enforced, and prevent the moves by actors, both domestic and foreign, directed at weakening the electoral process.

Analysis

To begin, it is important to lay out the threats facing the prospect of fair 2026 midterm elections. Donald Trump has already laid out his plan to overhaul the electoral process in this country.

The plan is multifaceted. One of his first targets its mail-in balloting, a method used by nearly one in three Americans. Over the years, Trump has attacked the method, saying it is “horrible”, “corrupt”, and “dangerous”, despite little evidence that widespread voter fraud via mail-in ballots actually occurred in the last few elections. Right now, he announced that his lawyers are drafting an executive order to end mail-in voting, alongside banning voting machines and tabulators.

Experts say that this would be disastrous for states. Removing these three tools for voting would result in a massive influx of voters in-person as almost a third of voters used mail-in ballots.Their banning would cause chaos for the already underfunded and extremely stressed poll workers.

But Trump doesn’t stop here. He also has demanded voting data from at least 19 states for the expressed purpose of weeding out ineligible voters, he’s said he wants to mandate voter IDs, and he has promoted gerrymandering seats to maintain republican power in Congress, breaking from standard redistricting schedule that aligns with the censuses each decade.

Practically all of these efforts have been or will be challenged in court, but relying on the courts to protect elections is not a surefire bet, especially if the cases end up in the Supreme Court.

So, what can be done at the state and federal levels to ensure free and fair elections? Short of simply winning all of these cases, there are some actionable steps to be taken.

Because it is the states that decide how states are run according to Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution, there is a lot of power that lies in the hands of state legislatures. However, the federal government does have some influence through a network of agencies, committees, bureaus, departments, and institutes.

What states can do is pass laws that empower local election systems to prepare for the huge logistical burden of a wave of voters arriving in person. This can be done by simply increasing the funding and training of poll workers, as well as creating state interagency working groups on election security.

These agencies can then do the training and vulnerability assessments for election offices that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) previously was responsible for at the federal level. But CISA is currently out of the picture due to DOGE firings and budget cuts.

The aforementioned vulnerability assessments point to another issue facing the safety of the 2026 midterms; physically protecting voting places. The 2024 saw 227 bomb threats and multiple drop box fires, but despite this none were allowed to cause too much damage to the voting process thanks to advanced coordination and preparation between law enforcement and election officials.

With tensions as high as they are right now with political assassinations and protests growing in number, there is no telling how dangerous voting in person might be. That is why physical safety at the ballot box must be priority number one, as it allows people to express their right to vote without fearing for their lives and without outside pressure, such as if militias arrive to “safeguard” the elections in lieu of police officers.

On the gerrymandering front, it is safe to say that that the practice itself is dishonest and can dilute the vote for many U.S. citizens, especially minority groups who have historically faced widespread gerrymandering. That being said, getting rid of the practice at all, let alone before the midterms, is practically impossible due to its entrenchment in our political system and use by both parties.

Additionally, the tit-for-tat battle to balance out redistricting advantages between states like Texas and California should not be allowed to spiral too far out of control across the country. While it certainly could be argued that if one state steps out of line, another should step out as well to counter the impact an unfairly redistricted map could have, that is a slippery slope.

Not every state will be able to pass a new gerrymandered map, and any gains might be uneven across states while also fueling tensions and igniting lawsuits that could extend up to and through the elections. That being said, there are reforms that can be made.

One avenue is freezing maps as they are, to prevent rapid redistricting in the runup to the election, but this is not a guaranteed fix. The other would be to pass parts of the Fair Representation Act, a law in Congress at the moment, but to pass its core components at the state level. The bill focuses on creating multi-member districts for congressional elections, ranked choice voting in these elections, and new requirements for congressional redistricting.

It is unclear if the FRA will pass at the federal level, so taking steps to make reforms at the state level have a chance at leveling the playing field.

Now, there are also steps to be taken at the federal level besides canceling or undoing undemocratic election reforms. In addition to passing the FRA and giving states more funding and training for poll workers, there is an opportunity to create a national nonpartisan system of election administration. This agency or collection of boards could act to entirely focus on election safety, administration, and coordinating state level systems to help them succeed.

There is one final threat posed to the 2026 elections, one that the federal government is the only actor in a position to counter; cyberattacks. Successful cyberattacks can take down or slow voter registration portals, along with practically every electronic voter check-in system and election reporting outlet on election day.

The federal government needs to take cybersecurity seriously, as every foreign adversary will be looking to sow discord through interference and misinformation. Rejuvenating our cybersecurity defenses, as well as protecting poll workers from doxxing and outlets from hacks, is a necessary step that this country needs to take.

All of these steps, from protecting the system from further attacks under this administration, to ensuring the safety and training of poll workers and voters, will work in conjunction to achieve the most important part of elections: trust. Trust in the electoral process is a core element of democracy, and we have already seen how distrust can swiftly lead to violence when protesters stormed the capital in 2021.

These next midterms are perhaps the most important. They will determine the ability this administration has already flexed to change the American political system at every level. With how fast the Trump administration, the 2026 elections will either act as a brake-check or a blank check for Trump to continue his policies. But the election needs to take place as fairly as possible, or else American democracy will truly be on its last legs.

Engagement Resources

• The Fair Elections Center is a nonpartisan voting rights and election reform organization based in Washington, D.C.
• The S. Election Assistance Commission is an independent, bipartisan commission focused on improving the administration of elections.
• The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonprofit law and policy institute, think tank, and advocacy group at the New York University (NYU) School of Law.

Elections & Politics Brief #194 | Nate Iglehart | September 11, 2025 

Summary

In a surprise move, on August 22nd Donald Trump’s administration and the global technology company Intel announced a deal. In it, the United States government will make an $8.9 billion purchase of Intel stock, giving it around a 10% stake in the company.

While this isn’t the first time in history that the U.S. government has made such a move, it has raised eyebrows among many experts, and especially among Trump’s own voter base, who see this as an unfair manipulation of the free market or simply as just a “terrible idea”.

The move is not mindless, however, and with signs pointing to more government stock purchases in the future, the Trump administration is flexing its power to interfere where it wants, when it wants, and how it wants more than ever.

Analysis

To begin, the deal itself doesn’t mean that Trump has a say in what business decisions Intel makes. As part of the deal, that 10% ownership does make the government the single largest shareholder, but it takes the form of what is called “passive ownership.” The government gets no Board representation or other governance or information rights, while also agreeing to vote with the Company’s Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, with some exceptions.

The money that the government spent on acquiring those stocks came from converting billions of dollars in grants to Intel, via the CHIPS and Science Act under President Biden, into equity.

There are also clauses in the deal that include a five-year warrant for the government to get another 5% of Intel stock if the company reduces its ownership of its manufacturing arm below 51%. This is seen as a move for the government to maintain control of that manufacturing part of Intel’s business, namely its production of computer chips.

This aspect, the domestic production of computer chips, is seen as the driving force behind the deal. Both Biden and Trump, as well as leaders in Europe and across the world, have realized the importance of computer chips and especially semiconductors in everyday life. From cars and iPhones to advanced weaponry, in recent years they have been deemed a matter of national security.

Most semiconductors are produced in Taiwan, although Trump has said that increasing domestic production of semiconductors is a national security priority, given their central role in products ranging from cars and iPhones to weapons and medical machinery. Currently, most of the world’s chips are produced in Taiwan, and China’s market share of the industry is growing. With the current tariff wars, empowering a domestic semiconductor and computer chip industry is generally seen as a prudent move.

Intel, being a leading player in the industry, has recently fallen by the wayside in the market after laying off 15% of its staff over the summer and failing to meet profit goals for a while now. With a major domestic computer chip manufacturer failing, the Trump administration saw an opportunity to bolster the domestic industry through buying its stock.

Government control of a critical industry is rare in American history, but not unheard of. In both World Wars, the government seized control of rail and telegraph networks while also nationalizing industries like coal mining. Far more recently, during the 2008 financial crisis, the government took ownership stakes in insurers like AIG and automakers like Chrysler and General Motors to rescue them.

What is different this time is that the move to take government control of Intel comes before any crisis has occurred. Additionally, the move represents a rapid about-face regarding Trump’s relationship with Intel’s CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, who Trump said should resign days earlier over his connections to Chinese companies.

With the timing of the move being unprecedented in its early implementation, voters and representatives across the board have had mixed reactions. But oddly enough, in the opposite way one might think.

On the right, senators like Rand Paul have called the move a “big mistake” that is a “step towards socialism”, while Tom Tillis said that he “[doesn’t] believe that the U.S. government should be picking winners and losers because you won’t always be right.” The conservative leaning National Review also published an editorial titled “The Government Shouldn’t Get into the Chip Business.”

On the left, the move has drawn an extremely rare amount of praise for Trump. Senator Bernie Sandersoffered tepid praise of the move, in part because it mirrors an amendment to the CHIPS Act that he and Senator Elizabeth Warren put forward years ago that would have required companies receiving funding via the bill to issue warrants or equity stakes to the US government.

Other progressives, like Representative Ro Khanna, see the positives of the deal but say it is an incomplete move. But the positives are there nonetheless. For starters, the move does have a chance of stabilizing Intel by giving it breathing room to rebuild its foundry arm, something that has run at a loss for a while now.

More importantly, if the Trump administration genuinely wants to stimulate a domestic semiconductor industry, government backing is a crucial factor according to experts. Many other countries have a similar setup regarding government backing of their own semiconductor industries, and Taiwan is a shining example of its success.

The move is not without its risks however. If Intel continues to struggle, then government money (and by extension taxpayer money) can get caught up in a failing business.

Michael R. Strain, an economist with the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, also raised the possibility of government funds being difficult to remove from this arrangement because of a reluctance to let Intel collapse. While the Biden administration had conditioned the money on Intel reaching milestones, the Trump administration has removed those protections as well.

But with this deal now signed and on the books, Trump has signaled a full-steam-ahead posture moving forwards, with his economic advisors hinting that this deal could be the first of many such deals.

While he has made previous deals with similar setups, like the “golden share” agreement with Nippon Steel and a Pentagon deal with a domestic rare earth magnets company, the Intel deal is the largest one so far.

It has tangible upsides, regarding both national security and industry, but it carries with it gambles that could rear their heads should things go wrong. But regardless of its efficiency, it represents a slowly growing trend of the U.S. government toying with nationalizing industries. How both sides react going forwards, and if this practice slowly becomes a bipartisan issue, are both questions whose answers only time will show.

Engagement Resources

• The National Bureau of Economic Research is an American private nonprofit think tank focused on economic research.
• The S. Semiconductor Ecosystem Map, run by the semiconductor trade association and lobbying group SIA, tracks the industry across the U.S.
• The Intel Lay-off Tracker, run by the coalition of organizations known as CHIPS Communities United, tracks the health of Intel.

Elections & Politics Brief #193 | By Inijah Quadri | August 24, 2025

Gerrymandering began as a nineteenth-century power play in Massachusetts, when Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a state senate redistricting bill whose oddly shaped Essex County district reminded a newspaper illustrator of a salamander. The nickname stuck, and so did the tactic: drawing electoral district lines to advantage a party or faction and to weaken cohesive communities of interest.

Under federal law, redistricting is tied to the decennial Census. The Census Bureau must deliver Public Law 94-171 (“PL 94-171”) redistricting data to states within a year of Census Day, and states use those data to draw districts. This linkage is set in 13 U.S.C. § 141(c) and the Census Redistricting Data Program.

Modern constitutional law supplies the baseline. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court made redistricting justiciable and required roughly equal populations in all Congressional Districts: Baker v. Carr opened the courthouse door, Wesberry v. Sanders required near-equal congressional districts, and Reynolds v. Sims applied “one person, one vote” to state legislatures.

Later rulings narrowed federal review of partisanship while keeping protections against racial vote dilution alive. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Court held that partisan-gerrymandering claims are “political questions” beyond federal courts—but left regulation to Congress and the states. At the same time, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remains enforceable; in Allen v. Milligan (2023) the Court affirmed that maps that dilute Black voters’ power can violate Section 2. Preclearance under Section 5, however, has been inoperative since Shelby County v. Holder (2013) invalidated the coverage formula.

The result is a patchwork in which power struggles play out state by state. Recent flashpoints include Wisconsin’s 2024 shift to less-biased state legislative maps via state-court litigation, Texas’s 2025 mid-decade congressional-map push, and an August 2025 Utah ruling ordering new congressional districts before 2026.

Analysis

Gerrymandering keeps happening because the system rewards it. Winner-take-all, single-member districts let mapmakers create safe seats. Off-the-shelf GIS and mapping tools (e.g., ArcGIS Redistricting, Maptitude for Redistricting), public platforms (Dave’s Redistricting App, DistrictBuilder), and research codes (GerryChain) make precise map-drawing—and auditing—far easier.

But what counts as an “extreme” map? Plans that are statistical outliers compared to large ensembles of neutrally generated maps, or that produce durable seat advantages disconnected from statewide vote share. Independent evaluators like Princeton’s Redistricting Report Card and PlanScore quantify these patterns. Detection alone, though, doesn’t fix them.

What does it mean when courts call partisan gerrymandering a “political question”? It means federal courts say there are no judicially manageable standards to decide such claims; the remedy lies with Congress or state law. The Supreme Court said federal courts won’t decide whether maps are unfairly partisan under the U.S. Constitution (Rucho v. Common Cause(2019)). But states can still ban or limit partisan gerrymandering in their own constitutions and have their state courts enforce those rules—and Congress can pass a national law setting redistricting standards, which federal courts could then enforce.

Race and party often overlap, letting mapmakers hide discrimination behind “partisanship.” Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars voting practices that result in minority voters having less opportunity than others to elect candidates of choice. Plaintiffs typically must satisfy the Gingles preconditions (a sufficiently large and compact minority community, political cohesion, and bloc voting by the majority that usually defeats the minority’s preferred candidates) (Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)). Recent Section 2 cases—like Allen v. Milligan—have opened more opportunities for Black voters, even as other decisions (e.g., Brnovich v. DNC (2021)) set stricter guideposts for vote-denial claims.

The best short-term backstop is in the states. Independent or citizen-led commissions, strong transparency, and clear redistricting criteria can check the worst abuses. Commissions are typically created by state constitutional amendment or statute—often via voter initiative (e.g., AZ 2000; CA 2008/2010; CO & MI 2018) or legislative referral (e.g., VA 2020). As of 2024–25, eleven states use commissions for congressional districts (Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, Washington). Wisconsin’s 2024 state-court process, while not a commission, shows how state law can move outcomes closer to voter preferences.

But state-by-state fixes produce uneven protection. A democracy worthy of the name needs national guardrails. Congress could ban partisan gerrymandering, restore preclearance with a modern coverage formula, and adopt clear criteria that protect communities of interest. Status check: The Freedom to Vote Act was introduced in the 118th Congress but did not become law; the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act has been introduced in the 119th Congress (H.R. 14, March 2025) and is pending in committee.

A bolder path looks beyond better lines under the same rules. Multi-member districts with ranked-choice voting (e.g., the Fair Representation Act) would convert “safe seats” into proportional, voter-driven representation; opening datasets/algorithms, expanding independent audits, and banning mid-decade remaps would make cartography a transparent public good. Ending “prison gerrymandering” by counting incarcerated people at their home address—an approach already adopted by numerous states—would stop quiet population shifts that dilute urban representation.

Bottom line: the most durable fix is independent, citizen-led redistricting commissions in every state, paired with clear, enforceable criteria.

Engagement Resources

• Brennan Center for Justice (www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/redistricting-litigation-roundup-0): Redistricting research, litigation tracker, and explainer series on the current cycle and reform options.
• All About Redistricting (redistricting.lls.edu/state/ohio/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate=2022-03-02): State-by-state law, process guides, and case summaries for practitioners and advocates.
• Princeton Gerrymandering Project (gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/): Redistricting Report Card and methods that link math and law; useful for map evaluation and public comment.
• Prison Policy Initiative / Prison Gerrymandering Project (prisonersofthecensus.org/): Campaigns, state lists, and how-tos to end prison-based gerrymandering.
• FairVote (fairvote.org/press/fair-representation-act-2025/): The Fair Representation Act and resources on multi-member districts with ranked-choice voting.