With Pennsylvania a crucial state in this year's presidential election, political scholars gathered in Philadelphia last night to share their insights into the fragility of democracy and the increasing authoritarian challenges.

Harvard University Government Professor Daniel Ziblatt said he believes rising polarization is causing people to view political opponents as enemies, and is fueled by economic stagnation and inequality.

He added that there are other factors behind the emerging global threats to democracy.

"For example, social media, the new rise of new technologies," said Ziblatt, "makes it harder and harder for people to kind of figure out what's true, what isn't true, the rise of misinformation."

Ziblatt said immigration-driven diversity is another factor, and has significantly reshaped Western Europe and the United States.

He said it has sparked a backlash, creating an environment that demagogues can exploit to undermine democracy. Conservative critics of immigration say they fear the impact on the nation's culture and fear vote fraud.

Harvard University Government Professor Steven Levitsky highlighted the ongoing threat to global democracy posed by historical patterns - like extreme polarization and authoritarianism.

While 20th-century authoritarian takeovers often involved military coups, he said today's democratic backsliding is more insidious, relying on tactics like undermining democratic institutions and electoral manipulation.

"Today in the 21st century, is for democracy to die a much slower, more gradual death, often at the hands of elected leaders themselves," said Levitsky. "Elected presidents and elected Prime Ministers who use the very institutions of democracy to subvert it. This is Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. It's Viktor Orban in Hungary, Erdogan in Turkey."

Ziblatt and Levitsky said these threats have risen during former President Donald Trump's political ascent. Both have written books on democratic decay in the U.S. and have proposed various solutions.

A series of events on the topic will take place in battleground states. The group democracyFIRST is highlighting the questions.

Despite voter approval in November, Missouri lawmakers are moving to undo part of Proposition A, specifically, the clause requiring employers to provide paid sick leave.

The Missouri House passed the repeal legislation last month by a 96-51 vote. The provision was approved by nearly 60% of voters, who also supported raising the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026.

Prop A proponents said repealing any part of the measure so soon after its approval undermines the will of the voters.

John Davis, partner at the bipartisan polling firm Red America, Blue America Research, said its latest survey showed 75% of respondents oppose efforts to repeal the legislation.

"Legislators who are thinking about what voters had approved just this past November should be concerned that there's such a strong response in opposition to that particular type of proposal," Davis noted.

Supporters of the repeal contended the sick-leave mandate is too rigid and burdensome, warning it could lead to reduced hiring or even business closures. The bill is now in the Senate, which has two weeks to act before the mandate takes effect May 1.

Business groups have filed lawsuits claiming Proposition A violates Missouri's single-subject rule by linking minimum wage hikes with paid sick leave. Supporters of the repeal also argued the Legislature can amend the law without a public vote since it changed state law, not the constitution.

Davis highlighted the importance of public opinion surveys.

"Some of the decisions made at statehouses are of extraordinary consequence," Davis pointed out. "What we have tried to do is just establish sort of baselines, to take a look over time how folks are feeling about a variety of topics, because state laws really do impact people very, very directly."

If the Missouri Senate approves the bill, it will move to Gov. Mike Kehoe's desk, where he can sign it into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature.


get more stories like this via email

Final action is expected soon on a plan that would prevent North Dakota cities and counties from using alternative voting methods for local elections.

Both chambers of the Legislature have approved a bill that focuses on two options - ranked-choice voting and approval voting.

In recent election cycles, Fargo has used approval voting when local candidates appear on the ballot. It became the first U.S. city to do so, after residents showed support for the idea.

Bismarck resident Andrew Alexis Varvel testified against banning these options.

"The rest of the state does not need to follow everything that Fargo does," said Varvel, "but we do need to have a certain amount of respect for what people at the local level decide."

Other bill opponents also said they don't want the state micromanaging local elections.

The Fargo-endorsed option, approval voting, allows voters to choose more than one candidate. Backers say it reduces polarization by prompting candidates to appeal to more people.

But some lawmakers believe these approaches are ineffective, and want the whole state to use the same voting method.

Gov. Kelly Armstrong hasn't indicated whether he'll sign the bill when it reaches his desk.

North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe supports the proposed ban on alternative voting methods.

In his testimony, he noted that Fargo's use of approval voting hasn't created any issues, but he said he worries other cities will follow suit.

"Multiple election methods implemented across the state," said Howe, "would have an impact on the administration of a statewide election."

But a Fargo City Commissioner argues that across North Dakota, there are already many variations - including at-large candidates.

A similar proposed ban was vetoed by former Gov. Doug Burgum two years ago.




get more stories like this via email

A number of lawsuits have been filed in opposition to President Donald Trump's executive order which could reshape how U.S. elections are run and the League of Women Voters of Arizona is one of the groups fighting back.

Pinny Sheoran, president of the group, said democracy is not just on the line, it is actively being broken. Trump's executive order would usher in new requirements, such as having voters provide in-person documentary proof of citizenship and identity. Sheoran called the president's action unconstitutional and illegal.

"Even the states serving as a buttress against the breaking of democracy is greatly under threat, in Arizona, specifically," Sheoran stated.

The White House has defended the president's executive order and called the measures "common sense," and all objections "insane." But Sheoran contends the executive order will suppress voters and enact "unnecessary hoops," making it harder for Arizonans to make their voices heard.

Sheoran argued the directive from the White House will disproportionately affect Arizonans across the board, including people of color, those in rural communities, those with disabilities and women.

She pointed out more than 1.5 million women in the state have changed their last name after marriage, which means many will not have a birth certificate matching their legal identity. Nationwide, the issue grows exponentially.

"For those 61-plus million women, we are talking about many of them, (a) not having a passport; (b) having to now prove why their ID has got a different name than the ID that they registered in," Sheoran outlined.

Sheoran stressed the importance of highlighting the narrative of how the "disastrous" order will affect everyday Arizonans.

"What makes sense to the general public, to the women who don't watch Fox News or MSNBC, is, 'Oh, I can't vote with my voter ID?' 'What, I've been voting, I am 70 years old, I've been voting for almost 50 years, and now you're telling me I can't vote?'" Sheoran underscored. "Think about those conversations."