While many people are aware of the restrictions formerly incarcerated individuals face in voting, few know about the challenges faced by another group of incarcerated citizens: people in pretrial detention and those incarcerated for misdemeanors. Despite having the right to vote, incarcerated persons often confront challenges in registering and/or voting while being held. In the last few years, organizers, election administrators, and corrections staff in a handful of jurisdictions have taken an innovative approach to address this problem, making the jail an early vote center and setting up a polling place right in the facility.
The District of Columbia is one of the first jurisdictions to do this, and their success with the program can inform the efforts of policymakers, election administrators, jail staff, and organizers to put similar programs in place and successfully implement them in other jurisdictions. This case study tells the story of Washington, D.C., through the eyes of those who have been directly involved. It presents the evolution of jail voting in the district, what it took to get it to happen, the logistics of its successful implementation, the challenges it has presented, and how different stakeholders in the process have made it work. It demonstrates that providing incarcerated people with a true opportu- nity to vote is not overly burdensome and is something they will enthusiastically participate in. Furthermore, it suggests that the voting experience may have positive impacts on the voters that could carry over into future elections.
When former Vice President Mike Pence visited Harvard’s Institute of Politics for a discussion on “The Future of Conservatism and American Democracy,” he was introduced not just by a moderator, but by a longtime friend and admirer — Ash Center Senior Fellow Stephen Richer. A former Republican officeholder, Richer has often cited Pence as a personal role model for integrity and constitutional fidelity. Their friendship added a layer of warmth and sincerity to an evening that balanced deep ideological reflection with a spirit of civility and mutual respect.
This week on Term of Engagement, co-hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer explore and debate the boundaries of free speech, threats to it, and the impact on our democracy.
Why I’m Excited About the White House’s Proposal for a Higher Ed Compact
Last week’s leak of the U.S. Department of Education’s proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” sparked intense reactions across the academic world sparking both criticism and support. Critics say it would be government overreach and a threat to free expression while supporters say it could be something that could serve as a catalyst for meaningful reform, offering universities and policymakers a chance to rebuild trust and redefine the nation’s partnership with higher education. Danielle Allen, James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University and director of the Democratic Knowledge Project and of the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation gives her take.
When former Vice President Mike Pence visited Harvard’s Institute of Politics for a discussion on “The Future of Conservatism and American Democracy,” he was introduced not just by a moderator, but by a longtime friend and admirer — Ash Center Senior Fellow Stephen Richer. A former Republican officeholder, Richer has often cited Pence as a personal role model for integrity and constitutional fidelity. Their friendship added a layer of warmth and sincerity to an evening that balanced deep ideological reflection with a spirit of civility and mutual respect.
Setting the 2025-26 Agenda for the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation
Amid rising illiberalism, Danielle Allen urges a new agenda to renew democracy by reorienting institutions, policymaking, and civil society around the intentional sharing of power.
