Recommendations for Implementing Jail Voting: Identifying Common Themes
This guide is intended for advocates, organizers, and practitioners working across America to facilitate the voting process for eligible voters in jails.
This guide is intended for advocates, organizers, and practitioners working across America to facilitate the voting process for eligible voters in jails. Presently, about 427,000 individuals held in local jails nationwide have not been convicted of a crime. As such, they are eligible to vote — but they often encounter a range of barriers.
As more and more legal scholars, policymakers, election officials, and advocates look to expand access to voting for jail-based populations, several of them have issued reports with recommendations and best practices. By synthesizing their various insights and proposals, we aim to provide an annotated list of all the recommendations from the reports and identify the most common ones. Organizations, practitioners, and advocates can use this guide as a centralized resource to view current best practices for jail-based voting as identified by their colleagues. While not exhaustive, this document offers a starting point for practitioners eager to engage in this work.
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” drew intense reactions across academia. Critics call it government overreach threatening free expression, while supporters see a chance for reform and renewed trust between universities and policymakers. Danielle Allen, James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University, director of the Democratic Knowledge Project and the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation, weighs in.
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.
The intensification of political polarization in recent years has raised pressing concerns about the health of democratic discourse and the rise of political violence. Ash Center Senior Fellow Stephen Richer shares ten principles he believes provide a framework for fostering more constructive engagement: encouraging self-reflection, prioritizing substantive dialogue over hyperbole, and creating incentives that reward integrity and ideas rather than division.
