Democracy's Future Worries Some Voters

Kate Seltzer, Hunter Savery, Desginy Herbers, & Nolan Clancy, Capital News Service • November 22, 2022


Maryland voters participating in the first major election since the Jan. 6 insurrection are expressing concerns about the state of American democracy, but what Democrats and Republicans worry about differs significantly.

 

“I do believe that democracy is at stake. I think we’re going down the wrong road and I think we’re going to continue going down that wrong road, perhaps during my lifetime. I hate to think of it,” said Mary Ann Bailey, a 79-year-old retired school administrator from Upper Marlboro. Although she voted for Democrats across the ballot this year, she said she had split her votes across party lines in past elections.

 

Bailey is not alone.

 

An August 31 Quinnipiac University poll found that 67% of Americans are concerned that the nation’s democracy is at risk of collapse, which is a nine-point jump from January 2020. Both 69% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats worried that democracy is in danger of collapse.

 

Democrats and Republicans may share a general concern about the state of democracy, but they find different reasons to worry, said Pippa Norris, a comparative political scientist at Harvard University.

 

“Republicans say it's about fraud, and those who are voting illegally, and those who are Democrats, it's about political oppression, suppression, and particularly minorities having problems getting registered or getting to vote,'' said Norris.

 

Thomas McKenzie, a 62-year-old contractor and plumber from Upper Marlboro, expressed concerns about the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, although investigations have found no evidence of large-scale voter fraud. He voted for Republicans across the ballot this fall.

 

“The last election was clearly stolen, everybody knows it. But it’s just deny, deny, deny,” McKenzie said.

 

Beyond election concerns, McKenzie pointed to the First Amendment as an element of democracy under fire.

 

“Interfering with free speech can pretty much put an end to (democracy). And It’s been interfered with quite a bit,” McKenzie said.

 

In Rockville, Edgardo Malaga’s concerns contrasted with McKenzie’s.

 

“Our country is facing one of the most difficult crises in its history,” Malaga said. “Women's rights are being taken away, we’re no longer a country that believes in facts, the amount of misinformation being disseminated is concerning and startling. People should be paying attention because it's dangerous.”

 

If American democracy is in danger, it’s not alone.

 

Experts from organizations like Freedom House, a nonprofit that researches democracy, civil liberties, and political rights around the world, have been sounding the alarm about a rise in attacks on democratic institutions worldwide for the past decade. Freedom House’s most recent “Freedom in the World” report found that in 2021, a total of 60 countries suffered a decline in democracy; only 25 countries improved.

 

Norris said that there are cracks beneath the surface of countries that have been democratic for a long time, including the United States. She said the problems with democracy are often in a country’s norms and institutions, things like the “media, freedom of the press and of expression, political rights, and questions about the independence of the judiciary.”

 

“Often the reason for (democratic erosion) is a disjuncture, a lack of congruence between democratic cultures and democratic institutions,” she said. “The U.S. has always had somewhat weak institutions in the sense that we have constitutional rigidity. It's very, very difficult to amend the Constitution in accordance with changing times.”

 

On average, constitutions last for about 17 years; the U.S. Constitution is over 230 years old.

 

“If there's a problem, for example, about the role of the president or the way in which we have run elections or any other sorts of powers of the legislature, other countries have often gone through some periodic reviews to improve and update their constitution, but the ways in which the United States has been much more rigid than others involves requiring both a two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate, and then the two-thirds majority in the states,” Norris said.

 

Because the Constitution is so difficult to amend, U.S. institutions are reliant on informal democratic norms, like the idea that politicians most of the time compromise with the intent of coming to an agreement.

 

Norris said this approach used to work, when political parties served as umbrella organizations that brought in a wide coalition of people and interests. But increased political polarization has eroded that norm.

 

Isaac Alex, an 81-year-old contractor from Upper Marlboro, is a registered Republican who voted for Democrat Joe Biden in the presidential election because Trump “talked too much trash.”

 

“When the Republicans are in power, I can get money to borrow,” he said. “I can go to a bank and have a loan. When the Democrats were in power, all hell broke loose. That’s the way I look at (the midterm elections).”

 

Alex also thinks “democracy is very jittery right now, because we don’t know where we’re going. The economy is not good, even though there’s jobs.”

 

Norris said increased political polarization is a growing concern.

 

“Party polarization in a two-party system is extremely problematic, particularly when you can't change the rules of the game,” she said.

 

Despite some of what Norris calls red blinking warning lights, voter confidence remains relatively high, according to Lisa Bryant, a professor of political science at California State University, Fresno. Most people — around 85% — think their vote was likely counted correctly.

 

“At the local and state level, (voter confidence) is still pretty high,” said Bryant. “We don't really see sort of a significant change until you get to thinking about all votes nationwide being counted correctly. And even then, the majority (64%) of people say that they think that they were counted correctly.”

 

Bryant said voter confidence dipped in both the 2016 and 2020 elections.

 

In 2016, “Trump had a lot of rhetoric around sort of individual voter fraud that undocumented people were filling out ballots or people were duplicating votes,” she said. “Hillary Clinton talked about election fraud in a very different way. She talked about election tampering, and most of the time thinking about external forces, like the Russians, trying to tap into our election systems and change election results or make the equipment malfunction. Both of those things can contribute to seeing a decline in voter confidence.”

 

“I’m worried sick,” said Bailey. “The hatred, the violence, the lack of respect. The way people at the top instigate. I could go on and on about our former president.”

 

In 2020, voter confidence dipped again particularly among Republicans because of the “Big Lie,” which speaks to rampant voter fraud and the idea that the 2020 election was stolen, Bryant said. Nonetheless, she remains confident that elections are functioning as they should.

 

“I think our elections will be fine,” she said. “I think the results are solid. I think we're running better elections than we ever have before, especially because they're under scrutiny and they're under a very watchful, suspicious eye. That means the clerks have made things more transparent. They've made better documentation of everything that happens. So they can show exactly what they do.”

 

The problem, Bryant said, is getting people to believe in the integrity of elections.

 

“If people want to believe that there's foul play, they might just automatically discount or discredit the evidence you show them that there wasn't,” she said. “So I think that's actually where the biggest threat to our democratic system, to our republic lies, is that people have really just moved away from believing anything.”

 

Norris said although normal public policy debate is to be expected, the level of threat to democracy today goes beyond that.

 

“When you can't agree on the basic rules of the game, and you don't know how to reform them, and the institutions don't allow you to reform them, that's when you're heading for trouble,” she said. “And sometimes it seems to me that America is rather like the Titanic heading for the iceberg. We can see the iceberg, and it won't hit in 2022. But gradually, the risks just get much, much greater as we approach 2024.”

 

 

Capital News Service is a student-powered news organization run by the University of Maryland Philip Merrill College of Journalism. For 26 years, they have provided deeply reported, award-winning coverage of issues of import to Marylanders.



Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

By Friends of Megan Outten July 29, 2025
Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com
By John Christie July 29, 2025
Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
By Shore Progress, Progessive Maryland, Progressive Harford Co July 15, 2025
Marylanders will not forget this vote.
Protest against Trumpcare, 2017
By Jan Plotczyk July 9, 2025
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
Farm in Dorchester Co.
By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser May 21, 2025
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities May 21, 2025
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
Show More