A recent study by Vanderbilt University found that Americans generally love free speech, but their views change occasionally. One instance of this occurred during the protests at U.S. universities about the Israel-Hamas war.

John Geer, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, said the study replicated a 1939 poll that asked about free speech's role in a democracy and people's commitment to free speech. That study involved 3,500 participants. However, in June, only 1,000 Americans were surveyed to compare their current views to those in the past.

"We were interested to see if, in fact, all those protests, for example, it led people lessen or increase their commitment to free speech. And you could imagine hypotheses in both directions," Geer said.

Polling found that most Americans believe in unrestricted free speech, allowing any topic or speaker. However, there's a significant partisan divide, with Republicans more likely than Democrats to oppose any restrictions.

Jacob Mchangama, executive director for Future Free Speech at Vanderbilt University, said Americans generally support free speech in abstract terms, but their views become more nuanced when confronted with specific hot-button topics on issues of transgender, gay marriage and abortion. He added there are also different degrees of tolerance for leaders of Israel and Hamas speaking on college campuses.

"If you ask whether a white supremacist should be allowed to speak on college campuses, only 37% say yes. A supporter of critical race theory, you get a majority, a significant majority of 66%, but that's still quite a few Americans who believe that someone who supports critical race theory should not be allowed to speak on college campuses," he explained.

Mchangama added that tolerance for opposing ideas is crucial for free speech, and the survey provides valuable data on this civic commitment. While most people support free speech, a significant minority would not tolerate opposing views, even when they are nonviolent and protected by the First Amendment.


get more stories like this via email

Politicians not listening to voters is a top concern for Utahns, and one Utah Democratic representative agrees with that sentiment.

Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost, D-Salt Lake City, said while many of the issues politicians deal with are nuanced and not as black and white as they might seem, the Utah state Legislature "has continued to grow its own power relative to the other branches of government."

"Putting things on the ballot like the gutting of the ballot initiative that created the redistricting commission and doing so with extremely dishonest and misleading language, really pushes that narrative that the Legislature just is not listening to the will of the people," she explained.

Earlier this year, the Utah Supreme Court ruled the state Legislature had overstepped its authority regarding Utah's Independent Redistricting Commission, which was born out of a 2018 ballot initiative that bans gerrymandering.

Following the court's rule, the GOP controlled Legislature convened a special session to create a constitutional amendment giving it the power to modify future ballot measures - that'll be put to voters this November. Instead, Dailey-Provost contends policymakers should do better in facilitating discussions with those who propose ballot measures to try to find what she calls common ground.

Dailey-Provost contends politicians get a bad rap and adds it is not entirely undeserved. In 2018, in addition to the creation of the redistricting commission, voters also approved ballot measures legalizing medical marijuana and expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, all of which were later altered by the Utah Legislature.

Dailey-Provost said following those alterations, nothing happened electorally like she would have expected.

"There is something to be said for people criticizing vocally, but when the rubber hits the road, if people are truly dissatisfied with the job that politicians are doing, why are they continually being re-elected?" she continued.

Dailey-Provost wants voters to think about what it means to be dissatisfied with elected officials and the degree to which they're being held accountable moving forward.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes testified before Congress on Wednesday about the state of our elections system. Public confidence in the process has been discredited, leading to increased threats against election workers, he said, and added that election administrators have not received sustained and dependable federal funding, even after being declared critical infrastructure by the Department of Homeland Security.

"Do the same for highways and dams and railroads and see what happens. We implore you, please consider. If this is such a big deal and if it is so important that we continue to have free, fair and secure elections - fund them," he said.

Despite the federal government having sought to improve election administration through a grant program called the Help America Vote Act, unpredictable funding levels have left state officials unable to adequately plan budgets. Fontes said rising mis- and disinformation surrounding elections, as well as threats against elections workers, make the grants especially important.

During his testimony, Fontes argued that noncitizen voting is not a widespread or even significant problem. He recalled that in 2004, Arizona approved Proposition 200, which requires proof of citizenship to vote. But according to a 2016 study by the Brennan Center for Justice, improper noncitizen votes accounted for one out of every 10,000 votes across 42 jurisdictions. Fontes said the paranoia around what he terms a "fake problem" is having real impacts on eligible voters. During his time as Maricopa County recorder, he says his office found 94,000 rejected voter registration forms.

"Many, many thousands of them duplicate forms where voters tried and tried and tried again to register," he said. "And after thorough research, 47,000 eligible American citizens were found to have been denied the right to vote, because of that law."

Fontes called the situation embarrassing. Funding for the federal government is set to expire at the end of the month, and House Speaker Mike Johnson is facing pressure from House Republicans to use the deadline to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which would mandate proof of citizenship in order to vote. Noncitizen voting is already illegal.


get more stories like this via email

In Ohio, the upcoming elections could have a significant effect on public education.

Educators are urging voters to consider how the candidates' policies could shape the future of schools, including everything from how schools are funded to ensuring access to a well-rounded education for all students.

Scott DiMauro, president of the Ohio Education Association, emphasized the importance of participation in this election.

"Virtually every aspect of educators' lives is affected, one way or another, by decisions that either elected politicians or people that they appoint to public office make over our school system," DiMauro pointed out.

The union is stressing the need for elected officials who support public education and show respect for those who make it a career. Critics of the current system point to growing support for school choice initiatives and voucher programs, which divert funds from public schools to allow some parents to pay private-school tuition. The debate continues to shape the discourse around Ohio's education policies.

With 90% of Ohio students in public schools, DiMauro argued elected leaders should be advocates for fair funding for schools and resist efforts to limit curriculum content. He added another key topic is accountability and respect for educators. DiMauro believes supporting teachers is critical for student success.

"We have to make sure that we are attracting and we're retaining good people as educators in the classroom," DiMauro urged. "So that kids really get the kind of individual attention that they need."

He predicted the election will decide not only funding and policies but the future direction of Ohio's education system as a whole.