The Red Folder

Archived from August 26, 2024.

Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

Publishing since January 2024.

Click here to test your knowledge of the stories covered this week with our weekly Extemp Questions!

Domestic Stories

3 key domestic stories for the week + 1 special report! Scroll down for a report from one of our Directors.

1) Want to Vote? Haha, Nope Lindsey Zhao

Since the 2022 midterms, nearly 8 million Americans have turned 18, and are now able to vote this November. That is, if they are able to register in the first place. Since 2020, when former President Donald Trump and some of his supporters claimed the presidential election was rigged against him, many GOP-led states have been creating laws that are making it harder to vote. These laws range from restricting people from assisting with voter registration to adding newfangled barriers to voter registration that most voters aren’t even aware of.

For over a hundred years, third-party voter registration groups have been key in voter registration across the US and broadening participation in American politics. By going door-to-door and seeking out voters at festivals or grocery stores, they were key in ensuring one of the highest electoral turnouts in national elections in both 2020 and 2022.

However, new laws in many Southern states are making it more difficult for these voter registration groups to achieve their mission. Texas in 2021 increased criminal penalties for anyone who receives compensation for assisting a voter, which made it significantly more difficult to recruit high school or college students to organize voter registration drives.

Kansas’ Republican-dominated Legislature passed a law that would make it a felony to ‘impersonate, or assume to be impersonating, an election official’ when registering voters. On the surface? Sounds reasonable. In reality? Loud Light Kansas, a voter outreach group in the state, had to stop outreach efforts after this law was passed because “they weren’t willing to risk anyone getting charged by doing voter engagement work,” according to Anita Alexander, the organization’s vice president. Fearful of having their drives, which often include providing information to first time voters, be misconstrued as presenting their members as election officials, they only recently gained back the ability to resume registration drives.

Missouri passed a law in 2022 similar to the aforementioned Texan law. They also passed a measure that requires anyone who helps more than 10 people register to also register with the secretary of state’s office. The catch? The forms they submit are lengthy and public, creating a new barrier to entry for would-be registration volunteers. The director and general counsel of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, Denise Lieberman, also expressed concerns it would intimidate volunteers, because they have “historically…been used to intimidate [voter volunteers].”

Most recently, the Supreme Court cleared a section of a new Arizona law that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. Proponents of this legislation argue that it’s to prevent non-citizens from voting, yet not only is that already forbidden at the federal level, but there is no evidence that non-citizens actually vote in large enough numbers to skew any electoral result. For instance, when North Carolina audited its elections in 2016, it found that out of 4.8 million votes in the state, 41 noncitizens, but still legal immigrants, cast ballots. Ooh. What a big problem.

Instead of presenting proof of citizenship to register to vote, citizens are allowed to present their federal IDs (like a driver’s license). Driver licenses require you to show your proof of citizenship to get them, so obviously…you get where I’m going. Unfortunately, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration is likely to make it harder for people to register- nearly 1 in 10 eligible US voters say they can’t easily show proof of citizenship, either because it’s with a family member, the government, or a safety deposit box. This is concerning because convenience is crucial when it comes to being able to convince Americans to go out and vote- not everyone is able to take half a day off to go to the bank and get their proof of citizenship. Research has also found this burden lies disproportionately on voters of color.

Arizona, like other swing states, is being closely watched this fall. Preventing voters from accessing the ballot box could mean the difference between having Kamala Harris or Donald Trump sit in the Oval Office come January.

Your voice matters. Don’t be afraid to use it, and click this link to see polling places near you.

Read more here:

2) RFK Jr: Democrat to Independent to Republican Rohan Dash

The Kennedy family is one of the most famous political families in American history, with members such as former President John F. Kennedy, former US Senator Robert F. Kennedy, former Representative and current envoy Joe Kennedy III, and so on. But it seems like the most recent bid from the family for President has ended, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announcing the suspension of his campaign for President.

Growing up in a democratic family, RFK Jr. was exposed to politics at a young age. As a Democrat, he served on campaign committees and would end up endorsing top names like Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and even Barack Obama. He was even being considered for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, but choices like being an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist led to his downfall.

In April of 2023, Kennedy would make the decision to run for President of the United States. He started by announcing his intention to run in the Democratic Party primaries, citing Joe Biden’s threat to America’s democracy. However, on October 9th of 2023, he suspended his primary campaign, choosing to run as an independent.

During his campaign, Kennedy’s opinions were quite diverse and seemed as an attempt to appeal to voters on both sides of the aisle. For example, with the heated topic of abortion, he stated that while it was a tragedy (which appeals to Republicans), it was a fundamental right (which appeals to Democrats). He focused on criticizing one of Biden’s biggest weak spots, being foreign policy, and used rhetoric that the Democrat party had been hiding scandals and operations from the average American citizen. Similarly, when it came to LGBTQ+ rights, Kennedy supported gay marriage legalization and wanted more respect for transgender people, but also chose to be a hardliner on ensuring transgender females wouldn’t have the opportunity to participate in female’s sports.

Kennedy was doing well in polls, gaining as much as 12% in battleground states like Nevada. He even went so far as to claim that he wasn’t the spoiler, or in other words, the third party candidate who attracts voters away from a major party, but rather Joe Biden was the spoiler. Many independent voters saw Kennedy as a strong choice over two octogenarians with their own issues.

As ambitious as Kennedy was, his campaign began coming to an end due to financial problems and a lack of rallies and advertisements encouraging voters. His vice presidential nomination, Nicole Shanahan, had not been seen at major campaign events, and as a result, on August 23rd, Kennedy announced he was suspending his campaign, removing his name from the ballot in battleground states and endorsing a candidate. His endorsement? Donald Trump.

The largest and most well known independent dropping out would have an impact on elections, but for now, it seems to be marginal. Polling from ABC News and Vox indicates some groups have had slight changes, but that’s all. From Democrat to Independent to Republican, Kennedy has represented everything on the American political spectrum, but his latest bid for a position has come to an end.

Read more here:

3) Kamala Harris’s Economic Master Plan Robert Zhang

At an August 16th campaign rally in North Carolina, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris outlined her most comprehensive economic agenda to date. In a populist effort to win over swing voters, she has promised everything from expanding existing programs like the child tax credit to novel ideas like price controls on groceries. However, just a week before the rally, Donald Trump led Harris 2-to-1 on economic issues. As such, many of her proposals seek to directly challenge the Trump administration’s economic policy proposals. To determine whose economic policies will fare better with the American people, it is important to compare the two candidates’ stances on key issues.

First, Harris plans on expanding the child tax credit. During Trump’s time in office, the credit was expanded to $2,000 in tax relief a year per child under 17 years of age to families with an annual income of $400,000 or less. However, the expansion, passed under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, is set to expire at the end of 2025. As such, Harris’s plan calls for a $6,000 tax credit per child in their first year of life, as well as restoring a COVID-era $3,600 credit for certain families.

In contrast, Trump’s campaign is calling for a $5,000 child tax credit for families of all income levels, not excluding high earners. Interestingly, however, a Senate bill to modestly expand the CTC was actually defeated by Republicans (with current senator and Trump’s running mate JD Vance voting against the bill!), something Harris could use in her messaging against Trump.

This is undoubtedly a critical issue in the minds of voters. When the child tax credit was expanded during the COVID era, child poverty dropped in half as families saved thousands of dollars. However, because of the similar nature of both Harris’s and Trump’s proposals, it’s unlikely for the clash over the “better” credit plan to meaningfully impact either candidate’s election odds.

Second, Harris has unveiled a set of housing policy proposals meant to bring costs down. Building off of a proposal previously made by President Biden, she would seek to provide a grant averaging $25,000 to all first-time homebuyers. A tax credit would also be provided to first-generation homebuyers. Furthermore, she also plans to address the housing supply crisis; under her plan, she will push for the construction of three million new affordable housing units by offering incentives to companies, such as tax credits to build affordable housing and the creation of a $40 billion federal fund for housing.

As of writing, Trump has avoided detailed policy proposals regarding housing. Instead, he has (falsely) claimed that the housing supply crisis is being fueled by both legal and illegal immigration, and that his plan of conducting mass deportations of undocumented immigrants would free up housing for U.S. citizens. However, like Harris, he supports authorizing more federal land for housing development.

Interestingly, Trump has rallied against the end of single-family zoning laws, which restrict multi-unit housing construction and are widely seen as a driver of the housing supply crisis. He has argued that they would “destroy the suburbs” by filling them with low-income residents and “criminals.” While Harris’s campaign has not used this as a part of their messaging against Trump, it could have tremendous power if they did, as Trump depends on low-income Americans’ votes to win the election. Overall, Harris’s housing proposals are likely to catch the eye of potential homebuyers. However, they may alienate Americans who already have homes, as increasing housing supply brings down the overall value of a home. Trump’s proposals will certainly resonate with his dedicated supporters, but likely won’t be taken seriously by swing voters cognisant of his flawed logic.

Finally, Harris has also made her most novel proposal to date: the first-ever federal ban on price-gouging on groceries. While few details about how the plan would be carried out were provided, Harris intends for the ban to ensure that corporations “can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive profits on food and groceries.” The plan also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to be granted additional powers to “investigate and impose strict new penalties on companies that break the rules.”

This could pose a challenge for Trump’s campaign. From the very beginning of his campaign, he has sought to blame the Biden-Harris administration for inflation, a successful strategy due to the importance of kitchen-table issues. However, by outright prohibiting price hikes above a certain level, some voters concerned about rising grocery costs may be persuaded to vote Blue.

For Trump’s part, he has branded them as “Soviet-style” controls, a part of his wider messaging campaign to brand Harris as a “radical leftist” or a “communist.” Yet, his failure to propose actual economic policies to bring down inflation in response to Harris’s may leave some voters with no choice but to vote for Harris. Regardless, at a time when 50% of Americans view the cost of living as their top voting concern, both candidates’ policies towards inflation will be tremendously important to winning the election.

As the clock ticks down to the election, both candidates are scrambling to win over economy-minded voters. Some of their proposals are nearly identical; others, polar opposites. At the end of the day, it depends on who voters believe can make their wallets finally stop hurting.