Looking South - no, FARTHER South - after the Voting Rights Act Decision

I’ll get straight to the point -  the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Voting Rights Act (VRA) added urgency to a long-running debate: 

How should a democracy balance access, security, local control, and public confidence in elections?

The decision also underscores why Brazil offers an intriguing point of comparison and why electoral integrity is one of our four key areas of focus in the Brazilian Blueprint.

The United States runs elections through a deeply decentralized system. States, and often counties, set rules for registration, early voting, ballot design, polling locations, and certification. 

Supporters argue this reflects federalism and local accountability. Critics argue it creates unequal access and inconsistent protections across communities.

Brazil took a different path. After emerging from military rule in the 1980s, the country centralized election administration under a national electoral court system. In Brazil, voting is mandatory, registration is automatic for many citizens, and elections are conducted on uniform electronic machines nationwide. As Brazilian Blueprint delegates will witness this October, that means results are ready within a few hours after the polls close.

Advocates say the model increases participation and standardizes access. Skeptics warn that centralization can reduce local flexibility and place immense trust in national institutions.

Let’s be clear: Neither country offers a perfect template. 

The United States has a long democratic tradition built on dispersed authority and checks and balances. You don’t need me to tell you those checks and balances are visibly strained. Meanwhile, Brazil has pursued inclusion and administrative uniformity with striking speed and scale. Each system reflects its own history, geography, and political culture.

For civic leaders in our upcoming delegation, the goal is not to “import” one model into another. It is to learn how democracies facing polarization, mistrust, and rapid social change attempt to strengthen public legitimacy.

The comparison matters because both countries are asking versions of the same questions: 

• What makes citizens believe that every eligible vote counts? 

• How can people trust the electoral process?

• What institutions - local, national, judicial, civic, or technological - best protect legitimacy in polarized times?

These are challenges larger than any single court ruling (even this recent VRA decision), or election cycle, or gerrymandered map, or even an entire country. 

These are challenges democracies across the Americas - and around the world - increasingly share.

In looking to Brazil, the world’s second largest multiracial democracy, we’ll consider how its new constitution, written in 1988 following the dictatorship, sought to strengthen institutions and ensure an empowered and enfranchised populace.

By mandating voting, the Brazilian model starts with the assumption that “everyone votes.” 

What a stark contrast to the ways we voters in the United States are increasingly disenfranchised.

Imagine not feeling that widespread disengagement is inevitable.

Imagine what would democracy look like if participation was expected?

What would happen if voting were treated not as an individual preference, but as a shared civic responsibility?

Again, we’re not suggesting the results are perfect. Brazil faces enormous democratic challenges of its own. But it does offer something many U.S. Americans hunger for right now:  

A chance to expand our civic imagination by seeing real options with real answers about what real models of voting look like.  

On Sunday (yes, Sunday!) October 1, Brazil will vote for its next President. Stories Change Power and our Brazilian Blueprint delegates will be there to witness this election in São Paulo. 

Curious to learn more? Explore here on our website and this one-page summary.