National Week of Conversation was created for those exhausted by division and hatred. You’re invited to bring your passion for issues in an environment where you can be heard. We welcome all Americans, across our many differences, into conversations that can rekindle relationships and help us relearn how to be the “we” we know we can be.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Be a voter stickers
Photo by Dan Dennis on Unsplash
Blue Wave, Red Undertow, Independent Surge
Oct 31, 2026
The midterms seem to be adhering to a familiar script: the sitting president will be rebuked and the party in power will lose seats in Congress. There’s a blue wave coming. Or there’s a red undertow that will sink the GOP.
But look closer. Not everything is red and blue. Independent voters, independent candidates, and independent reform is surging. Even independent celebrities like Matthew McConaughey are stirring the pot!
Independents are demanding to be let into the party. And people are noticing.
The traditional understanding of independent voters as a passive category (undecided fence sitters) is making way for the grudging recognition that 48% of Americans identify as independent for a reason. They don’t trust the parties. They are suspicious of the politics of division. They hate the unwillingness of our rulers to listen to the American people.
34 years ago, Ross Perot mobilized 20 million Americans from both the left and the right to break with the two party system and vote independent. The major parties freaked out. They reacted by balancing the budget (good) and digging a deeper moat around their already well fortified duopoly (disastrous). This insulation has produced 30 years of deficit-fueled partisanship, massive policy blunders, graft and mismanagement with each party blaming the other for our woes.
This sub-par duopoly is being challenged by independents in multiple ways.
Independent candidates, independent voters, and independent reform is surging. It’s a decentralized surge, a movement not a party, and millions of Americans are participating.
Hundreds of independents are running for federal or statewide offices. And these are not your parents’ independents! As Sarah Zabel, an independent running for Congress in Idaho told NPR, “Independents used to be a curiosity or a protest or a single issue. Now, with the parties having gone to such extremes, independents are the necessary relief for the American voter.”
Candidates like Todd Achilles, Seth Bodnar, Brian Bangs, Dan Osborn, Robbie Mahrou, Kevin Kiley and hundreds more are not merely running as independents. They will, if elected, serve as independents. The Independent Leadership Council, Forward Party and others are working to create new infrastructure in DC so that people can serve their constituents, not dial for dollars for their parties. Think I’m exaggerating? Most members of Congress spend 30 hours a week as telemarketers.
There are also Democratic and Republican candidates like Rob Sand of Iowa who are independent in tone and sensibility but chose to run within the party system so they could have a better chance of winning.
What’s propelling these campaigns is the lack of genuine bipartisan competition in so much of the country, and the recognition that partisan candidates must bow down to special interest groups, not serve their constituents, to stay in office.
Independent voters are flexing their muscles as well. Every journalist in America knows that independents will decide which party controls Congress. But the coverage is going beyond the obvious. Reporters are catching on that Latinos and young people who voted for Trump in 2024 did not become Republicans; they stayed independent and are poised to deliver a message to the GOP. Will Democrats make the same mistake and think independents who vote for a Democrat in the midterms are now on team Blue? Most likely - but some Democrats are cautioning their colleagues against making this mistake.
Mike Madrid, co-founder of the Lincoln Project, highlights the growing clout of Latino independents in key states like Texas and California. His insight is that candidates who rely on blue or red dog whistles don’t resonate with Latinos. Candidates who grasp the pragmatic independence of Latino voters can win support.
Independent voters have decided election outcomes for a generation - that’s not new. What’s novel is the growing recognition that independents are not best understood as undecided voters. Rather, they’ve decided that there must be a better way to do politics. And more and more of them are rolling up their sleeves to create that better way.
Finally, independents are fighting hard to gain full voting rights. Legal, legislative and/or ballot initiatives are underway in each of the 16 states that bar independents from voting in taxpayer funded primaries - and smart politicians from both parties are saying “we need to be on the right side of this.” But it is a two way street. Republicans in Texas, South Carolina and Alabama, and Democrats in California, New York, Maryland and Massachusetts are advancing efforts to reinstate or maintain restrictive closed systems.
Where they can vote, more independents are participating in primaries.
My organization, Open Primaries, ran an “independent to independent” grassroots public education campaign in New Mexico, which passed primary reform in 2024. 35% of the independents we reached with a simple message came out and voted, clear evidence that there is growing interest among independents in participating in round one.
In Tennessee, Best of Tennessee motivated tens of thousands of “general election only” voters to turn up on primary day - and they rewarded candidates who emphasized effective and responsive governance over partisan virtue signaling.
For many years, independents were voters pulling away. Now they are leaning in, recognizing the importance of participating in elections (primaries) dominated by small partisan factions, and supporting independents and pro-independent Democrats and Republicans for office.
In multiple ways, big and small, independent voters are demanding to be heard. Well funded red/blue warfare still dominates, but scratch the surface and you will find a growing independent movement building and creating.
Alright alright alright!
John Opdycke is the president of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash
60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit
Oct 31, 2026
Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.
In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether the Justice Department can require California to segregate the ballots of about 20,000 voters whom the department claims are ineligible.
According to the brief, DOJ lacks legal authority for its claims against California and Los Angeles County and has not identified a clear statutory basis for its intervention. The former officials note that DOJ typically relies on statutes such as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. § 10301), Section 11 of the National Voter Registration Act (52 U.S.C. § 20510), and Section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (52 U.S.C. § 10101) in federal election-enforcement actions. In this case, however, the department has not cited these or other traditional statutes and instead advances legal arguments that depart from established precedent. The amici argue that this lawsuit significantly departs from the department's usual investigative and enforcement procedures.
The former DOJ attorneys also argue that this litigation risks disrupting an election already underway. They contend that seeking emergency relief just before voting disregards the department's usual deference to state election administrators and disrupts established processes. The brief warns that these actions could confuse voters and officials and put lawful ballots at risk. For example, the brief cites the 2006 Ohio primary, when a last-minute federal court order on provisional ballots caused confusion, delays, and disputed counts. Similarly, in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race, late litigation over absentee ballot rules led to inconsistent procedures across counties, confusing voters and resulting in some ballots being improperly set aside. These incidents highlight the disruptive potential of sudden legal interventions shortly before or during voting.
Beyond the immediate legal dispute, the former DOJ officials frame this as a matter of democratic principle rather than partisan advantage. Election integrity depends not only on who wins or loses but also on public confidence that established rules and safeguards are applied consistently. Whether voters identify as Democrats, Republicans, Independents, or something else, preserving free, fair, and orderly elections is a shared civic interest that transcends party politics.
Several of the brief's signers have long advocated preserving Justice Department independence and public confidence in democratic institutions. Joyce Vance has written that prosecutorial independence from political influence is "critical to our criminal justice system," while Barbara McQuade has argued that post-Watergate Justice Department norms were designed to shield law enforcement decisions from partisan pressure and to maintain public trust in the rule of law. Their participation in the brief demonstrates broader concerns about preserving institutional safeguards that have traditionally governed federal involvement in elections.
The signatories also express concern that the department's demands could disenfranchise eligible voters. They argue that requiring officials to segregate ballots during emergency litigation could disrupt the orderly administration of the election and erode confidence in the voting process.
The signers include former Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer, former U.S. Attorneys Joyce Vance and Barbara McQuade, and former attorneys from the Public Integrity Section and the Civil Rights Division's Voting Section. Collectively, they represent every presidential administration since Lyndon Johnson.
In its conclusion, the brief asks the Court to reject DOJ's request, arguing that the department's actions depart from longstanding election-related safeguards and that "this Court should deny the emergency motion for injunction pending appeal."
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky
Photo by Louis Velazquez on Unsplash
Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?
Oct 31, 2026
Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.
Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.
Reduced legislative capacity. With less experienced lawmakers writing legislation the legislators produced weaker and fewer bills. Intuitively, this makes sense. If you have less experienced individuals in any workplace they require time to understand the nuances of the business. As a confidential consultant for members of the U.S. House and Senate I’ve seen this countless times. Even experienced members of the minority party can legislate circles around rookie lawmakers.
Power shifted to lobbyists. With the institutional memory erased, special interest backed (and written) legislation was more likely to pass. When legislators are forced out of their jobs due to term limits they often migrate to the lobbying community. But they still retain their institutional and issue knowledge they gained as lawmakers. To be fair, not all lobbyists fall into the grim stereotype portrayed in movies and TV. Most are subject-matter experts and lawmakers rely on them to convey how a proposed piece of legislation might affect a group of constituents or businesses. Yet, we can also see a world that would likely be better of legislatures were not compelled to rely on lobbyists since the in-house expertise was unable to run for re-election.
Power shifted to leadership and executive branch. With inexperienced lawmakers trying to quickly get up to speed on their job, academic studies have suggested that the power vacuum is filled by legislative leaders and the executive branch in states. Of course, to have functioning legislators you need functioning leaders. But this power shift almost always consolidates power away from the majority of state constituents. We’ve seen this power shift occur in the U.S. Congress, under Democratic and Republican leaders, since 1995. And seen it shift on a massive scale since the beginning of President Trump’s second term. There are very few scholars (and most members of Congress) who think a weakened legislative institution is healthy for our democracy.
Reduced constituent engagement. With no electoral incentive, especially in lawmakers’ final terms, there was less engagement with constituents. Legislators grew more distant from the voters. Term limited lawmakers also were more likely to skip committee meetings and miss floor votes. Putting oneself up for the voters’ assessment every two or four years is a remarkable human incentive our Founders created.
Also consider that general retirements and electoral outcomes often result in significant reductions in senior lawmakers. This effect was on display at the start of the 118th Congress, when Rep. Kevin McCarthy was forced to 15 ballots to gain the speakership. The 435 House members voting on McCarthy had not been sworn in (the Speaker’s vote comes first). And at the beginning of that Congress in 2023, 49 percent of House members had four years’ experience in the Congress or less. Can we really say with that infusion of new blood that 2023 was a banner year for the Congress?
One can also assess what we would lose when experienced lawmakers are forced out of office. Under term limits, all these lawmakers would have been required to leave before the pinnacle of their legislative effectiveness: Henry Clay, Lynden Johnson, Orin Hatch, John McCain, and Ted Kennedy. At the height of their careers these legislators crafted historic bills on health care, transportation, taxes, and defense policy.
There is of course a natural “stick it to the man”/“throw the rascals out” mentality that runs through public opinion. Yet when we explore how to reform our democratic institutions, we should be grounded in solid research rather than impulsive passions.
Bradford Fitch is the former CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation, a former congressional staffer, and author of “The Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."
Keep ReadingShow less
Data calculations
Getty Images
Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works
Oct 31, 2026
Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.
So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.
In a national survey this summer, nearly three in four adults agreed that federal statistics are valuable and needed for policymakers to make good decisions. At the same time, only about half said they tend to trust those statistics. That gap between perceived value and trust is significant, which the nonpartisan Data Foundation documented in a report this month and is worth digging into. Americans are not rejecting the value of federal statistics at all. Instead, many are simply unsure whether to believe the statistics. Our national statistics are a portrait of our economy, our communities, and our people. They should also tell us about ourselves. The question is why so many of us do not yet see ourselves in those statistics.
Part of the answer may be that averages are a poor guide to any one life. A national inflation rate is a single number standing in for millions of households with very different spending, spread across dozens of metro areas, each with its own mix of rent, groceries, and gas. Inflation is accurate, and it may also bear little resemblance to your receipt. Over the year ending in September, prices rose about 4.1 percent in the Washington, D.C., metro area but just 1.9 percent around Tampa. In September alone, ground beef and milk got cheaper while gasoline got more expensive. Whether the national number feels true to any person depends on where and how they live. When the headline average does not match the life a person is living, no wonder the number can feel meaningless.
That doubt matters most this fall because the economy is the top issue for voters, according to the Pew Research Center. Economic statistics are therefore under the most pressure to tell a convenient story. So look at the places where that pressure is highest. We examined Senate battleground states, where any hypothetical thumb-on-the-scale would pay off most. In September, unemployment was 3.3 percent in Maine and 3.4 percent in Ohio, below the then national rate of 4.2 percent, while Texas sat at 4.4 percent and Michigan at 5.0 percent, above it. That is not the uniformly favorable story a campaign would want. What keeps these figures honest is process: established methods, published release schedules, and transparent revisions. Officials may see them in advance under embargo, but no one can alter, suppress, or delay them.
Here is the part we most want to say plainly: It is not the American people's obligation to trust their government or government data. The government has to earn that trust, and keep earning it. The long technical documentation behind every official number is necessary because it is how independence is proven and credibility is built. But documentation is far from sufficient. People have to be able to see themselves in the statistics their government produces. If anything, the answer runs the other way: our statistical agencies may need to produce even more relevant statistics about our economy, our people, and our society, not fewer. Statistics that are more representative, higher in quality, easier to reach, and easier to understand are how public statistics stay relevant, trusted, and used.
One of us has spent a career advocating for national efforts on data quality and trustworthiness, so the data infrastructure keeps pace with the demands of modern society. The other has spent a career inside the government, as a federal chief data officer at the Office of Personnel Management and as chief data scientist at the Government Accountability Office, building the systems that produce context-relevant and rigorously validated numbers. From both vantage points the lesson is the same: data earns trust when it stands apart from the politics of the moment, and when people can find themselves in it.
The United States has already pointed itself in this direction. Alongside democracies around the world, it joined the Luxembourg Declaration affirming the value of data and evidence. The next step is to formally measure not only whether people trust the government, but why. U.S. participation in the OECD's international survey on the drivers of trust would do exactly that, connecting headline numbers to the things that actually move trust: reliability, fairness, responsiveness, and whether decisions draw on the best available evidence.
To date, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have not participated in the OECD's international survey, despite the reality that while America is exceptional in many ways, low trust in government is not unique to America. And if official statistics matter this much, the agencies and data officials who produce them need secure, sustained funding: enough to produce, manage, and protect this information, and to keep it accessible to people and machines alike as more of public life runs on data—even if the numbers are politically inconvenient.
This month's inflation numbers were not flattering for many political campaigns. They arrived anyway, measured the same way everywhere, released on a published schedule for Principal Federal Economic Indicators. That is independence in practice. Trust will not come from telling Americans to believe the numbers; trust comes when the numbers are clear enough, and close enough to people's lives, that people can see themselves in them.
Nick Hart is President and CEO of the nonpartisan Data Foundation. He is a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Taka Ariga is Vice President for Data Policy and Impact at the Data Foundation. He is a former Chief Data Scientist at the Government Accountability Office.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More