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
A hand casting a vote in a ballot box for an election in the Kentucky, USA
Getty Images
Kentucky’s Independent Voters Are Growing. Why Are They Still Shut Out?
Aug 30, 2026
Kentucky’s political establishment has just been handed a number it should not be able to ignore.
In July, more Kentucky voters registered as independent or “other” than registered as Republicans and Democrats combined. More than 8,500 Kentuckians registered to vote, and the “other” category grew by 2,530 voters, compared with 2,483 new Republicans and a decline of 32 Democrats.
Secretary of State Michael Adams put the meaning of those numbers plainly: “Neither party can prevail in a statewide race with only its base; both must reach out to the center.”
He is right. But there is an even bigger problem. Kentucky is the only Southern state with a closed primary system, shutting independent voters out of most primaries. Nearly 384,000 Kentuckians are now registered outside the two major parties, roughly 11 percent of the electorate, and that number is growing faster than either party.
This makes little political sense, particularly for Republicans. The Republican Party’s success across the South has been built in no small part on its ability to forge an alliance with voters who do not see themselves as traditional Republicans. Veterans, young voters, Latinos, and African Americans all showed historically high levels of independent identification.
The lesson should be obvious: neither party can afford to treat independent voters as people who only matter after the candidates have been chosen. Yet that is effectively what Kentucky does.
Kentucky taxpayers pay to administer these elections. They fund the polling places, election workers, ballots, voting machines and the public infrastructure that makes the primary possible. These are publicly administered elections, not private club meetings, and in an increasingly uncompetitive political environment they are often where the real decision is made about who will hold public office. Yet hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians who help pay for that system are excluded because they have chosen not to join a political party.
That is not just a democratic problem. It is a political one for both parties. By shutting independents out until November, Kentucky parties are making it harder to build the broad coalitions they need to win and govern.
And they do not necessarily have to wait for Frankfort to act. Kentucky’s political parties have the power to open their primaries. In Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that a political party’s First Amendment associational rights can protect its decision to allow independent voters to participate in the primaries. No new law needs to be passed. Either party can choose to welcome these voters.
They should.
The argument that independents have chosen not to join a party and therefore have chosen not to participate gets the problem exactly backward. Independence is not apathy. It is a deliberate political choice. Asking voters to surrender that independence simply to participate in a public election is not inclusion. It is coercion. Imagine if the state of Kentucky asked Republican voters to “just register Democrat” or vice versa in order to vote. The outrage would be immediate and justified.
There is also reason to believe Kentucky’s independent electorate is even larger politically than its registration numbers suggest. An Open Primaries poll in New York City found that 39 percent of registered Democrats described themselves as really independent voters who had registered Democratic specifically to participate in primaries. The same dynamic is likely among the Republican electorate in Kentucky. The point is that voters should join parties because they believe in them, not because outdated election rules force them to.
Thirty-four states already allow independent voters to participate in at least some partisan primaries. These are red states, purple states, and blue states. Kentucky stands alone in the South. It should not be proud of that distinction. With independents now approaching half of the national electorate, the question is no longer whether these voters are a growing political force. It is whether Kentucky’s political parties are prepared to build a political system around the voters they increasingly need to win.
Kentucky’s independents are registering. They are growing. They are paying for these elections.
It is time to let them vote.
Jeremy Gruber is senior vice president of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization, and the author of Let All Voters Vote: Independents and the Expansion of Voting Rights in the United States.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
US Supreme Court, Washington, DC
Getty Images
If You Can’t Win, Disrupt
Aug 30, 2026
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a decision overturning the stay issued by Judge Talwani of the US District Court for Massachusetts. The case was brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia to enjoin Executive Order No. 14399, issued by President Trump. The Executive Order (EO) was 90 pages long and is entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections”.
The purpose of the EO according to its proponents is to (1) enhance the verification of the citizenship status of the voting public and to explicitly prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote or vote in federal elections; (2) to utilize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements program (SAVE) to assist in verifying identity and voter eligibility. (3) Establish the transmission of state citizenship lists and prioritization of investigations and prosecutions related to election fraud. (4) Require the US Postal Service (USPS) to issue new rules on mail-in and absentee ballots. (5) Have the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of the SSA, and the Postmaster General, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, to effectuate all relevant aspects of the implementation of the Order. (6) Enforcement authority for this EO is vested in the Attorney General.
The EO had several critical clauses. For example, it requires the states to comply with the directive to deliver their citizen lists to the federal government and requires all mail-in ballots utilized by the states to be delivered with specific “secure envelopes” with barcodes which could be scanned by the USPS. Ballots issued by non-compliant states would be denied postal service by the USPS. The Final USPS Rule was effective on the twenty-first of August.
The Supreme Court issued its decision on August 24th. It was an odd decision in that we are now less than 70 days until the midterm elections, and the states have already begun to prepare their ballots, including their mail-in ballots and absentee ballots, for distribution to voters. In some cases, they are due to be mailed as early as September 4th.
According to the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make
or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
In other words, the responsibility for regulating elections rests first with the States and second with Congress. Justice Jackson in her dissent notes that the Constitution intentionally excluded the executive from centralized control of elections.
Justice Jackson further notes the longstanding tradition that the Supreme Court has applied, referred to as the Purcell Principle, a legal doctrine meant to prevent last-minute changes to election rules.
The decision by District Judge Talwani was carefully limited in scope to the November 3rd elections. In other words, the State’s election infrastructure would not need to restructure its respective operations in order to comply with new federal regulations so close to the mid-term elections. The substantive aspects of the EO remain to be evaluated and may possibly be applied to the 2028 elections.
Justice Jackson, however, felt that this may be the point. The President has been accusing the States of mishandling and/or rigging elections, largely without evidence of the alleged widespread voter fraud. By undermining Americans’ confidence in elections, he has used a variety of charges to foment confusion. Many states have initiated radical redistricting, meaning people who have voted at the same polling places for years will now find themselves in new districts with new candidates.
The EO and the new USPS Rule call for the jailing of Secretaries of State and other election officials who fail to comply with the new dictates. The EO is an effort to effectively nationalize the federal election process, diminishing state sovereignty and the states' independent authority to administer election laws, and constituting direct federal interference in election administration. In addition, the President has fired the members of the independent Election Assistance Commission.
The failure of SCOTUS to sustain the District Court decision throws the states into entropy, as they now must reorganize to comply. It is important to note that The SCOTUS decision was not based on the merits of the claim. Specifically, the Administration did not defend the EO, which the District Court had decided was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruling focused on timing, stating that since the USPS Final Rule had not yet been published at the time of filing, the case was not “ripe” for a decision on the injunction.
In fact, however, the USPS Final Rule was published on the 21st of August, and the decision from SCOTUS came down on the 24th of August. According to the terms of the SCOTUS ruling, since the Final Rule has since been published by USPS, the case is now ripe for a determination. The 23 states and the District of Columbia and several other interested parties have already returned to the District Court and obtained a new injunction. It is expected that the President and USPS will again seek an appeal to SCOTUS.
Imagine for a moment you are trying to organize an election. It is 5 days before the voting begins and 8 weeks before the election is concluded, and you may still need to switch directions once again.
Confusion works to the benefit of those trying to disrupt the election. Perhaps that was the goal all along.
Walter H. White, Jr. is a board member of Lawyers Defending American Democracy a founding director of the ABA Center for Human Rights and has served as an election observer in the former Soviet Union on behalf of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Keep ReadingShow less
Government reform
Getty Images
Why One Young Engineer Rejects the Two‑Party Binary
Aug 30, 2026
When Joshua Summers was in elementary school, his dad would come to class to perform science experiments. One time, they did an experiment to show how lightning bugs lit up.
“That was pretty cool,” he says. There was never one moment that drew him to science, but it may have helped that his mother was a nurse and his father was a mathematician.
“I was raised in a house where the benefits of science were made known,” says Joshua. “It can help you get ahead in life if you align your beliefs with something that can be proven. You’re just going to be able to do more.”
The popular science-infused YouTube channel Vsauce and his high school physics class helped him get into the University of Pittsburgh, where he recently completed a degree in mechanical engineering. So too did Minecraft, the sandbox multiplayer game where players can gather resources and build structures.
“I think Minecraft actually had a huge effect on me,” he says. The game’s constraints made it interesting. “You can’t do everything in the game, but you have to use the building blocks of the game to do what you want. And to me, that’s what engineering is.”
These days, he designs printed circuit boards at a lab. He’s hoping to pursue graduate study in engineering, with long-term aspirations to work in a university lab or for the Department of Energy.
“Being a scientific thinker can help you avoid a lot of fallacies,” he says. “You can have as many beliefs as you want, but believing in science helps you make sure that your beliefs are aligned with reality.”
That mindset applies to realms beyond engineering—including politics. An independent voter, Joshua seeks exposure to different viewpoints. Collecting many perspectives, like data, helps him sharpen his political positions.
“Imagine you’re looking at a house,” he says. “If everyone is standing on the north side of the house and looking at it, you’re only going to have twenty-five percent of the picture. You don’t know what exists on the other sides.”
However, hearing different voices can clarify the picture: “If you have people on the other side all looking at it, and you’re all communicating, you can have a better view of the house and a more informed view.”
A more informed view also entails going beyond the Democrat-versus-Republican binary. “I think if there was a two-party system and one of the parties perfectly represented my views, maybe I wouldn’t be complaining.”
Yet, he says, nuance across many political issues prevents him from affiliating with either party. With guns, for example, he sees some value in safety regulations: “I think you can treat a gun in some ways like a car,” he says. “But I’m not someone who’s like, ‘we should ban all of them.’ I think giving some power to the common citizen is a good thing.”
On foreign policy, he doesn’t identify as a hawk. “But I’m not pro-appeasement. As a Jewish person, I look at the historical background of what happened in World War II, and obviously, I don’t want that to happen again.”
But he doesn’t allocate too much political attention to the big issues. “If everyone spends their energy and money trying to get, for example, abortion or gun laws changed, we’re at a political equilibrium. We’ve been debating these issues for hundreds of years.”
In contrast, government reform has greater potential. “I think something like entropy exists in the government. It’s like rust. In general, the forces of business interests and all of these people add rust to the machine. And I think our government could operate more efficiently, like a brand new car. We can do things to get rid of the rust.”
Some starting points include making it easier to pay taxes, imposing term limits, and instituting prohibitions on stock trading by members of Congress. These issues go beyond viewing politics through a “Democrat” or “Republican” lens.
“From a general standpoint, only having two options is a terrible thing,” he says. “If you went to the grocery store and there were only two types of bread, two types of fruit—they only had apples and oranges—and there was no variation, it would suck.”
Harry Patton is Managing Editor of Independent Pennsylvanians and a Swarthmore College Lang Social Impact Fellow.
Keep ReadingShow less
Happy female entrepreneur with colleagues sitting at a desk in an office
Getty images
Understanding The Dissolution of Federal DEI Offices and Initiatives: Debate and Implications
Aug 30, 2026
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Background
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a buzzword often used in political spaces, and its implementations, or lack thereof, have repercussions on many groups. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts are organizational policies and initiatives that aim to equitably distribute opportunities and to create accepting workplaces for marginalized populations. These policies create hiring and recruitment guidelines to hire, retain, and promote individuals from those backgrounds. Supporters of these policies argue they are necessary in driving meaningful social progress, while critics argue they subordinate the role of merit in awarding opportunities.
A Recent History of Executive Orders on Federal DEI
In 2021, President Joe Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13985. It was intended to provide reparations to marginalized communities in an effort to advance social and economic equity. It functioned by directing agencies to establish equity action plans and create DEI departments in federal offices. The order also created diversity-focused hiring initiatives and required the progress of DEI programs to be tracked.
In 2025, President Trump issued E.O. 14151 to roll back Biden-era DEI programs. The order characterized Biden’s DEI initiatives as unlawful and discriminatory, and claimed the programs had been embedded across virtually all federal government operations. E.O. 14151 also revoked E.O. 11246, which was signed in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson to protect federal contractors from discrimination.
The Trump administration used this order to inform the Office of Personnel Management’s hiring plan, stating that “the hiring freeze” related to reducing the federal workforce “required that agencies only hire for mission-critical roles.” Social service departments and DEI-related offices were disproportionately impacted during broader, agency-wide layoffs.
Arguments Against DEI Rollbacks in the Federal Workforce
Critics of federal DEI rollbacks contend that dissolving DEI initiatives is an economic attack on Black American communities. Opponents draw attention to data from the Economic Policy Institute, which showcases the change in employment rates of Black women between 2024 and 2025; the net decrease in employed Black women was driven primarily by the loss of public-sector jobs, especially within the federal government. This trend is also noticed in metro areas in the U.S., coinciding with the Trump administration’s attacks on DEI through federal hiring. The Economic Policy Institute also found that 10 different metro areas making up 38.6 percent of the black labor force have experienced increased job losses, as well as a decrease in median household income.
Opponents of DEI rollbacks also point out that these initiatives are detrimental to veterans. E.O. 14151 directed government agencies to eliminate all DEI positions, including those in the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). As a result, all staff with DEI-related positions at the VA were placed on administrative leave within 60 days of the order’s signing.
Opponents argue the order could result in decreased safeguards and workplace protections for disabled workers in the United States. Biden’s order embedded DEI performance requirements and disability inclusion mandates into federal hiring; these initiatives also ended within 60 days of Trump’s order being signed.
Arguments for DEI Rollbacks in the Federal Workforce
Proponents of rollbacks express concerns that DEI initiatives can cause preferential treatment towards minorities at the expense of non-minority candidates. The Heritage Foundation’s analysis on DEI in the federal workforce, specifically within the Department of State, found that the agency’s approach prioritized the sex of employees over performance indicators. The report concludes that the department should depoliticize hiring and promotion processes and return to merit-based principles.
The CATO institute, another supporter of DEI rollbacks, analyzed fiscal waste around DEI and equitable hiring initiatives. The Institute claims that these policies create administrative bloating; they argue the more discrimination is perceived, the more DEI-related positions must be filled and DEI training must be held. They argue that maintaining DEI programs in the federal government allows resources to be allocated to non-critical services. Between 2021 and 2025, approximately $1 billion was spent on DEI initiatives, all of which could be spent on more critical projects, according to supporters of rollbacks.
Future Outlook
Agencies continue to lose diversity offices and funding meant to provide supporting infrastructure for equity and inclusion. The legality of President Trump’s order still remains uncertain, with groups challenging these policy changes and looking to restore DEI policies. Despite downsizing, the federal government remains still the largest employer in the United States; its hiring procedures set the standard for the private sector. Federal DEI rollbacks have resulted in private corporations canceling previously announced initiatives, which showcases the federal government’s role in broader debates regarding labor.
Understanding The Dissolution of Federal DEI Offices and Initiatives: Debate and Implications was first published by ACE and is republished with permission.
Simon Ghebretensae and James Hollander are fellows with ACE.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More