Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Missouri takes the rare step of ditching its presidential primary for a caucus

Missouri primary voting

Missouri voters cast their ballots in the 2020 primary. The state is moving to a caucus system for presidential elections starting in 2024.

Michael B. Thomas/Getty Images

Voters in Missouri will follow a new electoral system when the presidential nominating contest kicks off in 2024.

When Missouri enacted an elections law in late June, much of the reaction focused on the new voter identification requirements and the establishment of early in-person voting. But lawmakers also moved the state away from primary elections in favor of a caucus system for presidential elections.

Missouri joins a short list of states (Iowa, Nevada, North Dakota and Wyoming) and territories (American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands) that use caucuses at a time when states have been abandoning the caucus system.


Though Missouri used presidential caucuses in 1992 and 1996, the state has held open primaries since the 2000 election. But, those elections were nonbinding, meaning that each party could choose whether to respect the results of the vote.

Caucuses represent a different attitude towards elections than primaries, focusing on the most enthusiastic partisans rather than widespread voter participation. The Republican and Democratic parties run the caucuses themselves, convening registered party members to discuss and assign delegates for their candidates, though procedure differs by state and party.

Primaries, on the other hand, are run by the states, with participation dictated by law. The primaries can be designated as either closed, where only voters registered for a specific party may participate, or open to all voters.

According to an analysis by PBS, while the caucus system attracts enthusiastic and knowledgeable voters, the dedication and time that’s necessary to make the system work means many voters will be alienated and excluded.

Caucuses have also been criticized for their tendency to take place for only a few hours in select locations far away from a voter’s usual precinct, meaning the disenfranchisement of voters who cannot attend for financial or logistical reasons.

Some of the states that still maintain their caucus system have tried to make them more inclusive in recent years.

  • Nevada Democrats provided caucus materials in three languages — Tagalog, English and Spanish — in 2020 and allowed early voting rather than mandating voters attend in person.
  • That same year, North Dakota allowed voters to participate by mail as long as the ballot was postmarked at least one week before the caucus.
  • The Wyoming Democratic Party switched to a ranked choice voting system for its 2020 presidential caucus, allowing candidates to rank five candidates on their ballot. The party also allowed early voting.

Voters also tend to turn out at higher rates in primary elections than in caucuses. Between 2016 and 2020, four states — Maine, Minnesota, Colorado and Utah — switched from a caucus to the primary system. In all four states, voter turnout in the Democratic primaries increased dramatically. In Colorado, for instance, the vote count grew from about 122,000 in the 2016 presidential caucus to more than 755,000 in the 2020 primary — six times as many voters.

In 2020, the Iowa presidential caucus was marred by an inability to accurately report the results in a timely manner. The state’s Democratic Party blamed a third-party smartphone app for delaying the release of the caucus and had to enter the results manually.

The app’s developers, Shadow Inc., later apologized for the delay, saying while the app’s data collection worked as planned, its ability to transmit that information did not.

NPR reported there was not enough training or research done on the app’s capabilities before the caucus. The state had also changed reporting guidelines before the caucus, mandating that the parties submit alignment totals as well as delegate allocations, to increase transparency.

Nevada did not use the app for its caucus later that month.

Read More

Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., January 29, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chen Mengtong/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)

Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists

Summary

On June 9, 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), dismissed all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Secretary Kennedy claimed the move was necessary to eliminate “conflicts of interest” and restore public trust in vaccines, which he argued had been compromised by the influence of pharmaceutical companies. However, this decision strays from precedent and has drawn significant criticism from medical experts and public health officials across the country. Some argue that this shake-up undermines scientific independence and opens the door to politicized decision-making in vaccine policy.

Background: What Is ACIP?

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a federal advisory group that helps guide national vaccine policy. Established in 1964, it has over 60 years of credibility as an evidence-based body of medical and scientific experts. ACIP makes official recommendations on vaccine schedules for both children and adults, determining which immunizations are required for school entry, covered by health insurance, and prioritized in public health programs. The committee is composed of specialists in immunology, epidemiology, pediatrics, infectious disease, and public health, all of whom are vetted for scientific rigor and ethical standards. ACIP’s guidance holds national weight, shaping both public perception of vaccines and the policies of institutions like schools, hospitals, and insurers.

Keep ReadingShow less
MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border
Way into future, RPA Airmen participate in Red Flag 16-2 > Creech ...

MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border

FT HUACHUCA, Ariz. - Inside a windowless and dark shipping container turned into a high-tech surveillance command center, two analysts peered at their own set of six screens that showed data coming in from an MQ-9 Predator B drone. Both were looking for two adults and a child who had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and had fled when a Border Patrol agent approached in a truck.

Inside the drone hangar on the other side of the Fort Huachuca base sat another former shipping container, this one occupied by a drone pilot and a camera operator who pivoted the drone's camera to scan nine square miles of shrubs and saguaros for the migrants. Like the command center, the onetime shipping container was dark, lit only by the glow of the computer screens.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Trump 2020 flag outside of a home.

As Trump’s second presidency unfolds, rural America—the foundation of his 2024 election win—is feeling the sting. From collapsing export markets to cuts in healthcare and infrastructure, those very voters are losing faith.

Getty Images, ablokhin

Trump’s 2.0 Actions Have Harmed Rural America Who Voted for Him

Daryl Royal, the 20-year University of Texas football coach, once said, “You've gotta dance with them that brung ya.” The modern adaptation of that quote is “you gotta dance with the one who brought you to the party.” The expression means you should remain loyal to the people or things that helped you succeed.

Sixty-three percent of America’s 3,144 counties are predominantly rural, and Donald Trump won 93 percent of those counties in 2024. Analyses show that rural counties have become increasingly solid Republican, and Trump’s margin of victory within rural America reached a new high in the 2024 election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules
white concrete dome museum

Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules

Trust in elections is fragile – and once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many election policies, there is broad bipartisan agreement on one point: executive branch interference in elections undermines the constitutional authority of states and Congress to determine how elections are run.

Recent executive branch actions threaten to upend this constitutional balance, and Congress must act before it’s too late. To be clear – this is not just about the current president. Keeping the executive branch out of elections is a crucial safeguard against power grabs by any future president, Democrat or Republican.

Keep ReadingShow less