IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah
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
Sandra Abrevaya and Brian Wallach give testimony at an Apr. 15 House Subcommittee hearing
(Photo by Stephen Voss, courtesy of I AM ALS)
Congress Poised to Advance Bill Providing ALS Patients Their ‘”Best Chance’” at a Cure
Apr 20, 2026
WASHINGTON — Brian Wallach spoke with his eyes.
The Illinois native and co-founder of I AM ALS has been living with ALS for eight years and can no longer use his voice. Instead, Wallach, 45, types with his eyes, then generates speech by applying artificial intelligence to old recordings of his voice.
He used that software on Wednesday during a hearing held by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Health Subcommittee to testify for a bill that would expand investigational therapies treating the disease.
“It is the single biggest investment in ALS research,” Wallach said, as his wife, caregiver, and co-founder, Sandra Abrevaya, gripped his hand.
“Rereauthorizing it is our best chance of finding a cure,” said Wallach, as his wife, caregiver, and co-founder Sandra Abrevaya gripped his hand.
The proposal, introduced in the House earlier this month by Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., would reauthorize a 2021 law bill that authorizedallocated $100 million annually from 2022 to 2026 to study ALS and facilitate more investigational therapies for patients, who typically have a life expectancy of two to five years following diagnosis, said Sheri Strahl, President and CEO of ALS Network.
The measure has drawn broad, bipartisan support with 13 co-sponsors on either side of the aisle. Health Subcommittee Chair Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., predicted a “strong vote” in its favor, he said Wednesday at a press briefing. That would move the bill out of committee and put it to the Senate.
“This is not Republican or Democrat. This is Congress doing its job together, which we can do on occasion,” Griffith told Medill News Service.
Health Subcommittee Chair Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., speaks at an Apr. 15 hearing (Photo by Stephen Voss, courtesy of I AM ALS)
That would be welcome news for ALS patients, who are often restricted from traditional clinical trials, said Strahl. To participate, patients usually need to have a certain vital capacity and to have been diagnosed within the last two years.
“It takes a very long time for people to get diagnosed, the range is 11 months to 20 months,” Strahl said. “You only have four months to get your arms around the research landscape, find a clinical trial, get screened for a clinical trial, and participate.”
The bill would give those shut out of clinical trials access to investigational therapies, Strahl said. Sandra Abrevaya credits one such therapy with helping her husband live eight years past diagnosis.
“We've tried to take advantage of every opportunity we can, both with clinical trials and expanded access programs,” Abrevaya told Medill News Service. “We really do believe that Brian is alive today, in part, because we've leaned in to promising new treatments.”
The proposal would also fund and invest in a study researching the biomarkers of ALS that could allow quicker diagnosis across multiple degenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and Huntington’s diseases.
The legislation’s broad applicability and many Congress members’ personal connections to these diseases propelled the legislation forward at what, for Congress, has been breakneck speed, Quigley said.
“It's so important to think of this as the way to get to all the neurodegenerative diseases,” Quigley told Medill News Service. “Some of the best bills get caught up for reasons that defy reason. Somehow, this caught lightning in a bottle.”
Zara Norman is a graduate student reporter covering health for Medill News Service.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Expert witnesses testify on the issues facing federal benefits programs run by states at a House Government Operations hearing on Wednesday, April 15, 2026.
(Photo by Naisha Roy | Medill News Service)
House Bill Pushes Bipartisan Effort to Tackle Federal Benefits Fraud, Refocusing from Immigration
Apr 18, 2026
WASHINGTON — Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, introduced a bill Wednesday morning that would create a permanent U.S. Treasury Inspector General position for fraud accountability as part of a broader effort to crack down on the misuse of federal benefits.
The bill would offer an alternative, bipartisan way to prevent federal benefits fraud, after several months of politically charged congressional hearings.
The bill, titled the “Fraud Prevention and Accountability Act,” was introduced at a House Subcommittee on Government Operations hearing. This hearing follows larger, committee-wide hearings investigating the misuse of federal funds in Minnesota after a scandal involving Somali immigrants, which broke late last year. However, Sessions stressed that his bill addresses a nationwide problem that isn’t limited to immigration.
“While we are fresh off the heels of the full committee’s investigation and hearings into fraud, this isn’t about one state,” he said. “This is not about Minnesota, it is not about any one particular area.”
In 2025, the government estimated nearly $29 billion in improper Medicaid payments, but it was unclear how much of that was fraud rather than paperwork errors and administrative mistakes. For similar reasons, the government does not have clear estimates of fraud in other benefit programs.
But Rep. Emily Randall, D-W.A., worried that the crackdown on fraud could result in eligible people receiving delayed or missing benefits.
“I had a sister with really complex disabilities who relied on Washington State's Medicaid program, and I can think of a number of times where my mom didn't submit paperwork in time,” she said. “Maybe Olivia was in the hospital, or had any number of health complications that meant her stack of paperwork kept getting bigger and bigger. Those improper payments sometimes are just a struggling family trying to keep their kid or family member alive and healthy.”
Subcommittee member Rep. Eleanor Norton, D-D.C., criticized President Trump for contributing to the fraud problem by firing or demoting over 20 inspectors general since the beginning of his term.
“Inspectors general are a key part of detecting and preventing fraud,” she said.
The bill focused on the many issues plaguing Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families disbursements at the state level. For instance, states often do not share eligibility data across assistance programs or with the federal government. States also use outdated user interface systems to track eligibility.
To combat this, the bill would make the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee's operations a permanent part of the Treasury. The committee was created in 2020 to track how states were spending pandemic relief funds, but Sessions’ bill would expand its responsibilities to all federal awards over $50,000.
Sessions’ legislation marks a shift away from previous fraud accountability efforts focused on immigration. Last month, an executive order created a Task Force to Eliminate Fraud led by Vice President J.D. Vance. The order blamed many of the benefits issues on “lax immigration policy and immigration fraud.” Soon after, the House passed “Deporting Fraudsters Act,” which would make benefits fraud a deportable offense. While Sessions voted for the Deporting Fraudsters Act, he said his new bill would be a separate, preventive effort.
“What we're trying to do is to take the mechanisms of data and information and make them permanent,” Sessions said. “[The Deporting Fraudsters Act] deals with when you're caught, and you've committed fraud, that you can be deported.”
O.J. Oleka, a witness from the State Financial Officers Foundation, suggested an “instant verification system” that would cross-check applicants’ income, residency, and citizenship status before payments are issued. However, experts said this would not be feasible, at least for Medicaid, given the current distribution of those funds.
“It’s completely infeasible to implement,” Andy Schneider, a Georgetown professor who has written extensively on Medicaid policy, said in an interview. “The data systems are not in place, and the effect of a rule like that would be to disenfranchise millions of Americans from access to health insurance coverage.”
The bill would add the responsibility of negotiating data-sharing agreements with states to the Treasury Secretary’s role. However, this raised concerns about privacy, especially in the current political climate.
“When it comes to providing information to the federal government, in an ideal world, you would want sharing of information to make systems flow better,” said Valerie Lacarte, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, in an interview.
Non-citizens do not qualify for many benefits, and those who do use benefits do so at lower rates than citizens. Unfortunately, she said, many immigrants fear that if they provide their personal information to states, the federal government will use that information for immigration enforcement.
“Because of the use of federal agencies basically using information from different agencies for the purposes of immigration enforcement, that is now putting a lot of states and local governments in an awkward position with their communities,” she said.
Naisha Roy is a graduate journalism student at Northwestern University reporting on the immigration beat on Capitol Hill.
Keep ReadingShow less
In this handout image provided by NASA, As the Artemis II crew flew over the terminator, the astronauts described this boundary between day and night as "anything but a straight line." Crater rims along the terminator stand out as "islands" in the night.
Photo by NASA via Getty Images
Trump Wants To Kill Your Moon Joy
Apr 18, 2026
Just last week, four astronauts left Earth’s orbit, journeyed around the moon, and returned safely home. In the midst of new lows for humanity–like someone threatening to destroy an entire civilization when they have the resources to actually do it–the human race is simultaneously reaching new heights. It is marvelous, miraculous, and a milestone for all humans to celebrate. It is almost unthinkable, however, that at this moment, as the world rallies behind NASA in amazement, Trump is dismantling many of its programs, threatening to slash its budget, and generally working to kill your “moon joy.” Houston, we have a problem.
Artemis II hit close to home for me. The astronauts splashed down off the coast of San Diego, where I was stationed as a Navy pilot for the last eight years. More astronauts come from Naval aviation than anywhere else, and I am proud to wear the same wings of gold as two members of the crew. Following multiple deployments as a pilot, I certified aviation departments of surface vessels and helped deploy tactical air control squadrons aboard them; one of those vessels is where the astronauts landed after getting scooped out of the ocean by H-60 helicopters, the aircraft I flew during my service. All to say: I know intimately the preparation, technical rigor, talent, and coordination required for even relatively insignificant pieces of a mission of astronomical proportions. If we want to shoot for the stars, then we'd better recommit ourselves to what gets us there: science and DEI.
You simply do not get to the moon without investing heavily in scientific research and education. During the Cold War, the space race became a national priority. 4.4% of the federal budget was allocated to NASA in 1966–a tab even larger than what had been put towards developing the atomic bomb. The U.S. government also quickly passed the National Defense Education Act, redesigned national curricula, and pumped $1 billion into schools. Only twelve years later, we landed on the moon. Even if exploring outerspace was a financial black hole, it might still be worth pursuing, but the return on investment for NASA science is actually stellar–every dollar spent on NASA adds $10 to the economy, often through technologies that help us every day, from air purifiers to cordless power tools to GPS. Nevertheless, funding for NASA today accounts for only .3% of the federal budget, and Trump’s proposal to the 2027 Budget would cut 23% of NASA’s overall funding and 47% of its science division, risking more than 50 missions. The Planetary Society calls it “an extinction-level event for science.”
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has been a North Star for NASA. For decades, the agency has been a leader in DEI, even playing a role in the fight for civil rights. Kennedy worked to create more inclusive job opportunities at NASA in advance of the Apollo lunar program; many experts maintain that these inclusive programs have been instrumental in attracting a talented and diverse workforce. Diversifying has helped NASA achieve an unprecedented amount of skill and talent in its workforce. Plus, diverse teams perform better. NASA’s Unity Campaign was launched with a goal to “rise above…divisiveness,” and ensure employees felt “a genuine sense of belonging,” “empowered to be authentic,” and “safe and respected,” improving morale, cohesiveness, and motivation. When coworkers bond, their differences cease to be feared and misunderstood but are instead recognized as crucial to the mission. It's not rocket science.
The Artemis II astronauts know they stand on the shoulders of giants, from Katherine Johnson, Guion Bluford, and Mae Jemison to Charlie Blackwell-Thompson and Vanessa Wyche. Everyone on that list is Black, a woman, or both, yet the Trump regime seems set on re-segregating NASA. When two-thirds of all astronauts come from the military, the fact that Secretary of War Hegseth is aggressively purging the forces of anything even remotely hinting at DEI affects NASA downstream. Trump’s appointee for Administrator, appointed in defiance of a long-term custom that the job passes to the top civil servant in the agency, was Janet Petro. When Trump’s Executive Order against DEI came out, and NASA closed its diversity offices, she emailed the staff to pressure them to report anyone trying to obscure their connection to DEI, claiming it “divided Americans by race…and resulted in shameful discrimination.” NASA’s historically impressive DEI approach is unlikely to continue while Trump appointees reign.
But why is the government interfering with NASA’s personnel practices and bleeding it dry financially? There are some clues. Administrator Petro named Michael Altenhofen, a top executive at SpaceX, as a senior advisor, before being succeeded herself by Jared Isaacman, a billionaire who has flown on the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft. There are ongoing and valid concerns about SpaceX’s influence on NASA, especially given Musk’s involvement in the 2024 election. Now, many believe Trump hopes to privatize space entirely, a theory not debunked by a budget he proposed in his first term that would have ended funding completely for the International Space Station by 2025. U.S. Senator Van Hollen says the regime wants to “attack the heart of the NASA space science center enterprise in order to contract it out, ultimately to themselves.” By diminishing NASA’s capacity, they’ll be in a better position to push for privatization. So, it is yet another grift when space could and should be something we all share. What happened to Integrity?
It will take everything we’ve got, as it always does, to ensure these important contributions to humanity continue successfully and thoughtfully. But while we celebrate this heroic moonshot, Trump is gutting established programs without which the Artemis II crew would never have gotten off the ground. If astronauts can voyage to space on our behalf, then we can show up for them on Earth. Call your reps and advocate for investments in NASA, scientific research, and DEI–and consequences for corruption. It may take perseverance, but anything is possible when we choose each other.Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
Senate votes increasingly pass with support from senators representing a minority of Americans, raising questions about representation, rules, and democracy.
Getty Images, ANDREY DENISYUK
Record Number of Bills and Nominations Passed With Senators Representing a Population Minority
Apr 17, 2026
From taxes to the environment to public broadcasting like PBS and NPR, the Senate has recently passed record levels of legislation and confirmed record numbers of nominations with senators representing less than half the people.
Using historical data, GovTrack found 56 examples of Senate votes on legislation that passed with senators representing a “population minority.” 26 of those 56 examples, nearly half, have occurred since President Donald Trump’s current term began.
How did GovTrack calculate this?
GovTrack includes a feature on all its Senate vote listings, displaying both the “official” roll call – how many senators voted yes or no – alongside the percentage of the contemporaneous population those senators represent. (When each of a state’s two senators vote differently, half of the state’s population is apportioned to each senator.)
For example, take the very first bill the Senate voted on in 2025: the Laken Riley Act. A top priority for Trump, the bill mandated detention of undocumented immigrants arrested for theft or burglary.
The Republican-led Senate passed it with 65% support. GovTrack’s data shows those senators represented 60% of the U.S. population – still a majority, but a bit less so.
Other Senate votes, though, win a majority of the senators while only representing a minority of the population.
In this article, we look at these votes.
What were they?
Here are two of those most notable “population minority” Senate votes on bills enacted in the current Congress:
- One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Republicans’ main legislation for tax cuts, funding immigration enforcement, and deregulation. President Trump signed it into law July 4, on Independence Day. It passed with senators representing 44% of the U.S. population.
- Rescissions Act, ending federal taxpayer money for CPB (the Corporation for Public Broadcasting), a major funder of PBS television and public radio stations. It passed with senators representing 46% of the U.S. population. (The Corporation for Public Broadcasting voted to dissolve itself in January 2026. PBS and NPR continue to exist, funded through a combination of individuals and philanthropy.)
| Bill | Date | Senate vote | Population % |
|---|---|---|---|
| One Big Beautiful Bill Act | July 1, 2025 | 50%* | 44% |
| Rescissions Act | July 17, 2025 | 52% | 46% |
* Vice President J.D. Vance broke the Senate tie in favor.
Most of the Senate’s other recent “population minority” votes overturned Biden-era rules and regulations, particularly regarding the environment and energy.
By GovTrack’s count, six such Senate votes were about the Environmental Protection Agency, another six were about the Bureau of Land Management, and four were for the Department of Energy.
Also for nominations
Several of the second Trump administration’s most prominent members were confirmed by Senate “population minority” votes – including RFK Jr. (Secretary of Health and Human Services), Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard.
| Nominee | Position | Senate vote | Population % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Secretary of Health and Human Services | 52% | 46% |
| Pete Hegseth | Secretary of Defense | 50%* | 46% |
| Pam Bondi | (Former) Attorney General | 54% | 49% |
| Kash Patel | FBI Director | 51% | 46% |
| Tulsi Gabbard | Director of National Intelligence | 52% | 46% |
* Vice President J.D. Vance broke the Senate tie in favor.
The Supreme Court
The oldest example GovTrack found of a “population minority” Senate vote is actually famous: Clarence Thomas’s 1991 Supreme Court nomination by President George H. W. Bush. The Senate approved Thomas with 52% support, but 49% of the population.
He still serves on the Court today.
GovTrack found three other “population minority” Senate confirmations for Supreme Court justices, totalling four: Thomas plus Trump’s three first-term nominees. All four still serve on the Court.
| Supreme Court nominee | Year | Senate vote | Population % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarence Thomas | 1991 | 52% | 49% |
| Neil Gorsuch | 2017 | 55% | 46% |
| Brett Kavanaugh | 2018 | 51% | 44% |
| Amy Coney Barrett | 2020 | 52% | 48% |
Unprecedented levels for legislation
The earliest example GovTrack could find for legislation was the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, a banking deregulation law. The Republican-led Senate passed it with 55% support, representing 48% of the population.
Yet such examples proved rare. According to GovTrack’s data, starting from that 1999 vote through 2016, such Senate “population minority” votes on legislation only occurred 12 times. That’s not even once per year.
That changed in Trump’s first term, though, when the Republican-led Senate of his first two years passed 17 “population minority” votes.
But it’s really zoomed to another level now. The current Republican-led Senate has already passed an unprecedented 26 “population minority” votes on legislation.
Unprecedented levels for nominations
The numbers similarly reveal how unprecedented this current Senate is for nominations.
After Thomas in 1991, a Senate “population minority” nominee confirmation vote – whether for the Supreme Court or otherwise – only occurred once in the next decade. In 1994, the Senate voted to retire Navy Adm. Frank Kelso while retaining his four-star rank, after sexual harassment allegations, with 56% support but 45% of the population.
According to GovTrack’s historical analysis of votes over the last century, the Senate has confirmed 293 nominees with “population minority” votes. 133 of those 293, almost half, have occurred since Trump took office again in 2025.
Although bills must also pass the House, which has proportional representation, nominations are only voted on in the Senate.
How is this possible?
Wait, why is this even able to occur at all?
Currently, Republicans hold a Senate majority: 53 to 47. However, based on the Census Bureau’s current estimates, it’s actually the other way around by population: Democratic senators represent a 53% majority of the states’ population, versus Republicans with 47%.
How is this possible? Because while the U.S. House is apportioned based on population, with larger states receiving more representatives, the U.S. Senate guarantees each state two senators regardless of size.
This was baked into the American system from the beginning, creating what political scientists call a “counter-majoritarian” institution.
In 2025, according to Census Bureau estimates, the most populous state (California) had about 67x the population as the least populous: Wyoming. Today, a Senate voting majority could be cobbled together from senators representing just 17% of the population.
But that’s actually been the same for a while. Going back to 1900, a Senate voting majority could be cobbled together with senators representing 16% to 20% of the population.
Instead, small states may be more politically aligned than they used to be and are voting together more often as a bloc.
The Senate’s vote threshold
Senators have recently taken advantage of old rules, and also changed some rules, to use lower vote thresholds. This means votes are more often succeeding with less support.
Both parties contributed to this.
In 2013, under President Obama, Senate Democrats changed the threshold for most nominations from three-fifths to a simple majority. They left it at three-fifths for the Supreme Court, though.
Then in 2017 during Trump’s first term, Senate Republicans changed the threshold for the Supreme Court, too, to confirm Justice Gorsuch by a simple majority. (This rule applied to all subsequent justices, too.)
As for legislation, many of the recent “population minority” Senate votes used the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which lowered the usual Senate vote threshold from three-fifths to a simple majority for certain deregulation bills. The One Big Beautiful Act and the Rescissions Act were both voted on under other rules, which lower the vote threshold for certain spending-related bills.
So the three-fifths threshold is now gone for nominations and some types of legislation.
It might not stop there. Trump has called for the Senate to end the three-fifths threshold for all legislation, in order to enact certain Republican policies – particularly regarding election rules. If that happens, “population minority” Senate votes could become even more frequent.
Why does this usually benefit Republicans?
This discrepancy usually benefits the GOP, since they tend to represent smaller states.
Take those two states we just mentioned, for example. Tens of millions of mostly-progressive Californians are represented by the same number of senators as the less than one million mostly-MAGA Wyomingites.
So although their population sizes are apples and oranges, in the Senate, the Golden State’s two Democrats and the Cowboy State’s two Republicans essentially “tie.”
The consequences of this discrepancy become even more obvious in aggregate.
The top half of states by population, from California through Louisiana, actually have a Democratic Senate majority: 28 to 22. However, the bottom half of states by population, from Kentucky through Wyoming, are majority Republican: 31 to 19.
(In particular, note that the bottom half of states lean “more” Republican than how much the top half of states lean Democratic.)
This small-state Republican benefit also holds true at the presidential level. Indeed, two presidents in living memory won election despite losing the national popular vote, both Republicans: George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016.
The Congressional Review Act, which makes it easier for Congress to deregulate – and the rules for rescissions bills, which makes it easier to cut funding – also are more aligned with Republican goals than Democratic goals.
Is this good or bad?
To be clear: all this doesn’t necessarily mean these counter-majoritarian policy outcomes are “better” or “worse.” That depends on your political ideology, and that’s a completely separate discussion.
But for better or for worse, it’s clear that the Senate is diverging from popular opinion far more than ever before, at least in recent memory. Even if one believes the Senate is, in fact, “right” while popular opinion is “wrong.”
Jesse Rifkin's writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
Record Number of Bills and Nominations Passed With Senators Representing a Population Minority was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More