Paul Norris, who helps lead Braver Angels' Red Caucus, convenes an all-red panel to discuss what liberals, academia, and the mainstream media miss about conservatives. Featuring Mark Reinecke, Elizabeth Doll, and Barbara Farmer.
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

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.
Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.
2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why
Feb 12, 2026
While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.
The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.
Instead, items will be postmarked on the day they are processed, which will take longer under USPS restructuring.
- YouTube youtu.be
The reason this is so impactful going into an election year is because many states have absentee and mail-in voting rules that explicitly state that as long as a ballot envelope is postmarked by election day, it will count.
However, in order for a ballot to count in 2026, voters will have to be aware of this rule change and not procrastinate their vote.
PBS reports that the Postal Service is undergoing reorganization, “including the consolidation of nearly 200 sectional facilities – where mail is typically postmarked – into 60 regional processing locations, which are likely to receive fewer truck dropoffs per day.”
“More than 70% of post offices will now be more than 50 miles away from a regional processing center, according to an analysis from the Brookings Institution. More than 25% of post offices will be 150 miles or more away.”
Across the board, from ballots to bills to taxes and anything else that is time sensitive, this means there is going to be a delay in postmarking items.
In 2024, nearly 1-in-3 voters across the U.S. cast a ballot by mail. But where this will have the biggest impact are states that send absentee ballots to all voters, like California, and states that conduct their elections entirely by mail-in voting – like Colorado and Washington.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized mail-in voting, claiming that it is ripe with fraud and abuse.
- YouTube youtu.be
According to data from the California secretary of state’s office, nearly 1% of ballots received by mail in 2024 were rejected. This accounts for nearly 123,000 ballots. An in-depth analysis by USC’s Center for Inclusive Democracy found that 27% of these ballots arrived late.
This will also make it more difficult for voters to “cure” their ballots on time in the event of another type of discrepancy, like a mismatched signature or no signature provided at all.
Californians can ensure same-day delivery of their ballot by taking it directly to the office of their county’s registrar of voters on election day or during early voting. The USPS also says people can go to a staffed retail location and ask for a manual postmark, but it must be requested.
Voters left uninformed of these options may be impacted by the change, and it’s likely California and other states will see at least some increase in ballots rejected as a result of being late.
More Choice Opponents in Alaska Are Putting Repeal on the Ballot – Again
Alaska voters have been asked to weigh in on the state’s new nonpartisan, top four primary system with ranked choice voting (RCV) in the general election twice. In 2020, a majority of voters approved the election model. Then, in 2024, they rejected repeal.
But reform opponents are not giving up and will put repeal on the ballot again in 2026.
The Alaska Repeal Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative will appear on the November 3 ballot at the same time voters will use RCV in statewide elections unless the Alaska Legislature passes similar legislation while in session.
The initiative repeals 3 things:
- The state's nonpartisan primary system that allows all voters, including the state's independent majority, to participate in taxpayer-funded primaries
- RCV used in the general election that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference
- A campaign finance rule adopted with these two other reforms that requires the source disclosure of political contributions over $2,000 that were derived from donations, gifts, dues, etc. (i.e. if someone makes a contribution from money they collected from someone or something else, they need to disclose the original source.)
The state’s Top Four model is the first-of-its-kind. Like nonpartisan primary systems in Washington and California, all voters and candidates participate on a single primary ballot, regardless of party.
The difference in Alaska is that the top four vote-getters, rather than the top two, advance to the general election where RCV is used to determine a majority winner. Voters can rank candidates in order of preference (1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc.)
Narrow majorities have approved and protected the adoption of this system. The vote to reject repeal was narrower in 2024 -- 50.1% to 49.9% -- which saw a lower turnout than 2020. Advocates of repeal hope a lower turnout in the midterms will lead to success.
These supporters include Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy, who has said RCV “was pitched as a reform to solve a problem that, frankly, didn’t exist in Alaska.”
We were told it would reduce partisanship, promote consensus candidates, and make elections more fair. In reality, what we got was a system that confused voters, made outcomes less transparent, and created deep concerns about how votes are tabulated and who ultimately decides an election."
Multiple outlets, including the Alaska Beacon and Anchorage Daily News, have reported on an increase in bipartisan and nonpartisan coalitions on the campaign trail and in the legislature under RCV. A recent study also found an increase in turnout among underrepresented groups.
Notably, Dunleavy does not mention the nonpartisan primary system, which also faces repeal under the initiative. This may be because repealing nonpartisan primaries means going back to a closed partisan primary system that shuts out 60% of the electorate that is registered independent of the two parties.
An academic paper from December 2025 found what independent reformers have said for decades and that is closed primary systems create a system of political inequity that is designed to only benefit two private political groups, the Republican and Democratic Parties.
"Consequences of this political inequality include the distortion of public policy where the preferences of certain groups are amplified by closed primary elections, and the resulting policies and candidates reflect the interests of the more powerful groups,” the paper found.
Advocates of nonpartisan primary reform assert that limiting voter participation and denying independents equal voting rights allows private political groups like the two major parties and aligned special interests to have outsized influence and control over election results.
Rebecca Braun, who is a member of Alaskans for Better Elections – the campaign that spearheaded Top Four with RCV in the state – said there’s no such thing as a perfect election system, but she thinks the new system is better.
“Mathematicians study this, and there’s almost nothing where you have 100% perfect outcomes. But this seems like to me a better system,” she said.
Santa Clara Holiday Runoff: Double the Cost with Half the Turnout
Santa Clara County, California, conducted a special election on December 30 to fill in a vacancy for county assessor following the resignation of Larry Stone. A general election was held on November 30 but because no candidate got a majority of the vote a runoff was triggered for the following month.
The runoff election cost an estimated $13.1 million. This is on top of the $13 million price tag for the general election. Meanwhile, turnout in the runoff compared to the general elections dropped by 53%. So... same cost, half the turnout.
- YouTube youtu.be
Early voting was conducted over Christmas week, and the election was held right before New Year’s Eve, so few are surprised by the low turnout.
The better elections group FairVote, a national advocate for ranked choice voting, reports that “the winner of the runoff, Neysa Fligor, received 33,332 fewer votes in the runoff than in the general election.”
Ranked choice voting (RCV) advocates say that their reform could save taxpayers money and ensure elections are decided when the most voters participate by eliminating the need for a separate runoff election.
Under the reform, voters can rank the candidates on the ballot in order of preference. If no candidate gets a majority of first choice selections, the last place candidate is eliminated and their voters’ next choices are applied to the tally.
This process continues until a single candidate has a majority. This instant runoff process serves the purpose of a regular runoff process, but without the added time, resources, and expense of a separate election.
It is possible for Santa Clara County to adopt RCV. County voters approved its use in a 1998 ballot measure. The county purchased new voting machines in 2019 capable of using RCV. And, the California Legislature approved AB 1227, which allows Santa Clara to adopt it.
On December 2, a county advisory committee recommended adopting RCV for special elections to start in order to save money. Whether the county adopts this recommendation remains to be seen.
It’s An 80-20 Issue: Maryland Voters Demand Equal Treatment and Fair Representation
In December, Maryland Governor Wes Moore’s Redistricting Advisory Commission voted 3-2 to move forward with a mid-cycle congressional gerrymander. However, this is something most Maryland voters don’t want.
Moore convened the commission following the passage of Prop 50 in California, which gives the Democratic Party an advantage in 92% of the state’s congressional districts.
A survey from the Institute of Politics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, found that 81% of respondents in the state said redrawing electoral districts to benefit a single party is “a major” problem for American democracy.
Only 1-in-10 respondents supported a redistricting process in which state legislators redraw districts.
But this isn’t the only survey that shows such a massive rejection of gerrymandering efforts in the state. The nonpartisan better elections group Open Primaries also released the results of its own survey this week which found that 80% of independent voters in the state oppose gerrymandering.
Partisan gerrymandering ensures that districts remain safe for a single party, which makes independents feel double penalized in Maryland because they are shut out of taxpayer-funded closed primary elections where most political contests in the state are effectively decided.
Open Primaries reports that its poll also found that 84% of independents believe that all voters should be able to vote in the primaries.
"There is a widening gap between how Independent Marylanders view fair representation and how our elections are actually conducted," said Cathy Stewart, National Organizing Director of Open Primaries."
"When you shut out independents, a quarter of the state's electorate, from the contests where 85% of elections are decided, gerrymandering creates a double penalty. We are barred from the primaries that matter, and gerrymandering makes the races uncompetitive in November, effectively rendering the voices of independent voters irrelevant."Open Primaries has spearheaded a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of closed primaries used in the state. There are about 1 million registered voters in the state who are denied access to these elections each election cycle.
2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why was originally published by Independent Voter News and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses
Feb 11, 2026
This week, I joined a coalition of journalists in Washington, D.C., to speak directly with lawmakers about a crisis unfolding in plain sight: the rapid disappearance of local, community‑rooted journalism. The advocacy day, organized by the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP), brought together reporters and media leaders who understand that the future of local news is inseparable from the future of American democracy.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
HTTP Executive Director JudeAnne Heath clearly captured the stakes. “This advocacy day is about protecting local news as civic infrastructure, not corporate content,” she told lawmakers. “When media ownership becomes too concentrated, decisions about what communities see and hear can be driven by company priorities instead of public need… If waivers or exemptions are handed out to circumvent the law, it's a slippery slope for all mergers across all industries.”
Her warning mirrors what senators themselves raised during Tuesday's Commerce Committee hearing. Lawmakers questioned whether eliminating the national ownership cap would undermine local journalism at a moment when communities are already losing reporters at alarming rates. As The Hill reported, several senators expressed concern that the Nexstar–Tegna merger “stirred questions about the future of local news and media competitiveness” during the hearing.
Critics of the proposal, including Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, argued that removing the ownership cap would give major broadcasters outsized influence and leave smaller, independent media companies struggling to compete for audiences and advertising revenue.
“We need more independent media and more competition, not less,” Ruddy said, testifying before the panel. “Large station groups hold enormous leverage over pay TV operators through retransmission fees.”
The hearing also highlighted the political pressure surrounding the deal. President Trump has urged regulators to approve the merger, calling it a way to “knock out the Fake News” and expand competition. But senators from both parties pushed back on the idea that the FCC should simply clear the path. One lawmaker cautioned that eliminating the cap outright would “further weaken local TV news” at a time when many communities have already lost their last remaining newsroom.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ranking member Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) (R) questions witnesses during a hearing in the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on February 10, 2026 in Washington, DC. The hearing explored the proposed $3.5 billion acquisition of Tegna Inc. by Nexstar Media Group, which would create the largest regional TV station operator in the United States. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington also warned that large‑scale media consolidation would reduce, not expand, the number of journalists serving local communities. She pointed to Nexstar’s history of merging newsrooms in markets where it controls multiple stations — including Denver — as evidence of the likely impact.
“That is not more local voices; it’s fewer,” Cantwell said.
These concerns aren’t abstract to me. I’ve lived through a major merger myself. In 2001, when General Electric–owned NBC purchased the nation’s second‑largest Spanish‑language broadcaster, Telemundo Communications, I saw firsthand what consolidation looks like. The layoffs came quickly. I was one of them. I watched culturally essential reporting for Latino, rural, and other underserved communities disappear. Consolidation doesn’t just reduce headcount — it narrows perspectives, weakens oversight, and leaves entire regions without journalists who understand their communities.
That’s why I’ve been blunt: media consolidation is a short‑term economic solution to a long‑term economic problem created by C‑suite leadership who are more interested in serving their Board of Directors than the public they’re licensed to serve.
When I served as president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ), I spent years fighting to stop this pattern from repeating across the country. And this year, NAHJ launched Holding the Mic, a year‑long national tour on the future of Latino journalism. The first event kicked off on Monday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., with a panel on media consolidation and democracy as part of the Save Local Newsrooms: Community-Centered Media Hill Advocacy Day hosted by HTTP.
"Latinos are at the center of many of the most consequential stories in America, yet decisions about the future of journalism are too often made without us," said Yaneth Guillen-Diaz, Executive Director of the NAHJ. The Holding the Mic tour is elevating community voices, exposing structural barriers in the industry, and making clear that the health of local news is a national concern — not a niche issue.
That national concern is now squarely before federal regulators. The proposed Nexstar–Tegna merger would allow a single corporation to control 265 television stations and reach nearly 80% of U.S. households. No matter how it’s framed, that level of concentration is incompatible with a functioning local‑news ecosystem. It would accelerate the collapse of local journalism at a moment when communities need it most.
Congress has the tools — and the responsibility — to intervene. That means:
- Upholding the 39% national ownership cap
- Strengthening oversight of TV‑station mergers
- Protecting and investing in local media
- Expanding media‑diversity and ownership opportunities
These are not abstract regulatory questions. They determine whether people in small towns, border communities, and multilingual neighborhoods have access to trustworthy information — or whether they are left with a hollowed‑out media landscape dominated by national narratives that ignore their realities.
When local journalism erodes, so does democracy. A healthy democracy depends on reporters who know their communities, reflect their diversity, and hold power to account. Our communities deserve real, trustworthy news and equitable representation — the kind of journalism that keeps democracy alive.
Strengthening local news is strengthening democracy.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
Keep ReadingShow less

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing
A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma
Feb 11, 2026
Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.
How the Deal Was Framed
Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.
That choice was strategic. Questions of policing norms are familiar ground for Congress, where bipartisan precedents already exist in areas such as body cameras, use-of-force policies, and reporting requirements. By treating ICE less as an immigration authority and more as a federal law-enforcement agency subject to baseline professional standards, lawmakers lowered the political temperature enough to keep negotiations alive.
At the same time, this framing imposed clear limits. It narrowed the scope of what could be discussed and, more importantly, what could be resolved. Issues of democratic authority, including who should decide the scope of enforcement, how expansive that authority should be, and how it ought to be constrained, were set aside in favor of technical questions about compliance and procedure.
Framing the dispute this way kept the government open, but it also narrowed the civic conversation. The result was a debate understandable to insiders but increasingly opaque to the public it was meant to serve. A question about democratic authority became a technical debate over how enforcement is carried out rather than whether it is properly authorized or accountable in the first place.
That distinction matters. It defines both the political limits of the moment and the reforms most likely to survive.
What Congress Can Agree On, and What It Can’t
Several proposed changes track existing norms in federal and local policing and therefore stand a realistic chance of becoming law. Agent identification requirements are likely to endure. Requiring visible badges or identifying information during enforcement actions aligns ICE with standard Justice Department practice. With exceptions for undercover or high-risk operations, the reform is widely viewed as common sense rather than constraint.
Body-worn cameras also have bipartisan precedent. Mandating their use during arrests and raids, paired with clear activation and data-retention rules, emphasizes documentation rather than deterrence. That focus makes the reform politically durable. Similarly, codifying use-of-force standards appears to be a low bar Congress is willing to clear. Turning internal ICE guidance into a formal national policy, with mandatory reporting of serious injuries or deaths, is framed as baseline accountability rather than interference.
Expanded reporting to Congress is the easiest concession of all. Regular disclosure of arrest data, complaints, and disciplinary outcomes strengthens oversight without limiting operational authority, making it attractive even to lawmakers wary of constraining enforcement.
Other proposals, however, may survive only in diluted form. Restrictions on masks or face coverings are unlikely to amount to an outright ban. More plausible are limits paired with broad safety exceptions, enough to gesture toward transparency without provoking law-enforcement backlash. Likewise, protections for “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship may be partially restored. Expansive exigent-circumstance carve-outs, however, are likely to blunt their real-world impact.
Two proposals are unlikely to survive intact. Requiring judicial warrants for most ICE arrests would fundamentally alter how immigration enforcement operates, and Republicans view this as a substantive policy shift rather than a procedural tweak. Binding limits on cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement face a similar fate, as they risk fracturing the fragile shutdown deal and are more likely to be postponed than resolved.
What the Episode Reveals
Taken together, the ICE funding deal reveals something deeper about Congress’s current posture. Lawmakers are willing to regulate how enforcement is carried out, focusing on visibility, documentation, and reporting, but not whether it is carried out or how expansive it should be. Oversight is asserted at the margins, while core authority remains firmly in executive hands.
As Yale law professor Richard Pildes has argued, this pattern reflects not just polarization, but a deeper weakening of Congress’s capacity to broker durable compromises and translate conflict into authoritative decisions. As party leadership fragments and procedural tools replace negotiation, institutions remain active but less decisive.
That focus on oversight and institutional responsibility reflects a broader scholarly view, including work like The Democracy Playbook by Norman Eisen and his coauthors, which argues that democracy is sustained not by sweeping reforms but by consistently upholding institutional norms and accountability.
What this episode reveals is not legislative failure in the dramatic sense, but something more subtle. Congress remains capable of keeping government running, yet it is increasingly unable to convert deep disagreement into clear, authoritative decisions. The trade-off avoided a shutdown, but it also reinforces a familiar pattern. Congress responds to institutional anxiety with procedural fixes rather than structural reform.
In that sense, the deal did more than keep the lights on. It captured a Congress uneasy about executive power, yet increasingly willing to manage conflict procedurally rather than confront it directly, in ways the Constitution’s framers warned would hollow out legislative responsibility.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less

A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash
ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You
Feb 11, 2026
The brutality of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the related cohort of federal officers in Minneapolis spurred more than 30,000 stalwart Minnesotans to step forward in January and be trained as monitors. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s demands to Minnesota’s Governor demonstrate that the ICE surge is linked to elections, and other ICE-related threats, including Steve Bannon calling for ICE agents deployment to polling stations, make clear that elections should be on the monitoring agenda in Minnesota and across the nation.
A recent exhortation by the New York Times Editorial Board underscores the need for citizen action to defend elections and outlines some steps. Additional avenues are also available. My three decades of experience with international and citizen election observation in numerous countries demonstrates that monitoring safeguards trustworthy elections and promotes public confidence in them - both of which are needed here and now in the US.
The willingness of Minnesotans to take to the frozen streets as monitors is a testament to the bravery of everyday people in the face of federal agents wantonly killing Renée Good and Alex Pretti, accosting civilian nonviolent observers, ignoring court orders, and violating fundamental rights of immigrants. In addition to monitors, thousands are engaged in sounding alarms and mutual aid efforts in Minneapolis neighborhoods, in some cases reactivating networks started when George Floyd was murdered by police in 2020.
Similar efforts are taking place in other cities and even in conservative, less populated areas. Last year, millions of Americans participated in No Kings and similar protests in more than 2,000 cities, and civic infrastructure - including women's, civil rights, and religious organizations, unions, and informal digital groups - mobilized for them. Those mobilizations undoubtedly helped to propel immigration enforcement monitoring and mutual aid initiatives.
That civic infrastructure could embrace protecting elections. Planning for election protection is needed, and now is the time to consider how to do it. There are at least five avenues to direct such energies.
Join election administration or party/candidate voter protection efforts
Sign up to be a polling station official. That is vital to safeguarding trustworthy elections. Secretaries of State and local election board websites typically provide a way of signing up. Turnover among such officials is high. “Election deniers” are pressuring election officials and attempting to sign up themselves, which makes it all the more important for trustworthy citizens to join the 100,000s of polling officials across the country.
Become a political party or candidate polling observer (sometimes called a poll watcher). They are trained and credentialed to be present inside (or, in some cases, outside) polling stations and to be present at ballot counting and other processes. Hotlines back them with legal expertise. They can flag improper actions, help seek redress, and testify to the credibility of the election administration that predominates in the US. These voter protection efforts typically start well before election day to assist people with voter registration problems or election-day issues and to help ensure their ballots are counted.
Enlist in or initiate nonpartisan election defense initiatives
Join the multistate Election Protection 866-OUR VOTE initiative led by Common Cause in concert with a broad array of partner organizations. This effort places volunteers outside polling stations where there has been a history of problems or where hotly contested races are expected, to help voters understand their rights and address voting obstacles. It trains the volunteers and backs them with a hotline connected to legal experts. Common Cause Pennsylvania organizes Watchdogs for Democracy to attend monthly county election board meetings and note developments, which could be replicated elsewhere.
Join or create a nonpartisan election monitoring network. This is relatively new in the US but well established worldwide. There is a statement of principles and code of conduct for nonpartisan election monitoring and a global network of over 200 such organizations from 89 countries and territories. There are also online materials on techniques for monitoring various stages of elections.
The Carter Center’s democracy program is assisting such efforts this year in Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, and Montana. The nonpartisan group Observe New Mexico Elections provides a solid example of how such monitoring can be done. In Maine, South Carolina, and probably elsewhere, chapters of the League of Women Voters have also conducted nonpartisan election observation. The Movement Advancement Project developed a map of states that explicitly permit nonpartisan election monitoring, plus the National Conference of State Legislatures provides information on relevant state laws.
Organize and deploy monitors around polling places, including drop boxes and other early voting locations. Publicizing that monitors will expose attempts to interfere with potential balloting can help instill voters’ confidence to cast their ballots. This requires training monitors about what constitutes interfering with voting, which is a crime. Training on documenting interference should include how to minimize the risk of physical confrontations with immigration or other officers and aggressive civilians. Organizing legal support for monitoring efforts is needed. Plus, where possible, it is best to be in communication with Election Protection volunteers and nonpartisan election monitors.
Ruthless immigration raids, deployment of military forces to cities under various pretexts, the FBI seizure of Georgia’s 2020 Fulton County election records, and President Trump’s renewed demand to take control of elections, notably saying, “We should take over the voting, the voting, in at least 15 places”, all indicate an urgent need to monitor and defend the upcoming elections.
As monitoring of immigration enforcement abuses proliferates and election defenders map the course to the November midterms, hopefully, a bridge will be built and complementary efforts secured. Trustworthy elections are the means to end abusive policies and practices across a broad array of urgent matters. We all have a stake and a responsibility to step forward.
Pat Merloe provides strategic advice to groups focused on democracy and trustworthy elections in the U.S. and internationally. He has engaged with those promoting credible elections in more than 60 countries.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















