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
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
us a flag on white concrete building
Photo by Adam Michael Szuscik on Unsplash
Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections
Dec 18, 2025
Earlier this year, I reported on Democrats’ redistricting wins in 2025, highlighting gains in states like California and North Carolina. As of December 18, the landscape has shifted again, with new maps finalized, ongoing court battles, and looming implications for the 2026 midterms.
Here are some key developments since mid‑2025:
- California: Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, allowing legislature‑drawn maps that eliminated three safe Republican seats and made two more competitive. Democrats in vulnerable districts were redrawn into friendlier territory.
- Virginia: On December 15, Democrats in the House of Delegates pushed a constitutional amendment on redistricting during a special session. Republicans denounced the move as unconstitutional, setting up a legal and political fight ahead of the 2026 elections.
- Other states in play:
- Ohio, Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina: New maps are already in effect, reshaping battlegrounds.
- Florida and Maryland: Legislatures have begun steps toward redistricting, though maps are not yet finalized.
- New York: Court challenges may force changes to existing maps before 2026.
- National picture: According to VoteHub’s tracker, the current district breakdown stands at 189 Democratic‑leaning, 205 Republican‑leaning, and 41 highly competitive seats.
Implications for 2026
- Democrats’ wins in California and North Carolina strengthen their position, but legal challenges in Virginia and New York could blunt momentum.
- Republicans remain favored in Texas and Ohio, where maps were redrawn to secure GOP advantages.
- The unusually high number of mid‑decade redistricting efforts — not seen at this scale since the 1800s — underscores how both parties are aggressively shaping the battlefield for 2026.
So, here's the BIG PICTURE: The December snapshot shows Democrats still benefiting from redistricting in key states, but the fight is far from settled. With courts weighing in and legislatures maneuvering, the balance of power heading into the 2026 House elections remains fluid. What began as clear Democratic wins earlier in 2025 has evolved into a multi‑front contest over maps, legality, and political control.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
Recommended
Sen. Mark Kelly poses for a selfie before a Harris-Walz rally featuring former President Barack Obama on Oct. 18, 2024.
Photo by Michael McKisson.
Kelly Sponsors Bipartisan Bill Addressing Social Media
Dec 15, 2025
WASHINGTON – Lawmakers have struggled for years to regulate social media platforms in ways that tamp down misinformation and extremism.
Much of the criticism has been aimed at algorithms that feed users more and more of whatever they click on – the “rabbit hole” effect blamed for fueling conspiracy theories, depression, eating disorders, suicide and violence.
Federal law shields social media platforms and internet providers from lawsuits over content posted by users. First Amendment rights make it hard for Congress to regulate speech.
The latest effort comes from Sens. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, and John Curtis, a Utah Republican, who have teamed up to fight political violence since the Sept. 10 murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Under the Algorithm Accountability Act they unveiled Nov. 19, social media companies would lose that legal immunity if they use an algorithm to promote content that results in harm.
The bill would amend Section 230, the provision of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that protects tech companies from lawsuits over user-generated content.
“Too many families have been hurt by social media algorithms designed with one goal: make money by getting people hooked,” Kelly said in a statement. “Over and over again, these companies refuse to take responsibility when their platforms contribute to violence, crime, or self-harm. We’re going to change that and finally allow Americans to hold companies accountable.”
A Utah Republican and a Maryland Democrat, Reps. Mike Kennedy and April McClain Delaney, filed an identical measure in the House on Nov. 21.
Unlike broader reforms of Section 230, the Algorithm Accountability Act targets the recommendation process that puts content in front of users, rather than the content itself.
The bill wouldn’t directly limit what platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, X and Instagram distribute, but would require them to “exercise reasonable care” in designing how they organize the content they serve up to users.
“Algorithms make us see the world as more aggressive and more conflictual than it actually is. It makes us see the other side as more extreme and more of a threat,” said Yphtach Lelkes, a professor of communication and political science at the University of Pennsylvania.
A study published Nov. 24 in the journal JAMA Network Open found that even a one-week “detox” from social media – cutting back on screen time – reduced anxiety, depression and insomnia in young adults.
“I think it’s coming from a good place,” Lelkes said of the Kelly-Curtis bill. But, he said, tech companies are motivated to keep users engaged, and tamping down harmful, inappropriate and “outrageous” speech could reduce usage.
“How do you get companies to promote public good over this need to keep people online as long as possible?” he said.
Tech companies warn that encouraging them to tweak algorithms to deemphasize certain political viewpoints means that instead of being neutral about user content, they are picking winners and losers.
That could mean trouble for organizing and recommending content in ways “the government would prefer you not to,” said Zach Lilly, director of government affairs at a trade association called Net Choice. “That’s where you start to ask those First Amendment questions.”
Lilly also argued that algorithms are designed to personalize content to a users’ interests.
Eliminating that, he said, “would result in such an extreme reduction in the ability to post our own content online without platforms feeling the need to remove our content for fear of liability.”
Smaller tech companies would find it especially costly to comply, he said.
Curtis and other leaders in Utah have been outspoken about political violence since the murder of Kirk during a campus appearance in their state.
Kelly has also been a leading voice on the topic. His wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, was shot in the head in 2011 while meeting with congressional constituents in Tucson. The gunman also shot 18 others, killing six, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl. Giffords narrowly survived.
Lelkes said it’s important to keep in mind that algorithms alone don’t cause people to “end up in rabbit holes” online.
“It’s more like they were already extreme and ended up in these places,” he said.
Meanwhile, artificial intelligence makes algorithms ever more effective at serving up content that keeps users from putting down their phones.
“AI systems are making decisions that are impacting people’s lives with little to no transparency about how those decisions are made, or accountability,” said Caitriona Fitzgerald, deputy director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
“We are playing catch-up,” she said. “We didn’t have the rules of the road in place that would have in any way limited the growth or the trajectory of AI.”
Kelly Sponsors Bipartisan Bill Addressing Social Media was originally published by Arizona Luminaria and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
The “Big Beautiful Bill” Becomes Law: From Promise to Fallout
Dec 14, 2025
When I first wrote about the “One Big Beautiful Bill” in May, it was still a proposal advancing through Congress. At the time, the numbers were staggering: $880 billion in Medicaid cuts, millions projected to lose coverage, and a $6 trillion deficit increase. Seven months later, the bill is no longer hypothetical. It passed both chambers of Congress in July and was signed into law on Independence Day.
Now, the debate has shifted from projections to likely impact and the fallout is becoming more and more visible.
Medicaid Cuts: Larger Than First Projected
The most immediate change since May is the sheer scale of the Medicaid reductions. Negotiations in Congress pushed the cuts from $880 billion to over $1 trillion over the next decade, making them the most significant rollback in the program’s history. Analysts now project 11.8 million people will lose health insurance by 2034, up from the 10.3 million estimated earlier this year.
The law imposes strict work requirements: childless adults aged 19 to 64 must document 80 hours per month of work, education, or volunteering to maintain coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 4.8 million people will lose coverage due to these requirements alone. States must also conduct eligibility checks every six months instead of annually, a bureaucratic hurdle that will increase churn and paperwork. For many, coverage will be lost not because they fail to qualify, but because they fail to navigate the red tape.
Other provisions add financial strain on everyday Americans. Copays of up to $35 per visit are now required for some enrollees above the poverty line. States that provide Medicaid to undocumented immigrants face federal funding penalties. And the elimination of provider taxes long used by states to finance Medicaid will reduce payments to hospitals and doctors, likely leading to staff layoffs and longer wait times.
Fiscal Impact: A Deficit Tug-of-War
The fiscal debate surrounding the bill has only intensified. The CBO projects $3.3 trillion added to the deficit over the next decade, as tax cuts outweigh spending reductions. Independent watchdogs warn that debt-to-GDP could reach 194% by 2054, crowding out investment and raising borrowing costs.
The White House counters with a far more optimistic picture, claiming the bill will reduce deficits by $11 trillion through economic growth, tariffs, and spending cuts. Supporters argue that extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts will spur GDP growth, investment, and job creation. Critics point out that similar promises were made in 2017, yet deficits ballooned.
This debate over projections underscores a more profound truth: fiscal responsibility has become a matter of partisan narrative rather than agreement on the math. Citizens are left to wonder whether forecasts are based on proven forecasting procedures or are used to justify ideological goals.
Political Fallout
The politics of the “Big Beautiful Bill” has intensified. Republicans are divided. Some moderates worry that deep cuts to Medicaid and food assistance will be politically damaging, especially in swing districts. Others, particularly deficit hawks, argue the bill does not go far enough in reducing spending. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas declared, “This bill falls profoundly short. I am a ‘no’ unless serious reforms are made.”
To soften the blow, GOP leaders have tried to rebrand the legislation as the Working Families Tax Cuts Act. Yet even supporters admit it is difficult to “sell” to voters who are already feeling the effects of reduced benefits and higher healthcare costs.
Democrats, meanwhile, have seized on the bill as a rallying point. They warn of increased hunger due to SNAP cuts, hospital closures in rural communities, and millions losing access to essential care. For them, the bill is not just a policy disagreement. It is a moral indictment of priorities that favor tax relief over human need.
State-Level Impacts
The consequences are not abstract. They are unfolding in real time across the states.
- Kansas: Governor Laura Kelly projects $150 million in lost federal funding and warns of rural hospital closures.
- Arizona: SNAP changes could cut benefits for 124,000 residents, straining food banks already stretched thin.
- North Carolina: Counties face millions in new administrative costs to implement SNAP changes, diverting resources from other local needs.
- New Hampshire: Republicans are moving quickly to implement strict Medicaid work verification, while Democrats push back against what they call punitive measures.
Expansion states like California and New York face the highest financial burdens, as they must decide whether to raise taxes or cut coverage to offset federal reductions. Rural states like Alabama and Oklahoma risk losing hospitals altogether, leaving communities without emergency care. States with large immigrant populations face additional penalties, further complicating their budgets.
Why This Matters
The “Big Beautiful Bill” illustrates the tension between promises of fiscal discipline and the lived realities of healthcare access. Supporters argue it will reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. Opponents warn it undermines the very infrastructure of care that sustains families, communities, and rural America.
For citizens, the question is not only whether the bill balances the books, but whether it balances our values. Does it strengthen the social contract, or weaken it? Does it invest in long-term growth, or mortgage the future for short-term relief?
As the law takes effect, these questions will not remain theoretical. They will be answered in hospital closures, in families losing coverage, in food banks overwhelmed, and in state budgets stretched to the breaking point. The numbers are essential, but the human stories behind them are what will ultimately define the legacy of the “Big Beautiful Bill.”
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
;;
Keep ReadingShow less
Government shutdown
wildpixel/Getty Images
Fulcrum Roundtable: Government Shutdown
Dec 14, 2025
Welcome to the Fulcrum Roundtable.
The program offers insights and discussions about some of the most talked-about topics from the previous month, featuring Fulcrum’s collaborators.
Consistent with the Fulcrum's mission, the Fulcrum Roundtable strives to share many perspectives to widen our audience’s viewpoints.
The most recent U.S. government shutdown lasted from October 1 to November 12, making it the longest in American history at 43 days.
It began after Congress failed to pass a continuing resolution, leading to the furlough of about 900,000 federal employees and the closure of numerous agencies and institutions.
The shutdown ended when President Trump signed a funding bill on November 12, which temporarily extended government funding until January 30, 2026, and approved three full‑year appropriations bills.
Although the shutdown has concluded, its ripple effects remain: federal employees are facing steep increases in health insurance premiums, and delayed economic data releases have complicated assessments of U.S. growth.
Politically, the shutdown coincided with declining approval ratings for the administration, underscoring the broader impact of the prolonged stalemate.
Helping us make sense of it all are two Fulcrum collaborators.
Bobby J. Smith II, an Associate Professor of African American Studies at the University of Illinois—Urbana-Champaign. He is also the author of the James Beard Award-nominated book, Food Power Politics: The Food Story of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement.
Joseph Crupi, a legal scholar who studies the legislative process. He previously served as a Scholar-in-Residence at the Law Library of Congress.
- YouTube youtu.be
In the column, Crisis Not Averted: How Government Shutdown Exposes America’s Food Insecurity, Bobby wrote about SNAP benefits:
To be very clear, what the world is witnessing right now isn’t just another political game. It is the latest move in the administration’s War on Food Security, or the ability of many Americans to access safe and nutritious food.
This war began when Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 on July 4 of this year, effectively transforming food into a political weapon. The law severely cut food stamps and terminated the SNAP-Ed program, which provided food and nutrition education to millions of low-income individuals.
In Arbitration Could Prevent Government Shutdowns, Joseph wrote that the way Congress makes decisions seems almost designed to produce government shutdowns:
Senate rules require a three-fifths supermajority to close debate on most bills. In practice, this means that senators from both parties must agree to advance legislation to a final vote. In such a polarized political environment, negotiating an agreement that both sides can accept is no easy task. When senators inevitably fail to agree on funding bills, the government shuts down, impacting services for millions of Americans.
Joseph argues that arbitration could offer a way out:
In arbitration, the parties to a dispute select a neutral third party to resolve their disagreement. While we probably would not want to give unelected arbitrators the power to make national policy decisions, arbitration could help resolve the much more modest question of whether an appropriations bill could advance to a final vote in the Senate.
I invite you to read their columns and those of all of The Fulcrum's contributors. It's time well spent.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More