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


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.

Waiting for the Door to Open: Advocates and older workers are left in limbo as the administration’s decision to abandon a harsh disability rule exists only in private assurances, not public record.
We reported in the Fulcrum on November 30th that in early November, disability advocates walked out of the West Wing, believing they had secured a rare reversal from the Trump administration of an order that stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers.
The public record has remained conspicuously quiet on the matter. No press release, no Federal Register notice, no formal statement from the White House or the Social Security Administration has confirmed what senior officials told Jason Turkish and his colleagues behind closed doors in November: that the administration would not move forward with a regulation that could have stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers. According to a memo shared by an agency official and verified by multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, an internal meeting in early November involved key SSA decision-makers outlining the administration's intent to halt the proposal. This memo, though not publicly released, is said to detail the political and social ramifications of proceeding with the regulation, highlighting its unpopularity among constituents who would be affected by the changes.
Despite the absence of public acknowledgment, nothing in the intervening weeks suggests the rule has been revived. Since November 30, there have been no new entries on the administration's regulatory agenda. Key regulatory milestones have been bypassed, including deadlines for public comment periods and potential congressional hearings that would typically follow such a proposal. Additionally, no agency guidance or fresh reporting indicates a change in direction. The only developments from the Social Security Administration since November have concerned routine matters such as cost-of-living adjustments, modernization efforts, and internal restructuring, none of which affect the substance of the abandoned proposal. This lack of action stands out as an anomaly in standard federal rule-making practices, where a clear procedural timeline is typically observed.
For advocates, the lack of formal withdrawal is both reassuring and unsettling. Reassuring because every signal from inside the agency still points to the same conclusion: the rule is dormant. Unsettling because the decision that affects hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans exists only in private assurances, not in public commitments. As one advocate put it, 'We were told it was dead. But nothing is dead in Washington until it’s buried.' An administration spokesperson, however, might argue that the lack of a formal withdrawal is a standard due-process measure to ensure that all perspectives and interests are considered before finalizing any regulatory decision. They might emphasize that the administration is committed to balancing the needs of affected workers while ensuring sustainable policy outcomes.
The stakes remain enormous. The proposed rule would have redefined disability eligibility for older workers by effectively erasing age as a factor — a shift that would have hit hardest in communities already battered by economic transition: coal country, rural manufacturing towns, and regions where desk jobs are scarce and digital skills are not easily acquired late in life. The administration’s internal polling reportedly showed that older Trump voters overwhelmingly opposed such changes, a political reality that may have helped elevate the issue to the desks of senior officials in November.
But political sensitivity is not the same as policy certainty. Until the administration publicly affirms what it has privately conveyed, the disability community remains in a defensive crouch — vigilant, watchful, and aware that regulatory ideas have a way of resurfacing when attention drifts.
Perhaps concerns about the upcoming mid-term elections next November have played a role in the administration's reversal. As reported in November by the Fulcrum, "New polling by a Trump-aligned firm has suggested that older Trump voters would overwhelmingly oppose such changes to disability eligibility." According to the poll, 78% of voters over 55 opposed the rule, highlighting the political risk of moving forward with the proposed changes. In the wake of Democrats’ strong showing in recent elections, two people with knowledge of the situation said that the administration may have been particularly sensitive to these views. As one lobbyist put it, it’s all about the "elevation of an issue, and getting it on the right desks."
The deeper issue raised by this episode is not just the fate of a single regulation but the way major policy decisions can be made and unmade without the public ever being told. When a rule with the potential to reshape the lives of hundreds of thousands of disabled Americans can be advanced for years, nearly finalized, and then quietly shelved without a single formal notice, it exposes a structural weakness in how our government communicates with the people it serves. Transparency is not a procedural nicety; it is the foundation of democratic legitimacy. Legal frameworks such as the notice-and-comment process in administrative law underscore the principle that public participation is essential to developing regulations that reflect society's will and needs. Without such transparent processes, even good decisions can feel provisional and contingent on political winds rather than grounded in principle.
This is especially true in areas like Social Security disability, where the stakes are existential, and the public’s ability to monitor policy is limited by complexity. When agencies operate in the shadows — whether by design or inertia — trust erodes. People who depend on these programs are left to parse rumors, off‑the‑record assurances, and secondhand accounts from advocates who themselves are trying to interpret signals rather than respond to clear, public commitments. A system that governs millions of vulnerable Americans should not rely on whispered confirmations in West Wing hallways. It should rely on transparent processes, accountable leadership, and a shared understanding that decisions of this magnitude deserve daylight.
For now, the story is one of absence: no movement, no revival, no formal announcement. But in a system where silence can be strategic, it is also a reminder of how fragile protections can be when they depend on unwritten assurances rather than transparent governance.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.
“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.
“An innocent, wonderful, incredible woman, a military woman,” Trump said during a Fox News interview a few weeks later. Not everyone who went to the Capitol broke into the building, but she did. With a Trump flag draped over her shoulders like a superhero’s cape, Babbitt was part of the group who tried to gain access to the Speaker’s Lobby, just outside the House chamber. Another rioter smashed glass. As Babbitt tried to crawl through, a Capitol Police officer shot her from inside the lobby.
Video footage from the day shows Babbitt falling backward into the crowd as blood pours out of her mouth. After the shooting, many rioters began to flee the Capitol grounds. Babbitt was transported to Washington Hospital Center. She was declared dead upon arrival.
The officer who killed Babbitt was cleared of wrongdoing; Lt. Michael Byrd potentially saved lives by stopping the mob, lawmakers and police said.
But her death gave Trump’s Make America Great Again movement something it needed: a martyr.
On Jan. 6, 2021, a political rally turned into an insurrection as Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of electoral votes. (John Minchillo/AP Photo)A religious frame has been present in Trump’s politics since his rallies in the leadup to the 2016 election.
Jeffrey Sharlet, a veteran journalist and professor at Dartmouth College who was an early chronicler of the rise of Trumpism and its ties to religiosity, said these rallies were shaped by the prosperity gospel, a branch of Protestantism rooted in the supposition that, effectively, God wants you to be rich.
In 2020, the religious tenor was still there — but it had shifted to a more conspiratorial approach. Trump stopped merely “winking at QAnon” and began “invoking that level of conspiratorial thinking that has been absorbed into the DNA of the movement,” Sharlet said.
Before Babbitt’s death, Sharlet said, Trump had already been working to incorporate martyrs into his rhetoric, invoking a list of names, usually people who had been killed by immigrants in the country without legal status. They would typically fall into two categories, he said: “blonde White women and promising young Black men” — think Jamiel Shaw Jr., a rising football star in the midst of college applications who was shot and killed by a gang member who was in the country illegally, orSarah Root, who was killed by an undocumented drunk driver the day after her graduation from college.
Sharlet calls Babbitt “a perfect storm”: a White woman killed on camera in footage seen by millions, a Black man — the Capitol police officer — responsible for her death.
“That changed everything,” Sharlet said. “The first real martyr who really takes hold of Trumpism is a woman, and it gives the movement a real religiosity.”
And it set the stage for Trump to ascend into a kind of religious figure himself after a would-be assassin shot him in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024.
“Every martyr disappears into the cult of personality,” Sharlet said. “She was a placeholder. She keeps the cross warm until Trump gets up there and he’s the martyr. Now, he’s the martyr for us all — but it started with a certain appeal to women.”
Babbitt was an active participant in the insurrection — but that didn’t mean she couldn’t be reassigned the role of someone who needed protecting.
Sharlet recalled watching videos of Trump supporters talking about Babbitt in the wake of her death: “They’re aging her backward, they’re lowering her weight, they’re lowering her height, they’re turning her into a little girl.”
It was a blueprint for what was to come, he said of Babbitt: “The blondeness is important, the smallness is important, but so is the camouflage of being a veteran.”
Her race, too, was important, Sharlet said.
“It’s about the Whiteness of things. It’s not enough for them that a woman be murdered,” he said. “She has to be a little girl. She has to be White.”
Meghan Tschanz, a former missionary who has emerged as a critic of patriarchal systems in evangelical Christianity, drew a connection between Babbitt and Laken Riley, a college student whose murder by an immigrant who was in the country illegally was highlighted by Trump. Both women’s deaths became part of a larger narrative — one designed to accomplish a political goal, not mourn the victims.
Tschanz, who lives in Athens, Georgia — where Riley was killed — stressed that criticizing the politicization of Riley’s death is in no way a dismissal of the reality and severity of her killing. Rather, she said, politicization can dilute the pain of the loss in service to a larger narrative.
“Again and again, we see women die and the response isn’t, ‘Let’s make it so women don’t die.’ It’s, ‘Let’s make it so that I can use this to further my narrative that immigrants are evil,’” she said.
Riley’s father, Jason Riley — a Trump supporter — told NBC News about the pain of watching his daughter become a political tagline after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, at the time a strong Trump ally, heckled President Joe Biden during his State of the Union speech in 2024, urging him to say Riley’s name.
“I think it’s being used politically to get those votes. It makes me angry. I feel like, you know, they’re just using my daughter’s name for that. And she was much better than that, and she should be raised up for the person that she is,” Jason Riley said. “She was an angel.”
It’s a dynamic also echoed in Babbitt’s death. Though Babbitt’s mother, Michelle Witthoeft, emerged as a leading advocate for the release of those who were arrested for their actions on January 6, she also has publicly grappled with the way in which her daughter’s death became something other than an acute family tragedy.
Witthoeft told The Washington Post in 2021, “Half the country loves her and half the country hates her,” she said. “It’s weird to have your child belong to the world.”
For Trump, Riley’s and Babbitt’s deaths helped reinforce the message that women’s lives are in danger and that they need to be saved — something he emphasized in his campaigns as he painted immigrants and his political opponents as threats.
“It all plays into the fears and vulnerabilities that women have to navigate, which is that women are more vulnerable to sexual and gender-based violence and women are tasked culturally with caring for the home and for their children,” said Hilary Matfess, an assistant professor at the University of Denver and the co-author of an analysis done by the Program on Extremism at George Washington University on gender and the January 6 insurrection. “So this message of scary immigrants are going to come in and destroy your communities with drugs and rape your women and children is intended to strike fear into a very specific demographic — namely, suburban White women.”
Matfess pointed to how the role of martyr cemented a view of Babbitt for Trump’s followers. She became someone who needed protecting, a figure whose memory is in need of constant, everlasting protection.
“Being put on a pedestal means you can’t move around too much,” Matfess said.
Michelle Witthoeft, Ashli Babbitt’s mother, participates in a demonstration in support of insurrectionists who were arrested and charged following the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)Matfess said there is a long-standing academic notion of the “protection racket,” in which a government offers protection from an imagined threat to deflect from the threat posed by the government itself. It’s something that can be used to keep women in subservient roles — and thus effectively in need of some form of protection from others.
“The Trump administration is not saying, ‘Wow, we should really expand access to prenatal health care’ or ‘We need more resources for women that are victims of domestic violence,’ because it is not about protecting women,” she said. “It’s about protecting certain men’s ability to wield power and influence under the banner of protection.”
Babbitt’s death in some ways challenged the narrative, too — she was part of the group trying to stop the certification of the election, not sitting by.
Matfess noted the ways that the Proud Boys — the far-right, all-men neo-fascist group that have become rigorous defenders of Trump and his agenda — insist on the fact that there are in fact no Proud Girls, often suggesting that the best way women can support the politics they espouse is by staying home and reproducing.
Matfess points to early rumors from within the far right that Babbitt was part of a false flag mission — evidence that the movement had to grapple with a woman who was attacking, not asking for protection.
“There’s a lot of utility to narratives that talk of attacks against women and children, and so it becomes that once they decided it wasn’t a false flag, that she was there of her own political beliefs, it becomes a compelling narrative of a woman sacrificing herself for this movement. Whether or not the movement would have been kind to her had she lived is besides the point,” Matfess said.
“The memorialization takes away the kind of difficult questions of how this movement would deal with women who are taking on more transgressive gender roles. Once someone’s a hero, you can leave it at that.”
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’ was first published by The19th and republished with permission.
Jennifer Gerson is a reporter at The 19th.
A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.
In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.
These state‑level fights have revived a broader question: has partisan gerrymandering delivered the durable advantages its architects sought, particularly in states aligned with President Donald Trump? Analysts emphasize that gerrymandering is carried out by state legislatures, courts, and independent commissions—not by the presidency—and cannot be attributed to any single national figure. Still, Trump benefits indirectly from Republican‑drawn maps in states where GOP legislatures aligned with his agenda and where courts allowed those maps to stand.
Research and analyses from organizations such as the Brennan Center for Justice, as well as reporting by AP News and Reuters, have shown that Republican‑drawn maps in states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina have historically produced durable advantages in congressional and legislative seats. At the same time, those advantages have been blunted by court rulings and Democratic counter‑moves in states such as Alabama, Louisiana, New York, California, and Virginia, where new maps have expanded Democratic representation or reduced partisan bias.
Political scientists and election‑law experts describe the current landscape as a two‑sided “redistricting arms race,” with both parties using every available legal tool to shape the national map heading into the 2026 midterm elections.
The intensity of today’s battles is rooted in a long history. Gerrymandering dates back to 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry approved a state senate district so contorted that critics said it resembled a salamander, giving rise to the term “gerrymander."
Modern gerrymandering typically relies on “packing” voters of one group into a small number of districts or “cracking” them across many districts to dilute their influence. While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that racial gerrymandering can violate the Constitution, it held in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) that partisan gerrymandering claims brought under the U.S. Constitution are beyond the reach of federal courts, shifting most disputes to state courts and independent commissions. In Allen v. Milligan (2023), the Court affirmed lower‑court rulings that blocked Alabama from using a congressional map that likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power.
The democratic consequences are substantial. Research from the Brennan Center for Justice has shown that heavily gerrymandered states tend to produce fewer competitive races, limiting voter choice and reducing candidates' incentives to appeal beyond their base. Civil‑rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, have documented how racial gerrymandering can weaken the political influence of Black, Latino, and Native communities, particularly in the South and Southwest. Scholars associated with efforts like Princeton’s Gerrymandering Project have warned that extreme partisan maps can lock in legislative control for a decade or more, even when statewide vote totals shift, creating conditions some describe as “minority rule,” where the party with fewer votes holds more seats. Surveys by organizations such as the Pew Research Center have found that majorities of Americans believe gerrymandering undermines confidence in elections, a key pillar of democratic legitimacy.
Taken together, the latest rulings in California, the aggressive posture in Virginia, the ballot‑language fight in Missouri, and the court‑ordered map in Utah illustrate how redistricting has become a structural battleground over who is represented and how they are represented. As the 2026 midterms approach, democracy scholars and civic groups argue that the stakes extend beyond partisan advantage.
Gerrymandering is not just a technical exercise in map‑drawing; it is a mechanism that helps determine whose voices are heard, how power is distributed, and whether a pluralistic democracy can function as intended in a diverse and increasingly polarized nation.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:
1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.
2 – Working together. No institution works well when the members of that institution pick sides and refuse to work with the other side. This is true in companies, in laboratories, in houses of worship, and in the arts. Collaboration is essential to a quality work product. Members of Congress should resolve to work with each other – to listen to each other – to stop attacking each other. According to Public Agenda, 93% of Americans want to reduce political divisiveness. And two-thirds of Americans believe doing so is “very important.” One way to begin to do this in Congress could be for members to direct their staffs to work together – to have them jointly identify issues, seek facts, and select and interview witnesses. Another way is for members to visit the districts and states of members of the opposite party – with those members. They can try to see issues through another member’s eyes – and the needs of another member’s constituents.
3 – Returning to the normal legislative process, something we call Regular Order. It’s been years – even decades – since Congress followed the regular order in passing legislation and appropriations. No school, company, house of worship, small business, PTA – no organization could survive long if it fails to address its budget and prepare for the coming year’s finances. Board members would be derelict in their duty if that were to happen, but Congress routinely lets the established order of the budget process and appropriations process slip so that, in the end, either all the bills are bunched together by the leadership at the last minute, and no one knows everything that’s in them, or the government shuts down. As they say – “that’s no way to run a government.” Congress should resolve to follow the normal budget and appropriations process — hold hearings, take public and expert testimony, have committee mark-ups (where bills are considered and possibly amended), issue committee reports explaining the contents of the bills, and allow for full Senate and House consideration in a timely and inclusive manner. This would be a big one.
4 – Balancing the budget or at least bringing the deficit within range. Again, no company, social organization, or religious community could survive under the mountain of debt that Congress has allowed the nation to accumulate. To achieve fiscal sustainability, tough decisions have to be made. The discrepancy in wealth that has been allowed and that grows each year is intolerable. And Congress must – based on facts and not partisanship -- direct its attention to separating the wheat from the chaff in our federal programs.
5 – Supporting government watchdogs. Agency inspectors general and the Government Accountability Office were established by Congress to help identify and address waste, fraud, and abuse. They should be fully funded, kept out of political influence, and have their budget-saving recommendations adopted. That’s called being responsible.
6 – Stopping the name-calling. There was a popular book many years ago titled “Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.” One such “thing” is to be polite and not call people names. It’s embarrassing for our grandchildren to hear the words some of our leaders use to describe a fellow human being. Decency and respect go a long way to building trust, and trust can yield accommodation and accomplishment. Congress should resolve to follow decorum and speak with decency and respect.
This is just a start – but how different our country would be if Congress would adopt these resolutions and stick to them!
Linda Gustitus served for 24 years (from 1979 to 2013) as Staff Director and Chief Counsel for Senator Carl Levin (D-MI).