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
man holding his hands on open book
Photo by Patrick Fore on Unsplash
Reclassifying Faith?: Inside the Department of War’s Revision to Its List of Religions
Jul 23, 2026
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
How Are Religions Recognized in the U.S. Military?
Introduced in World War 1, dog tags, or metal identification tags worn by U.S. service members, are one of the primary ways the U.S. military recognizes religions. Besides including a service member’s name, Department of War (DOW) identification number, and blood type, dog tags can include a service member’s religious preference. Since 2017, service members have chosen from a list of 211 recognized religions, also known as the “Faith and Belief Codes,” for their dog tag engravings. Outside of dog tags, the U.S. military has also shared service members’ religious preferences with the Army Chaplains Corp. First established under President George Washington, three chaplain corps (Army Chaplain Corps, the Air Force Chaplain Corps, and the Navy Chaplain Corps) host commissioned officers who provide religious support to service members and their families. As of today, more than 3,000 chaplains serve in the Chaplains Corp. Among them, approximately 110 religious faith groups are represented.
Why Did the U.S. Military Reduce Its List of Recognized Religions?
In a memo first released to news outlets on June 4, 2026, the DOW announced a reduction to the list of recognized religions by the U.S. military. A notable decrease from the 211 previously recognized religions, the new list, renamed “Religious Affiliation Codes,” contains just 31 religions. Intended to “streamline the DOW’s collection of religious preferences selection for Service members,” the move follows other previously announced changes by the Department, including chaplains being instructed to wear their religious insignia in place of their rank insignia, or symbols worn on military uniforms indicting a service member’s duties, pay grade, or rank. The new list of recognized religions is expected to take effect in July.
Who Supports the New List?
Supporters of DOW’s new, reduced list of recognized religions include Under Secretary of War for Personnel and Readiness Anthony J. Tata, who suggested the new list would “enhance the delivery of targeted religious support from the Chaplaincy.” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell praised the DOW’s new list, calling it “long overdue” and beneficial to chaplains, who can now quickly respond to the spiritual needs of their units. Secretary of War’s Pete Hegseth, who hinted at reducing the list in late March, voiced his support for the new list and labeled the old list of over 200 religions “impractical and unusable.” Some veterans also supported the new list, with Retired Major General Randell E. Kitchens, who formerly served as the Air Force’s Chief of Chaplains, noting that the list "appears to represent major faith groups.”
Who Opposes the New List?
Critics of the DOW’s new, reduced list of recognized religions include lawmakers, religious organizations, and veterans. The Unitarian Universalist Association expressed concerns that, with Unitarian Universalism removed from the list, service members identifying with the religion could now face challenges accessing spiritual care. Meanwhile, co-founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, Mikey Weinstein, argued that the change violated the U.S. Constitution's “separation of church and state.” Lawmakers like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator John Curtis (R-UT) also questioned the new list, specifically the DOW’s decision to not label the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Christian denomination. Veterans protested the new list too, with a former U.S. Army Chaplain calling the new list “an excuse for the failure to provide the free exercise of religion for all people.”
What Will Happen to Chaplains and Service Members With Unrecognized Religions?
Although the DOW eventually responded to criticism of the new list by removing the labeling that stated whether a religion was a Christian denomination, 31 religions still remain on the list. That said, military experts like Retired General Steven Schaick worry chaplains of unrecognized religions could lose their ecclesiastical endorsement, an official certification from one’s religious denomination to serve as a chaplain. An ecclesiastical endorsement is required by all branches of the military. And while the memo stated service members could still put unrecognized religions on their dog tags, and many of the unrecognized religions remain on the Department of Veteran Affair’s (VA) list of approved emblems for headstones, some former military members predict that the changed policy will make some service members feel unrecognized, putting their well-being at risk.
Reclassifying Faith?: Inside the Department of War’s Revision to Its List of Religions was first published on The Alliance for Citizen Engagement and was republished with permission.
Stephanie Peterson is a senior at Purdue University Northwest.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Anti-gerrymandering sign
Bill Clark/Getty Images
Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for Politicians or Their Consultants to Fix Gerrymandering
Jul 22, 2026
2018, a nonprofit worker in Michigan named Katie Fahey posted a message online asking if anyone else was tired of politicians drawing their own districts. She had no campaign experience and no political base.
Within two years, the ballot initiative she built, called Voters Not Politicians, had written an independent redistricting commission into the Michigan constitution. Hollywood eventually made a documentary about it, Slay the Dragon, which is a fairly accurate description of what she had actually done.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
California voters had already done something similar a decade earlier. The Independent Voter Project supported both Proposition 11 in 2008 and Proposition 20 in 2010, handing the state's congressional map to an independent citizens commission instead of the legislature.
Neither reform came from Congress, a caucus, a task force, a political consultant, or a framework; both came from voters who grew tired of waiting and took matters into their own hands.
This brings us to the Congressional Problem Solvers Caucus, which unveiled a Gerrymandering Reform Framework on July 1 calling for national standards and an end to mid-decade map redraws. (The particulars are covered by Independent Voter News here.)
Their big plan landed a few months before a midterm election in which independent and No Party Preference voters have grown loud about their disgust with gerrymandering. That disdain is not exactly irrational, especially since 94% of House seats are considered safe for one party or the other, according to the Cook Political Report.
One of the framework's earliest fans is a California political consultant who reposted the caucus's press release, calling it important and necessary and adding that the country needed to enter 2031 with real, standardized reform.
He did not mention, in that post, that he has spent years drawing California's congressional districts for Democrats, or that he is paid each time those districts get redrawn. It is possible to cheer for the end of a war you are paid to help wage, though it is not obvious why anyone should mistake the cheering for sincerity.
The caucus's own math is not encouraging at all. Every single one of these representatives knows full well that nothing becomes law without a majority. No majority is attainable in the current House unless Republican Speaker Mike Johnson and Democrat Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries agree on something—an event with no recent precedent.
The immediate mess we find ourselves did not start with Congress either. President Donald Trump pushed Texas to redraw its map outside the normal 10-year cycle, and Texas obliged him.
Governor Gavin Newsom then asked California voters for permission to respond, temporarily setting aside the state's own independent commission to draw a map of the legislature's choosing.
Voters agreed, wiping California's gold standard of independent redistricting off the books.
As of May 2026, 10 states—Alabama, California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah—had new congressional maps. Before 2025, according to Ballotpedia, only two states had conducted voluntary mid-decade redistricting since 1970.
So here is one truth about partisan gerrymandering: the people in Congress or the political consultants currently getting any credit for wanting to fix it are not the people with the power to do so, and the people who do have that power were never in Washington to begin with.
Katie Fahey did not need Congress, and neither did the voters of California, thanks to the power of direct democracy.
Congress can keep issuing frameworks for as long as it likes; a framework requires no votes and changes nothing. A ballot initiative requires signatures, patience, and nobody's permission, not in Sacramento and not in Washington, which is presumably why it remains the only version of reform that has ever actually worked.
Cara Brown McCormick is the principal at Smart Campaigns and advises on strategy and research.
Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for Politicians or Their Consultants to Fix Gerrymandering is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Veterans often lose VA healthcare, disability benefits, and education access during incarceration, disrupting PTSD and addiction treatment when continuity matters most.
Getty Images
Veterans Don’t Stop Being Veterans at the Prison Gate
Jul 20, 2026
A veteran’s PTSD doesn’t disappear when they enter prison. Traumatic brain injuries don’t cure themselves. Addiction doesn't vanish behind bars. Yet many of the systems designed to help veterans manage those conditions stop at the prison gate.
When veterans are incarcerated, they often lose access to VA healthcare, struggle to use education benefits, and face major cuts to disability compensation. The problem is not eligibility. The problem is continuity.
Most discussions about incarcerated veterans focus on what happens after release. How do we help them find housing? How do we reconnect them to treatment? How do we reduce recidivism?
Those are important questions. But they ignore a more basic one: Why are we waiting until release to reconnect veterans to services they were already receiving before incarceration?
Veterans in the criminal justice system often struggle with PTSD, addiction, trauma, and other serious chronic health conditions. They also face a higher risk of opioid overdose and suicide than veterans who have never been involved with the legal system. Yet many lose access to the VA care that was helping them before they entered prison.
The solution should start with healthcare. Veterans who were receiving VA treatment for PTSD, addiction, traumatic brain injury, or other serious conditions should not be cut off simply because they enter prison. Prison healthcare is not a substitute for VA care, especially for veterans with service-related conditions. The VA and the Bureau of Prisons should pilot a continuity-of-care model that allows eligible veterans to keep receiving VA-directed care for mental health and addiction through telehealth, care coordination, and partnerships with federal correctional facilities.
This is not about excusing criminal behavior. It is about recognizing that treatment interruptions make reentry harder and the risks greater. A veteran stabilized on medication for opioid use disorder should not lose access because custody begins. A veteran receiving mental health care through the VA should not have to wait until release to reconnect with care.
The same principle should apply to education. Education is one of the most effective tools for reducing recidivism and improving employment after release. A veteran who enters prison with unused GI Bill benefits should not leave in the same position years later. If incarceration is supposed to prepare people to return successfully to their communities, then helping veterans earn a credential, complete coursework, or develop job skills should be part of that mission.
Disability compensation also needs a continuity approach. Under current law, a veteran rated 100% disabled can see monthly compensation drop from as much as $4,000 to less than $200 after 60 days behind bars. The disability has not changed. The veteran’s service has not changed. Only their custody status has.
Anthony Badial-Luna is an Air Force veteran and Master of Science Candidate in Georgetown University's Addiction Policy and Practice program. His research focuses on justice-involved veterans, addiction policy, and continuity of care during incarceration and reentry.
Keep ReadingShow less
Protesters rally for abortion rights outside of the Idaho Statehouse in downtown Boise, Idaho, on May 14, 2022.
Sarah A. Miller/Idaho Statesman/AP
Idaho Voters Will Weigh In on One of the Strictest Abortion Bans in the Country
Jul 20, 2026
Idaho voters will weigh in on their state’s abortion laws this November. The secretary of state’s office certified a ballot measure that could, if passed, overturn one of the strictest bans in the country, the campaign to restore abortion rights in Idaho confirmed on Monday.
The measure would enact a new law establishing a state right to “reproductive freedom,” which it defines as allowing residents to make their own decisions in areas including fertility treatment, contraception and abortion. But it would not amend the state’s constitution, meaning it could still be overturned by the state’s Republican legislature. Currently, Idaho bans abortion in nearly all circumstances, with a narrow exception if staying pregnant threatens someone’s life.
Abortion rights dominated the 2024 elections, but have since taken a political backseat to concerns over the economy. But polling shows voters — including conservatives — oppose near-total prohibitions like Idaho’s.
Supporters gathered more than 100,000 signatures from Idaho residents in support of adding the measure to the state’s November ballot — well above the state’s requirement, which is 70,725 signatories spread across at least half of Idaho’s legislative districts.
Medical professionals say that Idaho’s exception has been incredibly difficult to navigate. Doctors specializing in pregnancy-related health care have left the state in droves, citing the law’s harsh penalties and saying it made it impossible for them to provide proper medical care. Some residents have moved away after struggling to get medical care when experiencing pregnancy-related complications.
Idaho’s ban has already been subject to legal challenges. In 2023, seven plaintiffs — including four women who sought abortions in Idaho after experiencing pregnancy complications — sued the state, seeking to both broaden and clarify the medical exceptions in the law.
Last year, a state court ruled that doctors should interpret the law’s exceptions broadly, and that patients could receive abortions if they had health conditions or complications that meant staying pregnant could threaten their lives. But the court also said patients could not receive abortions if they discovered fatal fetal anomalies in their pregnancies or if they had a mental health condition that made pregnancy dangerous.
More than a dozen states have had abortion-related ballot measures since the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. In most of those cases, abortion rights supporters have won, including in many states that lean conservative.
Idaho is not the only state where voters will get to address their state’s abortion law. In Virginia and Nevada — states where the procedure remains legal — residents will consider ballot measures that would amend their state constitutions to protect abortion rights.
And in Missouri, voters turned out two years ago to amend their constitution in favor of abortion rights. But this fall, they will be asked once more to weigh in, considering a measure that would amend the constitution once more to overturn those same protections.
Though Idaho has consistently supported Republicans — who largely oppose abortion — a January survey from Boise State University found that 60 percent of Idahoans supported the language in the abortion rights measure. Polling conducted by Idahoans United for Women and Families, the organization spearheading the ballot campaign, has similarly found majorities opposing the state’s abortion law.
Idaho Voters Will Weigh In on One of the Strictest Abortion Bans in the Country was originally published by the 19th and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More