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.

North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature has siphoned off some of the governor’s traditional powers. Democrats argue that the moves have affected the state’s democracy and the everyday lives of its residents.
North Carolina voters have chosen Democrats in three straight elections for governor; the state’s Republican-led legislature has countered by siphoning off some of the powers that traditionally came with the job.
These power grabs have had a profound effect on both democracy in the state and on the everyday lives of North Carolina residents, Democrats argue.
The changes are “weakening environmental protections, raising energy costs, and politicizing election administration,” Josh Stein, North Carolina’s governor, said in a text message responding to questions from ProPublica.
Republican leaders in the General Assembly did not respond to requests for comment or emailed questions about the power shifts. In the past, they have defended these actions as reflecting the will of voters, with the senate president describing one key bill as balancing “appointment power between the legislative and executive branches.”
Former state Sen. Bob Rucho, a Republican picked to sit on the state elections board after lawmakers shifted control from Stein to the Republican state auditor, said the changes would fix problems created by Democrats.
“Republicans are very proud of what’s been accomplished,” Rucho said. Shifting authority over the elections board, he argued, would “reestablish a level of confidence in the electoral process” that Democrats had lost.
ProPublica recently chronicled the nearly 10-year push to take over the board, which sets rules and settles disputes in elections in the closely divided swing state. Decisions made by the board’s new leadership — particularly on the locations and numbers of early voting sites — could affect outcomes in the 2026 midterms.
Below, we examine how other power transfers driven by North Carolina’s Republican legislature are reshaping everything from the regulations that protect residents’ drinking water to the rates they pay for electricity to the culture of their state university system.
ProPublica tracked 29 executive powers and prerogatives traditionally held by North Carolina’s governor and other Democrats that have been targeted by its Republican-majority legislature since the end of 2016. We found many have been stripped away, leaving the governor the nation’s weakest.
What it is: The Environmental Management Commission adopts rules that protect the state’s air and water, such as those that regulate industries discharging potentially carcinogenic chemicals in rivers.
Power transfer: In October 2023, Republican legislators passed a law shifting the power to appoint the majority of the commission’s members from the governor to themselves and the state’s commissioner of agriculture, who is a Republican.
What’s happened since: The new Republican-led commission has stymied several efforts by the state’s Department of Environmental Quality to regulate a potentially harmful chemical, 1,4-dioxane, in drinking water.
Advocates for businesses, including the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce, had criticized some regulations and urged the commission to intervene. “Clean water is worth the cost, but regulators should not arbitrarily establish a level that is low for the sake of being low,” the chamber said in a press release.
The Southern Environmental Law Center, which has pressed the state to regulate the chemical, has said the commission’s rulings are “crippling the state’s ability to protect its waterways, drinking water sources, and communities from harmful pollution.”
What it is: The North Carolina Utilities Commission regulates the rates and services of the state’s public utilities, which include providers of electricity, natural gas, water and telephone service. The commission also oversees movers, brokers, ferryboats and wastewater.
Power transfer: In June 2025, a trial court sided with the General Assembly in allowing a law passed in 2024 to take effect, removing the governor’s power to appoint a majority of the commission’s members and transferring that power to legislative leaders and the state treasurer, who is a Republican.
What’s happened since: The state’s primary utility, Duke Energy, has backed off from some plans to rely more on clean energy and retire coal-fired power plants. In November, the company said it would seek the commission’s approval to raise rates by 15%.
In response to a new resource plan the company filed in October, the executive director of NC WARN, a climate and environmental justice nonprofit, said in a statement that Duke’s actions would cause “power bills to double or triple over time” and increase carbon emissions. The state’s governor and attorney general, both Democrats, have said they oppose the rate hike.
Garrett Poorman, a spokesperson for Duke Energy, said that the company is “focused on keeping costs as low as possible while meeting growing energy needs across our footprint” and that the company had recently lowered its forecasted costs.
The commission will decide whether to approve the proposed rate hikes in 2026.
What it is: The University of North Carolina System encompasses 17 institutions and more than 250,000 students, including at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, considered one of best in the nation.
Power transfer: Though the legislature has traditionally appointed the majority of the trustees for individual schools, the governor also made a share of these appointments.
In 2016, the legislature passed a law that eliminated the governor’s ability to make university trustee appointments.
In 2023, changes inserted into the state budget bill gave the legislature power to appoint all of the members of the state board that oversees community colleges and most of those colleges’ trustees. The governor had previously chosen some board members and trustees.
What’s happened since: The system has created a center for conservative thought, repealed racial equity initiatives, suspended a left-leaning professor, gutted a civil rights center led by a professor long critical of Republican lawmakers and appointed politically connected Republicans to the boards.
Republicans say the moves are reversing the system’s long-term leftward drift.
“Ultimately, the board stays in for a while, and you change administrators, and then start to moderate the culture of the UNC schools,” said David Lewis, a former Republican House member who helped drive the changes to the university system.
Democrats, including former Gov. Roy Cooper, have criticized the board changes as partisan meddling.
“These actions will ultimately hurt our state’s economy and reputation,” Cooper said in a 2023 press release.
Doug Bock Clark is a ProPublica reporter covering threats to democracy, elections, and voting rights.
Mollie Simon contributed research. Graphics by Chris Alcantara.

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani announces a series of top appointments, including the city’s new schools chancellor, ahead of his swearing-in on December 31, 2025, in New York City
After New York City’s new mayor was inaugurated on January 1, should federal funds still go to the Big Apple?
What the bill does
The MAMDANI Act would ban federal funds from New York City while newly elected Zohran Mamdani is mayor.
The bill’s acronym, MAMDANI, stands for Moving American Money Distant from Anti-National Interests.
Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA1) introduced a House version on November 7, three days after Mamdani won the general election on November 4.
Notably, the bill only appears to apply to Mamdani himself – not even a potential mayor who would share similar beliefs. If Mamdani were ever to resign or take another political position, his spot would be filled by the city’s Public Advocate: currently Jumaane Williams, who himself endorsed Mamdani.
Context: Who is Mamdani?
In June 2025, Mamdani shocked the political establishment by winning New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary. The 34-year-old defeated former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, a more centrist moderate candidate who was projected to win.
Mamdani began his campaign with far less name recognition, as a representative in New York’s State Assembly, representing a part of the borough Queens. But almost overnight, Mamdani became “one of the five most recognizable names in the party,” according to political analyst Nate Silver. For example, Mamdani now has 11 million Instagram followers, compared to Cuomo with less than 1 million.
Mamdani has proven controversial, for multiple reasons. Here are five:
Mamdani proved controversial even within his own party. U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is also a Democrat from New York, but wouldn’t endorse Mamdani for the general election.
What supporters say
Supporters of the MAMDANI Act argue that cities and states, which are supposedly better-run than New York City, shouldn’t bail it out or financially support policies they oppose.
“In the United States of America, a nation built on freedom, taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund communism and antisemitism,” Rep. Carter said in a press release. “Georgians want nothing to do with Mamdani’s radical beliefs, and their hard-earned money should not be wasted on programs that will bankrupt the financial capital of the world.”
“Any New Yorker with common sense is welcome to move to the great, FREE state of Georgia.”
What opponents say
Mamdani disputes characterizations of himself as either an antisemite or a communist.
“As mayor, I will always stand steadfast with our Jewish neighbors to root the scourge of antisemitism out of our city,” he posted on X (formerly Twitter). Also: “No, I am not,” he responded when asked by Kristen Welker on NBC’s Meet the Press if he was a communist.
Communism is a political system, while socialism is an economic system. Though the two have often been incorporated together in world history, most famously in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, they don’t necessarily have to be. Mamdani calls himself a “democratic socialist” to clarify that he prefers socialism as an economic system but democracy as a political system.
What has Trump said?
The day before November’s election, President Donald Trump suggested that he might withhold federal money from New York City unilaterally from the White House.
“It is highly unlikely that I will be contributing federal funds, other than the very minimum as required,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “It can only get worse with a communist at the helm, and I don’t want to send, as president, good money after bad. It is my obligation to run the nation, and it is my strong conviction that New York City will be a complete and total economic and social disaster should Mamdani win."
Mamdani responded that he didn’t take the ultimatum seriously.
“I will address that threat for what it is: it is a threat. It is not the law,” Mamdani said the day before his election. “Too often, we treat everything that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth as if it is already legal, just by virtue of who is saying it.”
“This funding is not something that Donald Trump is giving us here in New York City,” Mamdani continued. “This is something that we are, in fact, owed in New York.”
A few weeks after the election, Trump and Mamdani met for the first time at the White House, in a meeting described as “surprisingly cordial,” with Trump adding, “I’ll be cheering for him.”
What happens now
The bill has not yet attracted any cosponsors, not even any fellow Republicans.
It awaits a potential vote in either the House Appropriations or Oversight and Government Reform Committees.
Similar legislation
At least three similar pieces of legislation have been introduced by congressional Republicans in response to Mamdani.
A different MAMDANI Act
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY17) introduced an unrelated bill also called the MAMDANI Act in July.
Though it wouldn’t actually change public policy, it would require the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to conduct a study on government-owned grocery stores. Mamdani wants to create a pilot program, establishing five such taxpayer-funded grocery stores, one in each New York City borough.
The acronym MAMDANI in this bill stands for Measuring Adverse Market Disruption And National Impact.
The bill’s supporters argue that Mamdani’s plan would establish too much government control and potentially raise prices.
“Government-run grocery stores raise serious questions about market fairness and taxpayer accountability,” Rep. Lawler said in a press release. “The [bill] ensures we carefully assess the potential impacts of such proposals before public funds are committed, or they risk undermining local businesses and disrupting supply chains, ultimately leaving consumers worse off.”
Opponents counter: the plan is “a public option for produce, an understanding that for far too many New Yorkers, groceries are out of reach, and the importance in city government of reasonable policy experimentation," Mamdani said.
The bill has attracted one cosponsor, fellow New York Republican Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-NY2). It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.
Sovereign Enforcement Integrity Act
The Sovereign Enforcement Integrity Act would ban Mamdani from ordering Netanyahu’s arrest if the Israeli leader comes to New York City.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY21) introduced the House version on September 16. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) introduced the Senate version two weeks later, on September 29.
Technically, the legislation would ban any government or law enforcement officer working for a state, territory, or municipality – such as a mayor or a police officer working for a mayor – from arresting anyone based on an ICC (International Criminal Court) warrant. The ICC issued such an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in 2024, contending his government committed war crimes during its invasion of Gaza.
The bill’s supporters argue the U.S. shouldn’t carry out arrests on behalf of an international institution for which they’re not even a member.
“The United States is not part of the International Criminal Court," Rep. Stefanik said in a press release. "That is why I introduced the [bill] to protect American sovereignty and prohibit radicals like Mamdani from illegally arresting the leader of our democratic ally Israel."
Opponents counter that if Trump won’t arrest Netanyahu, then Mamdani should.
“It is my desire to ensure that this be a city that stands up for international law,” Mamdani told the New York Times. “This is a moment where we cannot look to the federal government for leadership. This is a moment when cities and states will have to demonstrate what it actually looks like to stand up for our own values, our own people.”
The legislation has attracted two House cosponsors, one Republican and one Democratic: Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY17) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ5). However, no Senate cosponsors have yet signed on.
It awaits a potential vote in either the House or Senate Judiciary Committees.
A resolution about socialism
In November, the House voted 285-98 on a symbolic concurrent resolution from Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL27) to “denounce the horrors of socialism.” 86 Democrats voted in favor, while no Republicans opposed it.
While the concurrent resolution was ostensibly about socialism in general, the House vote was intentionally scheduled the same day as Trump’s meeting with Mamdani.
The resolution’s supporters argue that socialism has produced terrible results, in both the past and present.
“It has never delivered justice or equality, only fear, censorship, poverty, and broken nations. I represent thousands of families who fled their homelands because socialist regimes promised paradise and delivered prisons,” Rep. Salazar said in a press release. “Today, the House is making it clear: we will not allow socialism’s failed ideology to take root in the United States.”
Opponents counter that the resolution is a scare tactic to demonize some of America’s most popular and successful institutions and policies.
“This very resolution goes further by using the specter of socialism to undermine some of the most important government programs in our country like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA43) said in a House floor speech. “These are programs that help everyday Americans put food on their plate and care for their children.”Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with The Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on The Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
Congress Votes With Only One House or Senate Dissenter, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance’s Tiebreaking Senate Votes, 2025
This year, many agency heads in the Trump administration sent out official Christmas messages that were explicitly religious rather than universal spiritual. So, for example, War Secretary Hegseth said, "Today we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."
This is just one more example of the Trump administration's distortion and perversion of the principles on which America was founded. (See my posts, "The Far Right's Biggest Lie," and "The Radical Right/MAGA Perspective Is Not True to the Intent of Our Founding Fathers," among others.)
America is not a Christian nation. The majority of the population may be Christian, both now and at the time of our founding, but the Founders made very clear in the Constitution that this was not to be a Christian nation.
First, although the Founders were religious people—note the wording in the Declaration of Independence that we are "endowed by our Creator" with unalienable rights—the Constitution makes absolutely no mention of God.
Second, what the Constitution does say in the 1st Amendment is that Congress shall make "no law respecting the establishment of religion," or prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.
The Founders were aware of the suffering caused in Europe for centuries by state religions. That resulted in both people of other religions being persecuted and countries going to war over religious dominance. They were determined that the United States government not do anything that raised one religion to a higher status than the others and that no one be persecuted for or prohibited from practicing their religion.
In numerous ways, however, the Trump administration has embraced Christianity. To please his conservative Evangelical supporters, Trump created a repurposed White House Faith Office that seeks in many ways to end the separation of church and state and promotes misleading books such as "The Christian History of the Constitution" to ground its efforts. (See my post, "Trump Violates Freedom of Religion.") He has also embraced the conservative Christian agenda in many ways, most critically in building a Supreme Court that overruled Roe v Wade.
The reader may ask, "What's the problem? The religious wars in Europe were centuries ago. And we would still have freedom of religion even if Christianity were made part of the government's agenda."
Technically, even if Christianity were part of the government's agenda, there would still be freedom of religion under the 1st Amendment. However, if you look at what is labeled "persecution" by Christian media and Trump, you will see that no one has the right to criticize Christians when they act according to their belief.
According to MAGA, Christians have the right to do whatever their religion instructs, regardless of whether it interferes with another person practicing their religion or their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So, for example, a public baker has the right to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding. A Christian who is slandered by someone exercising his right to free speech is being persecuted. And the list goes on.
The point is that with the MAGA perspective that it's only their rights that matter—they have no concern for the rights of others, no one can "unfairly" impinge on their rights—if Christian advocacy by government takes root, no one is safe in their practice of free speech or religion if it conflicts with Christian values/rights. (See my article, "The Far-Right's Biggest Lie.")
But there is another way in which the government's embrace of Christianity would have a chilling effect on freedom of religion. It is a natural desire of people to get ahead in their business/work/school endeavors. Often this has meant assimilating to become part of the majority; history is filled with businessmen, actors, performers, and others who have changed their names and even converted in order not to be stigmatized because of their religion. The psychological push to take this step is increased when there is a state religion, whether official or not, especially if anti-semitism is active.
For context, I should note that at the time of the revolution, 9 of the 13 colonies had official, established religions, a practice brought with them from the old country. The Founders made very clear, however, the importance they placed on the separation of state and church in the new government. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment created a "wall of separation" between church and state. James Madison wrote that religion was beyond the government's authority. John Adams, in signing the Treaty of Tripoli, stated that the United States "is not in any way founded on the Christian Religion." Ultimately, all of the colonies accepted this new way forward by ratifying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments).
I am not a "religious" person but a very spiritual one, a practicing Buddhist who believes that each of us has within us the force of the Universe, the divine essence. It thus is not for the government to mandate for each individual what his spiritual beliefs are or aren't. And that each individual has the right to practice their religious/spiritual belief, so long as it does not impede the practice by another person of their religious/spiritual belief or any other right that they are guaranteed under our Constitution.
There must continue to be a wall of separation between church and state for the country's well-being. Given that the wall is in the process of being broken down, largely at the urging of evangelical denominations, what can people do to not just stop the process, but restore the separation?
The most one can do is make people aware that the Trump administration is not strengthening our freedom of religion—as he says he is—but instead is undermining that freedom by having the power of government favor the beliefs of one religious group—conservative Christians. By turning those beliefs into law (e.g., overruling Roe v Wade, eliminating LGBT protections, not recognizing gender identity issues), he has made "laws respecting the establishment of religion," and thereby restricted others from exercising their right to religious freedom and their right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Whatever happened to, "We are all children of God" and "God loves all his children?"
Trump's actions threaten the equality of all citizens, central to America's founding principles. (See my article, "What Are American Values?") He is threatening the diversity that our country has been built on.
How do you help make people aware? Go to religious and other organizations in your community and encourage them to have programs about this issue. Go to your local school board and encourage them to address this issue through school programs. Let your representatives in Congress know your feelings.
Since next year is the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, this is a perfect time to advocate for these programs and hopefully persuade your fellow citizens and representatives to argue for the full restoration of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
We’ve recently seen the power of a “discharge petition” regarding the Epstein files, and how it required only a few Republican signatures to force a vote on the House floor—despite efforts by the Trump administration and Congressional GOP leadership to keep the files sealed. Amazingly, we witnessed the power again with the vote to force House floor consideration on extending the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies.
Why is it amazing? Because in the 21st century, fewer than a half-dozen discharge petitions have succeeded. And, three of those have been in the last few months. Most House members will go their entire careers without ever signing on to a discharge petition.
So why, given the many actions of the current administration that face widespread public concern, aren’t we seeing a wave of discharge petitions forcing votes on other issues with broad public support? Many such actions have nearly unanimous Democratic opposition, and even quiet dissent from many Republicans,
The answer lies in the deliberate complexity of House rules, the structure of power, and the political incentives that constrain members’ choices.
The discharge petition is one of Congress’s most intriguing procedural tools—and one of the clearest illustrations of how House rules are designed less to enable majority decision-making than to protect party leadership. In theory, a discharge petition allows rank-and-file members to bypass committee and leadership obstruction and force a vote on a stalled bill. In practice, it is rarely successful.
The discharge petition process is one of the most egregious examples of how both parties have endorsed a complicated procedure designed to frustrate what should be a method to allow widespread public opinion to overpower party politics. It is simply one of many rules that tend to encourage party control over thoughtful governing.
Once a bill has sat in committee for 30 legislative days, any House member may file a discharge petition. If 218 members—a majority of the House—sign it, the measure becomes eligible for floor consideration. Signatures are public, recorded in the Congressional Record, and must be added in person at the Clerk’s desk. Members may remove their names only before the petition reaches 218.
Even after clearing that hurdle, the petition does not go directly to the floor. It can be considered only on narrow procedural windows—the second or fourth Monday of a month—and only after additional waiting periods. Each step introduces delay, uncertainty, and opportunity for leadership intervention.
Further complicating the procedure, House members rarely use discharge petitions to bring bills directly to the floor. Doing so forces consideration under regular House rules, which means opening the measure to unlimited amendments, motions to recommit, and poison-pill provisions that can gut or derail it.
To avoid this chaos, members increasingly use discharge petitions to target “special rules”—resolutions from the Rules Committee that structure debate and limit amendments. Discharging a special rule allows supporters to protect the bill from procedural sabotage.
But even this workaround contains a built-in kill switch.
At virtually any point, the Speaker can bring the special rule to the floor and move to table it. The motion is non-debatable, requires only a simple majority, and effectively nullifies the petition. The petition may remain technically “alive,” but it has no remaining path to obtain a floor vote.
This design is not accidental. It ensures that discharge petitions succeed only when leadership fears real and overwhelming political backlash from blocking a vote. Absent that pressure, leadership control prevails.
Even with intense public pressure, procedural barriers alone do not explain the rarity of successful discharge petitions. The political risks to individual members are equally decisive.
Discharge petition signatures are public acts of defiance. Members who sign openly challenge their party leadership, exposing themselves to retaliation: loss of committee assignments, diminished legislative support, leadership-funded primary challengers, and, in today’s climate, even threats from outside interests against themselves or their families.
As a result, many members who privately support a petition’s goals or who receive extensive constituent pressure may refuse to sign it. On partisan or controversial issues, the handful of cross-party votes needed to reach 218 rarely materialize. The incentives overwhelmingly favor silence over action.
Most modern discharge petitions are filed not because supporters expect success, but because they function as messaging tools. They signal commitment to constituents, interest groups, and the media, even when members know the petition will never reach the floor.
This symbolic role has value. It can shape narratives, apply pressure, and encourage negotiations. But it also underscores a troubling reality: the procedure that should empower the House as a whole has been reduced to a form of political theater.
Discharge petitions expose a fundamental tension in the House. Members are elected to represent their districts, yet are constrained by party loyalty enforced through rules, committee control, and leadership retaliation.
Even bills with broad bipartisan or public support may never receive a vote. Power is concentrated in the hands of a few leaders, protected by procedural architecture that prioritizes party unity over majority will. It is a vivid example of “party over country” embedded not just in rhetoric, but in the rules themselves.
The discharge petition process reveals a deeper imbalance in the House of Representatives. Legislative power does not reside primarily with the body as a whole, but with self-imposed leadership structures that are not mandated by the Constitution. Political parties and procedural rules are internal creations, designed to protect control rather than encourage deliberation and good government.
The Founders warned against concentrated power. Yet today, even when rank-and-file members, advocacy groups, and the public align, simple procedural maneuvers can block action entirely. This reality highlights why structural reform—particularly of committee power and floor rules—is essential if Congress is ever to function in the public interest.
Discharge petitions are among the most democratic ideas in House procedure, offering a way for members to assert themselves against leadership control. In practice, they are slow, risky, and easily neutralized. They survive less as instruments of good governance than as reminders of how tightly power is held by a few in today’s Congress.
Until House rules are reformed, even widely supported legislation will remain hostage to leadership preferences, and discharge petitions will continue to be exceptions rather than pathways to majority-driven policymaking. The rules could be changed at any time—but doing so would require the leadership's consent to the very rules those rules are designed to protect. The paradox of House rules defines the modern dysfunction in governing and explains why the party often prevails over the country. The public, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and civic leaders need to focus their energies on changing the rules rather than individual policies.
Jeff Dauphin, aka J.P. McJefferson, is retired. Blogging on the "Underpinnings of a Broken Government." Founded and ran two environmental information & newsletter businesses for 36 years. Facilitated enactment of major environmental legislation in Michigan in the 70s. Community planning and engineering. BSCE, Michigan Technological University.