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
blue and yellow i heart you print textile
Photo by Sandy Millar on Unsplash
What Will It Take To Truly Negotiate Paid Leave? Getting to "Yes" on Three Questions
May 09, 2026
Everyone in the United States deserves time to care for themselves and their loved ones, whether to see a baby’s first smile or hold the hand of a parent who takes their last. This month, Virginia became one of a growing number of U.S. jurisdictions enacting statewide paid leave programs—forward-looking states that have taken matters into their own hands in the absence of a federal policy that the vast majority of the public across party lines wants and has wanted for quite some time.
Beginning in 2028, Virginia will join its regional mid-Atlantic neighbors, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York in guaranteeing this basic protection to millions of workers caring for a new child, a loved one, or their own serious health need. Pennsylvania’s legislature, too, is moving paid leave legislation, and with bipartisan support. Evidence shows that paid family and medical leave programs offer multiple sources of value to workers, families, businesses, and communities.
State momentum should propel a national mid-term election conversation about solutions to families’ challenges with affording basic expenses amidst caregiving needs. Unfortunately, discussions about paid leave often devolve into a well-worn debate: whether political progressives are getting in the way of their own success and the country’s paid leave progress by being too ambitious. If only advocates would reduce their ask from the comprehensive paid family and medical leave policies passed across the country and the structure for parental, family, and personal care leave established in the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act to a modest policy that focuses narrowly on new parents, Congress might have adopted a paid parental leave benefit by now, proponents of this argument say.
This approach has appeal on its face. The reality is that millions of parents in the United States are stretching their savings, cobbling together sick and vacation days, going into debt, returning to work when their babies are just a few weeks old, or dropping out of the workforce entirely when they would rather not. And it’s compelling to highlight the U.S.’s outlier status as the only high-wealth country not to guarantee paid leave to new mothers, and one of a handful not to guarantee paid leave to new fathers or adoptive parents. These pieces of evidence are often cited as reasons to prioritize parental leave first.
But after nearly two decades working to pass paid leave policies, I believe strongly that this hypothesis—that winning paid parental leave is possible while winning comprehensive paid family and medical leave is not—is a red herring. Neither voters nor policymakers who believe that all Americans should have access to paid leave should moderate their demands.
The issue isn’t whether parents or all workers should have paid leave. The central tension in the fight for national paid leave is whether it’s the government’s job to provide this economic safeguard, whether one defines the problem as limited to the needs of working parents or as more broadly applicable to the entire workforce. For context, there are an estimated 130 million parents with kids of all ages and caregivers to older and disabled loved ones in the United States; the vast majority of work for pay in jobs across all industries and sectors. More than 30 million workers of all ages struggle with health issues or disabilities. These are sizable constituencies that elected officials should want to appeal to. And the need for personal medical leave and family caregiving leave will only grow as the population ages.
That’s why the focus of advocates and prognosticators should be on a set of different questions for office seekers and office holders. Reaching consensus requires agreement on three key points:
- All working people deserve time to care without regard to employer size, job type, family composition, or other personal or demographic characteristics;
- There’s a robust role for government as facilitator or intermediary; and
- The federal government should commit public dollars commensurate to the scope of the need, whether that need is defined as limited to parents of new children or to all workers.
There’s precedent for getting to “yes” on these points. Comprehensive state paid family and medical leave programs use the apparatus of government to either supply or oversee delivery of paid leave benefits. All have committed public dollars to address the stated need, without negative repercussions, adverse consequences, or skyrocketing costs.
If advocates and voters want to win national paid leave, this is the terrain to fight on. Getting to “yes” on these propositions would be a game changer. If federal lawmakers could agree across the aisle on these questions, the details of a policy—eligibility, uses, duration, and benefits—could be worked out through a process of negotiation and compromise.
Bipartisan disagreement in Congress centers on the scope, role, and level of government intervention. More than 200 Democratic House members and 39 senators have endorsed the FAMILY Act, which meets these criteria and guarantees up to 12 weeks of paid leave to all working people with eligible personal, parental, and family care needs. In contrast, Republicans have not endorsed the role of government or the spending required even for a six-week parental leave program like the current president proposed repeatedly in his first term.
The 2019 Federal Employees Parental Leave Act providing paid leave to parent in the federal workforce, which passed Congress on a bipartisan basis, was the result of a horse-trade (the paid parental leave Democrats fought for in return for Republican’s prioritization of Space Force as the newest branch of the military), and the role of the government is as employer rather than as a mediating entity that facilitates workers’ access to paid leave across the private sector. While cross-party compromise on this policy is commendable, it is not a sign of broader bipartisan agreement on paid parental leave for all U.S. workers.
Recent federal bipartisan efforts at agreement in Congress have led to incremental proposals to make leave for parents, caregivers, and all workers easier to obtain for those who already have it, and resulted in permanent tax credits for employers who choose to provide paid leave. Lawmakers interested in progress across party lines have not proposed a path forward for universal coverage—for parents or anyone else—because the real tension is about mandatory coverage, the role of government, and the level of government investment.
As we enter an election season where voters are concerned with the cost of living, managing household expenses, and saving for the future, office-seekers and sitting lawmakers would be right to focus on paid leave as one element of a working families’ agenda. Getting this policy over the finish line is fundamentally more about what the government prioritizes and allocates resources toward than squabbling about whether new parents or all workers should be covered by a new policy.
Let’s demand that the government prioritize families overall as a principle and evaluate lawmakers’ commitment to families by their willingness to spend public dollars in service to that priority. By winning that fight, we’ll make room to ensure that all working people can care for themselves and their loved ones no matter where they live or their job with the security that only a national paid leave program can offer.
Vicki Shabo is a Senior Fellow for Gender Equity, Paid Leave & Care Policy and Strategy at New America’s Better Life Lab. She is also the founder of and leads New America’s entertainment initiative, Re-Scripting Gender, Work, Family, and Care.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
May 06, 2026
When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.
Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.
How DHS is paying employees
The money the White House is tapping into to pay people like Transportation Safety Administration airport screeners and Coast Guard members was approved by Congress, but not through regular appropriations. DHS is using a pot of $10 billion dollars set aside in last year’s massive budget reconciliation bill – the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) – to cover payroll for more than 100,000 employees, the same bill that reserved $75 billion in multi-year operating funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Accessing that money to pay DHS employees, however, is legally dubious. The funds are made available in Section 90007 of the OBBBA until September 2029, but specifically for supporting DHS’s work “to safeguard the borders of the United States.” TSA agents working security lines in U.S. airports for domestic flights are not safeguarding the border, for example. Similarly for FEMA and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), parts of DHS substantially focused on domestic security.
The Antideficiency Act
Government watchdog groups and other appropriations experts argue that tapping into that $10 billion runs afoul of the Antideficiency Act (ADA), which prohibits federal employees from moving funds from a purpose given in law to a purpose not given for the money in law. The law gives teeth to Congress’s “power of the purse” under the Constitution. Former Senate Budget Committee and Office of Management and Budget staffer Bobby Kogan thought using this section of the law for other purposes was a clear ADA violation.
The Trump Administration made a similar violation during the government shutdown last October by using research and development funds for military personnel pay.
The trouble with the ADA is that it relies on agency heads to report violations to the President and the Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an arm of Congress currently controlled by the Republican majorities of the House and Senate. In this case, the president directed the violation and Republicans in Congress do not want GAO to challenge it. Although violating the Antideficiency Act carries with it criminal penalties, no one has ever been prosecuted under it. Unlike the current situation, most violations have been by mistake.
Legal or not, the OBBA funds will run dry at the end of this week based on the rate at which DHS is spending it down.
Ending the DHS partial-shutdown
Congress is moving forward to end the DHS funding lapse. The Senate began the process of budget reconciliation on funding for DHS for the remainder of the fiscal year and beyond this week. Because it allows for expedited consideration of spending and revenue bills, reconciliation will allow the Senate to overcome the 60-vote threshold holding back this funding in the regular appropriations process, which Democrats have leveraged for more than two months over their concerns about immigration enforcement agencies within DHS.
As the name implies, budget reconciliation requires the House and Senate to agree on which programs will be funded and at what level. That hasn’t happened yet, as some House Republicans want to fund immigration enforcement at a higher level than the Senate and include other items like funding for the Iran war.
The power of the purse
Nevertheless, the unchecked ability of the executive branch to use money appropriated by Congress for other purposes violates the bedrock principle of the separation of the power of the purse from the power of the sword, which dates back to the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution of the 17th century. The Constitution grants Congress the power to determine how federal funds will be spent as a check on the presidency. What we’re experiencing now is a Congress and Executive Branch that does not care to check the President to the harm of the government’s democratic structure.
Using the reconciliation process still undermines congressional power in this case. The framework the Senate approved would extend funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for more than three years. Regular appropriations bills generally apply only to one fiscal year. They also carry with them language requiring agencies perform certain oversight-related duties or prohibitions on using funds for specific purposes. ICE and CBP will get a blank check through the next Congress, which, if Democrats retake the majorities, will have to live with it.
DHS Funding During the Shutdown was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Journalists gather in front of the Connecticut State Capitol Building during a press conference on SB259 and an anti-FGM art installation
Bryna Subherwal, Equality Now
From Colombia to Connecticut: The urgent need to end FGM in the Americas
May 05, 2026
Across the Americas, hundreds of thousands of women and girls are living with or have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM). These affected populations are citizens and residents of countries where protections are incomplete, entirely focused on criminalisation, inconsistently enforced, or entirely absent.
FGM is not a “foreign” issue. It is a human rights violation unfolding within national borders, one that all governments in the Americas have the legal and moral responsibility to address.
Glimmers of progress are beginning to emerge across the region. On April 28, 2026, Connecticut state legislators in the United States passed a bill banning FGM and strengthening protections for survivors within the state, a long-awaited victory for survivors and advocates who have spent years calling for action.
As regional governing mechanisms, like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), begin to formally recognise FGM as a human rights issue within the Americas, states have more concrete guidance on their obligations to take action to prevent and eradicate this form of violence against women and girls.
Female genital mutilation (FGM), which affects more than 230 million women and girls worldwide, is a grave human rights violation deeply rooted in gender inequality and discrimination. FGM refers to the partial or total removal or other injury to female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
Across the Americas, FGM remains a hidden, poorly documented, and largely ignored practice impacting more than 700,000 women and girls. Although progress has been made throughout the hemisphere to combat various forms of gender-based violence, FGM has remained on the margins of public attention and protection policies.
The occurrence of this harmful practice is formally recognised in the United States, Canada, and Colombia, yet none of these countries has a comprehensive legal framework to address it. While the US and Canada have federal criminal laws, neither country has dedicated prevention or educational provisions. At the state level in the US, while 41 states have enacted specific legislation, these laws vary considerably in their scope and level of comprehensiveness, and nine states still lack any targeted legal protections. In Colombia, despite growing recognition and advocacy, there is currently no national law addressing FGM.
Across Latin America and the Caribbean, where data gaps leave the full extent of the practice almost entirely unmeasured, a persistent myth frames FGM as exclusively an African or Asian phenomenon with no presence in the region. In North America, two parallel misconceptions hinder progress: that FGM is a “global south” problem or that it is confined to specific Indigenous or diaspora communities and therefore does not require a comprehensive national policy response.
These misconceptions contribute to the invisibility of the issue and reinforce the lack of effective measures for its prevention and elimination.
International human rights mechanisms speak up
FGM has long been recognised globally as a severe form of gender-based violence and a violation of women’s and girls’ human rights. Equality Now and its partners have collated evidence of FGM in 94 countries, including the US, Colombia, and Canada. Only 59 of those countries have a specific law prohibiting FGM, and considerable improvement is needed to ensure better access to justice and support for survivors.
Numerous human rights mechanisms, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Istanbul Convention, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, affirm that states have a legal and moral duty to prohibit FGM, prevent, and provide survivor-centred support services.
In March 2026, the IACHR, the key regional body of the Organization of American States (OAS), charged with protecting human rights across the Americas, became the most recent inter-regional mechanism to formally recognise the presence of FGM in the Americas and called on states to take comprehensive action.
Grounded in states’ obligations under the Belém do Pará Convention and the American Convention on Human Rights, the Commission urged governments to promote dialogue with communities to drive sociocultural change, and to strengthen legal and policy frameworks that ensure early detection, survivor-centered care, and access to services, all grounded in intercultural, gender-responsive approaches and backed by sustained funding.
This landmark acknowledgement followed the first-ever dedicated thematic hearing held by an international human rights mechanism focused on FGM/C in the Americas, just four months prior. The public announcement by the IACHR has the potential to redefine how FGM is understood under regional law, situate the violation within the regional human rights framework, and demand coordinated State action, accountability, and recognition that every woman and girl has the right to live free from this form of gender based violence.
As we approach the end of legislative sessions where pending FGM legislation has been proposed across the Americas, we must acknowledge the narrowing window for governments to act.
The current status of anti-FGM legislation in the Americas
Across the Americas, momentum is mounting to enact anti-FGM legislation.
The latest on anti-FGM legislation in the United States
At least 577,000 women and girls are estimated to be at risk or affected by FGM. Federal law currently prohibits the violation through the STOP FGM Act, though recent proposals such as Congressional Bill H.R. 3492 wrongly conflate FGM with gender-affirming care and risks undermining enforcement of anti-FGM protections for survivors nationally.
These developments have sparked an additional drive toward state-level action to comprehensively protect against the practice. Individual state agencies and officials have far greater capacity than federal authorities to directly assist women and girls in local communities. An interactive map by Equality Now and the U.S. End FGM/C Network shares FGM/C legal provisions and gaps in every US state.
The situation in Connecticut
In a long-awaited landmark vote, Connecticut legislators unanimously passed Senate Bill 259 on April 28, 2026. After years of sustained advocacy by survivors, FGM advocates, civil society organisations, health experts, and legal policy experts, once enacted, Connecticut will be one step closer to aligning its state legislation with international human rights standards.
Previously, legislators and advocates made six unsuccessful attempts to pass a law addressing FGM in the state. Proposed bills in 2018, 2020, and 2021 aimed at prohibiting FGM or studying its prevalence did not progress beyond the committee stage, while in 2019, a bill was rejected by the State Senate. In 2024, a drafted bill failed to be introduced, and in 2025, a bill was never raised to the House floor for a vote during the legislative session.
Senate Bill 259 will finally establish a state-level ban and provide essential protections for thousands of survivors and girls at risk by establishing the crime of female genital mutilation in Connecticut and setting higher safeguards for girls. The bill would also:
- Authorise a civil action within 30 years after the victim reaches age 18;
- Allow testimony outside the courtroom for victims aged 12 or younger;
- Prohibit a victim from being automatically deemed incompetent to testify because of age;
- Waive parent-child immunity in FGM cases, enabling legal representatives to secure necessary parental testimony;
The latest on anti-FGM legislation in Colombia
Legislators have until 20 June 2026 to enact Proyecto de Ley No. 440 de 2025 Senado-018 de 2024 Cámara, a bill that would establish the first specific legal framework against FGM in Latin America.
The bill combines prevention, intercultural education, mandatory health protocols, and data collection obligations, reflecting a comprehensive, survivor-centred, and intersectional approach developed in close collaboration with Indigenous women leaders whose communities are most affected by the practice.
Government health data shows that FGM disproportionately affects Indigenous girls in Colombia. Between 2020 and 2025, 204 cases were documented nationwide, 177 of them involving Indigenous girls, mainly in the departments of Risaralda and Chocó. Experts warn that such figures significantly underestimate the real prevalence due to persistent underreporting of FGM. Without accurate data, assessing the extent of the problem and designing appropriate responses is challenging.
In March 2026, the Senate’s First Commission approved the bill in its third debate, solidifying a significant step forward after years of advocacy. Now, attention turns to the Senate plenary, where the final vote will decide whether it becomes law. For Indigenous women leaders, advocates, and communities who have long called for action, the end of this legislative session will be their defining moment.
The latest on anti-FGM legislation in Canada
The End FGM Canada Network estimates there are more than 100,000 survivors of FGM/C. However, publicly available data estimating the scale of the problem within the country remains scarce.
Under the Canadian Criminal Code section 268(3), any person found guilty of conducting FGM faces up to 14 years imprisonment; however, to date, there have been no criminal prosecutions or convictions for FGM in the country.
A holistic end to FGM
Across the Americas, emerging best practice points to the clear conclusion that a sole focus on the criminalization of FGM is not enough to prevent, eradicate, or adequately protect survivors from harm.
Effective legal frameworks must be holistic in ways that combine prevention, education, community engagement, and survivor-centred support services.
Colombia’s bill offers an instructive model in this regard. Rather than centering criminal punishment, it establishes obligations around prevention, intercultural education, mandatory health protocols, and data collection, recognizing that a practice sustained by social norms and community structures requires responses that work within and alongside those communities, not solely against individuals.
Punitive frameworks, when applied in isolation, risk driving the practice underground, deterring survivors from seeking care, and criminalising communities without addressing the conditions that allow FGM to persist.
However, the effectiveness of even the most robust legal frameworks is ultimately dependent on sustained and dedicated funding. Legal obligations must be matched by investment in frontline training for healthcare providers and educators, in community-led prevention initiatives, and in accessible, survivor-centred services. Without this resourcing, laws risk remaining largely symbolic, unable to deliver meaningful protection in practice.
Crucially, legislation must also be carefully drafted to avoid conflating FGM with distinct medical procedures, including gender-affirming care. Such conflation risks undermining both legal clarity and access to essential health services.
In Colombia and beyond, comprehensive approaches in addition to political commitment toward the adoption of legislation and meaningful implementation will be essential to translate these efforts into sustainable protections for all women and girls within the Americas.
Governments, regional bodies, civil society, and advocates must work together to take collective action to align national laws, ensure public accountability and monitoring, and ensure survivor support. Fragmented approaches, isolated laws, underfunded programs, or short-term political attention will not deliver lasting change. A coordinated response, grounded in shared responsibility and sustained collaboration, can.
Mel Bailey is the Communications Officer at North America and Ending Sexual Violence.
From Colombia to Connecticut: The urgent need to end FGM in the Americas was first published on the Latino News Network and was republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, addresses the chamber in front of a portrait of George Miller.
(Matthew Junkroski / MEDILL)
House Democrats and Republicans Clash over Free Speech in Higher Education
May 02, 2026
WASHINGTON — Witnesses and representatives sat in silence as Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, spoke about how universities should strive for intellectual diversity and introduce controversial ideas. Rep. Alma S. Adams, D-N.C., agreed with his rhetoric, but went on to criticize her Republican colleagues for standing in the way of free expression.
“Unfortunately, what we often see, especially in hearings like this, is not a good faith effort to strike that balance, but a selective narrative,” Adams said. “My colleagues on the other side of the aisle frequently claim that there’s a free speech crisis on college campuses, arguing that universities lack viewpoint diversity and silence certain perspectives.”
Over the course of the hour-long hearing on Wednesday, Democrats and Republicans jabbed at each other, representing opposing ideas of what counts as suppressing students’ freedom of speech.
Democrats criticized the Trump administration for withholding funding from universities that failed to follow the president’s policies, such as his ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Democrats also bemoaned the administration’s crackdown on free speech for noncitizen students. Republicans, meanwhile, spoke about how universities have suppressed conservative voices by allegedly refusing to hire conservative professors. They also said conservative students have to self-censor, and universities deny funding to right-leaning student organizations.
The hearing marked the latest clash on higher education freedom of speech ideals in the federal government following the Trump administration’s crackdown on university grant funding in response to university diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and investigations into alleged antisemitism.
The Republican House majority meant that House Republicans were responsible for choosing most of the witnesses. Of the four witnesses, two came from right-leaning organizations, representing the Alliance Defending Freedom and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Only one witness represented a left-leaning organization: the American Civil Liberties Union.
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore., said the discussion on freedom of speech acted as a distraction from the crisis of higher education affordability, which she said was a larger issue.
“That’s what we should be having a hearing about, how to make colleges affordable,” Bonamici said. “But instead, my colleagues are continuing to villainize institutions of higher education.”
Bonamici read off a list of words the Trump administration removed from government websites, including words like “women”, “gender”, “sex”, and “immigrants”.
Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., said colleges had “weaponized recognition and fee processes against student groups they didn’t like.” He cited a 2020 lawsuit against California State University San Marcos, which alleged that the college awarded its LGBTQA Pride Center $296,498 for its activities. Meanwhile, it denied a recognized pro-life group’s $500 funding request for a speaker.
“This is just one clear example of how many colleges and universities show ideological preferences and funding with no transparency or how funding decisions were approved or denied,” Harris said.
Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., asked a witness for advice on how to encourage universities to create campuses that welcome all views.
“Having this free expression should be joyful… But it’s become so politically us against them without the acceptance that they might be right occasionally,” Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-CA, said, emphasizing the “occasionally” part of his sentence to his Democrat colleagues.
As the only witness from the left, Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney at the ACLU, said, while students of all political opinions send in freedom of speech complaints to the ACLU, he focused on how the Trump administration has targeted blue states with legislation affecting freedom of speech.
Topics targeted by the Trump administration have included discussion of race, gender, climate change, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Within the last year, the administration’s efforts resulted in over 300 higher education institutions dismantling their diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The president’s executive actions also prevented transgender women’s participation in collegiate sports and targeted pro-Palestine protestors.
“What we're really seeing most in our country at the moment are efforts to prohibit the teaching of particular ideas, whether it's in K-12 or in higher education, and this sort of direct government censorship should not be lost in the discussions around self-censorship or discomfort around sharing conservative views in higher education institutions,” Sykes told Medill News Service after the hearing.
After the hearing, the committee published a recap that focused on three of the four witnesses, omitting any mention of the ACLU representative.
The recap’s conclusion said: “Too many universities have abandoned their mission to encourage students to think for themselves. Committee Republicans are working to hold colleges accountable and to protect students’ First Amendment rights, ensuring that higher education remains a place where ideas can be tested, challenged, and debated openly.”
Matthew Junkroski is a graduate student at Northwestern University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More