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
An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.
GemaIbarra / Getty Images
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids
May 26, 2026
Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.
Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.”
If an ever-present fear of gun violence exists among American families, then we are living in an era marked by terror. When school shootings become the price of doing business, children may reasonably fear going to school, and parents may reasonably fear sending them. In fact, in 2022, a survey showed that almost half of all parents were worried about their children getting shot. Vice President Vance recommends bolstering security at schools as a remedy, but when the solution involves developing security plans that resemble those of military bases, maybe we should be talking about gun violence as the national security threat it is.
Though gun lobbyists say, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill peopleuns don’t kill people. People kill people,” as a means of misdirection, it may still be worth considering what is driving these people to kill. The answer lies heavily in a President who has been making racist, xenophobic, and Islamophobic attacks since before he was ever elected to anything. Now, he has the power to codify his malice (Trump v. Hawaii is just Korematsu in disguise) and deputize it (earlier this year in San Diego, Somali daycare providers–many of whom are Muslim–were harassed and threatened; the California Attorney General called the tactics “straight out of the Trumpian playbook”). As of Friday, Trump announced green card seekers are going to have to go back to their home countries to apply, while just this past week, Colorado law enforcement flagged that ICE’s recruitment tactics were using neo-Nazi symbology so blatantly that they feared white supremacists might take the content as a call to violence. These aren’t dog whistles, these are cat calls—with real consequences.
Trump has no interest in dousing the flames of hate; he prefers to fan them. He has no interest in funding social and mental health services; he prefers to cut them. And of course, he refuses to regulate the means of violence often used to execute this hatred. One of the San Diego shooters was previously flagged by the FBI; with better gun laws, these murders would never have happened.
The President’s selectively applied grief reveals his true priorities. Following the assassination of MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk last September, Trump established a National Day of Remembrance, and many Americans were summarily fired for failing to show adequate deference. Yet when innocent children were threatened, and when innocent protectors of those children were murdered in a fury emboldened by the executive’s own racial animus, the President could barely feign sympathy, offering a detached: “It’s a terrible situation...we’re going to be going back and looking at it very strongly.”
The President does not mind the expense or burden of federal intervention when it comes to his own safety. Just last month, he leveraged the presence of a gunman floors away from him at a hotel to demand that taxpayers foot the bill for his own personal, military-grade security infrastructure (read: his ballroom). He has consistently used the power of his office to protect his ideological allies, issuing pardons to those who attacked the Capitol and recently creating a $1.8 billion slush fund to pay out reparations to insurrectionists that looks more like an advance down payment for future incidents. One pardoned January 6th rioter has already gone on to molest two children whom he then attempted to silence with promised hush money that “he [hoped] to get from [the] slush fund.” If you are Donald Trump or willing to commit acts of violence that serve his interests, you are shielded. If you are a child in a classroom or a minority in a house of worship, you are on your own.
On that note, we may have been grieving another massacre of innocent children last week if it were not for Amin Abdullah, Mansour Kaziha, and Nader Awad, three men who stood in the crossfire to protect them. As San Diego City Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera noted at a vigil at the Islamic Center last week, echoing Imam Taha: “Amin, Nader, and Mansour were the best of us. And they repelled evil.” To honor the memories of these three neighbors–these heroes–may we harness our own capacity to help others. Our president may be trying to lead us into a post-compassion era, but we are not obligated to follow.
In the absence of federal leadership or even basic empathy from the White House, we must become the defenders of our own communities. Comprehensive federal action may be stalled, but we can focus our energy locally. Municipal policies can help curb access to dangerous weapons and expand funding for mental health services. Plus, we as individuals can model unifying, community-building rhetoric and action, and work to elevate leaders who do too. If our compassion is to serve as the final line of defense, then we must work together to reinforce it.Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.
Getty Images, aire images
Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform
May 21, 2026
On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:
- Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
- Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
- Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.
Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”
One week earlier, on April 22, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY-8) said, “The Republicans are dummymandering their way into the minority before a single vote is cast,” after learning that Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee are all taking steps to redraw their congressional maps following the Supreme Court’s Callais decision. “They started this war, and we’re going to finish it.”
This oversight can be traced back to the last day the Senate held a filibuster-proof majority on February 4, 2010, when the Democratic Party did not advance redistricting reform. At that time, the party prioritized other major legislative goals, such as passing the Affordable Care Act and responding to the economic crisis, which left election reform issues like redistricting lower on the agenda. Big political differences within the party and concerns about jeopardizing their congressional gains also contributed to the inaction, making this a missed opportunity for systemic change.
As an expert on the Hypocrisy of Gerrymandering, I urge you to use the Issue One post as clear evidence that redistricting reform is urgently needed. Congress’s failure to act shows that it is not prioritizing fair representation. Take direct action: Contact your representatives now and demand they champion comprehensive redistricting reform. Your call can make a difference.
Recently, Columnist Jamil Smith wrote in his Guardian column, “The next Voting Rights Act must outlaw gerrymandering.” Yet since the 93rd Congress (1973–75), no federal legislation specifically aimed at reforming or regulating congressional redistricting has passed both houses of Congress, often failing to advance beyond committee or subcommittee referral.
In 2005, Representative John S. Tanner, a Democrat from Tennessee, was the first to introduce his redistricting reform legislation, the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act (FAIR Act), during the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. He then reintroduced it in the next two sessions during the Democratic-controlled House.
Beginning in 2005, Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California introduced a bill in each of the last eleven Congresses, except the 118th (2023-2025), to stop gerrymandering by allowing each state to establish an independent redistricting commission. It was rejected in committee each time because it lacked sufficient support from Democratic leaders to move forward. Some leaders were concerned that national reform might weaken their party’s advantage in states where Democrats controlled redistricting, and worried that pushing the issue too aggressively could create divisions within the caucus or risk existing seats. Note: During the 117th Session (2021-2023), her 2021 version was included in the House version of the For the People Act (H.R. 1) as part of the redistricting provisions, but it failed to pass the Senate. Ten sessions in total!
Barack Obama briefly held a 60-seat Senate majority in 2009, lasting about 72 working days from July 7, 2009, to February 4, 2010. During those 72 days, Democrats did not advance election reform, including bills on gerrymandering, the Electoral College, or voting rights.
Lofgren’s redistricting bill, H.R.5596, came four months after the 60-vote majority ended, with 12 co-sponsors—all California Democrats. Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not support it, expecting Democrats to win the 2010 midterms and control redistricting.
At that time, Democrats held 57 Senate seats with two allied independents, and 255 of 433 Representatives. The Supreme Court was split 4–4, with Chief Justice Roberts as the swing vote.
The 2010 midterms saw Democrats lose 63 House seats, 6 Senate seats, 6 governorships, and approximately 726 state legislative seats.
Key Redistricting Reform Efforts (2025-2026)
At least nine distinct bills to regulate congressional redistricting—specifically, to ban mid-decade map redrawing—have been introduced in the 119th Congress (2025-2026). Click each bill number to read its summary and a list of co-sponsors.
Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting bills:
On July 10, 2025, Rep. Marc Veasey [D-TX-33] introduced H.R. 4358, the Anti-Rigging Act of 2025, with nine co-sponsors.
On August 5, Rep. Kevin Kiley [I-CA-3] introduced H.R. 4889, titled To prohibit States from carrying out more than one Congressional redistricting after a decennial census and apportionment, with two co-sponsors.
On October 28, Rep. Donald Davis [D-NC-1] introduced H. R. 5837—Restoring Electoral Stability to Enhance Trust (RESET)—without any co-sponsors.
On October 31, Rep. Vicente Gonzalez [D-TX-34] introduced H.R. 5879, the Save American Democracy Act, with six co-sponsors.
Require Independent Redistricting Commissions bills:
On July 25, Rep. Donald Beyer [D-VA-8] introduced H.R. 4632, the Fair Representation Act, with six co-sponsors.
On September 17, Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN-9] introduced H.R. 5426, the John Tanner and Jim Cooper Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act. Imagine that it has no co-sponsors!
The next day, September 18, Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA-18] reintroduced H.R. 5449—Redistricting Reform Act of 2025. House Minority Leader Jeffries is not among the 58 co-sponsors. On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Alex Padilla [D-CA] proudly introduced S. 2885—Redistricting Reform Act of 2025, with three co-sponsors.
On January 26, 2026, Rep. Mike Lawler [R-NY-17] introduced H.R. 7219, the Fair Apportionment and Independent Redistricting for Maps that Avoid Partisanship (FAIR MAP) Act, with one co-sponsor.
The low number of co-sponsors shows that these bills have little chance of passing without immediate pressure from constituents like you. When lawmakers hear directly from the people they represent, especially in significant numbers, they take notice and often reconsider their priorities. Your call, letter, or email signals to your representative that voters are paying attention and care deeply about redistricting reform. Act now: call or write your representative and insist they support redistricting reform. Your engagement is vital.
As I approach my 82nd birthday in July, I realize that ending gerrymandering may not happen in my lifetime. But I stay committed—and urge you to do the same. Take an active role: demand your representative support federal action against gerrymandering. Together we can lead meaningful change.
Howard Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide. He has been advocating against partisan gerrymandering for four decades.
Keep ReadingShow less
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime
Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
May 20, 2026
The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.
I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.
The Court has said that the question is, how much partisan dominance is too much. The answer should be: if the new district is a "safe" district for the dominant party rather than a contested one, it is too much because it intentionally undermines the equal value of everyone's votes.
The whole purpose of gerrymandered redistricting is usually to create districts where the dominant party cannot lose because of its voting advantage, making it impossible for those of the other party and independents to band together to elect the representatives they want. The purpose is to create a "safe" district, not a contested one. The argument against this practice is not that the not-dominant party has a right to elect representatives of its choice—the Court having said there is no such guarantee—but that their vote is no longer of equal weight.
The suggested standard is: When the dominant party redistricts to create safe districts for itself rather than contested ones, it has gone too far. When a party has a clear majority in a district by the luck of the draw, the natural cluster of voters, that's random and not justiciable. But when the party intentionally creates such a district, it violates the 14th Amendment's one-person, one-vote rule: the voters of the dominant party who are in the clear majority in the new district have greater value than those of the other party. That is partisan dominance going too far.
And where the district that is being broken up is a Black-majority district, then you have the added fact that Blacks—after redistricting—have "less opportunity than other members of the electorate" to elect representatives of their choice. Whereas before the redistricting, as in Memphis, they resided in an area where they were "sufficiently numerous and compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district" (this is a very different set of facts than the ones in Callais), after redistricting, that was no longer the case. Blacks then had less opportunity than their White peers of the dominant party to constitute a majority and elect representatives of their choice—that's the purpose of breaking up the Black-majority district—and that is a racial gerrymander in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Nor can it be said, as the Court has said in the past, that this dilution of the Black vote is no different from partisan gerrymandering, which they have ruled is not justiciable. The Court has also said that when both purposes are present, the one less problematic [as to its constitutionality] is deemed the operating force.
The court has assumed, barring specific data-driven proof otherwise, that the Black vote is the same as the Democratic vote because Blacks as a bloc consistently vote Democratic. Thus, the Court has stated that diluting the Black vote and diluting the Democratic vote is one and the same thing.
While that voting fact is true, it is not true that Blacks vote as Democrats. They vote Democratic primarily because it is the only party that has consistently supported Black interests. If Republicans took up the Black cause, they would vote Republican. Thus, they are voting specifically as Blacks, not as Democrats. And so when their vote is diluted, it is their vote as Blacks, not as Democrats, that is being diluted.
Finally, even assuming that diluting the Black vote was the same as diluting the Democratic vote, where both purposes—partisan and racial—are present, to deem the less problematic purpose the operating force is an affront to the Constitution. If both an unconstitutional and a constitutional purpose are present, the unconstitutional purpose should always take precedence for the Court because it is the Court's mandate to see that the Constitution is not violated, to secure the benefits of the Constitution's protections for those who fall under it.
In the hypothetical cases described, whether viewed as a partisan or racial gerrymander, they are both violations of the law. In the first instance, it violates the 14th Amendment because it violates the one-person, one-vote rule. In the second instance, it violates the Voting Rights Act because the redistricting offers Blacks less opportunity than other members of the electorate to elect representatives of their choosing; should the Court continue to find that Black votes and Democratic votes are indistinguishable, then it would be a partisan gerrymander that would be in violation of the 14th Amendment because it violates the one person, one vote rule.
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
Keep ReadingShow less
National Park Service budget cuts are reshaping America’s public lands through underfunding and neglect. Explore how declining park staffing, deferred maintenance, and political inaction threaten national parks, local economies, and public trust in government.
Getty Images, miroslav_1
They Won’t Close the Parks. They’ll Just Let Them Fail.
May 18, 2026
This summer, before dawn, the Liu family from Buffalo will load up their SUV, coffee in hand, bound for a long-planned trip out west. The Grand Canyon has been on their list for years, something to do before the kids get too old and schedules get too tight. They expect crowds. They expect long lines at the entrance. That is part of the deal. In recent years, national parks have drawn more than 325 million visits annually, near record highs.
What they do not expect are shuttered visitor centers and closed trails, not because of weather but because there are not enough staff to maintain them. What they do not see is the budget decision in Washington that made those trade-offs, quietly, indirectly, and without much debate.
The cuts to the National Park Service may look like another line item in a sprawling federal budget. They reveal something deeper about how the country is now governed. Increasingly, public institutions are not dismantled outright. They are allowed to thin out, with fewer resources, less capacity, and lower expectations, until decline begins to feel normal.
This is governing by neglect. Rather than make explicit arguments against shared national resources like our national parks, policymakers sidestep the fight. Congress fails to provide clear direction or sustained investment, and the executive branch makes discretionary decisions about what gets funded, delayed, or scaled back. The result is not a dramatic shift but a steady erosion that shifts costs onto families, especially middle-class and lower-income households, weakens public trust, and leaves institutions with less capacity than they once had.
How the Cuts Actually Happen
The erosion of the National Park Service is not the result of a single vote. It often unfolds through quieter mechanisms: continuing resolutions, vague appropriations, and the absence of sustained congressional direction. Instead of passing detailed budgets that specify how funds should be used, Congress relies on stopgap measures that keep funding levels nominally stable while leaving key decisions unresolved. Over the past decade, Congress has passed continuing resolutions in most fiscal years, normalizing short-term budgeting.
That ambiguity matters. When funding lacks specificity, the executive branch gains discretion over how resources are used in practice. Agencies can delay hiring, defer maintenance, or scale back services without formally announcing a cut. The public experiences the consequences, but the policy choice is obscured. The result is a system that rewards inaction. Visible cuts carry political risk; slow decline does not.
In this environment, neglect becomes a governing strategy. It avoids backlash that would come with openly targeting popular institutions like national parks. No one campaigns on closing trails or reducing ranger presence. Yet underfunding produces similar outcomes over time, with fewer services, reduced access, and a gradual decline in quality that is easy to attribute to circumstance rather than policy.
The result is a shift in how these shared resources are managed. Instead of clear legislative priorities backed by stable funding, institutions absorb uncertainty. As that uncertainty compounds, even well-functioning systems begin to look strained or inefficient, conditions that can then be used to justify further retrenchment.
Why Neglect Is Politically Attractive
Neglect has one decisive advantage: it is hard to see and even harder to assign blame. Closing a park outright would provoke immediate backlash. Letting it deteriorate, with fewer rangers, longer lines, and reduced hours, rarely does. The experience worsens, but the cause is diffuse.
For lawmakers, this ambiguity is useful. There is no single vote to point to, no clear moment when access was reduced. Funding levels can be defended as stable, even as real capacity declines. Responsibility is spread across committees, agencies, and fiscal cycles, allowing elected officials to claim credit for keeping parks open while avoiding accountability for their gradual erosion.
For the executive branch, discretion fills the gap. When Congress provides limited guidance, agencies make trade-offs behind the scenes, deciding what to staff, what to defer, and what to close temporarily. These choices are framed as operational necessity rather than policy, which further obscures their political origins.
The strain is already visible. The National Park Service has lost roughly 15 to 20 percent of its workforce over the past decade, even as annual visits exceed 325 million. Deferred maintenance has grown past $20 billion. Fewer staff are managing more visitors across an aging infrastructure. The effects show up in everyday ways: shorter hours, closed trails, and parks pushed beyond their limits.
In practice, this approach has become a governing strategy for many Republicans: reducing the size and scope of government without openly cutting programs that remain broadly popular. This pattern is visible in repeated budget proposals that reduce funding for agencies like the National Park Service while avoiding direct votes to eliminate services, allowing capacity to shrink without a clear moment of accountability. Rather than vote to end programs outright, policymakers allow funding and capacity to erode, producing similar outcomes with far less political cost. Institutions are not dismantled; they are allowed to fade, one budget cycle at a time. As the Talking Heads song “Nothing But Flowers” suggests, the hope is that as things fall apart, no one pays attention.
Beyond the Parks: Why This Matters for Everyone
It is easy to see these changes as a problem for vacationers. But the effects reach much further. National parks are not just destinations; they are part of a broader public infrastructure that supports local economies, preserves national heritage, and reflects a shared commitment to collective investment.
Gateway communities depend on park traffic for jobs and revenue. National parks generate tens of billions of dollars annually in visitor spending and support hundreds of thousands of jobs in surrounding regions. When services are reduced, and visitor experiences decline, those local economies feel it quickly, in fewer bookings, shorter stays, and lost income for small businesses. What looks like a budget decision in Washington becomes a pay cut in towns that rely on seasonal tourism.
There is also a quieter loss. National parks are one of the clearest examples of what government can do well: protect common resources, make them accessible, and sustain them over time. When that capacity erodes, public expectations change. Surveys consistently show national parks among the most trusted federal programs, which makes visible strain especially consequential. If even the park system feels unreliable, it reinforces the idea that the government cannot manage complex responsibilities effectively.
That shift matters. As confidence declines, calls for further cuts become easier to make, not because the public has rejected these shared resources, but because weakened performance makes them seem less worth preserving. Underinvestment becomes its own justification, extending far beyond the parks themselves.
Conclusion
When the Liu family arrives at the Grand Canyon, the view will still be there. The scale, the silence, the sense of something enduring. Those do not easily diminish. But the experience around it may feel different. Fewer rangers to guide them, longer waits, and parts of the park just a little less accessible than they should be.
That difference is easy to overlook. It does not announce itself as a policy failure or a political choice. It feels like an inconvenience, like bad timing, like the cost of popularity. But it is something else: the visible edge of a deeper shift in how the country governs its shared resources.
Governing by neglect does not require dramatic decisions. It works slowly, through underinvestment and ambiguity, until decline begins to feel normal. The danger is not only what is lost in places like the national parks. It is what that loss teaches us to accept.
If even the most widely supported institutions can thin out without clear debate or accountability, the same pattern can extend elsewhere. What begins in the parks does not stay there. It becomes a model for how public life is managed, quietly and incrementally, with fewer expectations of what government should provide.
The question is not whether Americans value their national parks. They do. The question is whether the political system still has the capacity, or the will, to sustain them.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t