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.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.
Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.
Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.
That choice was strategic. Questions of policing norms are familiar ground for Congress, where bipartisan precedents already exist in areas such as body cameras, use-of-force policies, and reporting requirements. By treating ICE less as an immigration authority and more as a federal law-enforcement agency subject to baseline professional standards, lawmakers lowered the political temperature enough to keep negotiations alive.
At the same time, this framing imposed clear limits. It narrowed the scope of what could be discussed and, more importantly, what could be resolved. Issues of democratic authority, including who should decide the scope of enforcement, how expansive that authority should be, and how it ought to be constrained, were set aside in favor of technical questions about compliance and procedure.
Framing the dispute this way kept the government open, but it also narrowed the civic conversation. The result was a debate understandable to insiders but increasingly opaque to the public it was meant to serve. A question about democratic authority became a technical debate over how enforcement is carried out rather than whether it is properly authorized or accountable in the first place.
That distinction matters. It defines both the political limits of the moment and the reforms most likely to survive.
Several proposed changes track existing norms in federal and local policing and therefore stand a realistic chance of becoming law. Agent identification requirements are likely to endure. Requiring visible badges or identifying information during enforcement actions aligns ICE with standard Justice Department practice. With exceptions for undercover or high-risk operations, the reform is widely viewed as common sense rather than constraint.
Body-worn cameras also have bipartisan precedent. Mandating their use during arrests and raids, paired with clear activation and data-retention rules, emphasizes documentation rather than deterrence. That focus makes the reform politically durable. Similarly, codifying use-of-force standards appears to be a low bar Congress is willing to clear. Turning internal ICE guidance into a formal national policy, with mandatory reporting of serious injuries or deaths, is framed as baseline accountability rather than interference.
Expanded reporting to Congress is the easiest concession of all. Regular disclosure of arrest data, complaints, and disciplinary outcomes strengthens oversight without limiting operational authority, making it attractive even to lawmakers wary of constraining enforcement.
Other proposals, however, may survive only in diluted form. Restrictions on masks or face coverings are unlikely to amount to an outright ban. More plausible are limits paired with broad safety exceptions, enough to gesture toward transparency without provoking law-enforcement backlash. Likewise, protections for “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship may be partially restored. Expansive exigent-circumstance carve-outs, however, are likely to blunt their real-world impact.
Two proposals are unlikely to survive intact. Requiring judicial warrants for most ICE arrests would fundamentally alter how immigration enforcement operates, and Republicans view this as a substantive policy shift rather than a procedural tweak. Binding limits on cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement face a similar fate, as they risk fracturing the fragile shutdown deal and are more likely to be postponed than resolved.
Taken together, the ICE funding deal reveals something deeper about Congress’s current posture. Lawmakers are willing to regulate how enforcement is carried out, focusing on visibility, documentation, and reporting, but not whether it is carried out or how expansive it should be. Oversight is asserted at the margins, while core authority remains firmly in executive hands.
As Yale law professor Richard Pildes has argued, this pattern reflects not just polarization, but a deeper weakening of Congress’s capacity to broker durable compromises and translate conflict into authoritative decisions. As party leadership fragments and procedural tools replace negotiation, institutions remain active but less decisive.
That focus on oversight and institutional responsibility reflects a broader scholarly view, including work like The Democracy Playbook by Norman Eisen and his coauthors, which argues that democracy is sustained not by sweeping reforms but by consistently upholding institutional norms and accountability.
What this episode reveals is not legislative failure in the dramatic sense, but something more subtle. Congress remains capable of keeping government running, yet it is increasingly unable to convert deep disagreement into clear, authoritative decisions. The trade-off avoided a shutdown, but it also reinforces a familiar pattern. Congress responds to institutional anxiety with procedural fixes rather than structural reform.
In that sense, the deal did more than keep the lights on. It captured a Congress uneasy about executive power, yet increasingly willing to manage conflict procedurally rather than confront it directly, in ways the Constitution’s framers warned would hollow out legislative responsibility.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.

View of the Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right
A U.S. city of 60,000 people would typically see around six to eight traffic fatalities every year. But Hoboken, New Jersey? They haven’t had a single fatal crash for nine years — since January 17, 2017, to be exact.
Campaigns for seatbelts, lower speed limits and sober driving have brought national death tolls from car crashes down from a peak in the first half of the 20th century. However, many still assume some traffic deaths as an unavoidable cost of car culture.
The global Vision Zero movement, by contrast, believes traffic deaths aren’t inevitable, celebrating Hoboken and related milestones in larger cities like Helsinki, Finland, as proof of what can be achieved. By studying which factors contribute to local crash fatalities, Vision Zero proponents say, communities can decide to change policies, infrastructure and human behavior to reduce the likelihood of fatal accidents.
Mayor Ravi Bhalla. Photo courtesy of the City of HobokenHoboken’s journey to combat traffic deaths has been led for the past eight years by Mayor Ravi Bhalla, whose term ended this month. As a young father, Bhalla had to push his stroller dangerously close to traffic on numerous occasions to check if it was safe to cross certain streets. Later, as a city council member, a pedestrian death cemented his resolve that Hoboken could do better.
Bhalla picked up the mantle from his predecessor Mayor Dawn Zimmer, launching a five year analysis of Hoboken’s crash data to learn contributing factors and vulnerabilities that could be used to help shape reforms.
That analysis showed that, between 2014 to 2018, 40 percent of the accidents causing serious injuries or death in Hoboken involved bikers or pedestrians, even though people walking and bicycling were only involved in eight percent of all crashes. Given that most bicycle and pedestrian crashes (88 percent) happened in intersection crosswalks, those became a major priority.
Central to Hoboken’s early strategy was a focus on vulnerable road users, such as seniors and kids, which meant prioritizing street redesign near schools, parks and senior centers.
Prior to Bhalla’s time in office, Hoboken started strictly enforcing New Jersey’s statewide “daylighting” policy, which bans cars from parking within 25 feet of intersections to improve visibility and boost driver response time. But high demand for parking and pressure to protect already-limited spaces meant enforcement was challenging.
“If there’s not something blocking them, they’ll just park there,” says Gregory Francese, who directs Hoboken’s Vision Zero program. “Hoboken would need […] enforcement out there at all times, at every intersection, which is very difficult to impossible.”
So Hoboken used a variety of physical deterrents such as inexpensive, waist-high plastic posts to prevent parking in forbidden spots, even temporarily. Some intersection-adjacent spaces were converted into wider sidewalks.
The city also collaborated with aligned government departments and community groups to repurpose daylit space to benefit local residents, integrating bike parking, plants and rain gardens to mitigate flood risk.
Washington Street rain garden. Photo courtesy of the City of Hoboken
Hoboken’s approach of layering several evidence-based strategies simultaneously recognizes that drivers will make mistakes and factors multiple layers of protection into safer road design.
“We’re not just investing in infrastructure,” Francese says. “We’re adding safety features to vehicles, we’re doing driver education, […] so if there is driver error, or if there is pedestrian error, the consequences of that aren’t death or serious injury.”
Bhalla successfully rallied support from within and outside of government, launching Hoboken’s Vision Zero Task Force in 2019. Public engagement, Francese says, was and is core to this. Community surveys and meetings allowed leaders to hear from multiple voices, “not just the loudest,” he says, and piloting changes at one or two intersections first allowed people time to test and assess new infrastructure before commitments were made on a larger scale.
Willingness to adjust plans to respond to feedback or challenges was key. Public awareness campaigns also helped educate residents on the reasoning behind certain changes, like why a speed reduction of just five mph translates into huge pedestrian crash survival rate improvements.
Not only did community members come to better understand the reasons for certain changes, but many also got on board once they saw the changes in action. Community members now play a role themselves, flagging when infrastructure needs fixing and asking for specific upgrades at intersections that don’t have them. Public reporting of “near-miss” data also supplements close calls caught by city cameras that are being piloted around the city.
One busy area near a supermarket had only a handful of crash injuries but many more “near-misses,” captured by cameras and community reporting. Having access to this data spurred leaders to prioritize a safer redesign, with the city and county able to get a state grant to cover the changes. Collaborations with other city departments also contributed to cost sharing of upgrades, particularly for multipurpose spaces with functional community benefits.
Hoboken’s success didn’t happen overnight.
After especially extensive road upgrades in 2022, Hoboken saw 18 percent fewer injury crashes and a 62 percent reduction in serious injuries between 2022 to 2023.
Hoboken has not eliminated accidents — or injuries. Year-over-year data fluctuates wildly and can still document concerning upswings, as found in a recent analysis of crash injury police reports by Bike Hoboken showing a 52 percent rise in traffic-related injuries from 144 in 2023 to 219 in 2024. Likewise, two ongoing challenges have been limited funds for new infrastructure and the constraints of relying on police crash data, which takes a while to be compiled and doesn’t capture narrowly-avoided accidents.
Likewise, Hoboken’s approach is no silver bullet. Small, commuter-heavy Hoboken with strong public transit infrastructure has narrow streets with high pedestrian traffic on an older street grid, but larger cities like Helsinki have had similar milestones from their own tailored changes. But it’s clear that Hoboken’s multipronged approach to safer streets holds lessons for other communities tackling traffic deaths — both the safety improvements themselves, and how the city rolled out those changes while prioritizing community support. Learning from Hoboken’s successes and challenges — and what has curtailed other Vision Zero programs from similar success — mean communities don’t have to reinvent the wheel.
As Bhalla passes the torch this month to another Vision Zero champion, new Mayor Emily Jabbour, Hoboken continues to experiment with new strategies in response to new data. And Jabbour will lead Hoboken as it strives for another milestone: No traffic-related injuries or deaths by 2030.
The City Where Traffic Fatalities Vanished was originally published by Reasons to be Cheerful and is republished with permission.
What has happened to the U.S. Congress? Once the anchor of American democracy, it now delivers chaos and a record of inaction that leaves millions of Americans vulnerable. A branch designed to defend the Constitution has instead drifted into paralysis — and the nation is paying the price. It must break its silence and reassert its constitutional role.
The Constitution created three coequal branches — legislative, executive, and judicial — each designed to balance and restrain the others. The Framers placed Congress first in Article I (U.S. Constitution) because they believed the people’s representatives should hold the greatest responsibility: to write laws, control spending, conduct oversight, and ensure that no president or agency escapes accountability. Congress was meant to be the branch closest to the people — the one that listens, deliberates, and acts on behalf of the nation.
However, the Constitution cannot function when those entrusted to uphold it abandon the qualities that make leadership possible. Americans elected human beings — not placeholders — and expected character, responsibility, empathy, humility, integrity, and independent judgment. Instead, too many surrendered those qualities the moment they arrived in Washington. Congress has devolved into a clique where belonging matters more than governing, and safety in numbers becomes an excuse for cowardice.
Members appear to hide behind one another, acting as if being part of a group absolves them of responsibility to their oath. It resembles the “locker room behavior” my mother warned me about — not crude behavior, but the danger of doing something simply because everyone else is doing it. We see it in the way many members vote: supporting policies simply because the President or their colleagues do, even when those decisions harm their own constituents, as we saw with the ACA and the OBBBA (NPR)). A few do cross the aisle to cast votes that support the people, but they remain the exception, not the norm.
Independent analyses show that the 119th Congress has produced the lowest legislative output in modern history, passing only a few dozen bills (Newsweek). None of the major legislation addressing affordable housing, food security, healthcare access, immigration relief, gun‑safety reform, or poverty reduction has advanced. Bills that would help families — including the Housing for All Act (GovTrack), the Health Equity and Access for Immigrant Families Act (Congress.gov), and multiple food‑security measures (FRAC) — were introduced but blocked by the President’s loyalists.
Leaders in Congress are not loyal to the Constitution, nor to the people, nor even to their own conscience. They are loyal to their party — and to the President — turning a blind eye to corruption, poor policies, reckless pardons, war tactics, and broader governance abuses (Corruption | Brennan Center). They ignore the needs of the people they swore to serve. By choosing loyalty over conscience, the entire country pays the price — in stalled legislation, weakened safeguards, and communities left without the resources they need.
The consequences are visible in every state. Congress’s failure to serve the people has earned it an approval rating of just 17% (Gallup.com) — a stark reflection of dysfunction, infighting, and the abandonment of basic responsibilities. The legislative branch has lost focus, neglected its role, and allowed the system to drift into free fall.
Millions describe the 119th Congress as lacking moral and ethical discipline. Many members seem torn between loyalty to a president, to their party, to their constituents, and to their oath. That confusion leads to poor choices, an inability to listen, a fear of challenging the President, and a passivity that accelerates the erosion of our democracy.
This loyalty crisis is not just political — it is psychological. When leaders operate in a clique, they stop thinking independently. They wait to see who speaks first, who objects, who hesitates, who proposes a bipartisan law, and who dares to tell the President that campaign promises must be honored. They take emotional cues from the group instead of moral cues from their conscience. They approve budgets without alignment to data‑driven needs. This is how institutions lose their way: not through one catastrophic decision, but through a thousand small moments of choosing expedience over courage.
In my own leadership experience, I lived by W. Edwards Deming’s reminder: “In God we trust; all others bring data.” Team members knew that when requesting resources, new programs, or changes in reform direction, they needed to present data to support the need. My school team and I implemented Deming’s Plan‑Do‑Check‑Act model — a discipline Congress has abandoned.
At the same time, Congress has shown a willingness to fund expansive foreign operations while neglecting urgent domestic needs. The ongoing military action in Venezuela — involving naval deployments, air operations, and significant federal resources — has already cost tens of millions of dollars, with additional expenses expected through DOJ investigations and prosecutions. These are resources that could be stabilizing communities at home: expanding healthcare access, strengthening food security, supporting housing, or responding to families pleading for basic gun‑safety protections. Congress’s readiness to approve distant operations while ignoring crises in its own backyard reflects a profound misalignment of priorities — and a failure to exercise its constitutional duty to check executive power abroad.
A legislature that will not check a president at home cannot be trusted to check him abroad. We saw this on January 6 (BBC), when too many members remained passive or complicit — not because the facts were unclear, but because allegiance to one individual outweighed their duty to the Constitution. That moment revealed a Congress unwilling to assert its Article I responsibilities even in a constitutional crisis. That same reluctance now shapes Congress’s daily decisions.
Congress’s ethics challenges are not hypothetical. Members continue to trade stocks in industries they oversee, despite bipartisan calls for a stock‑trading ban (Corruption | Brennan Center) — a practice that erodes public trust and reinforces the perception that lawmakers play by different rules. At the same time, Congress routinely fails to enforce its own ethics and disclosure requirements. When lawmakers exempt themselves from the standards they expect others to follow, accountability becomes optional — and the institution’s credibility collapses.
To demonstrate to Americans that it has not forgotten its oath or the people, Congress must reclaim the responsibilities the Constitution already gives it — writing clear laws, enforcing real oversight, strengthening ethics rules, and choosing the country over the comfort of party loyalty. To function properly — and begin rebuilding public trust — Congress must commit to working across the aisle: collaborating, compromising, using data, and developing aligned plans that solve problems. Effective governance requires disciplined problem‑solving, a shared vision, and clear goals. It requires members to stop asking “What’s in it for me” and start asking “What do the people need.”
Congress must restore real oversight — not the performative hearings designed for cable news. Committees need to subpoena witnesses, demand documents, and follow evidence wherever it leads. It must also strengthen its ethics and accountability rules. Members cannot credibly demand integrity from presidents or agencies while exempting themselves. Enforcing conflict‑of‑interest rules, banning stock trading, and tightening disclosure requirements are basic guardrails that rebuild trust.
Finally, citizens must remain alert and informed — paying attention to what is happening in their government, speaking out, writing, organizing, and protesting peacefully. Democracy depends on people choosing leaders who listen, serve, and honor their constitutional responsibilities — and who vote out those who abandon their duties while voting in those committed to governing with integrity, empathy, and fidelity to the Constitution.
A Congress that has forgotten its oath can still honor it — but only if its members choose conscience over clique, courage over expedience, people over loyalty, and the Constitution over the noise of the crowd.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical governance, institutional accountability, and civic renewal. She writes about leadership, constitutional responsibility, and the urgent need for data‑driven, people‑centered policymaking.

Republicans will need some Democratic support to pass the multi-bill spending package in time to avoid a partial government shutdown.
A Wisconsin professor is calling another potential government shutdown the ultimate test for the Democratic Party.
Congress is currently in contentious negotiations over a House-approved bill containing additional funding for the Department of Homeland Security, including billions for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as national political uproar continues after immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, 37, in Minneapolis during protests over the weekend.
Howard Schweber, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, argues that any compromise could result in a complete collapse of the Democratic Party.
"This is a moment of genuine crisis for the leadership of the Democratic Party," Schweber contended. "If they fail to either stand strong and shut down the government, or obtain dramatic spending cuts for DHS and constraints on DHS operations, I think that their leadership of the Democratic Party is over."
The multi-bill package budgets more than $64 billion for DHS. The Senate has until Jan. 30 to approve or amend it or they will risk another government shutdown.
Schweber emphasized Democratic voter support has significantly eroded due to leadership decisions perceived as concessions to Republican demands. He explained during the previous government shutdown, Democratic senators voted to continue funding the government based on promised compromises from the Trump administration, which never materialized.
"The stakes are incredibly high, much higher than they've been in past shutdowns," Schweber emphasized. "The usual arguments – about avoiding hardship to federal employees or avoiding being blamed for an economic negative consequence – I don't think have purchase this time around, because the issue of violence in the streets has reached a level of intensity that just creates a whole new political environment."
Schwaber noted the deployment of border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota might signal potential White House willingness to adopt more targeted, less aggressive deportation approaches. He's widely seen by GOP lawmakers as a more practical enforcer of current immigration strategies.
Judith Ruiz-Branch is an award-winning journalist with over a decade of experience as a reporter/producer for TV, radio, print and podcast news.