Congressional pages carry electoral votes into a joint session of Congress in January 2017.
Think you know all there is to know about the Electoral College? Test your smarts with this quiz.
This quiz is powered by CredSpark.
Texas Capitol, Austin
Austin, Texas—A federal court effectively told the Republican Party of Texas Friday that—at least for now—if they want primary elections closed, they will have to convince their members in the legislature to do it. This puts the matter on hold until the 2027 legislative session.
It wasn’t a dismissal. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of Texas’ open primary system. Instead, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk paused the GOP’s lawsuit, stating that the Legislature may soon take steps to close the state’s primary elections on its own.
“Prominent Texas politicians support similar legislative action,” Kacsmaryk wrote.
Notably, there are also prominent Republicans who either oppose or are skeptical of the state moving to a closed primary system. In fact, this fight may further expose a growing divide within the party.
Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton support the change, but outgoing US Sen. John Cornyn has publicly warned that it could hurt the GOP, going so far as to say, “closed primaries are a threat to Texas voters.”
X
Cornyn shared an op-ed in The Dallas Morning News written by Suzanne Bellsnyder, editor of the Texas Rural Reporter.
“Closing primaries will not broaden participation; it will narrow it further,” Bellsnyder wrote. “That should concern Texans regardless of party. Democracy becomes more representative when more people participate.”
“It becomes less representative when fewer people do.”
As previously noted on IVN, participation in May’s Republican primary was roughly 7.4% of all registered voters. That number could shrink even more if the independent voters who chose a GOP ballot are suddenly excluded from these taxpayer-funded elections.
Support for closed primaries has existed within the Texas GOP for years. Yet, the legislature has not moved to change the law. Will 2027 be different? That is the question Kacsmaryk wants answered before this case moves any further.
In September 2025, the Texas GOP sued then-Secretary of State Jane Nelson, also a Republican, arguing that allowing independents and Democrats to participate in Republican primaries violates the party’s First Amendment right of association.
Under current law, Texas does not register voters by party affiliation. Any registered voter can select either a Republican or Democratic primary ballot, but voters who participate in a primary cannot switch parties for that election cycle’s runoff.
Republican leaders argue that the system allows voters who do not support the party to influence its nominees. They blame “crossover voting” for helping incumbent Republicans fend off challengers backed by the party in competitive primaries.
Gov. Abbott told the Texas Republican Convention in June that he wants to ensure “only Republicans vote in Republican Primaries.” It’s worth noting that Abbott easily won this year’s primary under a system he claims is producing weaker party candidates.
The lawsuit also created an unusual divide among Texas officials.
Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose job it is to defend the state in court, sided with the GOP rather than defending the state's existing election law. Nelson maintained that the Legislature, not the courts, should determine whether the primary system changes.
Her successor, Robert Howden, confirmed in August that his office would continue defending the current system, while acknowledging lawmakers could change it.
In May, Veterans for All Voters sought to intervene in the debate through an amicus brief opposing the Texas GOP's effort. The organization argued that closing primaries would exclude millions of Texans who do not affiliate with either major political party.
For now, nothing changes. Independent voters can still participate in Texas primaries without registering with a political party.
The next statewide primaries are scheduled for 2028. What their rights look like then will depend entirely on what the Texas Legislature does next year.
Texas GOP’s Closed-Primary Push Hits Pause. The Next Fight Is in Austin is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.
First Amendment text of the US Constitution ripped in half -- Freedom of Speech , Religion or Press unconstitutional concept
When POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW announced Monday that they were filing a federal lawsuit to restore their reporters’ access to the White House, they challenged more than the sudden and unexplained revocation of press credentials. They underscored a fundamental constitutional principle: a free press does not operate at the government's discretion.
According to their joint statement, the outlets are seeking urgent relief after the Secret Service denied their reporters entry to the White House complex on Saturday and confiscated their credentials. The action followed recent stories by these outlets examining the administration’s handling of classified documents and raising questions about transparency related to policy meetings. They wrote, “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”
At The Fulcrum, we view this not simply as a dispute between the executive branch and three newsrooms, but as a test of whether democracy’s safeguards remain effective when power is used arbitrarily. Our mission is to provide a platform where all participants in politics can be informed, connect, and act to strengthen democracy in daily life. This work relies on a press corps that can ask difficult questions, pursue the truth, and report without fear of retaliation. You can help defend a free press by contacting your elected representatives to express support for press freedom, subscribing to or donating to independent outlets, and sharing trusted reporting with your community. Every action, even small ones, reinforces the foundation of accountable democracy.
A democracy cannot be repaired or maintained when those in power control information. Effective self-governance requires engaged citizens, transparent institutions, and journalists free to inform the public. Weakening any part of this ecosystem undermines the entire structure.
This lawsuit aims to reinforce the constitutional framework that protects everyone. It asserts that access to the White House cannot be granted or revoked based on political preference. It reminds us that journalism is a right secured by the First Amendment, not a privilege granted by government.
We support this legal challenge because its impact extends beyond the press room. It affects every community where Americans depend on independent reporting to understand government, assess its actions, and participate in civic life. Press freedom is not abstract; it is essential to democracy.
When that essential freedom is threatened, every American should take notice.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
A new union political director explains why labor membership has halved since 1983 even as public approval hits record highs—and what's driving the gap.
Last Monday, I started a new job as the political director for IBEW 569, a local electrical workers' union based here in San Diego. In talking to friends about what I’m doing–while learning, fast, in real time, how to do the job myself–it occurred to me that there’s actually quite a knowledge gap in society today regarding an understanding of what unions are and what they’re supposed to do. So let’s get into it.
A union is, at its core, a group of workers who agree to negotiate together instead of alone. One worker asking a boss for a raise has almost no leverage. A thousand workers asking together hits different. That leverage of teamwork, that collective bargaining, is how the overtime pay, workplace safety standards, and employer-sponsored health insurance all came to exist in this country. None of it was handed down out of corporate goodwill. Fair wages (bread) and dignity (roses) were won, often at real cost. In 1890, the average workweek for manufacturing employees and building tradesmen was around 100 hours or more. Workers in Chicago who rallied for an eight-hour workday faced police violence, but we have that and weekends now because people were willing to lose their jobs, and sometimes their lives, to organize for it.
In short, organized labor is the best check and balance we have on capitalism. Capitalism is very good at rewarding capital. Unions are the mechanism that makes it answer to workers too.
Unfortunately, membership is down. In 1983, one in five American workers belonged to a union. Today, it's one in ten. It isn’t because unions are unpopular. Gallup reported in September 2026 that 71% of Americans approve of labor unions and a record-high 47% of folks want unions to have more influence. So union membership has roughly halved while public approval of unions is historically high. If people like the idea of unions so much, why aren't more people in them? Well, it’s an uphill battle when those in power are so aggressively union-busting.
President Trump may be the biggest union-buster this country has ever seen. Immediately after taking office again, he fired National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox, explaining that Wilcox had “unduly disfavored” employers. Then, he issued executive orders to strip collective bargaining rights from more than a million federal workers. Meanwhile, at places like Starbucks, baristas have been organizing for years against a company notorious for labor law violations who continue to stonewall them.
But union busting isn’t just bad for workers–it’s bad for communities. Political scientists like Robert Putnam have warned that when people stop showing up to associations that bring people together–like bowling leagues, PTAs, and, of course, unions–civic power diminishes. Unions are good for democracy. And labor-friendly policies are investments that pay the whole neighborhood back.
I live in San Diego, which was not always a union town. In 2012, it became the largest city in the country to ban project labor agreements. Ten years later, voters tossed that ban out, and this week, as thousands of delegates from across North America gather here for our union's international convention, they witness a city whose relationship with labor has transformed. In ten short years, 569 has just about doubled its working hours from around 3.3 million hours a year to 6 million. Since 1997, the number of apprentices has tripled. That’s thanks to people power.
Indeed, San Diego now has a project labor agreement covering an estimated $63 billion in construction work with the building trades. That means steady, well-paid work with benefits for working-class San Diegans, as well as projects built right. Wages have an economic multiplier effect; disposable income generally changes hands a handful of times before leaving the local economy. Agreements like these mean the whole region wins, not just the workers on the job site.
One of my predecessors told me that when she was hired, she was given one instruction: go get more work for our members. That's our attitude, because work is how people pay their mortgages, raise their families, and build lives in the communities they call home. Meanwhile, Congress isn’t even working–Mike Johnson just sent everyone home for a recess that will stretch a month, on a year when the House has logged some of the fewest working days in recent memory.
While public trust in government is so incredibly low, I hear from a lot of people that they think voting doesn’t matter. It’s hard to blame anyone with that idea, as politicians repeatedly make promises and fail to live up to them. But if you're struggling to trust your government right now, try putting some of that trust in unions instead.
Labor unions put out voting guides, and I'm inclined to trust the judgment of an organization whose mission is to serve a membership of working people. Progress can be slow, but voting for ballot measures and people vetted by labor unions can help speed it along. Wherever you live, look up your local unions. Which candidates have they endorsed? Which ballot measures? This November, in Oceanside, California, for example, voters have an opportunity to revoke the city’s ban on project labor agreements. Similar fights may be happening in your town, too. Your vote can make an immediate difference.
I am proud to stand alongside my working brothers and sisters. This fight can only be won together. Join us.
In solidarity.
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.
Research shows Americans see political opponents as more extreme than reality. Learn how closing this 'perception gap' can restore civil discourse.
Perception gaps — misunderstandings about our fellow Americans across the political spectrum — are damaging the fabric of our country. Correcting these gaps is essential to preserving the kind of democracy that respects free speech, individual dignity, and civic responsibility.
At their core, perception gaps reflect a tendency to see those in the other party as more extreme and worse than they actually are. Too often, Americans assume their political opponents are more hostile, closed-minded, dishonest, or even supportive of political violence and rule-breaking than in reality. These caricatures drive fear and division.
The good news is that these gaps can be reduced.
Research shows that when people are presented with accurate information about each other — especially more than once — these corrections can stick. And when they do, the benefits are significant.
As Co-Founders at More Like US, we focus on motivating civil discourse, particularly on college campuses. Our approach is straightforward: when people stop viewing each other through a distorted, negative lens, they become more willing to engage. Right now, too many Americans avoid political conversations not because of apathy, but because they expect hostility. Reduce that anxiety, and you open the door to real dialogue.
This has broader implications across many areas important to a healthy democracy:
Civic engagement, social cohesion, and trust:
Strong communities depend on trust and relationships. When Americans see each other more accurately, and not through partisan stereotypes, they are more likely to engage, cooperate, and build the kind of social capital that keeps a nation strong.
Civics education and media literacy:
Good education should teach not just facts, but most importantly how to think critically. That includes recognizing confirmation bias. If students already have distorted views of others, they are more likely to accept mis- and disinformation that reinforces those views. Correcting perception gaps helps build a more discerning, informed citizenry.
Media and cultural narratives:
The stories we tell matter. Media can deepen division or help reduce it. American history shows both kinds of examples – from demeaning portrayals that fueled division, to powerful examples of leadership and character that inspired unity and respect. We should encourage portrayals that reflect the dignity and complexity of all Americans.
Fixing broken incentives in politics and media:
Today’s news, social media, and political systems too often reward outrage and division. That creates incentives to exaggerate differences and demonize opponents. When Americans recognize that most people are not as extreme as portrayed, there is greater appetite for reforms, whether that involves improving election systems, changing media incentives, or demanding more accountability from leaders.
Reducing political violence and preserving order:
Fear is a powerful driver of extreme behavior. When people believe their safety or way of life is under threat, they may justify actions they otherwise would not condone. By correcting exaggerated perceptions of threat, we can lower the temperature and reinforce a commitment to peaceful, lawful engagement.
The bottom line is simple: a free society depends on citizens who see each other accurately.
Closing perception gaps will not solve every problem, but it is a practical, evidence-based step toward a more stable, unified, and resilient America.
No matter which issues you care about most, there is a good chance this approach can help move them forward.
James Coan is a co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Coan can be contacted at James@morelikeus.org
Ann Schockett is a co-founder and co-chair of More Like US.
Dane Erickson is a co-founder and co-chair of More Like US.
