The Institute for Local Government promotes good government at the local level with practical, impartial and easy-to-use resources for California communities. The Institute envisions a future in California in which: People value their local public institutions. Local agencies effectively deliver public services. All segments of the community are appropriately engaged in key public decisions. Decision-makers make informed policy choices based on their best sense of the public's interest.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Chris Collins/Getty Images
Congress Bill Spotlight: Impeaching Judges Who Rule Against Trump
Apr 11, 2025
The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.
Federal judges have ruled against Trump on issues including immigrant deportations, transgender healthcare information, and Elon Musk’s DOGE. Should they be impeached?
Context: The News
In March, President Donald Trump ordered the deportation of alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Trump did so by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 for only the fourth time in American history—and the first time outside of an official war.
But after a federal judge ordered a temporary restraining order of the deportation flights, Trump called for an unusual remedy. “This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge [is] a troublemaker and agitator,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”
Not long after Trump’s post, a Republican House member introduced an impeachment resolution for the judge.
That’s not the only one. By The Fulcrum’s count, less than 100 days into the presidency, House Republicans have already introduced resolutions to impeach six different judges who ruled against Trump administration policies.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This marks a fundamentally new approach. For comparison, during the last time when Trump was president and Republicans controlled the House, in 2017-18, House Republicans introduced zero judicial impeachment resolutions—even though plenty of judges ruled against Trump during those years too.
Which Judges?
The Fulcrum has counted six judicial impeachment resolutions introduced in 2025 so far. Here’s a short summary for each judge.
Judge:James Boasberg, D.C. District Court
- Nominated by: Both parties. Originally nominated for his first judicial position by Republican George W. Bush, Boasberg was nominated to his current position by Democrat Barack Obama.
- Judge’s decision: Halting deportation flights for alleged Venezuelan gang members. (Although the administration has since acknowledged wrongly deporting at least one person.)
- House Republicans filing impeachment: Reps. Brandon Gill (R-TX26) and Andy Biggs (R-AZ5)
- Cosponsors:22 Republicans for the Gill proposal, six Republicans for the Biggs proposal.
- What they say: “We will not stand by as radical activist Judge James Boasberg tramples on the Constitution out of political spite for the president,” Rep. Gill said in a press release. “The American people gave us a mandate to get criminal illegal aliens out of our country, and that’s exactly what we intend to do.”
- Current status of legal case: An appeals court affirmed Boasberg’s decision by 2-1. The two majority judges were Karen Henderson, nominated by Republican George H.W. Bush, and Patricia Millett, appointed by Democrat Barack Obama. The dissenter was Justin Walker, who was appointed by Trump himself. The government is now appealing to the Supreme Court.
Judge:John Bates, D.C. District Court
- Nominated by: George W. Bush, Republican
- Judge’s decision:Ordering restoration of thousands of shuttered government health webpages, which had removed content on everything from vaccinations to transgender healthcare.
- House Republican filing impeachment:Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN5)
- Cosponsors:One Republican
- What they say: “Requiring taxpayer funds to disseminate information endorsing the castration of children is repugnant,” Rep. Ogles said in a press release. “The continued socialization of this grave moral evil necessitates immediate congressional action against those promoting it… It is unacceptable for rogue judges to implicate taxpayers in woke LGBTQ propaganda and the irreversible destruction of children’s bodies.”
- Current status: The government has appealed the decision.
Judge:Paul Engelmayer, New York District Court
- Nominated by: Barack Obama, Democrat
- Judge’s decision:Blocking Elon Musk and DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) from accessing Treasury Department payment systems.
- House Republicans filing impeachment: Reps. Eli Crane (R-AZ2) and Derrick Van Orden (R-WI3)
- Cosponsors:12 Republicans for the Crane proposal, one Republican for the Van Orden proposal.
- What they say: “White House employees have every right to access the very systems they oversee,” Rep. Crane said in a press release. “President Trump campaigned on rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse from the federal government, and the American people gave him a mandate to do so. This is obviously judicial overreach and a clear threat to democracy.”
- Current status of legal case: Another district court judge extended Engelmayer’s block. The government is appealing the decision.
Judge:Amir Ali, D.C. District Court
- Nominated by: Joe Biden, Democrat
- Judge’s decision:Requiring USAID and the Department of State to pay foreign aid organizations for $2 billion worth of work they’d already performed under the Biden administration or earliest days of Trump, but which the Trump administration has opposed.
- House Republican filing impeachment: Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN5)
- Cosponsors:Two Republicans
- What they say: “Amir Ali is a woke political activist whose career has been built on attacking police, American culture, and accusing President Trump,” Rep. Ogles posted on X, formerly Twitter. “Impeaching him is a no-brainer.”
- Current status of legal case: The Supreme Court upheld Ali’s decision by 5-4. Conservatives Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts sided with the court’s three usual liberals.
Judge:John James McConnell, Rhode Island District Court
- Nominated by: Barack Obama, Democrat
- Judge’s decision:Blocking an OMB (Office of Management and Budget) memo that would freeze most federal grants.
- House Republican filing impeachment:Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA9)
- Cosponsors:Nine Republicans
- What they say: “Judge McConnell… is attempting to unilaterally obstruct the president’s agenda and defy the will of the American people,” Rep. Clyde told Fox News Digital. “Judge McConnell’s actions are corrupt, dangerous, and worthy of impeachment."
- Current status of legal case: An appeals court upheld the decision by 3-0. All three judges were nominated by Democrats: David Barron by Obama, plus Lara Montecalvo and Julie Rikelman by Biden.
Judge:Theodore Chuang, Maryland District Court
- Nominated by: Barack Obama, Democrat
- Judge’s decision:Reinstating fired USAID employees and ruling USAID’s attempted shutdown as likely unconstitutional.
- House Republican filing impeachment:Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN5)
- Cosponsors:One Republican
- What they say: “Chuang’s latest stunt…is absurd. His deep Democrat ties, aligned with their woke pro-bureaucrat agenda, scream conflict of interest. He’s abusing his robe to thwart the people’s will,” Rep. Ogles posted on X, formerly Twitter. “Congress must act.”
- Current status of legal case: An appeals court upheld Chuang’s decision, essentially overturning it. Almost immediately after, the Department of State promptly officially shuttered USAID.
Context: Impeaching Judges
The House can impeach federal judges, prompting a Senate trial, which can convict and remove them from office, but it’s extremely rare. Throughout U.S. history, the House has impeached only 15 judges or justices, averaging not even once per decade.
Of those 15 House impeachments, eight were found guilty by the Senate and removed from office, four were found not guilty, and three resigned before their verdict came down. Virtually all of those impeachments occurred when a judge was accused of serious crimes.
For example, the House’s last judicial impeachment was a full 15 years ago: Thomas Porteous, a Louisiana lower court judge, was impeached for bribery and perjury in 2010. The Senate convicted him unanimously, removing him from office.
Even mere proposals to impeach judges or justices have been rare. For comparison, the entire 2023-24 Congress had only one judicial impeachment House resolution, from either party.
Rep. Alexandria Cortez (D-NY14) tried to impeach Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for bribery after ProPublica reported that Thomas had failed to report expensive gifts from people with cases before the Supreme Court. The proposal never received a vote in the Republican-controlled chamber.
What Opponents Say
Obviously, Democrats oppose current Republican impeachment attempts. However, even many Republicans remain skeptical, including both the top House and Senate leaders.
“Impeachment is an extraordinary measure. We’re looking at all the alternatives that we have to address this problem,” Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA4) told reporters.
When it comes to controversial judicial rulings, “there’s an appeals process. And, you know, I suspect that’s ultimately how this will get handled,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) echoed.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts also rebuked Trump for his calls to impeach judges. “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Odds of Passage
The House can impeach with a simple majority, but the Senate requires a two-thirds majority to convict and remove someone from office. While Republicans hold majorities in both chambers, they’re far short of two-thirds in the Senate.
Republican leaders, though no fans of these particular judicial decisions, are considering other remedies instead, which may be more likely to get enacted into law. One of their favored options is the No Rogue Rulings Act, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA48), which would limit the ability of lower-court judges to issue such “nationwide” rulings in the first place.
Editorial cartoonist Chip Bok satirized this issue in a recent cartoon, depicting a judge dressed in a robe and seated at a bench, saying, “I’m a district judge…” only for the view to zoom out to the entire United States as the judge adds: “...and this is my district.”
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term
Congress Bill Spotlight: adding Donald Trump’s face to Mount Rushmore
Congress Bill Spotlight: BAD DOGE Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Repealing Trump’s National Energy Emergency
Congress Bill Spotlight: Smithsonian Italian American Museum
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Estevan Muñoz-Howard.
The Fahey Q&A: Estevan Muñoz-Howard on Seattle's Democracy Voucher Program
Apr 11, 2025
Since organizing theVoters Not Politicians2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge ofdrawing Michigan's legislative maps, Katie Fahey has been the founding executive director of ThePeople, forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularlyinterviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.
Estevan Muñoz-Howard is Senior Director at Ktisis Capital, Treasurer for the Funders’ Committee for Civic Participation, and Executive Board member of Voices for Progress. He has over 15 years of experience leading programs and coalitions in the nonprofit sector, including the successful Honest Elections Seattle campaign of 2015—a historic initiative to implement the world’s first Democracy Voucher program. He is passionate about inclusive democracy, community organizing, and the diffusion of power.
Fahey: Tell us about your background; what led you to get involved with the Democracy Dollars Seattle Campaign?
Muñoz-Howard: Making change has always been an overarching theme for me. My political theory classes piqued my interest, particularly the role of money in politics. I saw the power of money and corporate interests in shaping economic policies and recognized that money was consistently at the root of efforts to block progress on issues I cared about. This perspective led me to think about what we can do as citizens to wield our power to change the system.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
On my return to Washington in 2007, I joined a group of like-minded people aiming to overturn the statewide ban on public financing for local jurisdictions. We began exploring the feasibility of creating a program in Seattle. In 2012, the City Council asked the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission to propose a public financing model, and our group acted quickly, creating a small donor matching system proposal that heavily informed the policy, ultimately recommended by the commission.
When the City Council referred the proposal to the 2013 ballot, late in the year, many funders had already committed their resources to other campaigns. Despite this, our team championed the campaign—door-knocking to raise limited funds in fervent hope of a victory. Ultimately, the measure failed but surprisingly garnered 49.63% of the vote—just 1,400 votes shy of victory in a city with over 500,000 voters.
The narrow loss allowed us to fail forward, with several funders calling us to explore future partnerships. We went on to raise an initial $300,000 to pursue public financing once again and decided to pursue a ballot initiative campaign, allowing us to be more aspirational in responding to voter interests instead of focusing on what was politically palatable. With this strategy shift, we explored innovative alternatives to the small donor matching system, leading us to raise $1.5 million and create a new campaign finance model called the Democracy Voucher Program.
Fahey: How does the Democracy Voucher Program work?
Muñoz-Howard: The program provides adult residents of Seattle with an opportunity to designate four $25 vouchers to qualified candidates of their choice. The vouchers can be split among different candidates for mayor, city council, and city attorney, provided those candidates adhere to spending and fundraising caps.
Fahey: How is the program funded?
Muñoz-Howard: It is funded by a 10-year property tax levy, the smallest in the city’s history. It raises $6 million per election cycle ($3 million/year), used to fund the program. The levy is up for renewal later this year.
Fahey: It has been 10 years since the Honest Elections Seattle citizen-led initiative was passed. How has this campaign finance reform impacted local elections?
Muñoz-Howard: The program has had a transformative impact on Seattle’s electoral landscape, with a five-fold increase in the number of small donors participating, particularly among historically underrepresented communities. It has diversified the candidate pool and donor base and reduced the influence of big money in elections. A new standard for transparency and accountability in local politics was set while promoting equitable participation across socioeconomic demographics. It will take time to realize the program’s full potential but we’re well on our way.
Fahey: How does this reform benefit small and large donors and candidates alike?
Muñoz-Howard: Small-dollar donors have a stronger voice, more power to influence campaigns, and more faith in local democracy. Large donors have a reduced burden as they no longer have to carry a candidate’s campaign, shifting their role from funder to ambassador.
Candidates can run based on their desire to help their communities instead of catering to the interests of wealthy donors. They are incentivized to engage with the people in their communities, as every resident is now a likely voter.
Fahey: The property tax levy funding the program expires at the end of 2025. Where are you in the process of renewing support, and which offices are impacted?
Muñoz-Howard: We are working with the city council to refer the levy renewal to the ballot this fall, and are optimistic it will be renewed. Our coalition recently participated in a press conference with the Office of the Mayor, officially launching the levy renewal effort. We encourage Seattle voters to contact their city council members about renewing the funding.
Fahey: What do you need the most help with, and how can people get involved?
Muñoz-Howard: Campaign funding is the biggest need. We encourage residents to contact the city council to let them know you support the program. Anyone interested in getting involved can go to: peoplepoweredelections.org.
Fahey: Do you have any words of advice for citizens wanting to do something about an issue with our political system?
Muñoz-Howard: People have real power to innovate locally, where money is less entrenched. Cities and states truly are laboratories of democracy, and so much is possible with just a few committed individuals. Find people who share your passion and explore what you can collectively accomplish!
Fahey: In what way does the program strengthen democratic ideals?
Muñoz-Howard: It does so by increasing public voice, inspiring civic engagement, restoring faith in the democratic process, and mitigating the influence of money in politics. It is an important step forward that helps amplify the voices of everyday people in our democracy.
I am excited about the potential for other local jurisdictions to replicate the program, using Seattle as a model. Oakland has already passed it, and several cities are actively working on campaigns.
Fahey: If you were speaking with a high school student or a new immigrant to the country, how would you describe what being an American means to you?
Muñoz-Howard: To be American is to be a work in progress. We have an imperfect system that from the beginning was not made for everyone, yet we have power to tip the scales toward justice. When we feel powerless, we cannot lose sight of the role we each play in making the world a better place.Keep ReadingShow less
More than 95% of all voters in the United States use paper ballots in elections.
Adobe Stock
CO lawmakers work to protect voter rights after Trump elections order
Apr 11, 2025
Some Colorado lawmakers are scrambling to protect voter rights after President Donald Trump issued an executive order to require proof of citizenship to register to vote. They say the requirement would disproportionately affect low-income voters and people of color.
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the language in the U.S. Constitution is very clear that the authority to run elections is delegated to individual states.
"Everyone - Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative - wants to keep ineligible voters off the list. And there's always some value in discussing how to do it better," he explained. "Unfortunately that's not what this executive order does. It's really a remarkable seizure of power from the states."
Trump has cast doubt on the integrity of American elections for years, despite evidence that fraud is extremely rare. The new order claims the nation has failed "to enforce basic and necessary election protections," and would allow the Department of Homeland Security and 'DOGE' to access state voter rolls. Colorado Senate Bill 1 - which would bar voter discrimination based on race, sexual orientation or gender identity - has cleared the state Senate and now moves to the House.
Becker noted that Congress does have constitutional authority to change election rules, and did so most notably after passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And in 2021, he says House Democrats passed a sweeping set of election reforms that ended up dying in the Senate.
"But at least that was done through congressional action. What we have here is an executive power grab - an attempt by the President of the United States to dictate to states how they run elections, how they should exercise the power that is granted to them by the Constitution," he continued.
Becker noted the new order suggests serious misunderstandings, intentional or not, about the nation's election system, which he says is secure. It's already illegal for non-U.S. citizens to vote, and voter lists are as accurate as they've ever been. More than 95% of all U.S. voters use paper ballots, which are available in all states, and ballots are audited to confirm results.
CO lawmakers work to protect voter rights after Trump elections order was originally published by the Public News Service and is shared with permission.
Eric Galatas is a producer at the Public News Service.
Keep ReadingShow less
A voter receiving information.
Getty Images, SeventyFour
Historic Bipartisan Reform Passed Into Law
Apr 10, 2025
On April 8, 2025, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed SB 16 into law, a historic bipartisan reform that gives more than 330,000 independent voters—who make up nearly 25% of New Mexico’s electorate—the right to vote in the state’s primary elections, starting in 2026. This continues an overall nationwide trend of states opening their primary elections to more voters.
“New Mexico’s open primaries law will ensure that every eligible voter has a say in every taxpayer-funded election, not just those who choose to affiliate with a party,” said Nick Troiano, Executive Director of Unite America. “For too long, a quarter of New Mexicans have been locked out of their state’s primary elections—which in most cases are the only elections that matter. Ending closed primaries is an important step toward increasing participation and representation in our democracy.”
SB 16 passed with bipartisan support in both chambers, and supporters noted that the law would improve participation in New Mexico’s elections.
“Democracy only works if we all play a part. When I took office, I wasn’t just elected to represent Republicans but all of my constituents. That includes my constituents in our state’s fastest growing party—independents,” said New Mexico State Sen. Crystal Brantley (R). “Senate Bill 16 gives everyone a voice and removes barriers for those who want to see the best candidate come forward from each party, not just the one that tacks hardest left or right to win the primary.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
“Opening primary elections by allowing voters registered as independent or unaffiliated to participate in taxpayer-funded elections improves voting fairness and, in turn, democracy,” added New Mexico State Sen. Majority Leader Peter Wirth (D). “I’m glad to have sponsored the bill bringing this change to New Mexico. And as evidenced by the votes on the Senate floor, it’s an update that both major parties can get behind.”
New Mexico Voters First and New Mexico Open Elections led the multi-year campaign to open the state’s primaries, spearheading a coalition that included NM Native Vote, Common Cause New Mexico, Conservation Voters New Mexico, University of New Mexico College Democrats, and the Veterans and Military Families Caucus.
“We have dedicated significant time and effort to building a strong coalition, engaging legislators, and mobilizing independent voters across New Mexico,” said New Mexico Voters First Executive Director Sila Avcil. “This progress would not have been possible without the unwavering support of our advocates. New Mexico deserves fair and representative elections, and I am honored to be part of this movement to pass SB 16.”
Because most general elections nationwide are uncompetitive for federal and state races, primary contests effectively determine winners before a single vote is cast. This is the Primary Problem in politics today, where a tiny share of the electorate determines most election outcomes in low-turnout party primaries.
In 2024, 83% of New Mexico’s state house races were effectively decided in closed primaries where independents couldn’t vote. Votes cast in those 83% of general elections were meaningless because they had no bearing on the outcome. In fact, only 14% of New Mexicans cast meaningful votes last year. (A meaningful vote is a vote cast in a competitive election that actually determines the outcomes. Full methodology here.)
New Mexico’s SB 16 continues a nationwide trend of states opening their primaries. Over the past decade, Colorado and Maine have opened their primaries to independents, while Alaska voters went a step further by adopting open, all-candidate primaries. The number of states with closed primaries, where independents can’t fully participate, is now down to 16.Keep ReadingShow less
Load More