Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Iowa abandons nonpartisan judicial selections, imperiling its 'good government' reputation

Iowa was the first state to take partisan politics out of redistricting. Now it's the latest state to restore partisan politics to the judicial selection process.

The Republican-run legislature pushed through a bill this month giving the governor a dominant hand in picking judges and justices to the state's top courts, undoing the essentially nonpartisan system that's been in place for six decades.

That old law's adoption in the 1960s, and the decision starting back in 1980 to fight partisan gerrymandering by turning over the drawing of electoral boundaries to anonymous bureaucrats, earned Iowa plaudits as one of the most democracy-reform-minded states.


That reputation is now challenged by the new judicial selection law, which a group of Democrats in the state House sued to block on Wednesday.

The law permits GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds and her successors to make nine partisan appointments to the 17-member commission that drives the selection of judges for the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. It also limits the term of the state's chief justice to two years. The lawsuit says the new statute violates the separation of powers required by changing the terms for the chief justice, who has been elected by the Supreme Court's members to serve for as long as eight years.

Until now, the panel had equal numbers chosen by the governor and the Iowa bar, plus one state Supreme Court justice.

"Iowa has been at the top of the class, a model for the other 49 states to look up to on our merit-based selection process," former Democratic legislator Bob Rush told the Sioux City Journal. "This shady deal," he said, "was "a backroom deal to put politics back into the selection of judges."


Read More

A close up of a person's hands typing on a laptop.

As AI reshapes the labor market, workers must think like entrepreneurs. Explore skills gaps, apprenticeships, and policy reforms shaping the future of work.

Getty Images, Maria Korneeva

We’re All Entrepreneurs Now: Learning, Pivoting, and Thriving the Age of AI

What do a recent grad, a disenchanted employee, and a parent returning to the workforce all have in common? They’re each trying to determine which skills are in demand and how they can convince employers that they are competent in those fields. This is easier said than done.

Recent grads point to transcripts lined with As to persuade firms that they can add value. Firms, well aware of grade inflation, may scoff.

Keep ReadingShow less
How to Break the ‘Rage Bait’ Cycle and Restore Trust in U.S. Democracy
Young woman talking on phone at laptop desk.
Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash

How to Break the ‘Rage Bait’ Cycle and Restore Trust in U.S. Democracy

Recently, Oxford University Press chose its word of the year for 2025: “rage bait.” For those who don’t know, it’s defined as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive.” Rage bait is also the driving force behind one of the most powerful industries in the United States: social media. It has become a debasement of the American media establishment, though a key piece of federal law could help alleviate the issue.

First, the prevalence and scale of rage bait should be established. Though rage bait lacks a precise definition, by combining anecdotally available information about its popularity with social media algorithms that reward such popularity, it can be inferred that there is quite a lot of rage bait out there. Numerous studies, including research from Yale and the University of Chicago, among others, have found that posts that provoke anger and outrage are more likely to be interacted with (i.e., liked, commented on, replied to, etc.) and to remain visible for longer periods, leading social media algorithms to increasingly recommend this content. This creates an environment for the creator that equates rage bait with success; for them, the more outrageous the content, the more likes, shares, and follows it gets, which encourages even more outrageous content. In addition, creators themselves can profit from rage bait if they gain enough of a following. This is how politics is becoming increasingly polarized, especially in teenagers' minds, whose brains are malleable and are exposed to the most rage bait. Social media companies also reap the benefits of uncontrolled online rage; it keeps people on the platforms longer and more often, creating more opportunities for advertisement, which naturally means more cash flowing into the coffers. Once the mainstream media discovered that rage bait created larger profits, they seized the opportunity. Researchers in New Zealand have found that the number of headlines that induce anger, disgust, fear, and sadness has increased in recent years, while joyful or neutral headlines have been steadily decreasing. Teenagers especially have borne the brunt of the negative impacts of social media, with rates of depression and anxiety skyrocketing, according to a study in the Journal of Adolescent Health. The result of all of this is both simple and depressing: Americans generally feel worse about themselves, those around them, and their government.

Keep ReadingShow less
Avoiding Top 2 Primary Lockouts, Promoting Our Vote, Timely Links
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

Avoiding Top 2 Primary Lockouts, Promoting Our Vote, Timely Links

Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 3, written this week by Rob Richie with the support of Eveline Dowling and Nivea Krishnan. Every two weeks, we highlight promising pro-democracy ideas and local, national, and global news.

#1. Deep Dive - How California Democrats Could Avoid Top Two Primary Lockouts

The last 5 California governor polls show 2 Republicans ahead. Source: NY Times

Keep ReadingShow less
Trust in Elections Starts at the County Office
person holding white and blue round plastic container
Photo by Manny Becerra on Unsplash

Trust in Elections Starts at the County Office

Two people have been killed in Minneapolis during a confrontation tied to federal immigration enforcement. The state government is resisting the federal government. Citizens are in the streets. Friends of mine who grew up in countries that experienced civil conflict have started texting me, pointing out patterns they recognize.

I don't know how Minnesota will resolve. But I know what it represents: a growing number of Americans do not trust that our disputes can be settled through legitimate institutions. When that trust disappears, force fills the vacuum. This is the context in which we must think about the 2026 elections.

Keep ReadingShow less