Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Blue Oregon pledges its electoral votes to the national winner, if red states do also

Oregon is about to become the 15th state to pledge its electoral votes to the winner of the presidential popular vote.

Democratic Gov. Kate Brown says she will soon sign legislation committing Oregon to the National Popular Vote Compact. States that do so have made legally binding provisions to instruct their electors to vote for the national popular vote victor no matter the result in their states – but only once enough states to make up an Electoral College majority do likewise.

The state House approved the bill, 37-22, on Tuesday. The Senate had passed it, 17-12, two months ago.

With Oregon's seven, the compact now includes states (plus Washington, D.C.) that total 196 electoral votes. All of them, however, are currently considered part of the bedrock "blue wall" for the Democrats in presidential politics. Oregon, for example, last voted Republican in the Reagan re-election landslide of 1984.


"This is about giving all voters in the United States, regardless of where they live, the ability to be heard in the most important of our elections," said one of the bill's chief sponsors, Democratic state Rep. Tiffiny Mitchell. "Today, we make Oregon a battleground state."

The countervailing views are: the Electoral College is what the founders had in mind; the system does a great job of getting candidates to spend time in all parts of the country; the smaller states do not want to lose their relatively big power over the outcome; and neither do Republicans who currently have a quite stronger electoral vote base.

With most state legislatures winding up their annual sessions, the actions in Salem look to bring progress for the popular vote movement to a pause for the rest of the year. Last week Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak of Nevada vetoed a measure committing his state's six electoral votes to the cause.

The effort has gained momentum, especially in Democratic states, since Donald Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million but won 84 more electoral votes than Hillary Clinton. It was the fifth time in history the winner of the presidency did not win the popular vote.


Read More

How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System
a doctor showing a patient something on the tablet
Photo by Nappy on Unsplash

How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System

During my junior year of high school, I was prescribed my first benzodiazepine, called lorazepam, at 16 years of age. At the time, my parents and I did not understand the potential consequences of long-term use of benzos. Like so many other patients out there, we trusted that the healthcare system would not only provide treatment and correct guidance to move forward with my prescriptions, but I never realized they would be the force that would ruin my future and so many dreams I had for my young adulthood.

What followed was a years-long struggle with severe medication dependence and withdrawal that fundamentally changed my life for the worse.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitution of the United State with the U.S. flag in the background.

The Framers designed a republic with the intention to manage factionalism through deliberate compromise and institutional guardrails, whereas 21st-century polarization often treats compromise as a moral failing.

Douglas Sacha, Getty Images

Our Framers on 21st Century Primaries and Polarization

The Framers would view 21st-century closed primaries and political polarization as the exact manifestation of "factionalism" they spent the 1787 Constitutional Convention trying to prevent. They would argue these systems force candidates to appeal to ideological extremes rather than the broad, moderate consensus required for stable governance.

The Danger of Factionalism: In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a "faction" as a group of citizens united by a passion or interest adverse to the rights of others. He argued that while factions are inevitable, their effects must be controlled. The Framers would recognize 21st-century hyper-polarization as the dominance of unyielding factions that prioritize absolute ideological purity over democratic compromise.

Keep ReadingShow less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less