NBA Coach Doc Rivers interviews Amber McReynolds, founding CEO for the National Vote at Home Institute, to discuss National Voter Education Week.
Video: NBA Coach Doc Rivers interviews Amber McReynolds
Doc Rivers and Amber McReynolds
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
High voltage towers with the US flag in the background
Getty Images
Lessons from Energy Politics for our Polarized America
Aug 16, 2026
Last month, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the FREEDOM (Fighting for Reliable Energy and Ending Doubt for Open Markets) Act. The bill aims to address challenges associated with what has become one of the most widely discussed policy topics in American politics: energy. Recognizing that permitting delays, as well as the weaponization of permitting against oil and gas under Biden and against clean energy under Trump, have kept gigawatts of power from coming online, the bill introduces significant reforms to the energy project approval process. By accelerating the addition of new generation capacity to the grid, these reforms would help meet growing demand and reduce costs for consumers. It arrives with something increasingly rare in this Congress, namely broad support from voters of both parties, a point I will return to.
The bill is primarily procedural rather than determinative. Concerned with the use of executive power to stall projects, it hands the agency reviewing an energy project a fixed window, generally 90 days for a routine authorization and one to two years for a complex one. If that window closes with no decision, the delay is treated as agency action unlawfully withheld, allowing the project sponsor to seek relief in federal court. The court may compel the agency to act, set binding deadlines for each remaining step, or hand the unfinished analysis to an independent contractor working under the court's own supervision. The second part of the bill ensures a project that has already cleared review cannot be unwound by a future administration, of either party, absent a substantiated and immediate harm for which no other remedy exists, a principle likely voters endorse by a 62% to 21% margin.
Now, you may ask: what do the mechanics of energy infrastructure policy have to do with the broader ailments of the American political sphere? Quite a lot, I think. One of the most consequential pieces of energy legislation before this Congress is not aimed at delivering a particular policy outcome in response to voter concerns or economic conditions. Rather it seeks to repair a burdensome, obstructive, and anti-democratic process. In that respect, it mirrors our constitutional order, which largely refrains from prescribing outcomes and instead establishes the framework through which they are determined. The broader lesson of the FREEDOM Act is that healthy institutions do not predetermine outcomes. They establish clear rules and allow competing interests to succeed or fail on their merits. The same principle should guide reforms to our democratic institutions.
Let's start with how we choose the people who represent us. In many states, state legislatures determine congressional maps, with relatively free rein to allocate seats. As we have seen in the 2026 gerrymandering battles, this has been pushed to the extreme, with FairVote projecting that 81% of the 435 House seats up in 2026 are already safe for one party. The general election in those districts is often a formality, empowering the dominant party's primary to determine the election, meaning just 14% of eligible American voters cast a meaningful vote determining their House representation. In essence, we have created a situation in which partisan control of offices during redistricting cycles almost wholly determines representation, and where, in many of those districts, those in the partisan minority have almost no voting power. Luckily, Congress can address both of these issues through its legislative powers. It can require that congressional maps be drawn by independent commissions whose members are screened to exclude officeholders, party officials, and lobbyists, a design feature the Brennan Center found to be the single strongest predictor of whether a commission actually works, and who are bound to criteria fixed in advance. It can require top-two nonpartisan jungle primaries, open to every voter and every candidate, which increase independent voter engagement and meaningful voter share. These reforms negate the ability of whoever happens to hold power in a given decade to decide an election before it is held. In doing so, they address the same underlying institutional failure the FREEDOM Act seeks to address in permitting: the concentration of gatekeeping power in the hands of political actors. The goal in both cases is to create an environment of fair competition, whether for investment and innovation or for voter support.
Congress's own rules require similar examination and reform. Currently, the respective majority party leadership, through the House Rules Committee and through the majority leader's scheduling power, holds largely unreviewable control over which bills reach the floor. This often creates situations in which legislation, commanding a clear majority of the whole chamber, can die because it lacks a majority within the majority party alone. The supposed remedy, the discharge petition, has gathered its required 218 signatures fewer than 10% of the times it has been attempted since the 1930s, in part because signing one is a public act of defiance against leaders who possess considerable influence over committee assignments, fundraising, and other institutional opportunities. The public has drawn the obvious conclusion: 70% say Congress is not effectively addressing the country's biggest problems. This again mirrors a failure the FREEDOM Act was written to correct: political actors holding indefinite discretion with no deadline forcing a decision either way. Congress functions with discretion, just as agencies governing energy permits do, and that discretion need not be unlimited, since it can just as easily be bound by transparent rules, deadlines, and accountability. Any bill reported out of committee, or carrying a supermajority of cosponsors, should receive an automatic up-or-down floor vote within a fixed window, a rule the House has already half-written in its dormant Consensus Calendar yet simply declines to enforce. Steering committees, stripped of the extra votes party leaders currently hold over them, should control committee assignments, so that leadership cannot quietly punish the members who force those votes. These reforms, again, do not dictate outcomes. They instead replace the nearly indefinite, oft-abused discretion of partisan politicians with a deadline and a default, just as the FREEDOM Act does in requiring agency timeliness and compliance, and leave the question of what actually becomes law to a democratic vote of the full chamber.
The final, maybe most important lesson we can learn from energy politics is consensus building and resisting partisan polarization, especially at a time when bipartisanship among bills proposed in the Senate has decreased, and agreement across partisan lines has started to falter on certain policy issues. Permitting reform is one area where that agreement has held, with 66% of likely 2026 voters saying Congress should modernize permitting rules to speed up energy projects, with support across party lines. The same cross-partisan agreement already exists for the democratic reforms above, with 82% preferring congressional maps drawn by nonpartisan commissions rather than by the party in power, and 67% of voters saying they would rather their representative work collaboratively to pass legislation than hold the line alone. The abuse of traditional norms on many fronts makes it clear that we need structural reform, and rather than fighting over who controls the procedure of government, we should focus on designing procedures that neither side can exploit. We have seen the start of that translate into action on the FREEDOM Act, backed by a bipartisan group in the Senate and the Build America Caucus in the House, and hopefully we'll soon see the same reflected in the passage of similar legislation. Inspired by the lessons from our energy politics, Congress and other elected officials should act on the similarly broad support for reforms to our democratic institutions, from our electoral systems to how our legislature functions.
Imre Huss is a Democracy Architects Council Fellow and emerged as a standout member of the inaugural class of Carnegie Young Leaders, a national initiative by the Institute for Citizens & Scholars that elevates youth-led civic innovation across the United States.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC
Aug 16, 2026
After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?
How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.
AIPAC's one-dimensional perspective is clearer now than ever. They will fight for the unequivocal U.S. support of Israel at any cost, even if it means having the Republicans and Trump remain in power and destroy our nation.
They are like the Evangelicals to whom there was nothing more important than the creation of a conservative judiciary that would reverse Roe v Wade and other liberal policies, such as LGBT rights, even at the cost of supporting perhaps the most Godless, misogynistic President that the United States has ever had and his MAGA allies. In both cases, they have made a bargain with the devil that will ultimately cost them their souls.
Let me state very clearly at the outset that I, as an American Jew who is the child of holocaust survivors, am a firm supporter of the State of Israel. As illustrated in numerous posts, I have, however, been critical of various actions of past and current Israeli governments towards Palestinians—both Palestinian citizens of Israel and those living in Gaza and the West Bank. See my posts, "The Palestinian/Israel Conflict - A Reality Check," and "A Democrat’s Plan for Ending the War in Gaza and Establishing Peace between Israel and the Palestinians."
And so, I have no problem with there being an organization such as AIPAC that has as its principal mission American support of Israel. But their version of supporting Israel is the "my country, right or wrong" version. It makes no difference what the government in power does; it doesn't matter how egregious the policies and actions of Netanyahu are; they support Israel regardless.
That position is not, in my view, supporting Israel's best interests. Israel has not just become a pariah among many formerly supportive governments around the world; it has suffered existential damage and is further from achieving security for its people than perhaps ever.
When looking at AIPAC's actions, I believe they support Netanyahu because they are as right-wing as he is. They have voiced no criticism of the settlers or other right-wing Israelis that have nothing but contempt for Palestinians. Officially, they support a two-state solution, but their support of Netanyahu's government and settler actions against Palestinians makes that official position a farce, a proverbial "fig leaf."
They are not an organization that asks, how do we support Israel while always acting in the best interests of the United States. They could do so much good with their money and influence. They could work for a better, more democratic Israel, but instead they are supporters of the Netanyahu government. They could work for an Israel that is at peace with its neighbors and is the core of an economic engine that transforms the Middle East. Instead, they work for an Israel that maintains itself through force and fear, never allowing its people to experience the security that comes from living in peace.
Israel deserves the United States' support. But that support should not be unconditional. It is not the role of the U.S. to judge Israeli governments, but when a government takes action that is contrary to international law and is questionable from a human rights standpoint, it should withhold support.
U.S. law provides for withholding arms sales in various situations. First, defense articles may be sold only for specific purposes, including "internal security and legitimate self-defense." Second, no security assistance may be provided to any country whose government engages in a "consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." Without question, the use of arms against Gaza has gone far beyond "legitimate self-defense" and is evidence of a "consistent pattern" of gross violations of human rights.
AIPAC's support of Israel, regardless of what it is doing, encourages a violation of U.S. law by members of Congress and is unscrupulous.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less
silhouette of person using microscope
Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
Aug 16, 2026
Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.
In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.
These leaders described many new risks to the scientific enterprise, including:
· Government threats to science across the board. The Union of Concerned Scientists maintains a tracker that has identified about 600 “attacks on science” so far under this administration – more than double the number in President Trump’s entire first term.
· Uncertainty and unpredictability. The administration has pulled back grants that were already obligated, ignored Congressional mandates, and canceled ongoing research programs in the middle of their work, resulting in what Aaron Carroll calls “chaotic” outcomes.
· Greater difficulty accessing data. Chris Marcum, who monitors risks to federal data with his colleagues at dataindex.us, describes “a strong effort to increase the friction for the public to access federal information, whether it's through removing websites or taking down data sets or removing data tools.”
· Damage to health, climate, and environmental research. In health, the Trump administration has gone after the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, among other agencies and programs. On climate and the environment, it has targeted NOAA, the USDA, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
· Undermining trust in science. In May 2025, President Trump issued an executive order on “Restoring Gold Standard Science” premised on the view that “trust in science is going down, and that researchers have earned this mistrust,” says Maryam Zaringhalam. The Center for Open Science responded to the executive order with its own statement.
· Plans to place grant funding under political control. Since the beginning, this administration has eroded long-established systems for independent review of research, for example by disbanding committees that advise federal agencies. Now a proposed regulation from the Office of Management and Budget would require political appointees to review federal grants and empower agencies to cancel or terminate grants based on new priorities. If enacted, the regulation would effectively “end American science has we currently know it,” says Cole Donovan,
These threats have triggered large-scale protests. The proposed OMB regulation generated a remarkable 50 thousand public comments, with an overwhelming majority opposing it. While the ultimate fate of the regulation is unknown, the protest had an immediate impact: The Senate’s stopgap funding bill, passed almost unanimously in early August, includes a provision to stop OMB from implementing its proposed regulation at least until December.
Whatever else happens, the administration’s actions have led thousands of scientists out of the comfort zone of their labs and institutions. Stand Up for Science, founded right after President Trump’s inauguration, has organized marches and political campaigns to support American science in new ways. At the same time, the Union of Concerned Scientists, founded to protest military research during the Viet Nam War, has seen its network grow by more than 50 percent during this administration – and has successfully sued the government over a Department of Energy report that disputed climate science.
The future of American science may be uncertain, but public support for science has never been stronger. New organizations, new coalitions, and a new spirit of activism can protect and even invigorate the national scientific enterprise that we have taken for granted for too long.
You can find the full video of the webinar “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?”
Joel Gurin is the president and founder of the Center for Open Data.Keep ReadingShow less
The exterior of Capitol Hill
Getty Images
Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?
Aug 16, 2026
The 2026 congressional map is finally set after ten states adopted new congressional redistricting maps for the November 3 General Election. Observers note that the Princeton Gerrymandering Project (PGP) has not graded any state’s maps since it gave California’s Proposition 50 an “F” on October 30, 2025.
The PGP has officially paused grading its Redistricting Report Card because founder Dr. Sam Wang, who transitioned from the Gerrymandering Project to the Electoral Innovation Lab, has launched a campaign for Congress in New Jersey’s 12th District, requiring him to step back from his academic roles, including his leadership at PGP.
With the nonpartisan anti-corruption organization RepresentUs, the PGP created the Redistricting Report Card. The project grades maps on a scale from A to F using three criteria: partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features (compactness and preservation of community cohesion).
This focuses solely on partisan fairness, which assesses whether the map gives one political party an unfair advantage over the other. To provide clarity, I am sharing my own analysis and grades for each state rather than official PGP evaluations. This should clarify my perspective and reasoning, and I urge you to consult nonpartisan sources and, where available, official PGP materials.
(On March 20, 2022, The Fulcrum published my grade for my birth state, West Virginia, because the PGP listed it among five states without draft maps. Later, the PGP graded the Mountaineer State an “A.”)
For the 2022 election, 22 states received “A” for their enacted congressional maps, five received “B,” four received “C,” three received “D,” and eight received “F.” Two states had insufficient data (Hawaii and Rhode Island). Six had an at-large representative (Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming).
The following ten states redrew their congressional maps through legislative action and court orders:
TEXAS: Up to 3-5 Republican seats
In Texas, the 2022 PGP grade was “F,” reflecting a 24-to-13 Republican advantage. The governor signed the 2026 congressional map on August 29, 2025, which could create up to five new Republican-leaning seats. The grade is likely to remain at “F.”
CALIFORNIA: Up to 4-5 Democratic seats
In California, the 2022 PGP grade was “B,” reflecting a 40-to-12 Democratic advantage. The California Legislature passed legislation and a constitutional amendment on August 21, 2025, to redraw the state's congressional districts. Voters subsequently approved the map as Proposition 50 in a special election on November 4, 2025. This change could affect the competitiveness of at least five Republican-held seats. Independent Voter News noted that the Princeton Gerrymandering Project rates California’s Proposition 50 an “F,” lowering the grade.
[Note: The new 40th Congressional District, one of five seats Democrats hope to flip, will not be flipped because two Republicans advanced to the General Election after the top-two primary on June 2.]
MISSOURI: Up to 1 new Republican seat
On September 28, 2025, Missouri became the third state to attempt to redraw its districts for partisan advantage after the state governor signed a revised House map into law. That map could help Republicans win an additional seat by reshaping a Democratic-held district in Kansas City. On July 23, 2026, a federal district court denied a motion to block Missouri’s redrawn congressional map and ordered that the districts be used in the August 4, 2026, primary elections. Missouri’s 2202 PGP grade of “A” should be changed to “C.”
NORTH CAROLINA: Up to 1 new Republican seat
The Republican-led General Assembly gave final approval on October 22, 2025, to revised districts that could help Republicans win an additional seat, with a focus on the 1st District. (The Governor cannot veto redistricting plans under the state Constitution.) North Carolina’s 2022 PGP grade of “B” was downgraded to “F” for the 2026 map.
OHIO: Up to 1-2 new Republican seats
On October 31, 2025, the Ohio Redistricting Commission unanimously approved a 2026 congressional map for the state’s 15 U.S. House districts. The map, which remains in effect until 2031, increases the Republican advantage in the state from 10-5 (since the 2022 election) to a projected 12-3 margin. The new grade could drop from a 2022 PGP grade of “D” to “F.”
UTAH: Up to 1 new Democratic seat
On November 10, 2025, a Utah state judge rejected a Republican-drawn congressional map and approved an alternative that included a solidly Democratic district in the Salt Lake City area. The decision may affect all four congressional districts currently held by Republicans and could shift one seat to Democrats. The grade is predicted to rise from the 2022 PGP “F” to a “C.”
FLORIDA: Up to 4 Republican seats
On May 4, 2026, the Florida Governor signed the controversial mid-decade congressional map into law to counteract redistricting actions in other states and to improve the GOP’s chances of winning four additional seats. The map reshapes 28 U.S. House seats to heavily favor Republicans, resulting in a 24-4 partisan split. The new map will not change Florida’s 2022 PGP grade, which was an “F.”
LOUISIANA: Up to 1 Republican seat
On May 29, 2026, the Louisiana Governor signed a new congressional map intended to shift one of the state’s two Democratic districts toward the Republican Party, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. This action reduced the 2022 PGP grade from “A” to “C.”
ALABAMA: Up to 1 Republican seat
On June 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Alabama could use its 2023 congressional map for the 2026 General Election. The map, whose 2022 PGP grade was downgraded from “A” to “F,” is expected to increase Republican representation by one seat. The current delegation is seven Republicans and two Democrats. The map’s grade is expected to remain “F.”
TENNESSEE: Up to 1 Republican seat
On July 23, 2026, a federal three-judge panel ordered Tennessee to adopt a new congressional map that splits a majority-Black district in Memphis. As a result, the state is likely to elect an all-Republican delegation to Congress this fall. Like Louisiana, Tennessee’s 2022 PGP grade of “A” has dropped to “C”.
For the 2022 PGP grade your state received, refer to the list below. Check your state’s grade, then compare it with the 2026 projections to see how the map may change. States receiving an “A” include Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and Washington. States with a “B” grade are Iowa, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Oklahoma received a “C.” New Mexico and Oregon received a “D.” Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, South Carolina, and Wisconsin received an “F.”
For 2026, ‘A’ states are projected to decline from 22 to 21, including Hawaii and Rhode Island; ‘B’ from 5 to 3; ‘C’ from 4 to 7; and ‘D’ from 3 to 2. The number of ‘F’ states is projected to increase from 8 to 11. Review these shifts to identify where partisan fairness changes most.
Let’s punt a PGP football (not soccer) to the Electoral Innovation Lab for the rest of this census decade.
Howard Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide. He has been advocating against partisan gerrymandering for four decades.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More