The Princeton Gerrymandering Project does nonpartisan analysis to understand and eliminate partisan gerrymandering at a state-by-state level. The Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of our math but declined to act. Looking ahead, the strongest route to reform is at a state-by-state level—a federalist approach. Our interdisciplinary team aims to give activists and legislators the tools they need to detect offenses and craft bulletproof, bipartisan reform. Our analysis is published widely, and our work is used by legislators and reformers of all communities, without regard to partisan affiliation.
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
Somali women and girls prepare for a buraanbur performance at the Tukwila Community Center on Jan. 24, 2026.
Patty Tang
As Immigration Hearings Accelerate, Somali Asylum Seekers Fear Losing Due Process
Apr 14, 2026
Across the Seattle region, Somali families are living with a level of fear that few others in our city fully see. This fear is rooted in sudden immigration court changes and in a national climate that feels increasingly unstable for people seeking asylum.
In recent months, immigration attorneys in multiple states, including here in Washington, have reported that Somali asylum hearings were abruptly rescheduled to earlier dates, in some cases moved forward by months or even years. Families who believed they had time to prepare are now scrambling to gather documentation, secure legal representation, and revisit traumatic experiences under compressed timelines.
Nationally, the immigration court system is facing a historic backlog. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University (TRAC), there are more than 1.5 million pending immigration cases in the United States, including hundreds of thousands of asylum claims. TRAC data shows that the backlog has steadily increased over the past decade, placing enormous strain on due-process protections and access to timely adjudication.
While reducing backlog is important, accelerating individual cases without expanding access to legal representation risks creating a different kind of injustice. Research consistently shows that representation dramatically impacts asylum outcomes. A study by the American Immigration Council found that detained immigrants with legal representation were up to five times more likely to obtain relief than those without counsel. In asylum cases specifically, representation is one of the strongest predictors of success.
When hearings are moved up with limited notice, asylum seekers may not have adequate time to secure attorneys, gather affidavits, obtain country condition reports, or prepare testimony. Due process depends not only on having a hearing, but on having a meaningful opportunity to present evidence.
For Somali nationals, the anxiety is heightened by longstanding instability in Somalia. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly designated Somalia for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) due to armed conflict and extraordinary conditions. TPS has been extended multiple times over the years because of persistent insecurity and humanitarian concerns. Although TPS policy decisions are separate from asylum adjudications, Somali families closely watch federal shifts in protection policies and worry about broader enforcement consequences.
There are also circulating fears about deportation to third countries, including Uganda. While formal removal arrangements depend on federal policy and bilateral agreements, even the perception of possible third-country transfers creates profound distress for asylum seekers who lack permanent status elsewhere. For families who have fled violence, uncertainty about potential removal locations deepens trauma.
Immigration court data also shows disparities in outcomes depending on geography and adjudicator assignment. Research examining federal immigration court decisions has documented significant variation in asylum grant rates across judges and jurisdictions. These disparities underscore why procedural safeguards and adequate preparation time matter.
Seattle and King County are home to one of the largest Somali communities in the United States. Somali residents are entrepreneurs, health care workers, faith leaders, students, and parents volunteering in schools. Many fled civil war, political persecution, or extremist violence. They came here believing in the promise of protection under U.S. asylum law, which is grounded in the Immigration and Nationality Act and international refugee conventions.
Seattle often describes itself as a welcoming and equity-centered city. That commitment is tested in moments like this. Efficiency in immigration courts cannot come at the cost of fairness. Policymakers must ensure that docket management reforms do not undermine access to counsel or due process rights. Clear communication from federal agencies is also essential. When communities do not receive transparent information, fear fills the vacuum.
Somali asylum seekers are asking a basic question: Will we have a fair chance to tell our story?
Due process is not a technicality. It is the foundation of a just immigration system. If we believe in fairness and human dignity, then we must insist that procedural protections remain at the center of asylum adjudication.
The families affected are not abstractions. They are our neighbors. Their safety and stability are part of Seattle's future.
Ubax Gardheere is a King County–based advocate for racial equity and transformative justice. Born in exile and shaped by experiences of economic injustice and forced migration across East Africa, she has called King County home for more than 30 years.
As Immigration Hearings Accelerate, Somali Asylum Seekers Fear Losing Due Process was originally published by the South Seattle Emerald and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
a group of people sitting on top of a lush green field
Photo by Sebastian Enrique on Unsplash
America Cannot Function without Experts
Apr 13, 2026
America is facing a preventable national safety crisis because expertise is increasingly sidelined at the highest levels of government. In the first three months of 2026, at least 14 people have died in U.S. immigration detention centers — a surge that has drawn international criticism and underscored how life‑and‑death decisions depend on qualified leadership. When those entrusted with safeguarding the public lack the knowledge or are chosen for loyalty instead of competence, danger rarely announces itself. It arrives quietly, through misjudgments no one is prepared to correct.
That warning is urgent today. With Markwayne Mullin now leading the Department of Homeland Security amid rising scrutiny of immigration enforcement, questions about expertise are no longer abstract. Recent reporting shows a dozen detainee deaths in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody this year, highlighting systemic risks where leadership decisions have life‑and‑death consequences.
The framers of the Constitution understood this risk. They expected presidents to choose individuals of character, competence, and relevant expertise — and the Senate to reject inexperienced nominees. The Appointments Clause created a shared duty to prevent the concentration of power. When Congress confirms unqualified nominees, that safeguard collapses. The result is a government exposed to failures in the very systems designed to keep people safe — precisely the danger the framers sought to prevent.
No president governs alone. The claim that a single leader can “fix it” contradicts a system built on reliance on expert advice. Today, that premise is being tested.
Americans have watched nominees placed in roles without the qualifications those positions demand — and confirmed despite concern. Reporting shows that leaders lack the experience to direct critical agencies. Measles cases have reached their highest levels since 1991, a reminder of what happens when public health expertise is dismissed. These outcomes are not policy disagreements; they are failures of safety, produced when leadership disregards knowledge.
What emerges is not a series of isolated errors but a pattern. Cronyism — elevating loyalists over experts — erodes trust and replaces judgment with political obedience. When ideologically driven directives override expertise, systems designed to protect citizens falter. As Steve Jobs observed, “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do.” When loyalty outweighs competence, decisions degrade, and risk grows, affecting everything from disease control to disaster response.
Presidents are entitled to advisers they trust. But trust is no substitute for competence, especially where errors carry national consequences. Governing demands deep expertise across foreign policy, national security, science, education, and public health. Yet key advisory roles have too often been filled by individuals chosen for loyalty rather than experience, leaving critical gaps where judgment matters most.
Congress has enabled this pattern. It has confirmed nominees whose inexperience was evident. These were choices. Loyalty has been treated as a qualification, with nominees selected to advance agendas or disrupt institutional norms rather than provide competent leadership. Senators have feared retaliation, deferred to party loyalty, and invoked the claim that “a president deserves his team,” even when that team lacked the expertise required to protect the public. Nominations such as Mullin’s bring this failure into sharp focus — raising questions about whether loyalty is again being prioritized over relevant expertise. This is not abstract; when unqualified leaders direct policy, consequences fall on ordinary Americans.
Competence is not optional. It is the baseline of public safety — the foundation of national security, public trust, and democratic stability. No leader can master every field; that is why expertise is indispensable.
This is not theoretical. Early in my career, I was taught that incompetence is never harmless — it creates risk for everyone it touches. I am reminded of that lesson when nominees are advanced despite clear gaps in experience. Congress has confirmed individuals it knew were unprepared, then expressed frustration when they failed. Advancing nominees while recognizing deficiencies calls judgment itself into question and undermines the system designed to check power before harm occurs.
The consequences extend beyond appointments to governance. Many voters once believed that business experience would translate into effective leadership. The record proved more complicated — marked by bankruptcies, legal disputes, and unpaid vendors. These patterns raised questions about judgment. Yet rather than surrounding himself with seasoned experts to offset gaps, the president has often elevated advisers chosen for loyalty over skill. That choice concentrates power while weakening the expertise required to govern.
This approach is now being formalized. Proposals such as Schedule F and initiatives like Project 2025 would allow tens of thousands of career civil servants — scientists, cybersecurity specialists, public health experts — to be replaced with political loyalists. The consequences are clear: when experienced personnel are removed, safety inspections stall and emergency response slows. Scholars warn that such changes would degrade the government’s capacity to respond to crises. A government cannot function when expertise is treated as optional.
The warning signs are already visible. Reporting has documented instances in which national security experts were excluded from conversations with foreign leaders while political advisers with little training were present. These advisers acted as gatekeepers, limiting expert input. When loyalty displaces competence, vulnerabilities emerge — unseen by the public but unmistakable to foreign leaders and adversaries.
The same pattern appears in public communication. Americans have watched leaders make claims about climate science, military operations, and foreign affairs that contradict the assessments of career professionals and scientists. Experts have publicly pushed back against statements that misrepresent complex realities. These moments feel dismissive — as though both their judgment and the expertise of those who serve are being set aside. These are not debates over perspective; they are disagreements rooted in elevated risk when empirical understanding is replaced with political convenience.
At a human level, the risk is clear. Everyone has encountered someone who pretends to be an expert. In ordinary life, it is uncomfortable; in government, it is dangerous. Every sector of American life depends on trained professionals — surgeons, engineers, scientists — whose work prevents risks we rarely see. Government is no different. The stakes are higher.
When leaders dismiss expertise and rely on improvisation, the risks fall not on politicians but on ordinary Americans — our families and our future. A nation cannot navigate danger without expertise at the helm.
My experience reinforces this. I spent my career as a generalist — capable across many areas but aware of my limits. Effective leadership requires recognizing those limits and relying on those with deeper expertise. Healthy institutions depend on leaders who surround themselves with capable professionals. Today, Americans see the opposite: turnover, conflict with experts, and appointments that prioritize loyalty over knowledge. The result is a government that feels unsteady — less able to meet crises.
If the problem is structural, the remedy must be as well. It is not partisan; it is constitutional. Americans can demand transparency about qualifications, support independent oversight, and expect the press to scrutinize qualifications and the confirmation process. But when leaders refuse to listen, citizens must act — through voting, peaceful protest, petitions, and civic engagement that places country above party. Congress must fulfill its duty: confirm qualified nominees, reject those without relevant experience, and exercise oversight.
Competence is a constitutional requirement. It is the minimum the American people deserve.
Americans need experts. The country cannot function without trained professionals guiding national security, public health, science, and diplomacy. It cannot protect its people when expertise is dismissed, and it cannot endure if competence is treated as optional. To neglect expertise in the highest offices is to gamble with public safety. Republics do not fall from force alone, but from folly.
Competence is not a luxury. It is the minimum the American people deserve.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and advocate for ethical leadership, government accountability, and civic renewal. She writes about democratic resilience, institutional responsibility, and the conditions that support sustained civic engagement.
Keep ReadingShow less
People attend a pro-government rally on January 12, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. Tens of thousands of demonstrators gathered in Tehran's Enqelab Square on Monday, as Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament, made a speech denouncing western intervention in Iran, following ongoing anti-government protests.
Getty Images
Changing Iran: With Help from Political Geographers on the Ground
Apr 13, 2026
INTRODUCTION
This article suggests a different path out of the present excursionist war. This would be a diplomatic effort with ample incentives to MAGA-Israel and the Conservative Shia Theocratic Khamenei Regime (CSTKR) to stop the war. In exchange for the U.S. and Israel stopping the bombing in Iran, this effort would allow the CSTKR to survive and thrive. They could keep and promote their belief that the return of the Muhammad al-Mahdi, the 12th Imam, who disappeared in 874 CE, is key to bringing on the end times to establish peace and justice on earth. While most people would endorse the attainment of peace and justice on earth, they would strongly object to its connection to try to actualize it through violent struggle.
This effort would assist Iran to thrive via the removal of sanctions, substantial technical and economic assistance, help in developing its civilian nuclear program, and letting them keep and maintain a mine-cleared Strait of Hormuz and charge tolls, similar to what Egypt levies for the Suez Canal. Charging tolls provides a strong incentive to keep that waterway open, maintained, and safe. It becomes an additional opportunity cost to keep it closed. The CSTKR and its proxy militias, in turn, must stop their bombing and terror campaigns and, in addition, the CSTKR must let the Strait of Hormuz be quickly opened, give up materials that can be used to build nuclear weapons, and accept the political reconfiguration of Iran as outlined here.
POLITICAL CONFIGURATION OF IRAN
Iran's thirty-one provinces were grouped into five Administrative Regions (ARs) in 2014. These ARs were based on the adjacency, geographical location, and similarities of the provinces. The capitals of these five ARs are: Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, Kermanshah, and Mashhad.
It is suggested that Iran be reconfigured into three to five Confederated Administrative Regions based on political-religious ideologies. For example, three political-religious ideologies are suggested here as relevant: Conservative Theocratic Shia Islam, Liberal Democratic Islam, and Liberal Pluralistic Democratic Secularists. The top-level government could be called the United Regions of Iran (URI) and would be a non-coercive, weak central authority administered by representatives from the Regions.
It does not seek the defeat of the Conservative Theocratic Shia Islam, nor does it promote the desirability of that outcome. The URI is to be based on the principles of conflict resolution in a way that stops cycles of vengeance and promotes freedom of the practice of religion and the value of containment. The Shia Muslim forces underlying the present Islamic Republic of Iran can and should survive as an AR. The regime, nor its followers, should not be punished, and economic and environmental remedial help, like a Marshall Plan, should be provided to all the ARs.
Based on negotiations with the leaders of the ARs, each AR and the central URI will have to adhere to a form of demilitarization, and its AR constitution has to include a form of a UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNHR) in addition to adherence to a law similar to Singapore’s Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which defines the following as punishable offenses:
“Urging force or violence on the basis of religion, or against a religious group or its members; inciting feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility against a religious group; and insulting the religion or wounding the religious feelings of another person.”
The problem with present Iran is that one minority autocratic and militaristic faction exerts control over the political, religious, and cultural aspects of the entire country. In the process, its economic, environmental, and human rights dimensions, and inter-country stability are in substantial decline.
The URI proposal here gives the CSTKR an AR of its own to be based on, not just survival of it, but a substantial improvement in the quality of life as they define it, subject to a few human rights and demilitarization restrictions. Of course, the choice of which AR to live in has to be voluntary and not imposed by force. The population votes with their ballots but also with their feet.
FREEDOM TO CHOOSE
The people in Iran could freely choose to be a citizen in any AR. That home AR is where they would vote for its laws and representatives. For the CSTKR-AR, its citizens may just choose perpetual government by a Supreme Religious Shia leader, but whose governance would be restricted by demilitarization and human rights regulations. People in Iran would be free to live in any AR, and they would have to abide by the laws and rules in that AR, but they can only vote in the AR they chose to be a citizen in.
For example, a woman with strong modesty preferences may prefer to wear a burqa and choose to be a citizen of the CSTKR-AR, but based on family or business connections, wants to live in an AR that happens to be a Liberal Pluralistic Democratic Secular. She could do that and could culturally (but not legally) impose her values on herself and try, as a member of her mosque, to impose that dress code on attendees of her mosque; but voting for laws and representatives, though, would only be applicable for the CSTKR-AR. Blocks of voters from one AR could not reaggregate in a different AR to politically take control of it.
Over time, as the political sentiments, population size, and demographics change, the political ideology, size, and borders of an AR could change, but could not be short-termed micro-reconfigured as Texas and California are doing in their current gerrymandering of congressional districts.
IRANIAN POLITICAL PREFERENCES
The Netherlands-based Group for Analyzing and Measuring Attitudes in Iran (GAMAAN) conducted a survey in June 2024 where it polled more than 77,000 respondents. Around 70% of Iranians oppose the continuation of the Islamic Republic. The dominant political orientation in society is regime change. Opposition to the Islamic Republic is higher among the youth, urban residents, and the highly educated. Support for the principles of the Islamic revolution and the Supreme Leader decreased from 18% in 2022 to 11% in 2024. The vast majority of Iranians, 89%, support democracy. Governance based on religious law and military rule faces widespread opposition, 66% and 71% respectively. From their analysis, it seems that 20 to 30% support the continuation of the Islamic Republic. The majority want a different political system, such as a secular republic, a constitutional monarchy, or a more decentralized democracy.
So, having three ARs, with one of them being of the CSTKR political-religious ideology, with about a third of the population, would seem a close first approximation to what would match preferences in a reconfigured Iran.
Professionals from the field of political geography can help Iran create the ARs. Political Geographers can be found at places like the UN, the American Association of Geographers - Political Geography Specialty group, and at the Journal: Political Geography.
CONCLUSION
The GAMAAN Report concludes, “No political or civil figure currently enjoys majority support in society. Each political cluster represents only a portion (between 5% to 35%) of the population, and no single opposition force is capable of representing the full diversity present within the country.”
Therefore, an Iran decentralized into three to five Confederated ARs, based on political-religious ideologies, would seem a good way to reconfigure the country for local and global peace.
This is now the first quarter of 2026. An updated political preference poll would need to be conducted to decide on the number of ARs and how many people and which citizens are in each one.
The political and geographical restructuring of Iran can significantly improve its well-being. I think the same could be said for the U.S., Israel, as well as several other countries in the world. But the first priority is to try to stop the bombing and killing in Iran, improve the life of civilians there, and generate a more peaceful Middle East and world.
Steven Balkin is a professor emeritus at Roosevelt University and a member of the Chicago Political Economy Group. His research focuses on violence prevention, international development, entrepreneurship and cultural preservation. Email: sbalkin@roosevelt.edu
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Customs Protection officer
Photo provided by MILN
Michigan, Romulus Challenge Federal Plan for ICE Detention Center in Ongoing Legal Fight
Apr 13, 2026
Michigan officials and the city of Romulus have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, escalating a growing legal and political battle over plans to convert a local warehouse into an immigration detention center near Detroit.
The lawsuit, led by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and joined by the city, seeks to halt the federal government’s effort to repurpose a commercial warehouse in Romulus into a large-scale detention site operated by ICE.
The legal challenge marks one of the state’s strongest responses yet to the proposed project and comes amid mounting concerns from local leaders and residents about how the facility was approved and what impact it could have on the surrounding community. The proposed detention center would be located near one middle school, one elementary school and a residential neighborhood.
According to the Michigan Department of Attorney General, the lawsuit argues that federal officials failed to properly consult with state and local authorities before moving forward with the plan. It also raises concerns that the project did not undergo required environmental review processes and may violate federal law governing land use and infrastructure planning.
“Two words I hate to use when describing my home city are ‘overburdened and underserved’. Unfortunately, we are exactly that. We are not asking for a handout, just the chance to grow and improve the quality of life for our residents, unburdened by outside interference,” said City of Romulus Mayor Robert McCraight in a press release. “This is why any type of detention center must be vetted through all required permitting and legal channels.”
The proposed detention center would be located in an existing warehouse near Detroit Metropolitan Airport.
Reporting from Michigan Public and Michigan Advance highlights that the facility has sparked significant backlash at both the local and state level. Romulus officials have said they were not adequately informed about the project in advance, while residents and advocacy groups have raised concerns about transparency and community impact.
“As the state’s Attorney General, I have a legal and moral obligation to act if and when this administration behaves unlawfully and does so in a way that harms Michigan residents,” said Attorney General Nessel in a press release.
“The Romulus Warehouse is simply not—and never will be—an appropriate place for a large-scale detention center. DHS in its zealous quest for a bigger nationwide footprint, appears to have conducted an ill-conceived rush job, free from any traditional planning considerations or even basic concern for the many Romulus residents who will be impacted by their actions,” Nessel continued.
City leaders have already taken formal steps to oppose the plan. Earlier this year, the Romulus City Council unanimously passed a resolution rejecting the establishment of an ICE detention center within city limits, reflecting widespread local resistance.
Additional coverage from CBS News Detroit and The Detroit News notes that the state is now seeking court intervention to block construction or conversion of the facility while the case moves forward.
At the center of the dispute is a broader question about federal authority and local control.
The Romulus proposal is also part of a wider national trend, as federal agencies look to expand detention infrastructure by purchasing and converting existing properties, including warehouses near major transportation hubs.
State officials say the lawsuit is necessary to ensure transparency and accountability, while opponents of the detention center continue to organize at the local level. Federal agencies, meanwhile, have maintained that such facilities are needed to support immigration enforcement operations.
While opposition to the detention center has been widespread, demonstrations in Romulus have also drawn counter-protesters supporting immigration enforcement efforts.
Fox 2 reported that during a February protest outside City Hall, individuals in favor of the facility clashed with anti-ICE demonstrators as city officials prepared to meet on the proposal, reflecting divisions within the community over the project and broader immigration policy.
For now, the project remains in limbo as the legal process unfolds.
Angeles Ponpa is the Managing Editor of Latino News Network Midwest, overseeing Illinois Latino News, Wisconsin Latino News, and Michigan Latino News. She is based in Illinois.
Michigan, Romulus challenge federal plan for ICE detention center in ongoing legal fight was first published on Michigan Latino News and was republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More