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
As Detainments Increase, Seattle Dedicates $4M to Legal Defense of Immigrants
May 12, 2026
A $4 million budget increase for the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs (OIRA) will go toward community grants and legal defense for detained immigrants, Mayor Katie Wilson's office announced.
Proposed in September 2025 amid a growing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) presence, nearly half the budget increase will help fund the City's Legal Defense Network (LDN), a program that provides legal representation to those who live, work, or go to school in Seattle during immigration proceedings.
The additional funds will double LDN's annual budget by $1.25 million.
"And yet we also know it's probably just a drop in the ocean bucket," District 2 Councilmember Eddie Lin said in an interview with the Emerald. "I'm just glad to see the money starting to get out the door, given the intense needs there."
In immigration court, defendants do not have the right to have an attorney appointed to them, leaving them to pay for their own or proceed without representation. In Washington State, over half of those appearing in court go unrepresented.
Vanessa Gutierrez at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project says this funding is "desperately needed" as detainments continue to rise.
"The stakes are so high in immigration court, and oftentimes it could be life or death," Gutierrez said. "Not having legal representation is limiting their ability to access due process and be able to get a fair hearing."
The increased funding comes weeks after the Seattle City Council passed an emergency one-year ban on the creation of new ICE detention centers. Most Seattle detainees are held at the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, a facility with over 1,500 beds. As of March 10, the detention center was holding 1,016 detainees.
Last year, lawyers who represented LDN served 358 immigrants during removal proceedings, a press release said.
Gutierrez hopes LDN's expansion will "fill in the gaps" for those who have restricted access to legal information. A former federal program known as the Legal Orientation Program provided consultations and intakes to those being held in detention centers. The initiative was shut down in April 2025 by the Trump administration.
With the new funds, OIRA will also offer community grants to aid grassroots organizations responding to federal immigration actions. From neighborhood alert systems to community aid, individual grants will go up to $10,000.
"We have to be prioritizing these basic safety nets," Lin said. "Whether it's things like rental assistance, food banks … we have to make sure we are not cutting these essential services."
OIRA will allocate additional funds in the coming months to immigrant inclusion services cut by federal funding, to community response, and to language-access programs.
As federal policy changes, Gutierrez urges vulnerable communities to know their rights in the case they are approached by a federal agent, have a safety plan in the case of detainment, and have access to important documents.
As Detainments Increase, Seattle Dedicates $4M to Legal Defense of Immigrants was originally published by South Seattle Emerald and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
white red and blue textile
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
A Republic at 250: What History Teaches — and What Americans Must Choose
May 11, 2026
As the United States approaches both a consequential election cycle and the 250th anniversary of its founding, Americans stand at a crossroads the framers anticipated but hoped we would never reach: a moment when citizens must decide whether to allow the Republic to erode or restore it through vigilance. This is not about left or right. It is about whether we still share a common vision of the country we want to be — and whether we still believe in the same Republic.
The Founders never imagined “the land of the free” as a place dependent on benevolent leaders. They built a system in which the people — not the government — were the safeguards against overreach. James Madison warned that “the accumulation of all powers…in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny,” a reminder that freedom depends on restraint, not trust in any single individual. George Washington pledged that the Constitution would remain “the guide which I will never abandon,” signaling that loyalty to the Republic must always outweigh loyalty to any leader. These were not ceremonial lines. They were instructions — a blueprint for preventing institutional strain, polarization, and distrust we see today.
History is more than a record of dates and events. It is the nation’s common memory, the shared understanding that allows a democracy to function. Without it, citizens lose the reference points needed to recognize danger. The framers studied the collapse of ancient republics — from Rome to fragile city‑states of Europe — and understood how quickly liberty can erode when vigilance fades. History shows how democracies weaken when trust collapses, how polarization destabilizes nations, and how civil rights struggles strengthen the Republic. A deep understanding of our past is not abstract. It is a safeguard that keeps citizens informed, vigilant, and committed to principles that help them judge the present.
Across social media, Americans express frustration about leadership, war, economic pressures, and unkept promises. Polls show declining approval for the current president, and some voters who once supported him now express regret. One woman’s comment — “Apparently I’m an idiot” — reflects a broader shift: people are reassessing choices based on outcomes they did not expect. Her frustration is not foolishness; it is recognition. And recognition matters only if it leads to remembering how the Republic works and why patterns, once seen, must not be repeated.
What Americans must remember, during the Republic’s 250‑year mark, is that this nation was built on the idea that power rests with the people. The framers understood ambition, political pressure, and the temptation of unchecked authority. That is why they created a system of limits, accountability, and oversight. Remembering this history is not nostalgia — it is protection. When citizens forget how the Republic was designed to function, erosion begins: institutions weaken, leaders overreach, promises replace performance. Remembering restores clarity. It reminds voters to examine what leaders say and what they do — their roll-call votes, proposed legislation, and whether actions match commitments. It reminds them that unkept promises are not accidents; they are patterns. And patterns, if ignored, become consequences. History shows that when citizens ignore patterns, they often repeat them — and the consequences follow.
When I speak with young adults, I often ask them to consider why understanding our history and the framers’ intent matters in this election and in this 250th‑year celebration of the nation’s independence. I do not tell them what to think; I invite them to discover what’s at stake for the Republic. They always arrive at the same realization: that forgetting the lessons of our founding makes us vulnerable to repeating mistakes the framers warned against. Remembering is not passive — it is civic. It is how each generation protects the Republic it inherits.
Americans must also remember that they have a say in who campaigns for office. The names that appear on ballots do not arrive there by accident. Citizens influence who runs, who advances, and who represents them. When voters disengage from primaries, local elections, and candidate selection processes, they surrender that power. When they participate, they shape the choices the nation will face. The Republic is not only defended on Election Day — it is shaped before the ballots are printed.
For years, Americans have heard promises that never materialized — lower prices, affordable healthcare, no new-wars, protection for Social Security, and economic relief for working families. Yet roll‑call votes and proposed legislation often moved in the opposite direction. When actions contradict commitments, that is not a misstep. It is a pattern. And patterns, if ignored, become consequences. Voters must not repeat the cycle of supporting leaders whose legislative actions contradict their campaign promises. The Republic cannot survive on rhetoric; it survives on accountability.
Americans still hold the most powerful tool in a democracy: the vote. Even in an era when billionaires can spend sums to influence elections, citizens are not powerless. Recent reporting has noted that wealthy individuals, including Elon Musk, have invested heavily to support political outcomes they prefer. Many Americans have watched this — feeling their struggles, rising costs, reduced services, and financial pressure, overshadowed by wealthy influence.
And we have seen how quickly norms can erode when leaders place themselves above institutions or when misinformation distorts public judgment. But the framers designed a system in which ordinary citizens, not billionaires, determine the nation’s direction. Citizens must not fear that their voices will be drowned out by money, nor should they believe that political spending can silence their vote. They can ask themselves the most fundamental civic question: Am I better off? And beyond personal circumstances, they can ask whether the Republic is stronger, more stable, and more faithful to its founding principles. Americans have overcome greater challenges than political money, and they can do it again — by voting not for personalities or promises, but for the Republic itself.
The contrast with the framers is striking. Despite deep disagreements, they debated, compromised, and crafted a durable Constitution. They anticipated human flaws and built guardrails accordingly. Today’s political climate lacks that spirit of compromise. Instead of negotiation, we see accusation and division. The framers would likely be concerned not with any single leader but with the erosion of civic responsibility and the public’s tolerance for dysfunction. They understood that the Republic would endure only if its citizens demanded accountability, upheld constitutional limits, and refused to normalize chaos.
As Americans prepare to vote, I hope they remember that the Republic depends not on loyalty to a party but on loyalty to the principles that sustain it. Stopping the erosion requires recommitting to constitutional guardrails, strengthening checks and balances, and demanding transparency from those who hold power. It means restoring civic education so future generations understand the principles they inherit and evaluating leadership through outcomes rather than rhetoric, using nonpartisan tools such as government data and inspector general reports. And it calls for supporting leaders who demonstrate civic virtue — humility, responsibility, and respect for constitutional limits — qualities essential to democratic life.
At 250 years, the Republic does not need perfection from its citizens — it needs memory, courage, and choice. If Americans remember who they are and choose leaders who honor the Constitution, the Republic endures. If they forget, the patterns return. The future is not predetermined. It is chosen — and the choosing belongs to us.
___________________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership and civic renewal. She writes about constitutional principles, civic responsibility, and the challenges facing American democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
How the erosion of the rule of law threatens American democracy, constitutional rights, judicial independence, and public trust in government institutions.
Getty Images, David Talukdar
When the Rule of Law Unravels, Democracy Begins to Collapse
May 11, 2026
There is one thread that holds democracy's cloth together. That is the Rule of Law. For the most part, we take the rule of law for granted; we don’t give it a second thought, even though we rely on it constantly. Yet, pull that thread, and the cloth of democracy frays and ultimately unravels.
The rule of law is defined as the principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are: (1) clear and publicly promulgated; (2) equally enforced; (3) independently adjudicated; and (4) are consistent with international human rights principles.
Note that the rule of law is not what those in power say is law. The President is governed by the rule of law and is accountable to it, as is everyone else.
But the rule of law is not just a cookbook of disconnected decrees, laws, and regulations. Rather, it is a system of constitutions, laws, norms, and customs that binds all persons, including elected and appointed officials, business entities, and secular and sectarian institutions. The rule of law reflects our society’s values and normative social agreements.
First, as noted above, the rule of law requires that the system consist of laws and rules that are clear and publicized. Vague and ambiguous laws are typically held to be unenforceable or unconstitutional if challenged in court. The reason is common sense. If those who are to be bound cannot understand what is required of them, they cannot be held accountable for violating a law or rule. By way of a simple example, what if the law said, “motorists may stop at a red light.” Obviously, a motorist, having been given discretion, may determine not to stop at a red light. Imagine the chaos that would cause on our streets and highways.
Or what if the legislature adopted a law that said: “Sales of alcoholic beverages on Sundays before noon are prohibited and are punishable as a felony.” But if the legislature never made the law public, how could a merchant be held accountable for not complying with a law if he or she didn’t know such a law existed? A maxim of jurisprudence says that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” but that presupposes the law had been adopted by transparent processes and was publicly promulgated in the first place.
Second, the rule of law’s constituent parts must be equally enforced. That means that each part of the system must be implemented and applied to all who incur an obligation to act or to refrain from acting in a certain manner. In other words, the rule of law must bind everybody.
Again, by way of a simple example, if the system prohibits murder—homicide, then the prohibition applies not only to ordinary citizens but also to members of law enforcement and to elected and appointed officials. While police officers may use lethal force in some circumstances, they may not arbitrarily shoot and kill a person who was not breaking any law; nor may a public official order such killings.
Third, the constituent parts of the system must be adjudicated by fair, impartial, ethical, and independent courts, judges, and neutrals. That means breaches of a rule or law, or disputes or conflicts over the meaning or application of a rule or law, must be adjudicated and resolved by courts, in some cases by administrative law judges, or by duly appointed arbitrators.
Importantly, each person or institution with decision-making authority must be independent (i.e., not beholden to or controlled by any aggrieved party), fair (i.e., must treat each aggrieved party equitably and with respect), impartial (i.e., must be unbiased, unprejudiced, and objective), and ethical (i.e., must comply with any controlling professional standards or cannons of ethics).
Research shows that in societies with a functioning, strict rule of law, economies are stronger and more stable, people are better educated and live longer, and societies are more peaceful.
However, as noted, the constituent parts of the rule-of-law and democracy systems can fray and eventually unravel completely. When the rule of law unravels, society faces severe consequences: citizens lose fundamental rights and protections, trust in institutions collapses, and social order gives way to chaos and instability. Without clear, enforced, and equitable laws, people cannot rely on the justice system or each other, resulting in uncertainty, diminished freedoms, and the real threat of authoritarianism.
Finally, I pose this question. Viewing the constituent parts of the system of the rule of law, how does present-day America measure up? While the answer to this question requires extended discussion and analysis, I suggest the rule of law in our country is not on a firm footing.
At the federal level—and in several states—we are now governed by officials who too often treat the Constitution as optional, despite having sworn an oath to uphold it. In pursuit of partisan objectives or in obedience to executive directives, they have increasingly disregarded statutory limits and basic civil liberties. Recent actions by the Trump administration, including extrajudicial detentions, lethal use of force without clear legal justification, and immigration enforcement practices untethered from due process, raise profound constitutional concerns. These episodes implicate core protections: freedom from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the presumption of innocence, and the guarantees of due process and a fair trial embedded in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
In violating our country's rule of law, we risk destroying our democracy.
James C. Nelson is a retired attorney and served as an associate justice of the Montana Supreme Court from 1993 through 2012.
Keep ReadingShow less
Children hold signs during a “Rise Up for Trans Youth” demonstration in New York City on February 8, 2025. Patients, families and doctors rely on medical guidance in an increasingly hostile landscape, but recent statements — and how politicians interpret them — have only deepened uncertainty.
KENA BETANCUR/AFP/Getty Images
How Gender-Affirming Care Is Becoming a Political Test for Top Medical Groups
May 11, 2026
The largest medical association in the United States supports gender-affirming care — a stance it has reiterated in different ways over the last 10 years. But as Republicans press leading medical organizations on health care for transgender youth, the American Medical Association (AMA) is the latest group caught between political rhetoric and the complex realities of specialized care that few people receive.
As patients, families and doctors navigate this care in an increasingly confusing and hostile landscape, what medical groups say matters. But lately, what they’ve had to say — and how politicians interpret it — has only caused more uncertainty.
The AMA’s stance was already in question after a January meeting between leaders of major medical groups and Dr. Mehmet Oz, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. After that meeting, which was first reported by The New York Times, one group in attendance — the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) — muddied the waters about whether it had taken a more restrictive stance on gender-affirming care.
Questions soon followed for the AMA, the nation’s most prominent organization representing doctors.
Twenty Republican state attorneys general are pushing for the AMA to broadly oppose gender-affirming care for minors, in response to news coverage about their recommendations around youth surgeries. The attorneys suggest that the AMA may be violating state consumer protection laws by confusing, or even misleading, medical providers and patients about their stance. They mention wanting to “avoid a formal investigation” into the issue.
The attorneys, led by Steve Marshall in Alabama, wrote a letter in February asking whether the group recommends hormone therapy or puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria in minors.
“If you agree that there is insufficient evidence to support using surgical interventions to treat gender dysphoria in minors — as your recent statement indicates — we do not understand how you can find that there is sufficient evidence to support using hormonal interventions to treat gender dysphoria in minors,” their letter reads.
This is an escalation of a familiar tactic, said Khadijah Silver, director of gender justice and health equity at Lawyers for Good Government. And if it works, it will be a major weapon in the political fight to delegitimize gender-affirming care, they said.
“If you can convince the public that they have shifted stance, that’s extremely powerful,” they said, referring to the AMA.
In some ways, that impact is already being felt.
In a recent congressional hearing on rising health care costs, the board of trustees chair for the American Medical Association was asked about how patients across the country are struggling to find doctors. Two hours into the hearing, he was also asked about gender-affirming care for trans youth — a topic that affects few Americans, but takes up a lot of political air.
Rep. Erin Houchin, a Republican from Indiana, asked why the medical group changed its position on surgeries for trans youth.
But the AMA maintains that it has not changed its position.
“In surgery and minors, our belief is that it should generally be deferred until adulthood. But, we respect the physician-patient-family relationship in determining that,” Dr. David H. Aizuss answered in response to the question from the congresswoman.
That exchange took only a few minutes out of a hearing that spanned the gamut of crises facing the U.S. health care system, like skyrocketing insurance premiums and a worsening physician shortage. But it represents a growing tension between Republicans and medical groups, as elected officials who oppose gender-affirming care push for major health care organizations to do the same.
The American Medical Association declined to comment on the attorneys general’s letter, which had asked for a response by March 25. In a broader statement, the medical group said it supports gender-affirming care.
“We support evidence-based treatment for medical care, including gender affirming care,” an AMA spokesperson said in an email. “Currently, the evidence for surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement. In the absence of clear evidence, surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood. Treatment decisions should be made between the physician and the patient (and family) based on the best medical evidence and clinical judgment.”
That position aligns with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), an authority on medical care for trans people. WPATH recommends that patients generally wait until adulthood before seeking surgery. Trans youth rarely undergo surgery of any kind; of the small number performed on adolescents, the majority are mastectomies.
If an adolescent does need surgery, WPATH recommends they meet extensive criteria — including a full understanding of reproductive side effects, a year’s worth of hormone therapy, sustained gender incongruence, plus emotional and cognitive maturity.
The questions surrounding surgery come on the heels of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ response to the January meeting with Oz. In what the Times described as a “tense” meeting, Oz pressed leaders of organizations including the AMA and the ASPS on why they recommend gender-affirming care for trans youth. At that meeting, the surgeons group said it would be changing its position, per the Times.
Weeks after the meeting, ASPS released a nine-page statement saying that gender-affirming surgery should be delayed for minors until a patient is at least 19. The surgeons’ group cited insufficient evidence that benefits for surgery outweigh risks, and pointed to a controversial report created by the Trump administration to back its position.
The surgeons group noted that it still opposes criminalization of such medical care. The Trump administration celebrated the announcement.
“Today marks another victory for biological truth in the Trump administration,” said former Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary Jim O’Neill, in a press release. Oz, who has compared gender-affirming care for minors to lobotomies, applauded the American Society of Plastic Surgeons “for placing itself on the right side of history.”
In the following days, the surgeon’s group appeared to backtrack. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons reportedly told NPR that its position “does not include a blanket recommendation for surgery for minors.” The ASPS did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
The AMA has had its own trouble communicating its position. In a recent internal newsletter from the board chair, the association said that its policy on gender-affirming care has not changed at all; and that it requested a correction from The New York Times in response to the outlet’s coverage of its initial statement on youth surgeries. However, the Times says it has received no such requests.
This back-and-forth is taking place against an intense political backdrop: Six states have made it a felony for doctors to provide gender-affirming care to trans youth. Hospitals across the country have shuttered gender clinics in response to pressure from the administration. As a result, some young patients are cut off in the middle of treatment and medical professionals are grappling with how the law impacts them.
And despite ample news coverage, gender-affirming care is still not widely understood.
Very few transgender youth seek and access surgeries. More rely on hormone therapy and puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria, which is a medical condition that can cause significant distress for trans people.
Puberty blockers delay the hormones that cause kids to go through puberty, which can be an intense and emotionally fraught time for trans youth. Many families say this treatment is crucial for their child’s wellbeing and prevents distress caused by dysphoria. There are potential risks, like decreased bone density, which is monitored by medical providers. Some providers recommend weight-bearing exercise or diet optimization to boost calcium and vitamin D levels while on puberty blockers.
Hormone therapy, which involves taking testosterone or estrogen to cause physical changes that align one’s body with their gender identity, is another treatment that some trans youth receive to alleviate dysphoria. As with puberty blockers, clinics require a mental health assessment as well as parental or guardian consent for the treatment.
Multiple studies have found that access to these treatments decrease depression and anxiety for trans youth. But they are now banned in much of the country, after Republican politicians and conservative lobbying groups flooded statehouses with bills aiming to restrict the care for minors.
The Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics are under federal investigation over their support for gender-affirming care. Both medical groups have sued, as the government seeks information to determine if they have made “false or unsubstantiated representations” regarding the care.
The attorneys’ general letter to the American Medical Association is leveling up that pressure on medical groups, Silver said.
“Because the care is so politicized, any association that stands up and asserts its support for physicians who provide the care, will be made an example of,” they said.
How Gender-Affirming Care Is Becoming a Political Test for Top Medical Groups was originally published by The 19th and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t