Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

After NYC, where will ranked-choice voting go next?

New York City voters

Following the citywide debut in New York City, ranked-choice voting is picking up momentum in other parts of the country.

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Following the New York City primaries last month, the debate over ranked-choice voting is heating up elsewhere across the country.

The sixth largest city in Michigan and the most populous county in Washington are both considering adopting ranked-choice voting for future elections. But in Alaska, a lawsuit is challenging the state's new election system, which includes ranking candidates for general elections.


Ranked-choice voting saw a successful citywide debut in New York City, despite a tallying blunder by the Board of Elections. While some critics tried to blame the alternative voting method for the issues, proponents noted the mishap was caused by human error unrelated to RCV.

Outside of the Big Apple, ranked-choice voting was also used for the Virginia Republican Party's nominating contest for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. And this year almost two dozen cities in Utah have opted to switch to ranked-choice voting for mayoral and city council races.

Here are three more places where the alternative voting method is making waves:

Michigan

On Monday, the Lansing City Council moved to put a ranked-choice voting initiative on the November ballot. If voters approve the measure, the new system will be adopted at the beginning of next year for mayoral, city clerk and city council elections.

The council also approved a second ballot initiative that would eliminate local primary elections if the ranked-choice voting system is adopted. Instead, there would be a general election with a wider pool of candidates.

Currently, the only city in Michigan that uses RCV is Eastpointe.

Washington

Council members in King County, which includes Seattle, announced this week that their campaign for ranked-choice voting will be put on hold temporarily.

Last month, Girmay Zahilay and Jeanne Kohl-Welles proposed a ballot initiative to adopt RCV for certain county-level races, including the county council. The original plan was to have the new system, if approved by voters, go into effect next year. But Zahilay tweeted Monday that their proposal will be delayed until 2022 due to time constraints brought on by ballot initiative deadlines.

Earlier this year, a bill that would have allowed cities and counties in Washington to decide which elections, if any, to use ranked-choice voting failed to pass through the Legislature. King County is exempt from that prohibition.

Alaska

Last year, Alaska became the second state, after Maine, to adopt ranked-choice voting for statewide elections. Starting next year, Alaska will use a new system in which the top-four primary candidates, regardless of party, will advance to a ranked-choice general election.

Despite a majority of voters approving these reforms during last year's election, some Alaskans don't want to see the changes go into effect. This week a judge heard a case that challenges the new election system for alleged constitutional violations.

The lawsuit was filed inDecember, a day after the election results were certified, by Alaska Independence Party Chairman Robert Bird, Libertarian Scott Kohlhass and Republican attorney Kenneth Jacobus.

"Marginalizing political parties, as this system does, harms the right of Alaskans to free political association, and allows those with money to take control," Jacobus argued in a recent court filing.

However, Alaska's assistant attorney general, Margaret Paton Walsh, argued the new system does not violate the constitution and the plaintiffs' claim is just a policy objection.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less