RepresentWomen's mission is to strengthen our democracy by advancing reforms that break down barriers to ensure more women can run, win, serve, and lead. More women in elected and appointed positions at every level of government will strengthen our democracy by making it more representative, reviving bi-partisanship and collaboration, improving the deliberative process, encouraging a new style of leadership, and building greater trust in our elected bodies. RepresentWomen accomplishes its mission in these 4 ways: conducts research to track representation and assess best practices; educates PACs, donors, party leaders & elected officials about reforms to advance women's representation & leadership; advocates at the local, state and federal levels to adopt institutional reforms; forges strategic collaborative partnerships to build a lasting & successful movement for gender parity.
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

State Rep. James Talarico accused his U.S. Senate opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, of voter fraud after a ProPublica-Texas Tribune report. Last week, Paxton hit back with similar accusations.
Aiden Gonzalez/The Texas Tribune
James Talarico Accused Ken Paxton of Voter Fraud. His Own Voter Registration Is Raising Questions.
Aug 13, 2026
Texas state Rep. James Talarico voted in five elections using his parents’ address after purchasing a home for himself nearby, a practice that may have violated state voting laws, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune found.
This comes weeks after Talarico accused Attorney General Ken Paxton, his opponent in the race for U.S. Senate, of voter fraud for similar actions. The news organizations reported in July that Paxton voted using an address where his estranged wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, said he hasn’t lived for two years.
Paxton has made eradicating voter fraud a cornerstone of his time in office by advocating strict enforcement of the law, including in cases against voters who allegedly used false addresses when casting ballots. Paxton’s campaign has said he is a “lawful, registered Texas voter” but has repeatedly declined to answer detailed questions about his residency and voting history.
Piecing together Talarico’s voting history is more difficult than it is for Paxton. Talarico, unlike the attorney general, redacts his address on the Travis County voter rolls under a state law that allows some public officials to shield personal information for safety reasons. But unredacted records Talarico’s campaign provided the newsrooms show that he listed his parents’ address on his voter registration in November 2021.
He purchased a home in June 2022 but did not change his voter registration address until September 2024, the news organizations’ review of Travis County records shows. The new address is redacted, but Talarico’s campaign previously told the newsrooms that he currently lives and is registered to vote at the north Austin home he owns.
Talarico’s campaign declined to answer questions about his residency and voting history, including when he began living at the home he owns. Campaign spokesperson JT Ennis said “right-wing actors” had made “credible threats” about trying to locate Talarico and his family.
Texas law requires that residents register to vote where they live. This ensures they are voting for those who actually represent them. The provisions of the law, however, are “broad and vague,” said Andrew Cates, a Texas ethics attorney.
Courts have previously ruled that there is no single way to determine a voter’s residence, and prosecuting such cases requires proof that a voter “knowingly” or “intentionally” broke the law.
Given this, Cates said he doubts that either Talarico or Paxton committed voter fraud, but he said Paxton should be held to a higher standard. As the state’s top lawyer, Paxton is responsible for enforcing election laws and has aggressively pursued alleged violators.
“When the top officials go looking for people to skewer for it, and then do it themselves, it really smacks of hypocrisy,” Cates said.
In 2024, Paxton helped oust judges on Texas’ highest criminal court who prevented him from unilaterally prosecuting election crimes. And, two weeks before this year’s primary election, Paxton announced the creation of an election fraud tip line. His office warned Texans that “it is illegal to misrepresent your residence on election records or to establish a residence for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election.”
Paxton’s unyielding stance on election crimes fueled charges from Talarico and other critics that he considers himself above the law.
“Our Republican secretary of state here in Texas has already said that our elections are safe and secure,” Talarico said at a Houston campaign event last month. “But as our state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton has gone on a voter fraud witch hunt. Turns out, he was committing voter fraud the whole time.”
Last week, Paxton hit back.
In a news release and on social media, Paxton said Talarico broke state law, citing reports from conservative news outlets suggesting the Democrat had not lived in the district for at least a year when he was elected to the Texas House in 2022. Talarico, Paxton said, “blatantly committed election fraud showing a complete disregard for Texas residency requirements.”
Records provided by Talarico’s campaign appear to show that he did comply with residency requirements during the period scrutinized by the conservative outlets.
In October 2021, Talarico announced he would move to the area where he grew up after Republicans redrew his Texas House district to favor their party.
Talarico updated his address to his parents’ home in the new House district on his voter registration, on his driver’s license and with the U.S. Postal Service on Nov. 5, 2021, according to records his campaign provided. Those include a photo of his voter registration application and screenshots of receipts from the Texas Department of Public Safety and USPS. Talarico also rented a 10-foot U-Haul moving truck for six hours that day, according to a screenshot of a receipt.
The changes happened three days before the one-year cutoff, making him eligible to run for that seat.
The records also contradict a claim by one of the conservative outlets that there was no evidence Talarico moved to his parents’ house when he registered to vote there. Paxton seized on that report to accuse Talarico of voter fraud during the 2022 election.
The newsrooms’ findings about Talarico are different because they analyzed the period after the lawmaker purchased a home and found that he continued to vote using his parents’ address. Talarico’s house is in the same county as his parents’ home, which is about 6 miles away. It is in the state House district he represents but in different jurisdictions for some local elections.
Asked about the apparent discrepancy in Talarico’s voter registration and residency, his campaign shifted blame onto the attorney general.
“This is a lame attempt by Ken Paxton to deflect from his own hypocrisy and career of corruption,” Ennis said in a statement, nodding to Paxton’s legal troubles.
Paxton was impeached by the Texas House in 2023 and investigated by the Department of Justice over corruption charges. The state Senate acquitted him, and the federal government dropped its case. Paxton also spent nearly nine years under indictment for felony securities fraud charges that were dropped in 2024.
For his part, Paxton and his campaign on Monday again did not answer questions about the news organizations’ finding that he voted six times over a two-year period while registered at a Collin County home where he appeared to no longer live. It is unclear where Paxton lived during that time, but the publications’ reporting has linked him, and a woman believed to be his girlfriend, to a home in neighboring Denton County since February. As the home is in a different county, voters there select an entirely different slate of local officials than in Collin County.
Paxton spokesperson Madison Cercy doubled down on accusations that Talarico was ineligible to be elected to his seat and also committed voter fraud.
“The only person who has committed voter fraud in the Texas Senate race is James Talarico,” she said. She did not provide evidence of Talarico’s alleged lawbreaking beyond the reports from the conservative outlets.
Matthew Wilson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, argued Paxton’s and Talarico’s cases highlight how easy it can be to “run afoul of the letter of the law,” even as Republican lawmakers push for more stringent enforcement of voting restrictions.
“I think it could be reasonably used as a charge of hypocrisy against either of them because both of them have condemned the other for an action quite similar to what they themselves appear to have done,” Wilson said.
James Talarico Accused Ken Paxton of Voter Fraud. His Own Voter Registration Is Raising Questions. was originally published by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

Trump dominates the election, but Democrats can win by offering voters a positive vision, addressing cultural issues, rebuilding trust with workers, and returning to founding principles.
Getty Images, Cavan Images
URGENT: What Democrats Must Do to Win the Midterm Elections
Aug 12, 2026
This election so far is all about Trump: the news revolves around him; voters are either in thrall to him, disappointed, or disgusted by him; MAGA Republicans appeal to the Republican base through their unflinching loyalty to Trump.
That the election is all about Trump sounds like good news for Democrats. Trump's approval rating is in the pits. He has taken so many actions that have hurt his base and people in general, especially economically.
For the last 18 months, Trump has flouted almost every standard that has been set by previous Presidents and the Constitution. Trump has repeatedly taken actions, such as his tariffs and the Iran war, that have increased prices and impacted every American. He even said that he doesn't think about the financial plight of Americans, "not even a little bit," when thinking about the war.
But that doesn't translate to a diminished Trump at the polls. How can that be? It's partly due to his Republican base being in thrall to him and partly because the Democratic Party has not made the case for what they stand for and how they would help the people.
The path to a Democratic victory at the polls lies not in dissing Trump, but in creating a Democratic counter-presence that gives the people a positive reason to vote Democratic.
1. Reaching the Republican base - Despite the economic suffering he has caused his base, they remain true to him. His approval ratings may be low, but that 37% approval will not go lower because that is his core base. Even when farmers were devastated by the effects of his tariffs, they didn't back away from supporting him.
Why? The reason so many people vote for Trump despite that being against their economic interests is that cultural issues are more important to them. That's why Democrats' focusing on how voters' finances and health care have deteriorated under Trump will not have the desired impact. Nor will focusing on Trump's actions that are destructive of our democracy.
The Democratic Party cannot win Republican votes, whether in urban or rural areas, without clarifying—not changing—its position on the cultural issues that are so important to them. They must not allow themselves to be labelled radical leftists by the Republicans.
What are these cultural issues? They are guns, abortion, religion, LGBT rights, American identity. Here is what they must clarify: Democrats are not against people owning guns; they are not pro-abortion; they are not God-less; and they do not promote LGBT life, but just as they defend freedom of speech, they believe that everyone has the right to be who he or she is—that's the American way.
In my article, "Winning the Rural Vote: A New Approach for the Democratic PartyTalking about Guns, Abortion, American Identity, and Religion," I explain how each of these topics can be approached by Democrats in a way that connects with Conservatives and bridges the gap that Republicans have deftly manufactured and Democrats have fallen into.
2. What do Democrats bring to the table? - Besides showing Conservatives they are not radical on cultural issues, Democrats must give Independents and other swing voters—as well as Conservatives—a positive reason to vote Democratic. Even though Independents and some youth and workers who swung to Trump in 2020 are now disappointed or disgusted by his actions, that doesn't mean they will vote Democratic because they feel Democrats are not speaking to them, they haven't heard a message that resonates.
The message I propose would insure not just victory but a sweeping mandate from the people to bring America back to its founding principles and restore government to what the Constitution prescribes—not just as a matter of principle, but as the way to improve people's lives by giving each American the opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. See my articles, "People Are Hurting:The U.S.Must Return to Our Founding Principles" and "Defining the Democrat v Republican Battle."
Central to this effort is defining what drives Democrats in all their policy positions by referring to a Mission statement such as I have proposed, based on the Declaration of Independence:
“To build a country of greater opportunity where:
- each and every American has a real chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence: 'that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' ;
- government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration—‘to secure these rights’; and
- all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure these rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.”
This should be the litmus test. All policies of the Party should flow from this mission statement and any policy that does not further the mission statement should be dropped. Government should support industry and commerce, insofar as they support this mission. But if industry interests do not further this mission, if they seek power and riches for themselves without benefit to the people, the Party should not support those interests.
Too often, when proposing measures to protect the people in the areas of finance or industry regulation, Democrats have held back somewhat because of the interests of industry. And in some areas, like free trade agreements, they have capitulated to the interests of industry. The result: people have lost faith in the Party.
And they must offer a mea culpa for their neglecting the plight of the blue collar worker. Explaining that after working hard for most of the 20th century to improve the life of workers and strengthen unions, Democrats thought workers' middle-class status was safe. When workers were impacted by globalization they didn't realize the extent of the problem.
This must all be part of the Party's becoming a presence in people's lives—relevant—not just a voice in far-away Washington. It must speak to the people with regularity. See my article, "Can the Democratic Party Still Lead?"
Then there is the attitude of Democratic centrists towards Democratic Socialists. What is their problem? Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani aren't Socialists—they don't believe in government ownership of the means of production—they are socialists only in the sense that they believe that government should be more concerned with the wellbeing of the people. Isn't that what the Declaration is about? That is why they're having success. See my article, "Just What Is a Socialist?"
What we are seeing in the Democratic Party is not a "leftward shift" as claimed by Republican Senate leader Thune and Democratic centrists, but a return by many Democrats to the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence—it's about the people.
The upcoming election— it's less than 100 days away—is the Democrats to loose. And to date, I have not seen the Party do anything to insure a resounding victory at the polls. If they cannot move the American people to vote them back into power and send Trump and MAGA Republicans packing, there is little hope for the Party.
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

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.
Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images
The Last War We Understood
Aug 12, 2026
Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.
Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.
Supporters argued that the recent strikes achieved exactly what they were intended to do. They damaged Iran's nuclear program and restored deterrence. Critics saw something different. Iran's regime remained in power. Its ambitions had not disappeared. If the threat returned in a few years, what had really been accomplished?
Both perspectives are understandable because they begin with different assumptions about what war is supposed to achieve.
For most of history, the answer was straightforward. Wars were fought to defeat an enemy. Armies surrendered, governments collapsed, peace terms were imposed, and eventually the soldiers came home.
World War II became the defining image of that kind of victory. Germany surrendered. Japan surrendered. Both nations were occupied, rebuilt, and ultimately became allies. The war ended because the enemy had been decisively defeated. That is still the picture many Americans carry in their minds whenever military force is discussed.
Yet America has not fought that kind of war in generations.
Yet World War II did more than end one era. It ushered in another. The rise of the Soviet Union as a nuclear superpower transformed the strategic landscape. For the first time, defeating a major adversary outright risked consequences so catastrophic that victory itself could become self-defeating.
The Soviet Union was too large—and too dangerous—to be defeated the way Germany and Japan had been. Nuclear weapons made direct conflict between major powers increasingly unthinkable. Rather than preparing to conquer Moscow, the United States adopted a strategy of containment instead of conquest.
It was a quiet turning point. Military strategy adapted to that new reality. In time, so did the very meaning of victory.
Victory itself was no longer defined primarily by destroying an enemy. Increasingly, it meant preventing an adversary from accomplishing a specific objective.
Seen through that lens, much of the last eighty years becomes easier to understand. Korea was fought to preserve South Korea, not conquer China. The Gulf War ended after Kuwait was liberated rather than continuing to Baghdad. The campaign against ISIS sought to dismantle a terrorist state, not eradicate every extremist movement. Today's debate over Iran centered on degrading its nuclear program and restoring deterrence, not occupying Tehran.
Whether those objectives were wise or sufficient is a legitimate debate. But they were never intended to produce another Berlin or Tokyo.
What changed?
Nuclear weapons explain part of the transformation. Victory against another great power could now come at the price of civilization itself. Total war was no longer simply expensive; it became potentially existential. But technology alone cannot explain why victory changed. Western democracies also became progressively less willing to accept the massive human cost that earlier generations had viewed as unavoidable. Military strategy evolved accordingly, emphasizing limited objectives that could reduce risk while avoiding catastrophic escalation.
For centuries, victory was measured largely by what armies destroyed. Gradually, it also came to be measured by what nations preserved: lives, cities, alliances, and stability. That shift left modern democracies accepting less decisive outcomes in exchange for avoiding immeasurably greater costs.
Perhaps that is why debates over Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so many other conflicts never seem to end. We are often using two different definitions of success without realizing it.
Some citizens continue to ask the oldest question in military history: Did we defeat them?
Others ask a newer one: Did we accomplish the mission?
Neither question is unreasonable. They simply belong to different eras.
Understanding that difference does not tell us whether America made the right decisions in Iran, Afghanistan, or any future conflict. It does something more valuable.
It helps us ask better questions.
Democracies depend on citizens who can judge not only whether military force was used effectively, but whether the objectives themselves were wise, realistic, and worthy of the costs they required.
The last war we understood may have been the last war in which victory, defeat, and peace all meant the same thing.
The arguments surrounding today's wars often reflect less disagreement about military operations than disagreement about what victory should look like in the twenty-first century.
Our challenge is not to recapture that world. It is to understand the one we live in well enough to make wiser decisions about the conflicts still ahead.
Joe Palaggi is a writer and historian whose work explores the historical forces that shape American civic culture, religion, and democratic society. His essays have appeared in The Washington Examiner, The Hill, RealClearPolicy, and The Fulcrum. He writes regularly at joepalaggi.com.
Keep ReadingShow less

This statue on the grounds of the South Carolina State House honors violent segregationist Ben Tillman, who also served as governor and U.S. senator.
How an 1876 Massacre of Black Men in South Carolina Turned Racial Terror Into Political Power
Aug 12, 2026
As the U.S. celebrates its 250th anniversary, its citizens commemorate a democracy more diverse, free and inclusive than it’s ever been. The path to this milestone was imperfect and paved in blood and suffering. Still, few of the revelers will likely pay heed to the anniversary of another historic event: the 150th anniversary of the July 1876 Hamburg massacre.
The massacre, which took place in Hamburg, South Carolina, began as a dispute between a local Black militia and two white citizens over whether the latter could cross the group’s centennial Fourth of July parade. The militia leader, Doc Adams, was later charged with blocking a public highway.
At his court hearing, Adams was met with a white militia – part of the white supremacist Red Shirts – which then pursued the Black militia on their retreat to their weapons arsenal. After a firefight, the Red Shirts captured several Black militiamen, marched them to a nearby site and executed at least four people.
South Carolina’s Republican governor, Union veteran Daniel Henry Chamberlain, described the event as a “butchery of unoffending and unarmed colored men by a brutal and bloodthirsty mob of white men.” Yet no one was convicted after the attack. In fact, several of the Red Shirts ringleaders would instead rise to the highest offices in the state.
Corey Rogers, an organizer of the 150th anniversary Hamburg commemoration, recently called this massacre “the seminal event that began to change the trajectory of African Americans.” The repression and inequality that would define the next 100 years of U.S. history, in other words, was born at Hamburg.
As a scholar of domestic terrorism, I study the long history of white supremacist and far-right violence in the U.S. My research shows that the Hamburg massacre was not just characteristic of a broader violent moment, but also that the echoes of such violence ring loudly today.
From Hamburg, across the South
According to one estimate, the 12 years of the Reconstruction era, during which the Union attempted to construct a racially diverse democracy in the wake of the Civil War, saw over 2,000 Black citizens murdered in “racial terror lynchings.” Another estimate, from 1895, more starkly claimed that as many as 53,000 Black Americans had been murdered in the 30 years following the Civil War.
By intimidating Black voters and galvanizing white Democrats who sought to undo the results of the Civil War, this violence served to effectively kill Reconstruction and the tangible promises of Black emancipation.
What happened in Hamburg provides a particularly egregious example of such racial terrorism catapulting political triumph. After that tragedy, several of the Red Shirts ringleaders went on to successful political careers, with two of them becoming U.S. senators – one of whom, Benjamin Tillman, also served as South Carolina governor.
As Jenny Heckel, then a Clemson University graduate student, noted in her 2016 master’s thesis, it was “not in spite of the white Carolinians’ participation in the murder of six black men, but because of it, they won election to political offices.”
In South Carolina’s 1876 gubernatorial race, the Democratic candidate, Confederate veteran Wade Hampton III, emerged triumphant and reinstated white supremacy as the fulcrum of state governance. His name had been put forward by former Confederate major general Matthew Butler, who had represented the two white farmers before the Hamburg attack and who himself went on to serve in the U.S. Senate.
In 1895, South Carolina held a constitutional convention, spearheaded by the aforementioned Hamburg massacre ringleader Tillman, and adopted a new constitution that effectively ended the Black vote in the state.
An enduring threat
In the 1890s, renowned abolitionist and orator Frederick Douglass said white vigilantes offered three justifications for the lynchings of Black Americans: stamping out alleged race riots, protecting the white vote share and protecting white women from alleged sexual crimes by Black men.
The first two were front and center in the Hamburg massacre. In fact, as Heckel reflected a decade ago, “white Carolinians blamed the black militia for starting the riot, and Southern white newspapers created images of riotous blacks to contest black descriptions.”
Abolitionist and orator Frederick Douglass said white mobs often justified lynchings as a response to riots, to Black voting and to alleged crimes against white women. Library of Congress/Getty Images
Since the massacre, racial violence has had a long echo in the United States. And in many cases, the same justifications elucidated by Douglass remain.
Both the Tulsa race massacre and the 1955 murder of Emmett Till, for instance, were sparked by false accusations of sexual harassment or assault made against young Black men.
The violence persists today. In June 2015, just 150 miles (241 kilometers) from Hamburg, a white supremacist gunman entered the historically Black Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and opened fire, killing nine churchgoers.
In May 2022, a white supremacist killed 10 Black Americans at the Tops Friendly Market in Buffalo, New York.
Both gunmen made multiple references to the same conspiracy theories Douglass identified, with the Charleston domestic terrorist going as far as to praise segregation as “a defensive measure” while criticizing the “historical lies, exaggerations and myths” of the historical record of slavery and its aftermath.
People line up to attend the June 2015 wake of Sen. Clementa Pinckney, one of the nine people killed in a shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. David Goldman/AP Photo
Still, there are key differences between the attacks at Charleston and Buffalo and their Reconstruction predecessors. The political violence that tainted the Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction era clashes with traditional definitions of terrorism, which typically targets a power structure that such violence seeks to upend.
Instead, attacks like the one in Hamburg, which sought to proactively protect the rights and power of white Americans – and which were often endorsed by state and local governments – have more in common with genocide and ethnic cleansing. Not only did the scale of the broader violence across the South indicate a campaign to mass-murder an ethnic subgroup for political purposes, but Tillman, perhaps the most infamous of the Hamburg murderers, never denied the attack’s goals.
“We are not sorry for it,” he would proudly recall before the U.S. Senate in 1900. “We of the south have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men.”
‘A painful duty’
Attempting to commemorate all such anniversaries is an impossible task, simply because of the sheer volume. For example, September marks the 150th anniversary of the Ellenton Riot. In that massacre, Black South Carolinians were systematically hunted throughout their community over an alleged attack on a white elderly woman, which was later proved false. The death toll may have eclipsed 100.
Countless similar incidents have plagued U.S. history.
In my view, to tell the story of America’s founding without referencing these profound scars is akin to deceit, if not complicity. Civil rights leader and journalist Ida B. Wells put it this way in 1895: “It becomes a painful duty … to reproduce a record which shows that a large portion of the American people avow anarchy, condone murder and defy the contempt of civilization.”
Or, as a local retired pastor said of Hamburg commemorations, “We want to keep it burning so people won’t forget what transpired.”
How an 1876 Massacre of Black Men in South Carolina Turned Racial Terror Into Political Power was originally published by The Conversation and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More















