Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Voter Choice Act reintroduced in the Senate

The Voter Choice Act reintroduced in the Senate
Getty Images

On November 16 following Election Day, U.S. Senators Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Angus King (I-Maine) reintroduced the Voter Choice Act to support adoption of a ranked choice voting (RCV) model for elections, also known as an “instant runoff.”

The Voter Choice Act provides $40 million in federal matching grants for local and state governments that choose to adopt ranked choice voting, covering up to 50 percent of the implementation cost. The 2021-2022 version of the legislation passed the U.S. House as an amendment to the Protecting our Democracy Act (PODA).


Ranked choice voting (RCV) is a simple but important change to our voting system that gives us more choice and more voice to voters. Instead of agonizing over which candidate to choose, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no one receives a majority of the vote, the candidate with the least votes is removed, and voters who selected them as their first choice have their votes reallocated to their second choice. The process continues until one candidate has a majority. This way, we no longer need to worry about voting strategically or otherwise “wasting” our votes.

Proponents of RCV believe that candidates are incentivized to build positive, issues-focused campaigns and more motivated to reach communities and voters they might otherwise have ignored.

The Voter Choice Act authorizes $40 million in federal grants to support state and local governments that choose to transition to RCV. Grants would support up to 50 percent of the transition cost, including through the purchase of voting equipment and tabulation software, ballot design, educational materials, and voter outreach.

“The Voter Choice Act is a sensible way to support the fastest-growing nonpartisan voting reform in the country,” said Deb Otis, Director of Research and Policy at FairVote, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for better elections. “Ranked choice voting makes our elections better by giving voters better choices and rewarding candidates who run issues-driven campaigns. While most cities actually save money by using RCV to replace runoffs or two-round contests, the Voter Choice Act will give more Americans the opportunity to try RCV – by helping to offset any voter education and implementation costs with approaches that further boost election security and voter confidence."

“As partisanship continues to harm our democracy and impede progress, we need to make government work for the American people,” said Senator Michael Bennet. “Ranked choice voting gives people more options at the ballot box, increases political competition, eliminates costly runoffs, and rewards candidates who appeal to the broadest swath of voters. Our bill provides vital support for states and local governments that choose to make this important transition.”

Senator Angus King of Maine added that, “In the face of threats that undercut the fundamental right to vote for millions of Americans, we must act to protect our democracy,” said King. “The Voter Choice Act would help communities advance the vast majority of voters’ priorities by instituting ranked choice voting, like the system that Maine already uses for its primary and federal elections. In such a polarized political climate, this bill would force candidates to appeal to a broader swath of their electorate rather than a small, outspoken faction. We must continue working towards improving our great democracy and that begins with restoring faith in our electoral system.”

Ranked choice voting is the fastest-growing nonpartisan voting reform in the nation, and has now grown to over 50 states, counties, and cities home to approximately 16 million Americans across the nation. On Election Day 2023, RCV won in all five cities where it was on the ballot – it has now won 27 city ballot measures in a row.


Read More

Senators Express Support, Criticism of Future Military Action in Iran

Sen. Chuck Schumer criticized the Iran War on Tuesday. Republicans and Democrats are mostly split along party lines in support and criticism of the war.

(Marissa Fernandez/MNS)

Senators Express Support, Criticism of Future Military Action in Iran

WASHINGTON — Senators seemed split along party lines over future military action in the Middle East after a classified intelligence briefing on Tuesday afternoon. Democrats called for increased clarity on the objectives and justifications for attacks, while Republicans supported the Trump administration’s current plan.

The conflicting reactions came as both the House and the Senate are scheduled to vote on a war powers resolution on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively. If passed, the resolution would limit further military actions in Iran without congressional approval.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

Analysis of President Donald Trump’s tariffs after a record $901.5B U.S. trade deficit in 2025. Explore the economic realities behind trade imbalances, the United States Supreme Court ruling on tariff authority, and the growing debate over executive power and trade policy.

Getty Images, Phanphen Kaewwannarat

What’s Next After the Court’s Tariffs Decision?

A Stubborn Imbalance

After a year of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, sold as a reset of global trade, the promise was simple: the U.S. trade deficit would shrink. It did not. The Commerce Department instead reported a $70.3 billion deficit in December and a staggering $901.5 billion for all of 2025, one of the largest totals on record. The gap between imports and exports barely narrowed at all.

These figures matter because they undermine the central premise of the strategy: make imports more expensive, reduce foreign purchases, and bring production back to the United States. But that approach overlooks a key reality. Trade balances are not driven by tariffs alone. They reflect deeper forces such as consumer demand, domestic savings rates, the strength of the dollar, and global capital flows. Those forces do not yield easily to executive action.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person grabbing a gallon of milk from an aisle.

New U.S. dietary guidelines from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Brooke Rollins promote more milk in schools—but widespread Lactose Intolerance raises questions about equity and nutrition policy.

Getty Images, Theerawit Jirattawevut

Lactose Intolerant? You’re Not Alone

Last month, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins announced new dietary guidelines for Americans that were a major reset of federal nutrition policy. Among the new recommendations: drink more milk, eat more yogurt and cheese. While nutritionists continue to debate the scientific basis of the recommendations, changes in federal meal programs, including school meals, are already in the works.

Any school that participates in federal meal programs must offer milk with every meal, and new guidelines support whole milk in addition to 2% and skim milk already available in schools. While there is debate about the level of saturated fats in whole milk, there’s a deeper problem with the dairy recommendation for school lunches: the widespread prevalence of lactose intolerance. The vast majority of people on this planet, approximately 70%, are lactose intolerant. While it is estimated that only about 35% of the US population is lactose intolerant, that number is much higher depending on your ancestral history: 75% of African Americans; 90% of Asian Americans; 50% of Latinos; 50% of Ashkenazi Jews; and 70-90% of Native Americans are lactose intolerant. For school districts with large populations of descendant groups, the recommendation to just drink more milk doesn’t work for millions of kids.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court weighs pipeline deadline fight with stakes far beyond the Straits of Mackinac

Supreme Court of the United States

Cayla Labgold-Carroll

Supreme Court weighs pipeline deadline fight with stakes far beyond the Straits of Mackinac

WASHINGTON – A dispute over a missed court filing deadline landed before the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 24, but legal scholars warned the decision could reshape whether federal or state courts get to decide the fate of major energy projects, and whether states retain meaningful power to enforce their own environmental laws.

The case, Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, asks whether federal courts have the authority to waive a 30-day deadline for removing a case from state to federal court. While the case is procedural, the flexibility Enbridge requested could allow companies to pick the court they prefer.

Keep ReadingShow less