This episode of Braver Angels puts a Biden supporter in the hot seat. Wilk Wilkinson, a conservative Republican, interviews Jordan Carmon, a staunch Biden supporter, on everything from Hunter Biden to January 6th — showing us what's possible when we bring good faith to our richest, most passionate disagreements.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Two bills have been introduced to Congress that aim to ban mid-decade redistricting on the federal level and contain provisions making an exception for mid-decade redistricting.
Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images
Congress Bill Spotlight: Anti-Rigging Act, Banning Mid-Decade Redistricting As Texas and California Are Attempting
Sep 12, 2025
Trump claims Republicans are “entitled” to five more Texas House seats.
Context: in the news
In August, the Republican-controlled Texas state legislature approved a rare “mid-decade” redistricting for U.S. House seats, with President Donald Trump’s encouragement.
Why?
Midterm elections, held two years into a presidential term, usually flip House control from the president’s party to the opposition. It happened in 2022 under Biden, in 2018 under Trump’s first term, in 2010 under Obama, and in 2006 under George W. Bush’s second term.
Facing a potentially similar result next year in 2026, Trump encouraged Texas to redraw its districts with new maps projected to net Republicans up to five additional seats. For context, Republicans currently control the U.S. House by only five seats nationally.
Texas’s move sparked an arms race to respond in kind, among both red and blue states. California, Illinois, and Maryland are now considering mid-decade redistricting on the Democratic side; Florida, Missouri, and Ohio on the Republican side.
Context: what is mid-decade redistricting?
Each U.S. House district is supposed to contain an approximately equal number of residents, currently around 761 thousand. But populations in these districts gradually change: births, deaths, people moving in, people moving out.
To keep the numbers equal over time, states usually redraw their district boundaries once per decade, after a Census. The Census occurs in years ending with 0, such as 2010 and 2020. So those new lines go into effect during years ending with 2, such as 2012 and 2022. Anything after that, such as for next year’s 2026 election, is considered “mid-decade.”
10 states actually ban mid-decade redistricting in their state constitutions, comprising red, blue, and swing states alike: Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.
But it’s not banned at the federal level. Should it be?
What the bills do
Two bills in Congress would do just that. The two main proposals this summer were introduced by Texas Democrats in opposition to that state’s Republican plan, and by a California Republican in opposition to that state’s Democratic plan.
Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX33) introduced the former, titled the Anti-Rigging Act, on July 10. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA3) introduced the latter, numbered H.R. 4358, without an official title, on August 5.
The bills’ sponsors have not coordinated their legislation.
Both bills contain provisions making an exception for mid-decade redistricting if a state does so to comply with either the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, if mandated by a federal court. For example, in 2023, the Supreme Court nixed Alabama’s map for violating the Voting Rights Act—a rare 2020s Supreme Court ruling considered good for Democrats.
What supporters say
Congress’s lead Democrat and lead Republican on this issue both argue that mid-decade redistricting changes the rules of the game for pure partisan gain, when it should only be done for neutral reasons.
“This move by Gov. Abbott does Trump’s bidding, not for any legitimate constitutional purpose as they claim, but to attempt to win an election before the first ballot has been cast,” lead Democrat Rep. Veasey said in a press release. “It is cynical, racist, and with clear political intent. This bill would ensure it could never happen again.”
“Gavin Newsom is trying to subvert the will of voters,” lead Republican Rep. Kiley said in a separate press release. “Fortunately, Congress has the ability to protect California voters using its authority under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This will also stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.”
(The Constitution’s Elections Clause allows Congress to set parameters for the “times” and “manner” of congressional elections in the states.)
What opponents say
The most prominent Republican and Democratic governors on this issue both argue that states are within their rights to maximize partisan political advantage—and that current times call for it.
The new congressional districts “better reflect the actual votes of Texans,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said in a press release upon passage of the state-level One Big Beautiful Map Act. “While Democrats shirked their duty, in futility, and ran away to other states, Republicans stayed the course, stayed at work, and stayed true to Texas.”
“California will not sit idle as Trump and his Republican lapdogs shred our country’s democracy before our very eyes,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a separate press release upon introducing the state-level Election Rigging Response Act. “This moment calls for urgency and action—that is what we are putting before voters this November, a chance to fight back against his anti-American ways.”
Odds of passage
So far, the Democratic congressional bill has attracted nine cosponsors, all Democrats from Texas. No Democrat outside of Texas has yet cosponsored it.
Two Democrats from Texas haven’t signed on, either: Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-TX20) and Henry Cuellar (D-TX28).
The Republican congressional bill has not yet attracted any cosponsors, likely because such a move would be considered too “anti-Trump” within the party. Not even any of the other eight California House Republicans have signed on.
Both bills await a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee, unlikely under Republican control.
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY17) has publicly come out against mid-decade redistricting, in opposition to his home state New York’s Democratic plan, but has neither cosponsored the existing Republican bill nor introduced his own such bill as of this writing.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: Banning Trump Administration From Renaming Naval Ship Harvey Milk
Congress Bill Spotlight: Making Trump Assassination Attempt a July 13 National Holiday
Congress Bill Spotlight: Requiring Public Schools Start the Day With the Pledge of Allegiance
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
election, people voting
Brett Deering/Getty Images
Democracy Summer Trains Next Generation of Democratic Organizers
Sep 12, 2025
Democracy Summer, founded by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., in 2006, has grown into a national fellowship pipeline placing student organizers on congressional campaigns across the country.
During Raskin’s first campaign for Maryland State Senate, where he ran against a 32-year incumbent who was president pro tem of the Maryland Senate and chair of the Montgomery County Senate delegation, he recruited his three kids, along with dozens of nieces and nephews, to help him campaign. That summer, the Democracy Summer fellows, along with their friends and families, knocked on 35,000 doors.
“He went from ‘impossible’ to ‘inevitable’ in nine months,” Democracy Summer’s website states.
According to the Democracy Summer website, anyone who is in high school, college, or in that age group is eligible to apply. Fellows, upon acceptance, commit for 15 to 20 hours to the program for six weeks. The programming includes four to five hours of virtual seminars, discussions, and workshops, while 10 to 15 hours are in-person organizing with the campaign.
Since Raskin founded Democracy Summer, the program has partnered with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the “official campaign arm” for Democrats in the House of Representatives.
“Democrats understand that strong grassroots organizing is vital to winning elections,” Raskin stated.
Raskin for the 2026 election cycle is one of the grassroots engagement chairs, alongside Rep. Maxwell Frost, R-Fla. When DCCC and Democracy Summer relaunched in 2022, he served as DCCC’s vice chair. Due to this partnership, Democracy Summer has partnered with dozens of House of Representatives candidates who are running on the Democratic ticket.
“I’m excited to partner Democracy Summer with the DCCC once again so House Democrats can build a robust team of well-trained and talented organizers who will help power us to victory this November,” Raskin stated.
Some of the candidates this past summer included Frost and dozens of others like Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa., Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va. Another partner with Democracy Summer is Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich. She said Raskin, who is a “good friend,” asked her to join, and she accepted.
Scholten also defined her vision of a “pro-democracy leader” as someone who “believes in elections, in voting rights, in checks and balances, and who is willing to fight to protect and preserve the democracy that we have here in the United States of America.”
As Democrats prepare for competitive congressional races across the country in 2026, Raskin’s program is expected to remain a fixture for campaigns seeking to scale grassroots outreach while training the next generation of political organizers.
Scholten represents Michigan’s third congressional direct, one she flipped for the Democrats in 2022 by beating Republican candidate John Gibbs by winning 54.9 percent of the vote. She re-won the seat with 53.7% of the vote in the 2024 general election cycle. She said Democracy fellows are helping her maintain voter contact across a district of 750,000 residents.
“People ask me all the time, ‘How did you flip this district?’ It’s because people here know me. People know who I am,” she said.
But Scholten added that keeping the “connection alive" takes work, and the eight fellows Democracy Summer brought to her campaign were a “game changer.” She added that while doing the in-person portion of the program, their responsibilities include collecting signatures at festivals, staffing events, and organizing an end-of-summer community gathering.
“Democracy Summer helps me fulfill that mission by keeping in touch with the voters and constituents who need to hear about the work we’re doing in Washington and why it matters.”
For Scholten, the program has created future opportunities for students. She said some former fellows of Democracy Summer she worked with have transitioned into paid positions on her campaign or have found other positions in D.C.
“Democracy Summer is an awesome program,” Scholten said. “I encourage anyone who’s interested in getting involved and being part of the change we need in the United States—and in the Democratic Party as well.”
Maggie Rhoads was a cohort member in Common Ground USA's Journalism program, where Hugo Balta served as an instructor. Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn more by clicking HERE.
Please Help The Fulcrum In Its Mission Of Nurturing The Next Generation Of Journalists By Donating HERE!
Keep ReadingShow less
The Cheshire Cat (John Tenniel) Devouring the Gerrymander (Elkanah Tisdale )
Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander
Sep 12, 2025
America has a long, if erratic, history of expanding its democratic franchise. Over the last two centuries, “representation” grew to embrace former slaves, women, and eighteen-year-olds, while barriers to voting like literacy tests and outright intimidation declined. Except, that is, for one key group, Independents and Third-party voters- half the electorate- who still struggle to gain ballot access and exercise their authentic democratic voice.
Let’s be realistic: most third parties aren't deluding themselves about winning a single-member election, even if they had equal ballot access. “Independents” – that sprawling, 40-percent-strong coalition of diverse policy positions, people, and gripes – are too diffuse to coalesce around a single candidate. So gerrymanderers assume they will reluctantly vote for one of the two main parties. Relegating Independents to mere footnotes in the general election outcome, since they’re also systematically shut out of party primaries, where 9 out of 10 elections are determined.
Take New York City's Charter Revision Commission. Despite acknowledging that a million New Yorkers identify as independent, so cannot vote in the primary, they punted in July, declining to send an open-primary proposition to the November ballot. The excuse? Supporters hadn't reached a "clear consensus" on either the problem or the remedy.
Reformers had pinned their hopes on 2024, believing this would be the year voters finally flung open those gateways through some combination of Open-primary, Ranked-choice, or Top-X general elections (let’s call them ORT).
Alas, these efforts hit a wall. Eleven ORT proposals in nine states were on the November 5th ballot. Every single one lost.
Why? Independents and third parties don’t just want to be heard; they want a seat at the table in the room where decisions are made. They want their views rewarded. They want true representation.
Elections, at their core, are about redistributing political power. And clearly, ORT struggles to sell a polarized and skeptical public on its benefits.
RCV and Open Primaries/Top-X, despite their vocal proponents, are burdened with a litany of well-documented flaws, like exhausted ballots, strategic voting, complexity, and perverse outcomes. Linking them together on a single vote, as we just witnessed, only diminishes their combined prospects.
Why else did ORT fail at the polls? Logically, many independents understand their third-choice ranked ballot might tip the scales towards an acceptable, if uninspiring, candidate. They might even take intellectual pridein playing kingmaker.
However, RCV falls short on both the emotional and utilitarian litmus tests.
Did the eventual winner make explicit policy commitments to independents for their support– commitments they'll honor in office? Or were independents taken for granted, a default vote in the ORT system? Were third-party candidates even listed on the general election Top-X ballot? If not, a third party feels erased from history.
For a major party member, the situation is more favorable. Backing the winner brings tangible emotional and political benefits, reinforcing their social group's standing in both primary and general elections. But in ORT elections, where your leading candidate is squeezed off the ballot, you feel marginalized and demeaned.
Negotiated Consensus: A Different Approach
Voting method experimentation stretches back millennia, and while history may not repeat itself, it often rhymes. So, is there a better alternative waiting to be unearthed from the archives that might be attractive to the sidelined forty percent?
In 1885, Charles Dodgson—yes, the mathematician and author of Alice in Wonderland—grappled with precisely this challenge after discovering issues with a new preferential voting system. His remarkable suggestion? To "club" and trade votes. It’s a proposal I’ve expanded upon and call “Negotiated Consensus.”
Under Negotiated Consensus, all major candidates are listed on the primary and general election ballots. Voters cast a single vote for the nominee they enthusiastically endorse and trust as their proxy. If no candidate secures a simple majority, aspirants negotiate among themselves (and in consultation with their supporters) for policy concessions, redistributing (or “clubbing”) their proxy votes until a majority winner emerges. If a clean majority can't be negotiated, the race defaults to a top-two runoff (details can be found in the original article).
The public debate and the inherent tension of a plurality election highlight the critical role small parties and independents play as "kingmakers." Trading votes for policy concessions ensures the winner’s administration is more representative than in a plurality election or RCV, all the while sidestepping ORT's pathologies. Indeed, drawing two-party gerrymandered districts may backfire when independents shift the balance of power.
By marrying the clarity of a single-choice ballot with the accountability of public coalition-building, NC can succeed where RCV and non-partisan primaries stumbled. It promises to give independents and third parties the influence and spotlight they’ve been seeking—and in the process, revitalize majority rule itself.
Greg Blonder is a scientist, entrepreneur, and educator active in the voting rights space.
Keep ReadingShow less
Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.
Getty Images, Aitor Diago
When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation
Sep 12, 2025
Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.
That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.
Policymakers rightly sense that AI is moving faster than the statutory machinery built for the age of the horse and buggy, not the supercomputer. The temptation is to act first and reflect later. Yet history tells us that bad tech laws ossify, spread, and strangle progress long after their drafters leave office. California’s flame-retardant fiasco—one state’s sofa rule turned nationwide toxin—is Exhibit A. As of 1975, the state’s Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation insisted on flame retardant being included in certain furniture. Companies across the country compiled; it was cheaper to design their products for California’s standards rather than segment their manufacturing processes. Turns out that the flame-retardant foam was highly toxic and highly prone to end up in the hands and mouths of kids. It’s unclear how many hundreds or thousands of kids have suffered severe health issues as a result. Yet, the law remained on the books for decades. If we repeat that regulatory playbook for AI, we will not merely ruin couches; we will foreclose entire classes of life-improving algorithms.
The best way to avoid missing out on a better future due to bad laws is to identify and call out bad policy habits as soon as possible. With that in mind, lawmarks should avoid all seven of these sins and take care to instead adopt more flexible and evidence-based provisions.
- Mistaking “Tech-Neutral” for “Future-Proof.”
Imagine a statute that lumps diagnostic AIs with chatbot toys. This broad definition will invite litigation and paralyze AI development. Antidote: regulate by context, not by buzzword. Write rules tailored to specific use cases—health care, hiring, criminal justice—so innovators in low-risk domains are not collateral damage. - Legislating Without an Expiration Date.
The first draft of a law regulating emerging tech should never be the last word. Antidote: bake in sunset clauses that force lawmakers to revisit, revise, or repeal once real-world data rolls in. - Skipping Retrospective Review.
Passing a law is easy; measuring whether it works is hard. Antidote: mandate evidence audits—independent studies delivered to the legislature on a fixed schedule, coupled with automatic triggers for amendment when objectives are missed. - Exporting One State’s Preferences to the Nation.
When a single market as large as California or New York sets rules for all AI training data, the other 48 states lose their voice. Antidote: respect constitutional lanes. States should focus on local deployment (police facial recognition, school tutoring tools) and leave interstate questions—model training, cross-border data flows—to Congress. - Building Regulatory Castles on Sand—No Capacity, No Credibility.
Agencies cannot police AI with a dozen lawyers and programmers on the verge of retirement. Antidote: appropriate real money and real talent before—or at least alongside—new mandates. Offer fellowships, competitive salaries, and partnerships with land-grant universities to create a pipeline of public-interest AI experts. - Letting the Usual Suspects Dominate the Microphone.
If the only people in the room are professors, Beltway lobbyists, and Bay-Area founders, policy will skew toward their priors. Antidote: institutionalize broader participation—labor unions, rural hospitals, start-ups from the Midwest—through citizen advisory panels and notice-and-comment processes that actively seek out non-elite voices. - Confusing Speed with Progress.
The greatest danger is not under-regulation; it is freezing innovation before we understand its upside. Antidote: adopt a research-first posture. Fund testbeds, regulatory sandboxes, and pilot programs that let society learn in controlled environments before slapping on handcuffs.
Taken together, these antidotes form a simple governing philosophy: regulate like a scientist, not like a fortune-teller. Start narrow. Measure relentlessly. Revise or repeal when evidence demands it. And always, always weigh the cost of forgone breakthroughs—lives un-saved, jobs un-created, problems unsolved—against the speculative harms that dominate headlines.
The payoff? A legal environment where responsible innovators can move fast and fix things, where regulators are nimble rather than reactive, and where the public enjoys both the fruits of AI and meaningful protection from its risks. We need not choose between innovation and accountability. We only need the discipline to avoid the seven sins—and the imagination to envision what humanity loses if we fail.
The final word? If my cancer-spotting start-up withers in a tangle of red tape, the obituaries will never say, “Killed by a visionary legislature.” They will simply say, “Cure delayed.” Our charge as lawyers and policymakers is to ensure that sentence never gets written. By exorcising the seven deadly sins of AI policy now, we can safeguard both the public and the next generation of world-changing ideas. The clock is ticking—let’s legislate with humility, measure with rigor, and keep the door open to the innovations we cannot yet imagine.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Author of the Appleseed AI substack.Keep ReadingShow less
Load More