Newsy's Vote Smarter 2020 series aims to answer your questions about the most unusual election in modern history. From early voting to counting ballots to staying safe at the polls, get all the information you need to successfully cast your ballot this year.
This video is being made available on The Fulcrum through our partnership with Newsy — "delivering news with the why."
April is Child Abuse Awareness Month. Going to college, I took a child welfare class to become a social worker, and we were taught about child abuse and neglect. We were taught that there are times when the government has to intervene to protect the welfare of a child and act in the child’s best interest. Growing up, I had no trust in the government. Child Protective Services (CPS) workers were labeled “baby snatchers,” and they were to be feared rather than trusted.
Early in my career, I went on home visits, and I supported women who were involved with child welfare. I saw firsthand cases of extreme neglect. I will never forget walking into a woman’s apartment where I saw three children, a baby on the floor next to a pile of milk and cereal caked into the carpet, a toddler staring blankly at a TV, and a five-year-old who smiled at me with silver teeth. The TV was blaring, and we had to announce ourselves multiple times before Mom came out of the bedroom. Mom had issues with drugs and the kids had been taken away on numerous occasions. I walked away from that visit conflicted. There were other occasions where CPS intervened, simply because mom was a survivor of domestic violence and the system was being used against the survivor by her abuser, labeling her as a bad mother, in a vindictive agenda.
Multiple things can be true at once. The government can have a role in keeping children safe and intervening when parents cannot or will not protect their children. The government can also be a bad actor and enable abuse and neglect of children. I used to work for the Child Abuse Prevention Center in San Francisco, and one of the key areas of programming was teaching children to keep themselves safe. But what do you do when the government is the one enabling the abuse and neglect of children? Today, we are seeing the government enable abuse and neglect of children in immigration detention centers.
For example, Gael, a 5 year old that was being evaluated for autism, was detained at Dilley Detention Center for 45 days, where his parents stated, “he struggled to eat, often gagging on food, and went more than a week without a bowel movement, leaving his stomach visibly swollen and causing him pain”. Dilley Detention Center in South Texas has a reputation for serving contaminated food, where children lack access to education and even basic medical care. An estimated 1,800 children had passed through Dilley as of December. Dilley is just one immigration detention center. Senator Jon Ossoff’s Office has received or identified 18 credible reports that children as young as two years old, including U.S. citizens, have been mistreated in DHS custody.
“The Dilley facility is a family residential center designed specifically to house family units together in a safe, structured, and appropriate environment…where families who have been in the U.S. illegally can get medical care, educational services, recreational opportunities, and essential daily living needs while they await deportation,” said ICE Director Todd M. Lyons. ICE also contends that, “Medical professionals complete full assessments of all detainees within 48 working hours of admission, providing immediate referrals and priority care for kids, pregnant women, and medically vulnerable residents”. Yet, in a case reported to Senator Jon Ossoff’s Office, a pregnant woman bled for days before facility staff would take her to a hospital. Once she was there, she was reportedly left in a room, alone, to miscarry without water or medical assistance for over 24 hours. In another case in Louisiana, a detainee reportedly “nearly miscarried twice” while in ICE custody.
ICE states that “Being in detention is a choice.” Yet, no parent would choose this for themselves or their child. Advocates are calling for the closure of Dilley and similar facilities. Gael was released after advocates, including child educator Ms. Rachel, spoke with Gael over Zoom and rallied public outcry for his release. If we care about protecting children and preventing child abuse, we can close these facilities, and we can hold the government accountable for its failure to protect children.Elisabet Avalos is a leader in housing justice, developing programs for survivors of violence experiencing homelessness, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project on Domestic Violence and Economic Security.
Scarier Than the Boogeyman was first published by Latino News Network and was republished with permission.
Senate votes increasingly pass with support from senators representing a minority of Americans, raising questions about representation, rules, and democracy.
From taxes to the environment to public broadcasting like PBS and NPR, the Senate has recently passed record levels of legislation and confirmed record numbers of nominations with senators representing less than half the people.
Using historical data, GovTrack found 56 examples of Senate votes on legislation that passed with senators representing a “population minority.” 26 of those 56 examples, nearly half, have occurred since President Donald Trump’s current term began.
GovTrack includes a feature on all its Senate vote listings, displaying both the “official” roll call – how many senators voted yes or no – alongside the percentage of the contemporaneous population those senators represent. (When each of a state’s two senators vote differently, half of the state’s population is apportioned to each senator.)
For example, take the very first bill the Senate voted on in 2025: the Laken Riley Act. A top priority for Trump, the bill mandated detention of undocumented immigrants arrested for theft or burglary.
The Republican-led Senate passed it with 65% support. GovTrack’s data shows those senators represented 60% of the U.S. population – still a majority, but a bit less so.
Other Senate votes, though, win a majority of the senators while only representing a minority of the population.
In this article, we look at these votes.
Here are two of those most notable “population minority” Senate votes on bills enacted in the current Congress:
| Bill | Date | Senate vote | Population % |
|---|---|---|---|
| One Big Beautiful Bill Act | July 1, 2025 | 50%* | 44% |
| Rescissions Act | July 17, 2025 | 52% | 46% |
* Vice President J.D. Vance broke the Senate tie in favor.
Most of the Senate’s other recent “population minority” votes overturned Biden-era rules and regulations, particularly regarding the environment and energy.
By GovTrack’s count, six such Senate votes were about the Environmental Protection Agency, another six were about the Bureau of Land Management, and four were for the Department of Energy.
Several of the second Trump administration’s most prominent members were confirmed by Senate “population minority” votes – including RFK Jr. (Secretary of Health and Human Services), Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard.
| Nominee | Position | Senate vote | Population % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Secretary of Health and Human Services | 52% | 46% |
| Pete Hegseth | Secretary of Defense | 50%* | 46% |
| Pam Bondi | (Former) Attorney General | 54% | 49% |
| Kash Patel | FBI Director | 51% | 46% |
| Tulsi Gabbard | Director of National Intelligence | 52% | 46% |
* Vice President J.D. Vance broke the Senate tie in favor.
The oldest example GovTrack found of a “population minority” Senate vote is actually famous: Clarence Thomas’s 1991 Supreme Court nomination by President George H. W. Bush. The Senate approved Thomas with 52% support, but 49% of the population.
He still serves on the Court today.
GovTrack found three other “population minority” Senate confirmations for Supreme Court justices, totalling four: Thomas plus Trump’s three first-term nominees. All four still serve on the Court.
| Supreme Court nominee | Year | Senate vote | Population % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarence Thomas | 1991 | 52% | 49% |
| Neil Gorsuch | 2017 | 55% | 46% |
| Brett Kavanaugh | 2018 | 51% | 44% |
| Amy Coney Barrett | 2020 | 52% | 48% |
The earliest example GovTrack could find for legislation was the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, a banking deregulation law. The Republican-led Senate passed it with 55% support, representing 48% of the population.
Yet such examples proved rare. According to GovTrack’s data, starting from that 1999 vote through 2016, such Senate “population minority” votes on legislation only occurred 12 times. That’s not even once per year.
That changed in Trump’s first term, though, when the Republican-led Senate of his first two years passed 17 “population minority” votes.
But it’s really zoomed to another level now. The current Republican-led Senate has already passed an unprecedented 26 “population minority” votes on legislation.
The numbers similarly reveal how unprecedented this current Senate is for nominations.
After Thomas in 1991, a Senate “population minority” nominee confirmation vote – whether for the Supreme Court or otherwise – only occurred once in the next decade. In 1994, the Senate voted to retire Navy Adm. Frank Kelso while retaining his four-star rank, after sexual harassment allegations, with 56% support but 45% of the population.
According to GovTrack’s historical analysis of votes over the last century, the Senate has confirmed 293 nominees with “population minority” votes. 133 of those 293, almost half, have occurred since Trump took office again in 2025.
Although bills must also pass the House, which has proportional representation, nominations are only voted on in the Senate.
Wait, why is this even able to occur at all?
Currently, Republicans hold a Senate majority: 53 to 47. However, based on the Census Bureau’s current estimates, it’s actually the other way around by population: Democratic senators represent a 53% majority of the states’ population, versus Republicans with 47%.
How is this possible? Because while the U.S. House is apportioned based on population, with larger states receiving more representatives, the U.S. Senate guarantees each state two senators regardless of size.
This was baked into the American system from the beginning, creating what political scientists call a “counter-majoritarian” institution.
In 2025, according to Census Bureau estimates, the most populous state (California) had about 67x the population as the least populous: Wyoming. Today, a Senate voting majority could be cobbled together from senators representing just 17% of the population.
But that’s actually been the same for a while. Going back to 1900, a Senate voting majority could be cobbled together with senators representing 16% to 20% of the population.
Instead, small states may be more politically aligned than they used to be and are voting together more often as a bloc.
Senators have recently taken advantage of old rules, and also changed some rules, to use lower vote thresholds. This means votes are more often succeeding with less support.
Both parties contributed to this.
In 2013, under President Obama, Senate Democrats changed the threshold for most nominations from three-fifths to a simple majority. They left it at three-fifths for the Supreme Court, though.
Then in 2017 during Trump’s first term, Senate Republicans changed the threshold for the Supreme Court, too, to confirm Justice Gorsuch by a simple majority. (This rule applied to all subsequent justices, too.)
As for legislation, many of the recent “population minority” Senate votes used the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which lowered the usual Senate vote threshold from three-fifths to a simple majority for certain deregulation bills. The One Big Beautiful Act and the Rescissions Act were both voted on under other rules, which lower the vote threshold for certain spending-related bills.
So the three-fifths threshold is now gone for nominations and some types of legislation.
It might not stop there. Trump has called for the Senate to end the three-fifths threshold for all legislation, in order to enact certain Republican policies – particularly regarding election rules. If that happens, “population minority” Senate votes could become even more frequent.
This discrepancy usually benefits the GOP, since they tend to represent smaller states.
Take those two states we just mentioned, for example. Tens of millions of mostly-progressive Californians are represented by the same number of senators as the less than one million mostly-MAGA Wyomingites.
So although their population sizes are apples and oranges, in the Senate, the Golden State’s two Democrats and the Cowboy State’s two Republicans essentially “tie.”
The consequences of this discrepancy become even more obvious in aggregate.
The top half of states by population, from California through Louisiana, actually have a Democratic Senate majority: 28 to 22. However, the bottom half of states by population, from Kentucky through Wyoming, are majority Republican: 31 to 19.
(In particular, note that the bottom half of states lean “more” Republican than how much the top half of states lean Democratic.)
This small-state Republican benefit also holds true at the presidential level. Indeed, two presidents in living memory won election despite losing the national popular vote, both Republicans: George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016.
The Congressional Review Act, which makes it easier for Congress to deregulate – and the rules for rescissions bills, which makes it easier to cut funding – also are more aligned with Republican goals than Democratic goals.
To be clear: all this doesn’t necessarily mean these counter-majoritarian policy outcomes are “better” or “worse.” That depends on your political ideology, and that’s a completely separate discussion.
But for better or for worse, it’s clear that the Senate is diverging from popular opinion far more than ever before, at least in recent memory. Even if one believes the Senate is, in fact, “right” while popular opinion is “wrong.”
Jesse 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.
Record Number of Bills and Nominations Passed With Senators Representing a Population Minority was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.
An in-depth interview with Elizabeth Rasmussen of Better Boundaries on Utah’s redistricting battle, Proposition 4, and the fight to protect ballot initiatives, fair maps, and democratic accountability.
Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.
Elizabeth Rasmussen is the Executive Director for Better Boundaries, a Utah-based organization fighting for fair maps, defending the citizen initiative process, preserving checks and balances, and building a better future. Currently making headlines in the state, Better Boundaries is working to protect Proposition 4, and with it, the rights of Utah voters.
Our recent conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Fahey: Please tell us about your background and what brought you to lead this effort.
Rasmussen: I always wanted to work in the public sector, and started getting involved in politics at a young age. My passion is primarily in the environmental space–ensuring our public lands are protected, water is conserved, and resources are handled with care. I began my career in Washington, D.C., working on public lands and water policy for Senator Romney. After a few years, I transitioned back into the campaign world, and then I became a climate consultant at Deloitte. It was there when I realized so many issues we face with implementing good policy stem from issues with representation and voting structures, such as gerrymandering and ballot access. I realized that in order to make change, we needed to change the structures that incentivize bad policy. This naturally led me to Better Boundaries.
Fahey: Please tell me about Better Boundaries and the reforms the organization is promoting.
Rasmussen: Better Boundaries initially started as an anti-gerrymandering organization. Its goal was to implement an independent redistricting commission and neutral criteria for drawing voting maps, at the state and federal levels. After our ballot initiative to implement these reforms passed, the legislature fought back by undoing the reforms, making them non-binding. This led us to advocacy work and litigation on our right to use the ballot initiative process. Over the past several years, we have been devoted to protecting anti-germandering reforms, protecting the ballot initiative process from attempts to weaken or eliminate it, and lobbying for policies that eliminate barriers to voting.
Fahey: Why is redistricting reform necessary in Utah? How has gerrymandering impacted the previous decade of elections?
Rasmussen: When the legislature has unchecked control over the map-drawing process, the incentive is to protect those already in power, whether that be an incumbent or a certain political party. Utah is a supermajority red state in its representation, despite only having 50 percent of the voting population registered Republican. This has resulted from the legislature drawing maps that split up Salt Lake County into all congressional districts, cracking the progressive population of the state and diluting their influence. They also continued to draw maps that protected incumbent state legislators from worrying about reelection campaigns. With half of the population disenfranchised, we knew there had to be a change in the process of drawing maps.
Fahey: What previous attempts have there been to reform the redistricting process in Utah? Why haven’t they stuck?
Rasmussen: 2018 was the first major attempt to tackle redistricting reform–and it was successful. The struggle came after, in 2021, when the legislature repealed Proposition 4 and replaced it with SB200. This new law made the commission and neutral criteria, or standards, non-binding. With Prop 4 gutted, they were allowed to pass a gerrymandered map that split Salt Lake County into all four congressional districts. We have been fighting to remedy this through litigation, and in 2025, the courts finally reinstated Proposition 4 and implemented a representative map for the 2026 elections after the legislature again failed to follow the law.
Fahey: What has been the biggest obstacle to your effort?
Rasmussen: The biggest obstacle to our effort has been the legislature’s unwillingness to listen to the will of the people. We passed Proposition 4 nearly eight years ago, and it was just implemented by court order in August 2025. Instead of respecting this decision, their response has been threats to impeach the judge, massive reforms to the judiciary during the 2026 legislative session, and a petition to repeal Proposition 4. They packed the court, created a new process for constitutional questions to be handled in the court system, and even levied a new federal lawsuit trying to block the 2026 map. Instead of respecting the people, the courts, and the constitution, they have fought back every step of the way.
Fahey: Why do you think the legislature has been attacking the ballot initiative process?
Rasmussen: Our Senate President and House Speaker have made it clear that they believe the ballot initiative process is the greatest threat to Utah. By allowing this tool of direct democracy, they claim that Utah will become like California, passing ballot initiatives every year that go against the Utah way. In other words, they do not trust voters to use the ballot initiative process. Their goal is to eliminate it through a constitutional amendment so that the legislature can amend or repeal ballot initiatives after they pass.
Fahey: What is the plan for fighting the proposed amendment, S.J.R. 2, and where are you at in the process?
Rasmussen: Right now, we are in the education phase. Because there have been so many attacks on Proposition 4 and the ballot initiative process, people are confused and tend to tune out of the conversation. Our goal is to show people that they have a constitutional right to alter and reform their government, and that includes using the ballot initiative. Any effort to weaken this process is a direct attack on their rights.
Fahey: How can citizens get involved or support your work?
Rasmussen: We are currently doing work to protect Proposition 4 through a program called Protect Utah Voters. We encourage people to reach out by signing up to volunteer on this program’s website: protectutahvoters.com
Fahey: If you were speaking with a high school student or a new immigrant to the country, how would you describe what being an American means to you?
Rasmussen: There seems to be a prevailing thought that being an American means you can’t criticize your government or history. I see it as the opposite. Being an American is learning from the past, seeing where improvements can be made, and advocating for change. That is how our country was founded, and it’s our duty to carry that long-standing tradition forward so the next generations have a better country than the one we were given.Katie Fahey is Executive Director of The People.
Amid rising skepticism about U.S. higher education, universities are embracing civil discourse initiatives to combat polarization, promote free speech, and foster open dialogue among students with differing views.
Americans are not optimistic about the state of higher education. A 2025 Pew Research survey revealed that 7 in 10 adults believe that higher education in the United States is generally going in the wrong direction. Forty-six percent say that colleges and universities do a fair or poor job of “providing opportunities for students to express their own opinions.” Forty-five percent negatively rate these institutions’ job of “exposing students to a wide range of opinions.”
On the ground, students engage in self-censorship out of fear of how their views will be received by both their professors and peers. Fear of engaging with ideological opponents and the resulting breakdown of communication are surely fueling polarization in our country.
Respectful conversation is a key ingredient to healing our civic culture.
Room for optimism exists, however. There is a steady growth in efforts to cultivate the civil exchange of ideas on campus. Take, for example, the class at Kalamazoo College that recently made headlines. Professor Justin Berry’s senior seminar on political polarization requires students to do the seemingly impossible: interview someone with very different views for 30 minutes to an hour. The results were unexpectedly fruitful. Despite covering points of disagreement, students reported surprise at finding how much they had in common with their interviewees. And the conversations sometimes went far beyond the required time limits, into “multiple sessions for multiple hours.” Students’ experiences in this class are a testament to what close listening and courteous communication can produce.
At UNC-Chapel Hill, the Courageous Conversations discussion led by Professor John Rose is another example of students’ eagerness to engage in substantive, but difficult, conversations. The discussion focused on the fairness of college admissions post-affirmative action, which formally lasted an hour. Students lingered afterward to continue the conversation in smaller groups.
The UNC story reminds me of a Braver Angels debate I attended at North Carolina State University (NCSU) in 2023. Braver Angels, an organization that helps moderate parliamentary-style debates, invited students to participate in a respectful debate on whether there should be restrictions on abortion. Students from the audience were welcome to take turns making their case at a podium for a set time period. I was impressed by the calm and respectful tone maintained throughout the debate, even though strongly opposing views were expressed. After the debate formally ended, students from both sides continued speaking with one another on the topic. This debate format gave students the tools they needed to meaningfully discuss one of the most polarizing issues in our national discourse.
These hopeful efforts need to become mainstream in higher education. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal’s recently published Blueprint for Reform: Civil Discourse outlines actionable steps universities and states can take to strengthen civil dialogue.
The Martin Center recommends that universities:
For their part, state legislatures should require their institutions to be homes of civil and open debate by passing legislation based on The Campus Intellectual Diversity Act.
Students are hungry for civil discourse. Universities must seize this moment to build ideological bridges on their campuses. Doing so may help turn the tide of public opinion and, most importantly, deepen students’ understanding of and empathy for their fellow citizens.
Shannon Watkins is Research and Policy Fellow at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
