Only an informed citizenry can stop leaders from testing constitutional limits
Opinion
A democracy weakens long before it collapses, and the first cracks always appear in its elections. Election interference is no longer a distant warning — it is active, accelerating, and coming from within our own country. Representative John Lewis reminded us that “Democracy is not a state. It is an act.” Today, even that act is being deliberately weakened.
There was a time when Americans feared election interference from foreign adversaries like Russia or China. Today, the more urgent threat comes from officials who swore an oath to defend the Constitution yet work to weaken it in plain sight. That shift is not abstract; it is reshaping how — and whether — Americans can exercise their most fundamental right.
In our Republic, voting is being made harder — not through isolated disputes, but through coordinated efforts that reshape rules, narrow access, and erode constitutional authority. These actions fracture public confidence and weaken the guardrails that protect the democratic process. Election integrity is not a partisan advantage but the foundation of a functioning democracy. When leaders manipulate the system and citizens fail to confront the warning signs, interference spreads — and democracy grows weaker.
America is a democracy grounded in the people themselves — government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Under the Constitution, states — not presidents — administer elections and safeguard the process (Brennan Center). The framers feared concentrated power, so they distributed election authority across the states to prevent any single leader from controlling outcomes (States United). Yet today, Americans are watching leaders test those limits and attempt to shape outcomes in their favor.
The threat of interference does not stop with rhetoric. Presidential overreach has become a central threat (Brennan Center). The president is trying to exert control over elections, pushing executive power beyond constitutional limits. Congress must check the president and remind him that America is a republic grounded in shared power, not presidential control.
Recently, the House passed the SAVE America Act — legislation requiring proof of U.S. citizenship and photo ID to register and vote in federal elections, while imposing new federal oversight of voter registration (NPR). The president has threatened forceful law enforcement actions, criminal prosecution, and the removal of states’ constitutional authority to run their own elections under the Elections Clause (Brennan Center). These threats strike at the heart of the balance the framers designed to prevent any single leader from influencing outcomes.
Across the country, voters have witnessed bomb threats at election offices, rumors targeting immigration enforcement at polling sites, and executive actions attempting to alter election procedures — many blocked by the courts (Politico). The continued promotion of false claims about the 2020 election fuels distrust, deepens confusion, and weakens confidence in state‑run elections. Each tactic follows the same pattern: testing how much confusion or fear the public will tolerate.
Recent investigations show how deeply this pattern has taken root. Political appointees who repeat election falsehoods now oversee federal task forces that pressure state officials and question voting systems. Executive actions have attempted to impose new citizenship document requirements and weaken election‑security infrastructure — moves courts have partially blocked because the Constitution assigns these powers to Congress and the states, not the president.
The Constitution does not use the phrase “election interference,” but it establishes the guardrails that interference threatens. The Elections Clause gives states authority to run elections while allowing Congress to set nationwide standards to protect voting rights (Article I Section 4). The framers distributed election authority across the states to prevent any single leader from manipulating outcomes. Yet recent years show how easily these guardrails bend when leaders test limits or exploit confusion (Brookings). When protections weaken, so does our Republic.
Project 2025 pushes that vulnerability further. Its proposals call for expanding presidential control over federal agencies and reducing federal oversight of elections (Project 2025), changes many observers warn could weaken long‑standing protections (Govfacts). Although Project 2025 is not law, its recommendations have already shaped political rhetoric and administrative priorities (BBC), reinforcing recent federal statements about “the right people voting” and “electing the right leaders.” As Governor Kristi Noem put it, leaders must ensure “the right people vote.” Each signal asserts a federal role the Constitution does not grant — a deeper consolidation of power.
But interference is not driven by policy alone; it is fueled by the money that shapes narratives and public perception. Billionaires and powerful donors now drive political messaging (Brennan Center), fund misinformation networks, and influence policy agendas that do not reflect the needs of ordinary citizens. Some have openly declared intentions to reshape government or control information (POLITICO). When wealth distorts public understanding or manipulates democratic processes, interference accelerates — and accountability collapses.
Americans cannot afford to be uninformed. Political ignorance is not just unfortunate — it is dangerous. As Dr. Lance Watson preached at Washington National Cathedral, ignorance can be invincible, willful, or the result of choosing comforting lies over difficult truths (Holy Eucharist: HBCU). When leaders repeat falsehoods — about elections or public institutions — citizens rationalize what they know is not true. Distortion becomes belief, and belief becomes behavior. A democracy cannot survive when its people are misled.
The framers understood this danger, which is why they embedded the First Amendment into the Constitution (First Freedoms Foundation). They knew a free press was essential to ensure an informed public able to recognize abuses of power and ensure accountability. A politically astute public is essential.
Yet today’s president has worked to prevent the press from doing its job. From arrests to intimidation to purchasing networks, the objective is the same: weaken the institution that checks executive power. When the press is silenced, the people are silenced — and the public is easier to mislead.
In a 2017 interview on Meet the Press, Senator John McCain warned that suppressing a free press is “how dictators get started” (AP News). He admitted he did not always like the press, but he defended it because democracy cannot survive without it. When leaders silence journalists, they are not attacking the media; they are attacking the public’s right to know. And when citizens lose access to reliable information, ignorance grows — the condition the framers feared most. A democracy without truth is a democracy without guardrails.
Breaking this pattern requires action. Citizens must recognize interference when it appears, refuse to participate in it, and report intimidation or misinformation to local election authorities. Before Election Day, every voter should confirm their registration, verify their polling place, understand their voting options, and research candidates’ constitutional commitments. These steps may seem small, but they anchor democratic participation — and deny confusion the power it seeks.
But voters cannot be the only guardrail. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to respond when federal officials blur state authority, spread falsehoods, or assert powers the Constitution does not grant. Through hearings, oversight, and public accountability, lawmakers must affirm that federal officials have no authority to influence who votes or who wins.
Federal officials — including the president and the secretary of Homeland Security — must respect constitutional limits, refrain from interfering in state‑run elections, and allow the press to operate without intimidation or retaliation.
Democracy is not guaranteed. It is an act — one that belongs to all of us. Election interference collapses only when voters refuse to reward it. When citizens commit to electing leaders who honor their oath, respect constitutional limits, and choose country over party, they reclaim their power and strengthen the Republic. Your vote is your voice. Your voice is your power. And your vote is the final guardrail that protects America from interference coming from within.
Bio: Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership, government accountability, and civic renewal. She writes about constitutional responsibility, democratic norms, and the importance of an informed citizenry.
A democracy weakens long before it collapses, and the first cracks always appear in its elections. Election interference is no longer a distant warning — it is active, accelerating, and coming from within our own country. Representative John Lewis reminded us that “Democracy is not a state. It is an act.” Today, even that act is being deliberately weakened.
There was a time when Americans feared election interference from foreign adversaries like Russia or China. Today, the more urgent threat comes from officials who swore an oath to defend the Constitution yet work to weaken it in plain sight. That shift is not abstract; it is reshaping how — and whether — Americans can exercise their most fundamental right.
In our Republic, voting is being made harder — not through isolated disputes, but through coordinated efforts that reshape rules, narrow access, and erode constitutional authority. These actions fracture public confidence and weaken the guardrails that protect the democratic process. Election integrity is not a partisan advantage but the foundation of a functioning democracy. When leaders manipulate the system and citizens fail to confront the warning signs, interference spreads — and democracy grows weaker.
America is a democracy grounded in the people themselves — government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Under the Constitution, states — not presidents — administer elections and safeguard the process (Brennan Center). The framers feared concentrated power, so they distributed election authority across the states to prevent any single leader from controlling outcomes (States United). Yet today, Americans are watching leaders test those limits and attempt to shape outcomes in their favor.
The threat of interference does not stop with rhetoric. Presidential overreach has become a central threat (Brennan Center). The president is trying to exert control over elections, pushing executive power beyond constitutional limits. Congress must check the president and remind him that America is a republic grounded in shared power, not presidential control.
Recently, the House passed the SAVE America Act — legislation requiring proof of U.S. citizenship and photo ID to register and vote in federal elections, while imposing new federal oversight of voter registration (NPR). The president has threatened forceful law enforcement actions, criminal prosecution, and the removal of states’ constitutional authority to run their own elections under the Elections Clause (Brennan Center). These threats strike at the heart of the balance the framers designed to prevent any single leader from influencing outcomes.
Across the country, voters have witnessed bomb threats at election offices, rumors targeting immigration enforcement at polling sites, and executive actions attempting to alter election procedures — many blocked by the courts (Politico). The continued promotion of false claims about the 2020 election fuels distrust, deepens confusion, and weakens confidence in state‑run elections. Each tactic follows the same pattern: testing how much confusion or fear the public will tolerate.
Recent investigations show how deeply this pattern has taken root. Political appointees who repeat election falsehoods now oversee federal task forces that pressure state officials and question voting systems. Executive actions have attempted to impose new citizenship document requirements and weaken election‑security infrastructure — moves courts have partially blocked because the Constitution assigns these powers to Congress and the states, not the president.
The Constitution does not use the phrase “election interference,” but it establishes the guardrails that interference threatens. The Elections Clause gives states authority to run elections while allowing Congress to set nationwide standards to protect voting rights (Article I Section 4). The framers distributed election authority across the states to prevent any single leader from manipulating outcomes. Yet recent years show how easily these guardrails bend when leaders test limits or exploit confusion (Brookings). When protections weaken, so does our Republic.
Project 2025 pushes that vulnerability further. Its proposals call for expanding presidential control over federal agencies and reducing federal oversight of elections (Project 2025), changes many observers warn could weaken long‑standing protections (Govfacts). Although Project 2025 is not law, its recommendations have already shaped political rhetoric and administrative priorities (BBC), reinforcing recent federal statements about “the right people voting” and “electing the right leaders.” As Governor Kristi Noem put it, leaders must ensure “the right people vote.” Each signal asserts a federal role the Constitution does not grant — a deeper consolidation of power.
But interference is not driven by policy alone; it is fueled by the money that shapes narratives and public perception. Billionaires and powerful donors now drive political messaging (Brennan Center), fund misinformation networks, and influence policy agendas that do not reflect the needs of ordinary citizens. Some have openly declared intentions to reshape government or control information (POLITICO). When wealth distorts public understanding or manipulates democratic processes, interference accelerates — and accountability collapses.
Americans cannot afford to be uninformed. Political ignorance is not just unfortunate — it is dangerous. As Dr. Lance Watson preached at Washington National Cathedral, ignorance can be invincible, willful, or the result of choosing comforting lies over difficult truths (Holy Eucharist: HBCU). When leaders repeat falsehoods — about elections or public institutions — citizens rationalize what they know is not true. Distortion becomes belief, and belief becomes behavior. A democracy cannot survive when its people are misled.
The framers understood this danger, which is why they embedded the First Amendment into the Constitution (First Freedoms Foundation). They knew a free press was essential to ensure an informed public able to recognize abuses of power and ensure accountability. A politically astute public is essential.
Yet today’s president has worked to prevent the press from doing its job. From arrests to intimidation to purchasing networks, the objective is the same: weaken the institution that checks executive power. When the press is silenced, the people are silenced — and the public is easier to mislead.
In a 2017 interview on Meet the Press, Senator John McCain warned that suppressing a free press is “how dictators get started” (AP News). He admitted he did not always like the press, but he defended it because democracy cannot survive without it. When leaders silence journalists, they are not attacking the media; they are attacking the public’s right to know. And when citizens lose access to reliable information, ignorance grows — the condition the framers feared most. A democracy without truth is a democracy without guardrails.
Breaking this pattern requires action. Citizens must recognize interference when it appears, refuse to participate in it, and report intimidation or misinformation to local election authorities. Before Election Day, every voter should confirm their registration, verify their polling place, understand their voting options, and research candidates’ constitutional commitments. These steps may seem small, but they anchor democratic participation — and deny confusion the power it seeks.
But voters cannot be the only guardrail. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to respond when federal officials blur state authority, spread falsehoods, or assert powers the Constitution does not grant. Through hearings, oversight, and public accountability, lawmakers must affirm that federal officials have no authority to influence who votes or who wins.
Federal officials — including the president and the secretary of Homeland Security — must respect constitutional limits, refrain from interfering in state‑run elections, and allow the press to operate without intimidation or retaliation.
Democracy is not guaranteed. It is an act — one that belongs to all of us. Election interference collapses only when voters refuse to reward it. When citizens commit to electing leaders who honor their oath, respect constitutional limits, and choose country over party, they reclaim their power and strengthen the Republic. Your vote is your voice. Your voice is your power. And your vote is the final guardrail that protects America from interference coming from within.
Bio: Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership, government accountability, and civic renewal. She writes about constitutional responsibility, democratic norms, and the importance of an informed citizenry.
Dan Osborn
Independent voters now represent the largest share of the American electorate, and yet they remain mostly unrepresented in federal office. Both major parties have spent decades optimizing for their bases, almost always leaving the near majority of Americans who identify as independent with the choice of either voting for a party candidate they don't fully support or staying home.
A handful of high-profile independent candidates for the US Senate are trying to change that. 2026 is seeing one of the largest surges of interest in independent candidates in recent memory. However, these candidates are often covered as fringe candidates, and stories about them focus more on how they'll impact the outcome of the election between a Republican and Democrat than they do on the substance of the candidate's campaign.
This series exists because the independent electorate deserves better than that. Over the coming months, IVN is conducting in-depth interviews with independent candidates across the country—not just horse-race conversations about polling and fundraising, but substantive discussions about the issues independent voters actually care about.
In Nebraska, Dan Osborn is running for US Senate.
Dan Osborn graduated from Omaha's Roncalli Catholic High School in 1994. He then joined the Navy, serving four years aboard the USS Constellation before moving on to the Nebraska Army National Guard. In 2004, he took a job as an industrial mechanic at the Kellogg's plant in Omaha and joined the union, where he eventually rose to president of BCTGM Local 50G. In that role, he led the 77-day 2021 strike that stopped the company's proposed benefit cuts and kept the plant open. He was later terminated by Kellogg's, an action he attributes to his union role, and now works as a steamfitter with Local 464.
The through-line from the plant floor to the campaign is the same sentence he has been repeating for three years: working people deserve a seat at the table in Washington. In 2024, running as an independent against Republican Sen. Deb Fischer, that message got him 46.5% of the vote—a roughly seven-point loss in a state Donald Trump carried by 20. It was the strongest independent performance in a Nebraska Senate race in the direct election era, and it convinced him to run again immediately.
The field cleared for Osborn in the space of about a week in July. On July 16, the secretary of state's office verified at least 6,096 valid signatures against the 4,000 required, officially placing him on the November ballot. The next day, Democratic nominee Cindy Burbank, who won her primary in May on an explicit promise to step aside, filed paperwork to withdraw. Secretary of State Bob Evnen initially floated keeping her on anyway, then announced on July 21 that state law gave him no discretion to refuse a declination, while calling the maneuver "a cynical manipulation of the ballot process." The result is a head-to-head between Osborn and incumbent Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts.
Sen. Ricketts is the son of TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts and a co-owner of the Chicago Cubs. He served as Nebraska's governor from 2015 to 2023 before being appointed to the Senate in 2023 when Sen. Ben Sasse left to become president of the University of Florida. He won the special election to finish that term, and he won the Republican primary for this cycle with roughly 82% of the vote. He’s been endorsed by President Trump.
The fundraising totals tell a story of two different styles of campaign. Ricketts has raised $11.2 million through June 30—of which ~$5.3 million is a contribution from himself and $3.6 million came from other committees, leaving roughly $2.2 million from individual donors.
Osborn's campaign reports $5.8 million raised with an average second-quarter contribution of about $40 and no corporate PAC money. Osborn's framing at his ballot-qualification press conference was blunt: "Ricketts believes spending is free speech, he believes his voice is louder because he can write a bigger check."
Nebraska's registration numbers explain why this is still an uphill race. As of July, the state had 620,000 registered Republicans, 328,000 Democrats, and 282,000 nonpartisans—a Republican plurality of nearly 50%.
Public polling has consistently shown a close race when Osborn and Ricketts are placed head-to-head, with Osborn ranging from one point behind to five points ahead. That polling comes with a significant caveat: nearly all of it has been sponsored by Osborn's campaign or by groups aligned with him or other independents. What is notable is not the toplines but the absence of any survey showing Ricketts pulling clear, or even ahead by more than the margin of error.
Osborn's answer on what he brought forward from the last cycle itself speaks to the increased professionalism of his independent campaign. "We have numbers now," he said. "We have data of how we performed in every county, so we've identified where we need to do better and what our actual win numbers are."
That county-level model can now serve the basis for field operations rather than a guess.
The second asset is recognition. Osborn puts it at 86% statewide. "I don't have to spend the first half hour of every conversation explaining who I am." The third is a volunteer network that returned, showing a high level of grassroots enthusiasm that’s reflected in his small-dollar fundraising advantage.
The one thing he says he got wrong was social media, which he now describes as a major channel he underinvested in.
He also is more direct in his criticism of Ricketts—Osborn called him "the Lex Luthor of Nebraska" and said that as a two-term governor "he ran the state like a mob boss." But what he says of both of his senatorial opponents from the past two cycles is the part that matters to him most: "They're just backbenchers that will rubber stamp whatever their party tells them to do.” Even when, Osborn says, it isn’t working for the people in Nebraska.
Osborn's coalition-building is being built on the backbone of a grueling campaign schedule. He did 200 public town halls in 2024 alone. By the time we spoke in July, he had already done more than 90 this cycle, with a commitment to reach all 93 counties. He described driving twelve miles up a rancher's driveway to have a conversation with a Republican voter—not to pitch, but to ask what he wanted from a US senator and what he felt he was getting.
On the specific problem of independent turnout—recent polling suggests about 30% of independents nationally plan to sit out the midterms—his pitch is less about mobilization mechanics than about identification. "If you're talking about team mentality, that's whose team I'm playing for: the people that are frustrated with the two-party doom loop that we're stuck in. Not passing farm bills, not passing immigration reforms. They're working for the money interests, the lobbyists, the special interests that fund campaigns."
Every independent Senate candidate in this series has been asked what they would demand before helping either party organize a Senate majority—the "fulcrum" strategy that the six of them have been developing in coordination. Ty Pinkins laid out a detailed list of single-issue bills and rules changes for the first day of a new Congress. Bob Chew added procedural items on reconciliation and restoring the 60-vote threshold for confirmations. Todd Achilles framed the whole exercise as a constitutional reform wave.
Osborn's answer is narrower and, he argues, upstream of all of it. "For me, it really is money in politics," he said. "Money in politics touches so many, if not every, issue that's out there. If you're taking their money, you've got to do their bidding." Citizens United is a Supreme Court ruling, he acknowledged, so the near-term work is finding ways to combat its effects rather than waiting on a reversal.
He also thinks the demonstration matters as much as the legislation. "Just existing in the Senate with a win, and doing it in a way where we didn't take defense contractor money or AIPAC money or railroad money or Facebook money or AI money or cryptocurrency money—just existing in that realm is going to show so many other people, and hopefully voters across the country, that we need to highlight this."
His shorthand for the problem comes from Robin Williams: politicians should wear NASCAR jackets with their sponsors' patches, so voters know in advance how they'll vote.
When asked about his own commitment to term limits outside of legislation implementing them, his response was hilariously blunt. "I'm 51 years old. Twelve years puts me—yeah, I want to retire someday, man. I don't need to sign a pledge. I know it's going to be two and out."
But his substantive objection is more interesting than the personal one. Term limits alone, he argues, make the lobbying problem worse rather than better. "The thing that has to live next to it—that's actually more important than term limits—is a complete ban on any former member of Congress becoming a lobbyist. They have a whole Rolodex of all the power players in Washington and all the people with the money. They could probably be way more effective as a lobbyist with those contacts than they could as an actual lawmaker."
He points to Nebraska's own unicameral as the cautionary example: term limits there are too short, and the result is a pipeline of former state senators who now influence the body as lobbyists more than they did as members. His package is three-part and interlocking—term limits, a lifetime lobbying ban, and a stock trading ban with actual enforcement. "Those three things together could be very powerful, but you have to do term limits right."
On age limits, he was more equivocal, noting that voters keep reelecting older members and that "the devil you know versus the devil you don't" seems to be doing real work. But the underlying concern is straightforward: "At some point that decline that is inevitable in all of us is going to happen, and we don't want that to happen while they're in these very high positions that affect so many people's lives."
Osborn's economic platform runs under the name Growth and Fairness, and the two halves are meant to be inseparable. On the revenue side, he identifies two targets: the Department of Defense, which has never passed an audit despite billions in unaccounted assets—"I'm not suggesting we cut defense spending," he was careful to add—and the roughly 50 multinational corporations that park profits overseas rather than repatriating them.
"I pay my fair share. They should too."
On healthcare, he resists jumping to a coverage model before addressing structure. "We don't want to put the cart ahead of the horse. It is about breaking up the monopolies, making sure corporations like CVS can't vertically integrate the entire system where they profit at every single level."
The argument he makes most often is not a moral one but a growth one: at small business roundtables across the state and when talking with independent ranchers and farmers, health insurance is the number one issue every single time. "That's their Achilles' heel. If you could reduce that for people, you would see a massive boom—people wanting to start their own businesses, smart people who don't have to be stuck in a factory."
The same antitrust logic drives his small business platform. Driving across Nebraska, he said, nearly every town has a Dollar General placed just outside the city limits, with revenue flowing to a company in Tennessee. He believes the chain's purchasing model may violate the Robinson-Patman Act, the Depression-era law meant to ensure small grocers can buy the same goods at the same price as large chains.
"Dollar General doesn't help anybody out… The mom and pop grocery shops I've gotten to visit—they're awesome."
Asked what he would need to accomplish to consider a Senate tenure worthwhile, he named four: Social Security solvency through lifting the payroll tax cap; right-to-repair laws with teeth, including for military contracts; aggressive privacy protection, especially against surveillance pricing, license plate readers, and algorithmic targeting of children; and, above all, getting big money out of politics.
"If I could get the money out of politics, the dominoes will fall. Corruption will be lessened by default."
On war powers, made particularly relevant now because of the ongoing war in Iran, he was direct. He called it an illegal and unjust war, argued that the 60-day window in the War Powers Resolution reflects a mobilization timeline that no longer exists, and delivered the line that summarizes his view of the institution he wants to join: "Congress needs to grow a spine."
Osborn enters the general election with the structural setup no independent Senate candidate has had in modern memory: a cleared field, a two-way race against an incumbent who is struggling to break away in available polling, near-universal name recognition, a functioning county-level field model, and a fundraising base of small donors deep enough to compete without a party behind it.
He is arguably the most viable independent Senate candidate in the country this cycle.
The obstacles are also real. Ricketts can self-fund without limit and has already demonstrated the willingness. Nebraska's Republican registration advantage is close to 50%. The polling showing a tied race is almost entirely campaign-aligned, and he recently lost an election among the same electorate while having many of these same advantages.
What distinguishes Osborn within this series is that he is running the least abstract version of the independent argument. He does not have a constitutional theory or a procedural wish list. He has a strike, a plant closure, a recent legitimate campaign, and a message about the working class that resonates throughout his background. Whether that translates into the roughly four points he needs to find between 2024 and 2026 is the question November will settle.
Dan Osborn is Ready to Represent the Working Class in Congress. Is Nebraska Ready to Let Him? is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.
The exterior of Capitol Hill
The 2026 congressional map is finally set after ten states adopted new congressional redistricting maps for the November 3 General Election. Observers note that the Princeton Gerrymandering Project (PGP) has not graded any state’s maps since it gave California’s Proposition 50 an “F” on October 30, 2025.
The PGP has officially paused grading its Redistricting Report Card because founder Dr. Sam Wang, who transitioned from the Gerrymandering Project to the Electoral Innovation Lab, has launched a campaign for Congress in New Jersey’s 12th District, requiring him to step back from his academic roles, including his leadership at PGP.
With the nonpartisan anti-corruption organization RepresentUs, the PGP created the Redistricting Report Card. The project grades maps on a scale from A to F using three criteria: partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features (compactness and preservation of community cohesion).
This focuses solely on partisan fairness, which assesses whether the map gives one political party an unfair advantage over the other. To provide clarity, I am sharing my own analysis and grades for each state rather than official PGP evaluations. This should clarify my perspective and reasoning, and I urge you to consult nonpartisan sources and, where available, official PGP materials.
(On March 20, 2022, The Fulcrum published my grade for my birth state, West Virginia, because the PGP listed it among five states without draft maps. Later, the PGP graded the Mountaineer State an “A.”)
For the 2022 election, 22 states received “A” for their enacted congressional maps, five received “B,” four received “C,” three received “D,” and eight received “F.” Two states had insufficient data (Hawaii and Rhode Island). Six had an at-large representative (Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming).
The following ten states redrew their congressional maps through legislative action and court orders:
TEXAS: Up to 3-5 Republican seats
In Texas, the 2022 PGP grade was “F,” reflecting a 24-to-13 Republican advantage. The governor signed the 2026 congressional map on August 29, 2025, which could create up to five new Republican-leaning seats. The grade is likely to remain at “F.”
CALIFORNIA: Up to 4-5 Democratic seats
In California, the 2022 PGP grade was “B,” reflecting a 40-to-12 Democratic advantage. The California Legislature passed legislation and a constitutional amendment on August 21, 2025, to redraw the state's congressional districts. Voters subsequently approved the map as Proposition 50 in a special election on November 4, 2025. This change could affect the competitiveness of at least five Republican-held seats. Independent Voter News noted that the Princeton Gerrymandering Project rates California’s Proposition 50 an “F,” lowering the grade.
[Note: The new 40th Congressional District, one of five seats Democrats hope to flip, will not be flipped because two Republicans advanced to the General Election after the top-two primary on June 2.]
MISSOURI: Up to 1 new Republican seat
On September 28, 2025, Missouri became the third state to attempt to redraw its districts for partisan advantage after the state governor signed a revised House map into law. That map could help Republicans win an additional seat by reshaping a Democratic-held district in Kansas City. On July 23, 2026, a federal district court denied a motion to block Missouri’s redrawn congressional map and ordered that the districts be used in the August 4, 2026, primary elections. Missouri’s 2202 PGP grade of “A” should be changed to “C.”
NORTH CAROLINA: Up to 1 new Republican seat
The Republican-led General Assembly gave final approval on October 22, 2025, to revised districts that could help Republicans win an additional seat, with a focus on the 1st District. (The Governor cannot veto redistricting plans under the state Constitution.) North Carolina’s 2022 PGP grade of “B” was downgraded to “F” for the 2026 map.
OHIO: Up to 1-2 new Republican seats
On October 31, 2025, the Ohio Redistricting Commission unanimously approved a 2026 congressional map for the state’s 15 U.S. House districts. The map, which remains in effect until 2031, increases the Republican advantage in the state from 10-5 (since the 2022 election) to a projected 12-3 margin. The new grade could drop from a 2022 PGP grade of “D” to “F.”
UTAH: Up to 1 new Democratic seat
On November 10, 2025, a Utah state judge rejected a Republican-drawn congressional map and approved an alternative that included a solidly Democratic district in the Salt Lake City area. The decision may affect all four congressional districts currently held by Republicans and could shift one seat to Democrats. The grade is predicted to rise from the 2022 PGP “F” to a “C.”
FLORIDA: Up to 4 Republican seats
On May 4, 2026, the Florida Governor signed the controversial mid-decade congressional map into law to counteract redistricting actions in other states and to improve the GOP’s chances of winning four additional seats. The map reshapes 28 U.S. House seats to heavily favor Republicans, resulting in a 24-4 partisan split. The new map will not change Florida’s 2022 PGP grade, which was an “F.”
LOUISIANA: Up to 1 Republican seat
On May 29, 2026, the Louisiana Governor signed a new congressional map intended to shift one of the state’s two Democratic districts toward the Republican Party, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. This action reduced the 2022 PGP grade from “A” to “C.”
ALABAMA: Up to 1 Republican seat
On June 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Alabama could use its 2023 congressional map for the 2026 General Election. The map, whose 2022 PGP grade was downgraded from “A” to “F,” is expected to increase Republican representation by one seat. The current delegation is seven Republicans and two Democrats. The map’s grade is expected to remain “F.”
TENNESSEE: Up to 1 Republican seat
On July 23, 2026, a federal three-judge panel ordered Tennessee to adopt a new congressional map that splits a majority-Black district in Memphis. As a result, the state is likely to elect an all-Republican delegation to Congress this fall. Like Louisiana, Tennessee’s 2022 PGP grade of “A” has dropped to “C”.
For the 2022 PGP grade your state received, refer to the list below. Check your state’s grade, then compare it with the 2026 projections to see how the map may change. States receiving an “A” include Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and Washington. States with a “B” grade are Iowa, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Oklahoma received a “C.” New Mexico and Oregon received a “D.” Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, South Carolina, and Wisconsin received an “F.”
For 2026, ‘A’ states are projected to decline from 22 to 21, including Hawaii and Rhode Island; ‘B’ from 5 to 3; ‘C’ from 4 to 7; and ‘D’ from 3 to 2. The number of ‘F’ states is projected to increase from 8 to 11. Review these shifts to identify where partisan fairness changes most.
Let’s punt a PGP football (not soccer) to the Electoral Innovation Lab for the rest of this census decade.
Howard Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide. He has been advocating against partisan gerrymandering for four decades.
Last week, the independent movement’s road to Washington hit a snag in, well, the other Washington. One promising campaign for the US House has ended, and another teeters, and all of it raises the question of whether the sort of jungle primaries they face can be conducive to success for nonparty candidates, and what they might take to successfully navigate moving forward.
In Washington’s 1st Congressional District, located just northeast of Seattle, independent James Etzkorn finished 3rd in his primary race, garnering just over seven percent of the vote. Suzan DelBene, the seven-term incumbent and DCCC Chair, came in first with 53%, while Republican Mary Silva – the lone R in the seven-candidate field – earned about 27%. Several Democrats running to the left of DelBene finished lower in the ranks, sharing the remainder of the vote.
In the 5th District, encompassing Spokane and the Eastern quarter of the state, things are a bit less clear as of the time of this writing. Michael Baumgartner, the Republican incumbent, has advanced with about half the vote — that much, we know. But Nate Powell, a veteran firefighter union captain running as an independent, is still mathematically alive, trailing Democrat Carmela Conroy for second by just under three percentage points. Unfortunately, over 90% of the vote is in, so things don’t look great right now.
According to betting markets and limited polling, these results aren’t surprising. Neither Etzkorn nor Powell were expected to advance, and neither underperformed. But in the wake of their eliminations from the November ballot, we should be asking: did they lose despite the nonpartisan primary structure, that favorite of so many reformers? Or are these nonpartisan jungles yet another obstacle that makes it harder for independents to get elected?
The Washington results set up a pair of deeply unexciting November contests in both the solidly Democratic WA-1 and the solidly Republican WA-5. By all estimates, Conroy and Silva are not going to win. Their parties and their supporters are going to spend a bunch more money on their campaigns, in part out of hope that they’ll inspire turnout and boost more viable down-ballot races for the State Legislature, but largely because that’s just the way they’ve always done it.
The shame is what could have been. Powell actually held a six-point edge over his Republican incumbent according to a July Tavern Research poll, winning 53-47 in a hypothetical head-to-head. Those numbers, according to Tavern themselves, are “soft,” given the low level of voter information and name ID in the race, but the prospects still seemed strong for one of the most competitive House runs in Eastern Washington in some time.
As for Etzkorn, his would have been a more uphill battle, but his momentum had been building. Just a few weeks ago, Etzkorn was among the eight candidates invited to Joe Manchin’s inaugural Independent Leadership Council summit, and that network could have proven critical in garnering funding and media attention for an underdog effort against a marquee Democrat opponent. At the very least, it would have been a lot more interesting than anything the D+15 district had seen in some time.
Such is life sometimes in these nonpartisan, so-called “jungle” primaries, filled with large fields of candidates that voters struggle to keep track of. Though all voters are welcome to participate in these events — a big part of why the structure appeals to the reform crowd — it’s still an extra election to be aware of and take part in. Primaries, even nonpartisan ones, inevitably feature lower turnout than general elections, overrepresenting both affluent voters (who have an easier time making it out to the polls twice in a season) and highly partisan ones, while underrepresenting independents Many of the voters who do come out are working with limited information and voting along party lines, which is bad news for nonparty candidates trying to catch their attention.
Astute politicos may remember that another state held nonpartisan primaries back in June: California. House efforts there had to contend with a headline-dominating governors’ race up the ballot, and a few notable independent runs ended then and there: Karen Matthews, a Navy veteran and Independent Candidates Action endorsee, saw lackluster support in deep-red CA-23, ultimately finishing fourth behind two democrats and the incumbent. Independent Nina Linh got drowned out by the noise in the freshly redistricted CA-40, ending up with just over 1% of the vote while two incumbent Republicans (again, redistricting) advanced. Only Kevin Kiley in CA-6 advanced, but it’s worth noting that Kiley is an incumbent himself, originally elected as a Republican before leaving his party, which allowed him to eschew some of the outsider disadvantages and break through the noise.
There’s a cruel duality to the jungle format. On one hand, there’s the prospect of a head-to-head matchup against the favorite (typically the incumbent), free of any possible spoiler stigma. To get there, though, nonparty candidates need to build prominence in crowded fields and appeal to an electorate with significantly more partisanship and less information than the general.
With all of this in mind, the independents in Washington came pretty close. For Powell’s campaign in particular, the near-miss may pave the way for a future run, with more credibility, more name recognition, and ultimately a better shot to win.
Establishing a stronger national independent brand may make a huge difference in how viable the jungle road is. If even lower-information voters are aware that independents are running, that they can compete and win even in stronghold districts where the second party can’t, and that they can bring about a fundamental shift to our political incentives, then both the perceived viability (and resulting media coverage) and the actual viability may change. And that’s exactly why independent successes this season are so vital.
Nathan Smolensky is a political messaging and communications strategist specializing in independent campaigns, and the author of Common Ground from the Ground Up.
I voted sticker
As a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, I can recognize the legitimacy of the looming threat of ICE deployments at polling stations to intimidate and influence voters this fall during the midterm elections. In our state alone, we need 30,000 election judges to ensure a smooth election takes place. To fight against this threat and ensure we have free and fair elections, it is time for more community members to become election judges.
When I was in my senior year of high school, I reached out to the county office in Norman County, Minnesota (located in Northwestern Minnesota). Following a phone call, I was selected to serve as an election judge trainee for the 2024 presidential election. As the only trainee for our county, I gained valuable communication and leadership skills, while also learning about the inside workings of a polling station. In discussions with classmates then, and since, I have been continually shocked to realize how few people are aware that they can serve in this role, let alone what being an election judge means. Moving to the Twin Cities and serving during the 2025 Minneapolis Municipal Election further showed me the lack of awareness surrounding election judging among today’s youth. This experience also further enriched my perspective as to the value of this service.
An election judge is a temporary paid state election official who is trained to handle all parts of the voting process at the polling place. Election judges can take up numerous positions throughout the polling station to help voters get where they need to be on election day. Some examples of typical stations at a polling place include the greeter, the voter registrant, and the ballot counter.
When I first served, I was grateful to have been trained into the role by the many incredible public servants within the Norman County election office. To see the innerworkings of an election for the first time, at 17, was incredibly fascinating. In this role, among other responsibilities, I aided the other election judges in helping open and sort envelopes, count ballots, and carry boxes around the polling place. This experience opened my eyes to a new avenue of the world of public service that I had never heard of before. It gave me greater appreciation for the hard work that makes our electoral process possible.
Moving to the Twin Cities, I was excited to serve once more as an election judge in the 2025 Minneapolis Municipal election. Seeing the inner workings of an election in Minneapolis was fascinating as well. Similarly to when I served in Norman County, the support of my fellow election judges made this experience memorable and impactful in my personal and professional skill development. Among the stations that I took on in Minneapolis, my favorite was explaining the voting process to voters after they registered. Helping people understand their rights and how to engage in the voting process was truly special and rewarding. It made me so happy to hear from my fellow first-time voters (as I was 18 at the time), as well as from others who recognized the significance of this simple, yet impactful day. In the span of about three hours, I spoke to roughly 200 voters in this role.
Serving as an election judge is a valuable experience that I believe community members should take part in. It is a quick-moving role with different responsibilities that can be allocated based on personal strengths and weaknesses. Election day will be busy, but the job will be fun, and many incredible friendships will be made.
County and city offices are hiring throughout the country right now for both primary elections and the general election in November. If you are interested in serving as an election judge, I would strongly encourage reaching out to local county or city offices. There are both partisan and non-partisan affiliations available, and demand typically depends on the region you are looking to serve in. More information can be found on your local Secretary of State website.
Maxwell Fjeld is a community organizer and student at the University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management.
Leave a Reply