View this post on the web at [link removed]

If you’re like me, and you take occasional mental health breaks from social media, you might notice something when you return—the content seems even worse than when you left. But the initial shock wears off in short order, and sadly enough, you become reacclimated to the pettiness and ugliness of it all. Despite its benefits, social media has a way of bringing out the worst in people over time. Our fearless leaders are no exception. A feature in USA Today [ [link removed] ] illustrates it perfectly. Gone are the days of bipartisan “collegiality, well-wishing, and civil debate” that flavored most lawmakers’ tweets a decade ago, to be replaced today by rancor, trolling, and division. The question is, what is the driver? Is social media making us less civil, or do these platforms merely reflect the state of our republic? Those are good questions with complicated answers, but whatever the case, they highlight the premium we should place on character in choosing our elected officials. That’s a lot less complicated. We can elect people who stir up anger and doubt by making political threats [ [link removed] ] and amplifying dangerous conspiracy theories [ [link removed] ]. Or, we can vote for unifying leaders who tell the truth and lower the temperature, so we can focus on finding solutions to shared problems…with fewer mental health breaks required. —Melissa Amour, Managing Editor
Veteran NY judge named as arbiter in Trump Mar-a-Lago probe — [ [link removed] ]Associated Press [ [link removed] ]
DOJ asked to investigate DeSantis for kidnapping over Martha’s Vineyard migrant stunt — [ [link removed] ]The Independent [ [link removed] ]
Jeffrey Clark says DOJ investigating him over potential felony violations — [ [link removed] ]Axios [ [link removed] ]
Biden announces tentative deal to avert national rail strike — [ [link removed] ]CBS News [ [link removed] ]
Biden meeting with families of Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan at the White House — [ [link removed] ]CNN [ [link removed] ]
Senate delays same-sex marriage vote until after midterms — [ [link removed] ]The Washington Post [ [link removed] ]
Marjorie Taylor Greene tweets video that shows her kicking youth activist — [ [link removed] ]NPR [ [link removed] ]
Newsom signs controversial social media bill into California law — [ [link removed] ]The Hill [ [link removed] ]
DOJ charges 3 Iranians with hacking U.S. computers for ransom — [ [link removed] ]USA Today [ [link removed] ]
EU legislators say Hungary is no longer a ‘full democracy’ — [ [link removed] ]Al Jazeera [ [link removed] ]
An undeniably deniable bunch 
After six long months, America's primary elections are finally over. So what's the grand tally of election-denying state-level candidates moving on to the general? At least one will be on the ballot in 27 states, according to States United Action, which has tracked races for governor, attorney general, and secretary of state—those roles best positioned to reject and alter an election outcome. These candidates have publicly endorsed the notion that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Huge 2024 implications. Many of these candidates are running in competitive races in critical battleground states, including Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. Because they would, if elected, oversee, defend, or certify elections, a victory for them in November could have enormous impacts on the results of the next presidential election in those states.
Up and down the ballot. Election deniers running for governor will be on ballots in 18 states, for attorney general in 10 states, and for secretary of state in 12 states, the analysis found. In Arizona and Michigan, all three Republican candidates for those offices are election deniers.
“The stakes are really high in terms of what’s on the line in 2024,” States United Action CEO Joanna Lydgate said, “with the worst-case scenario [being] that we see an election [result] that doesn’t represent the will of American voters, which is particularly a concern when we have close election results.” Indeed. —NBC News [ [link removed] ]
MORE: Explainer: What election deniers could do in 2024 if they win U.S. November midterms — [ [link removed] ]Reuters [ [link removed] ]
Focus on voting and elections 
Election deniers aren’t just running for office; they’re trying to impact voting outcomes in other ways too. In Pennsylvania, conservative activists have begun collecting signatures to get a referendum question on the November ballot to stop the use of electronic voting machines. The groups are following a directive from Donald Trump and some of his top supporters, including MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and former Army intelligence officer Seth Keshel, who continue to spread false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. The activists have organized ballot referendum efforts in at least 16 Pennsylvania counties. —Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [ [link removed] ]
Colorado. The Colorado governor’s debate is raising questions about the eligibility and access of third-party candidates to participate. The debate, to be held on Sept. 28, will feature Republican and Democratic nominees Heidi Ganahl and Jared Polis, while multiple third-party candidates were not invited to attend. According to the Pueblo Chamber of Commerce, all third-party candidates in the governor's race did not meet the required threshold, which was 15% of the vote in polling numbers. —KRDO [ [link removed] ]
New York. Democratic congressional candidate Matt Castelli, running to unseat Rep. Elise Stefanik in New York’s 21st District, will run as a Moderate Party candidate as well. New York’s fusion voting allowed Castelli to create an independent Moderate Party to appear on a second line on the November ballot. “For too long, the most extreme voices have dominated politics,” Castelli said. “The Moderate Party is reclaiming a powerful voice for the great middle majority.” —WKTV [ [link removed] ]
Ohio. Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor said she plans to become a part of the anti-gerrymandering effort once she leaves office at the end of the year. Why? Because of the failure of Article 11, an amendment to the state constitution meant to prohibit undue partisanship in the redistricting process. While a vast majority of Ohioans voted for the amendment, it simply didn’t work. “It did not prevent gerrymandering, and it did not prevent the use in the upcoming election on Nov. 8 of unconstitutional maps that were drawn both for the congressional and general assembly districts,” she said. Keep up the good fight, Justice O’Connor. —ABC News [ [link removed] ]
MORE: The history of gerrymandering: U.S. politicians' favorite election loophole — [ [link removed] ]HistoryNet [ [link removed] ]
Thompson: Goodbye, extremism. Hello, choice
“[I]t is clear that ranked-choice voting completely eliminates the third-party quandary, the fear that voting for a third party increases the odds that the voter’s most disliked major party candidate will win. More broadly, it seems logical that ranked-choice voting shifts power from the extremes to the middle. It also seems logical that some candidates may think twice about launching a vicious attack on a rival if they hope to become the second choice of that rival’s supporters.” —Bruce Thompson in Urban Milwaukee [ [link removed] ]
Bruce Thompson is a contributor at Urban Milwaukee and a former member of the Milwaukee Board of School Directors.
MORE: Can a new voting system in the U.S. save moderates in Congress? — [ [link removed] ]Newsweek [ [link removed] ]
Nesbitt: Let's agree on making democracy better 
“If voting reforms…can help us elect more candidates who reflect and respect the breadth and diversity of their voters’ views, then perhaps we can work on the hard part of democracy. That’s when we accept that, in even the best functioning democracies, we never get most of what we want all of the time nor all of what we want even some of the time. Rather, we get a process for solving problems and making progress together, often cumbersomely, sometimes too slowly, but peacefully and cooperatively, respecting each other’s place and participation in this ongoing experiment in self-government.” —Tim Nesbitt in Oregon Capital Chronicle [ [link removed] ]
Tim Nesbitt served as an adviser to Oregon Governors Ted Kulongoski and John Kitzhaber. He helped design Measure 98, which provided targeted funding for Oregon’s high schools.
MORE: House members roll out bipartisan election bill aimed at preventing future coups — [ [link removed] ]NBC News [ [link removed] ]
Smolensky: Why Forward deserves a chance 
“Unlike most political parties, we’re not interested in putting forward a top-down dogma of what we deem right on each and every issue. Instead, we believe in building a coalition of pragmatic, independent, innovative thinkers. Beyond our essential guiding principles, which define the shared goals we’re all working to pursue, we encourage our candidates to think and speak for themselves, and voters can make informed decisions based on their individual platforms and proposals.” —Nate Smolensky on Forward Thinking [ [link removed] ]
Nate Smolensky is a writer, third-party advocate, Forward Party volunteer, and former independent congressional candidate.
MORE: Editorial: Is nation ready to roll Forward? — [ [link removed] ]Coeur d'Alene Press [ [link removed] ]
The Forward Party, a new national movement centered on “building thriving communities, creating a more vibrant democracy, and unleashing the potential of a free and open society,” is hosting a national party-building event in Houston, Texas, on September 24. Speakers include former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman; former U.S. Congressmen David Jolly and Chris Bell; and former presidential candidate Andrew Yang. The event will also include an expo, lively discussions, food, and entertainment. For more information or to register, click here [ [link removed] ].
Know about an event or initiative that seeks to expand, reform, or innovate our democracy? Let us know [ mailto:[email protected] ], and we’ll publish it here.
I am in favor of ranked-choice voting because it selects the candidate that is most acceptable to the largest number of voters. But Mary Peltola did not win because of RCV. She had the most votes in the first round, meaning she would have won even without RCV. The voters of Alaska simply rejected Sarah Palin. —Ron W., New York
The views expressed in "What's Your Take?" are submitted by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff or the Renew America Foundation.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?