Eric Thayer/AP

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, seen here at a September press conference, is spearheading anticipated legal action by states against policies in President-elect Donald Trump's second term.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently said that his job is not to wake up every day and put a crowbar in the spokes of the wheel of the Trump administration. The Democrat has noted that he had a “shockingly good relationship” with Donald Trump during his first term as president. And when the second one begins on Jan. 20, Governor Newsom says he’ll approach the returning president with an “open hand, not a closed fist.”

And yet. The governor of the most populous U.S. state, the man repeatedly mentioned as a possible presidential candidate for 2028, is putting on boxing gloves and suiting up for a legal battle.

Mr. Newsom has called a special session of the state Legislature for Dec. 2 to fund anticipated legal action against policies in Mr. Trump’s second term. With California’s size and strength as the world’s fifth-largest economy behind him, Governor Newsom and his attorney general are expected to lead the charge as Democratic states prepare to take on the executive branch – a role reversal with red states that – spearheaded by Texas – have repeatedly sued the Biden administration.

“California, due to its size and economic prowess, really can play an outsized role compared to other states across the country,” says Paul Nolette, an associate professor of political science at Marquette University. “Newsom understands that and realizes that this is a way to both push back substantively on Trump policies, as well as raise his own profile for the future.”

Now in his second term with two years to go, Governor Newsom is no newcomer to legal warfare. During Trump 1.0, California was involved in more than 120 lawsuits against the administration. Most were successful. But Democrats will have a tougher time in President Trump’s second term, says Dr. Nolette, who keeps a database of state litigation against the federal government.

Evan Vucci/AP/File

President Donald Trump talks with then-California Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom during a visit to a neighborhood impacted by the wildfires in Paradise, California, in November 2018.

Why suing Trump may pack less punch

Republican appointees now dominate the U.S. Supreme Court, with three justices appointed by Mr. Trump. The former and future president also made inroads with the historically liberal U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit: Trump appointees now make up more than a third of the San Francisco-based court. Most cases are heard by a randomly chosen three-judge panel, which ups the chances that a Republican appointee, or, more importantly, two, are hearing a case.

The president-elect is also battle-tested and more experienced after his first term. Trump 1.0 had a “scattershot” quality, with many lawsuits lost on procedural grounds, said Governor Newsom in a video message just days after the election. This time, “He’s going to come harder; he’s going to come faster – executive orders Day 1,” said Governor Newsom. “We’re not going to be caught flat-footed.”

On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump regularly bashed the Golden State as a failure under Democratic leadership. “Governor Gavin Newscum is trying to KILL our Nation’s beautiful California,” he posted after the governor announced the special legislative session. Mr. Trump suggests he’ll take on everything from California’s laws prohibiting voter ID to its policies around water management, vehicle emissions standards, unauthorized immigrants, and gender-related issues in schools. He has also threatened to withhold disaster aid.

But Governor Newsom says California will “stand firm” if the president-elect makes good on his threats. In his proclamation for the special session, he said that he and the attorney general have been preparing for a possible Trump administration for more than a year, gearing up for an expected federal “assault” on reproductive freedom, climate change policies, protections for immigrant families and children, and disaster aid.

He’s not going this alone. Other states have been readying for months, and Mr. Newsom has said that he is looking to build partnerships, as California did during Mr. Trump’s first term.

Jacob Lee Green/Sipa/AP

Several groups led by DACA recipients gathered at La Placita Olvera in Los Angeles Nov. 11, 2024, for a rally and march in response to policies President-elect Trump has promised to enforce against immigrants.

Litigation shifts and party lines

Multistate litigation against the federal government goes back to the Reagan era. Still, it exploded in the first Trump administration, with 160 suits filed by state attorneys general, according to Dr. Nolette. He expects the number against the Biden administration to be near that amount, or even top it, due to suits filed up to the eve of Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

The suits result from states chafing against presidents who seek ever more power. Given a trend of executive branch overreach, the state lawsuits often succeed, hitting an extraordinarily high success rate of 83% against the Trump administration and 74% against the Biden government, says Dr. Nolette.

He points to attorneys general and governors in Democratic strongholds such as Washington, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, and says these are states to watch as potential partners for California. All were involved in at least 70 multistate lawsuits against the first Trump administration. But, he says, pay particular attention to Massachusetts and Connecticut because the Boston-based U.S. Court of Appeals covers them for the 1st Circuit. All of those judges are Democrat appointees.

SOURCE:

State Litigation and AG Activity Database

|

Jacob Turcotte/Staff

Some Democratic governors sound more cautious than Mr. Newsom. Katie Hobbs of Arizona – where Trump handily won – says she wants to work closely with the new administration on border issues such as fentanyl, but not on areas that she says could hurt Arizona families, like mass deportations.

Gov. Jared Polis of Colorado, where Vice President Kamala Harris won by a wide margin, is launching Governors Safeguarding Democracy with blue state Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker. The alliance is billed as nonpartisan and pledges to “fortify democracy.” It’s a work in progress, but some Democrats, such as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, which Mr. Trump flipped in November, are not joining. So far, no current Republican governors have joined.

Prudent preparedness or “political stunt”

Governor Newsom’s call for a special legislative session is a “political stunt,” says California Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher. Far more pressing are the state’s homeless, cost-of-living, crime, and insurance crises, he says.

“Instead of actually holding a special session to address those issues, our governor and our attorney general would rather spend more money ... on government lawyers to fight Trump,” he says. “It’s completely tone-deaf.”

But Garry South, a longtime Democratic consultant in California, calls the governor’s legal strategy “prudent.” Mr. Newsom would be “negligent” if he didn’t take the legal lead, given the severe impact that something like mass deportations would have on agriculture in California, the nation’s food basket.

“This isn’t going to be California fighting Trump for the sake of fighting Trump,” says Mr. South. “It’s going to be California trying to block moves that he will try to make, which could have dire impacts on the state of our economy and also on the economy of the United States of America.”

Could presidential aspirations also be playing a role here?

“Sure,” says Mr. South. “If there are political benefits, so be it. But someone has to step up to the plate and take this guy on. And I think Newsom is probably better equipped to do that than anyone else that I can see on the horizon.”

Leading the legal resistance will help Mr. Newsom raise his national profile, but “That doesn’t necessarily translate into broader appeal,” says Mark Baldassare, survey director at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. Affordability played a huge role in this election, and as the governor and state attorney general set about defending issues like climate and electric vehicles, “People are going to want to know what are the economic consequences.”

The surprise offensive by Syria’s armed opposition groups, a dramatic reawakening of the country’s long-dormant civil war, drove regime forces from Syria’s second-largest city, Aleppo, with shocking speed.

The offensive last week successfully capitalized on the weakened and distracted state of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s key allies, as well as the rebels’ military preparedness, built over years. And it completely upended the narrative that Mr. Assad is victorious and largely in control after years of unresolved conflict.

“The capture of Aleppo clearly shows that the regime is much weaker than it was in the past,” says Jerome Drevon, senior analyst on jihad and modern conflict at the International Crisis Group. “That without strong external support by groups like Hezbollah, Shiite militias from Iraq, Russian air support, it can’t really maintain control over all of the country.”

The rebels’ lightning offensive started Nov. 27, the same day that a ceasefire between Israel and the Shiite militia Hezbollah – Iran’s badly battered ally and a decisive military supporter of the Assad regime at the height of the civil war – entered into force in neighboring Lebanon.

Russia – another key Assad ally that has helped his regime control the skies and bomb opposition strongholds into submission – is busy fighting its war in Ukraine.

With Iran-backed Shiite militias shifting their attention and resources from Syria to Lebanon, the window of opportunity was there. But fortune also favors the prepared, and the armed opposition was ready.

“This is not just sheer opportunism,” says Mr. Drevon. “In reality, the armed opposition for the past four or five years has really reconstituted itself, reorganized its military forces, undertaken new training, increased professionalism. They wanted to do that for a very long time.”

This is not the first time rebels have entered Aleppo, but their control is likely to be more sustainable this time around, Mr. Drevon says, as they hold both the whole city and the surrounding countryside. In 2016, rebel forces only controlled some peripheral neighborhoods, while the regime held on to the core and more affluent areas. Even so, it took years to defeat and rout the rebel back then.

Ghaith Alsayed/AP

Syrian opposition fighters drive by an abandoned Syrian tank on a highway outside Khan Sheikhoun, southwest of Aleppo, Syria, Dec. 1, 2024.

The rebel offensive has rekindled Syria’s civil war, a devastating conflict responsible for more than 300,000 deaths and the displacement of nearly 6 million refugees. While the war was never officially resolved, this surge in hostilities represents the most serious escalation since a 2020 ceasefire in northwestern Idlib province, brokered by Russia and Turkey.

“We are a proper army now”

The new offensive – dubbed Operation Deter Aggression and led by the Islamist militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham – captured dozens of towns and villages west of Aleppo before advancing into the city center by Friday night. In tandem, another offensive in Idlib seized the strategic town of Saraqib, while a third targeted Tel Rifaat, north of Aleppo.

“It’s not like before,” says a longtime rebel fighter who gives his first name, Khaldoun, and who took part in the capture of the Kuweires Military Airport in Aleppo. He is now a member of the Turkey-backed Syrian National Army, previously known as the Free Syrian Army.

“We are a proper army now, with special ops and intelligence units,” he says. “Everything is well organized. We seized the moment and struck. It surprised us how quickly they fled.”

SOURCE:

Liveuamap

|

Jacob Turcotte/Staff

Russia and Iran are now scrambling to help Mr. Assad wage a counteroffensive. The starting point is reinforcing the front lines to the north of Hama and bombing Aleppo and Idlib.

Russian and Syrian jets targeted rebel positions in Aleppo and health care facilities in Idlib Monday, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which reports over 500 civilian and combatant fatalities since Nov. 27. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was in Damascus Sunday evening to convey Tehran’s sustained support.

“It is unclear to what extent [Mr. Assad’s allies] can really replicate the victories of the past,” says Mr. Drevon, the analyst, noting that Iran-linked Shiite militias are not as strong as they once were and could be weakened by further Israeli strikes. Russia can help control the skies, but it cannot change the situation on land without boots on the ground.

“Russia can weaken the armed opposition, can strike them, but without ground troops you can’t really protect territories,” points out Mr. Drevon. “So they really need those ground troops from Shiite militias and foreigners.” Hundreds of Iraqi Shiite fighters reportedly entered Syria from overnight Sunday to Monday.

Ghaith Alsayed/AP

Young men, one with a Syrian opposition flag on his shoulders, take a selfie at the 12th-century landmark Grand Mosque of Maarat al-Numan, southwest of Aleppo, Syria, Dec. 1, 2024.

Turkey, meanwhile, will be a force supporting the rebel gains, he says. It did not necessarily want the armed opposition to take Aleppo, but understood that an operation was in the making.

For Turkey, stabilizing northern Syria is important. It helps reduce security risks and stabilizes the humanitarian situation. In the long run, it could pave the way for the return of Syrian refugees to Aleppo from Turkey.

Stalled talks

Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute, agrees. He says Turkey’s decision to green-light the Aleppo offensive was a direct response to stalled negotiations with the Assad regime.

Confident in his perceived victory in the civil war, President Assad had taken a maximalist position, refusing Turkey’s requests to repatriate refugees and normalize ties. This left Ankara with little choice but to pursue alternative strategies, Mr. Cagaptay says.

Another factor for Ankara, he says, was recent regime assaults on rebel-held areas. It looked like they were going to trigger another wave of refugees toward Turkey.

“Ankara is telling Assad, ‘We made you an offer; you didn’t take it, [so] we are going to change the status quo in the battlefield in favor of the rebels and you will have a weaker hand coming to the negotiating table,’” Mr. Cagaptay says.

Syrian rebels for now are confident they can push forward. Aleppo was the scene of some of the worst fighting in the course of the civil war. Now they hold it.

“It is a great feeling,” says Khaldoun, the rebel veteran. “We have freed regions from a tyrant that has killed and displaced us for 13 years. Every day, every hour there is an advance, and we’ll keep going.”

At the U.S. Supreme Court this week, issues of child welfare, gender identity, and constitutional rights will converge in one of the most significant cases the court will decide this term.

Transgender issues have been at the heart of America’s culture wars in recent years. Legally, lawsuits concerning transgender rights have been percolating in the lower courts. On Wednesday one of those cases – which asks whether the state or parents are responsible for protecting vulnerable children – will be argued before the high court.

Transgender issues are relatively novel for the courts, and the justices have issued few rulings directly affecting them. The decision in United States v. Skrmetti – a complex, emotional lawsuit pertaining to medical care for transgender youth – has the potential to be a seismic one.

Transgender Americans have existed for generations, but as their visibility in society – and their rights under the law – have grown in recent years, so has pushback. Hundreds of anti-trans bills, such as legislation restricting bathroom usage and banning the discussion of gender identity in schools, have been enacted in 2024 alone, as states react to perceived threats to equality of the sexes and a rise in youth identifying as transgender.

Specifically, the U.S. is seeing an increase in the number of minors receiving a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, a mental disorder defined as a person’s distress at the mismatch between their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth. Treatments for the condition, which range from therapy to medication and surgery, are intended to help a person align their outward, physical traits with their gender identity. (Surgery is rarely prescribed for those under age 18.)

Some of these treatments, known broadly as gender-affirming care, have been prescribed for decades to children and teens without controversy. (One example is to prevent early puberty in girls, which can lead to adverse health effects.) But state lawmakers have been limiting their use to treat gender dysphoria, citing concerns that children could undergo permanent physical changes treating a mental illness that could be transient.

In the past three years, 26 states have enacted laws and policies limiting youth access to gender-affirming care. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Skrmetti, a case challenging one such law enacted by Tennessee.

“It’s one of the biggest cases of the term, and possibly the biggest case the court has decided on transgender rights,” says Craig Konnoth, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

“Its impact depends on how narrowly or broadly the court rules,” he adds. “It could decide the effect of trans rights cases around the country.”

Parental rights or states’ rights?

On constitutional questions, this Supreme Court is committed to interpreting the founding document in line with the original meaning of its authors. Thus, the decision in Skrmetti could hinge not on the text of the Tennessee law or on the science behind medical treatments for gender dysphoria, but on history and tradition.

That analysis may focus on one conflict: the rights of parents versus the rights of a government when it comes to the health and well-being of a child. These are arguments that have brought together some unlikely bedfellows.

In one amicus brief, a group of scholars argues that there is a strong history and tradition of states having limited powers to interfere in medical decisions that parents make for their children. Two of the scholars are William Eskridge, a Yale Law School professor central to the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights in recent decades, and Steven Calabresi, a co-founder of The Federalist Society and former clerk to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

“From the beginning, American ‘family life’ has been a ‘private realm’ that ‘the state cannot enter’ without strong public justification,” they write, quoting a 1944 Supreme Court opinion.

The 14th Amendment “translated traditional responsibilities of parents into constitutional rights – with due allowance for states to adopt neutral public health regulations,” they add.

Other scholars take a different view. When there is no clear medical consensus on the safety or effectiveness of a pediatric treatment – as Tennessee claims in this case – the state has an especially strong interest in regulating the availability of that treatment, says James Blumstein, a professor at the Vanderbilt University Law School.

“This is part of a longer tradition of governmental protection of children,” he adds. “When a state faces this clinical uncertainty, it can protect minors from the use of surrogate decision-making.”

What’s behind the rise in trans youth, and laws affecting them?

Transgender Americans account for about 1% of the U.S. population, and roughly 1 in 5 of them are aged 13 to 17, according to a report from the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. The percentage of teens who identify as transgender almost doubled between 2016 and 2022, the Williams Institute reported. In about the same time span, according to clinicians, gender dysphoria diagnoses have “increased significantly,” or “nearly tripled.”

Exactly what accounts for this trend is unclear, experts say, and scientific research on the benefits and efficacy of gender dysphoria treatments is mixed. All these details tie in to the Skrmetti case. However, the high court only needs to resolve one question: Does the Tennessee law violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution?

That clause, a provision of the 14th Amendment, holds that no state can “deny any person ... the equal protection of the laws.” Over the past 160 years, the clause has been read to protect the rights of various minority groups, from newly freed slaves to same-sex couples.

The Tennessee law, SB1, bars health care providers from treating minors with puberty blockers, hormones, or surgeries when it’s for the purpose of “enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or treating “distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”

Karen Pulfer Focht/Reuters

Dr. Susan Lacy, one of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case on a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, poses for a portrait at her clinic in Memphis, Tennessee, Nov. 21, 2024.

Though the treatments are allowed for cisgender youth, or those whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth, Tennessee claims that, because the law applies based on age and medical condition, it doesn’t run afoul of the equal protection clause. Fundamentally, the state argues that it has the right, and the responsibility, to protect children from risky and potentially irreversible medical treatments.

“The supposed benefits of these interventions are ... unproven at best and illusory at worst,” state officials write in their brief. In passing SB1, “Tennessee acted rationally, reasonably, and compassionately to protect its children.”

Last year, a District Court judge disagreed, blocking the law in part because it “expressly and exclusively targets transgender people.” But months later, a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed that decision, reinstating the law.

Three transgender teens diagnosed with gender dysphoria filed the lawsuit, and the Department of Justice has intervened on their behalf. Their argument is also a simple one. Because SB1 applies only to minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they claim the law inherently discriminates on the basis of sex, and thus is unconstitutional.

Tennessee “categorically bans” treatments only for gender dysphoria, meaning the treatments are banned for “a tiny of fraction of minors, while [remaining] available for all other minors,” the U.S. writes in its brief.

“By defining the prohibited medical care based on the patient’s sex assigned at birth,” the U.S. adds, “SB1 classifies based on sex, through and through.”

Does Bostock v. Clayton hold clues for Skrmetti?

In justifying this claim, the U.S. and its supporters point to the Supreme Court’s last major transgender rights decision. In a shock 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, the high court held that a federal antidiscrimination law protecting employees from being fired “because of [their] sex” also protects employees from being terminated based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The justices have not weighed in directly on a transgender rights case since Bostock, but experts say the court could take a different view of the transgender plaintiffs this time around.

“The plaintiffs are hoping that Bostock signals a modicum of friendliness to LGBTQ rights and people” from the court, says Michael Boucai, a professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law. “Whether it does, I just don’t know.”

The court has become more conservative, for one, with Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett replacing the progressive Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Another variance, experts say, is that while Bostock involved interpreting a statute, Skrmetti will involve interpreting the Constitution itself.

“Reading Bostock to dictate the meaning of a constitutional provision is ‘implausible,’” argues Tennessee, quoting a concurring opinion from Justice Neil Gorsuch – author of the Bostock majority – in a later case.

The case is certain to be historic in at least one respect. When Chase Strangio, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, appears before the court, it will be the first time an openly transgender lawyer argues before the Supreme Court.

But the case could be a landmark in other respects. The justices’ decision could also inform how courts view other laws affecting transgender Americans, from their participation in sports, to their use of preferred pronouns in schools, to their ability to update their sex on government documents.

“How the court decides this case will tell us a lot about whether and how aggressively they will ... permit politicians to pursue an anti-LGBTQ agenda,” says Professor Boucai.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to correct the spelling of James Blumstein, who is a professor at the Vanderbilt University Law School.

From my earliest days, I’ve been encouraged to steward the Earth. In school, the familiar adage “reduce, reuse, recycle” was drilled in us. We planted trees on Earth Day. Every year we plodded through the 2-mile stretch of the highway my church adopted, filling our bags with takeout containers, old magazines, and other debris.

As the planet continued to heat up through my adolescence and young adulthood, I realized we were now facing a global crisis. As an adult, I was surprised to learn that my lifestyle wasn’t as sustainable as I had thought. The more I learned, the more I realized I had underestimated how much my way of life was contributing to climate change. I wanted to do my part to make it better, and as a journalist I had an excuse to call experts to see how I might make a difference.

Scott Wilson

“If we change every person’s behavior, we change the world,” says Rebecca Benner, managing director of climate programs at The Nature Conservancy.

During our conversation, I told her about my desire to adopt more sustainable practices. The hardest part, I confided, is feeling that it’s never enough.

“This is the biggest, thorniest, scariest issue that I think humanity has ever confronted,” says Dr. Benner. So what do you tackle first? she asked. Do you reduce your travel? Change the way you shop at the supermarket? The clothes you wear?

“Every choice you make has a climate impact, and it’s really hard to know how to change your lifestyle to have an actual positive impact,” she says.

I asked her how she manages this in her own life, as someone working on the front lines of trying to reduce climate change. She sighed.

“So I make choices that I can do with my family that, yeah, inconvenience us a little bit, but aren’t so big and dramatic that it turns our entire life upside down,” Dr. Benner says.

They live rurally, so giving up their car isn’t an option. But she’s discovered other things they can do, such as flying less, using reusable water bottles, and “going deep” in scrutinizing the types of chemicals they use at home.

When I reflected on the changes in my own life that have stuck, I saw a pattern: I took one small habit and adjusted it; when that became my new norm, I adopted another. About 10 years ago, I made the switch to reusable bags. It was awkward at first, and I often forgot them. Now it’s second nature.

Sean Ellis says his team researches how best to encourage people to adopt beneficial practices into their lives, whether it’s related to health, education, or even climate change.

Scott Wilson

“How can we nudge people? How can we get people to change their habits, to maintain new habits?” says Dr. Ellis, director of analytics at the Behavior Change for Good Initiative at the University of Pennsylvania.

One way to do this is to highlight something everyone cares about: their finances.

“If I use less electricity at my house, I’m paying less on my electric bill. If I’m using less water, I’m paying less on my water bill,” says Dr. Ellis. This awareness affects consumer usage.

I remember receiving a note from my utility company one month letting me know my electric usage was double that of my neighbors. I was shocked, and it prompted my family to remember to turn off the lights when we leave the room.

Leaning into other practices that alleviate stress on the environment and my wallet has become a fun challenge. I made it my New Year’s resolution a few years ago to buy my clothes secondhand. I discovered my local Everything Is Free Facebook group where members of our community give and take items freely. When my son was born, a local mom gifted me cloth diapers. Most of my son’s toys are from this group, and when he outgrows them we pass them on to the next family. Recently a woman from the other side of town offered me milkweed seeds to plant in my yard for pollinators. The group has created an ecosystem of care, sustainability, and support.

Scott Wilson

Social pressure can be a huge motivator for habit change, says Yasmine Kalkstein, a professor of psychology at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. It’s much easier to adjust your habits when it’s the social norm.

“Remind people that almost everybody else is doing it, so why aren’t you?” says Dr. Kalkstein. Those small changes, traveling from person to person, can add up to a big difference.

“One bag doesn’t seem to do a whole lot. But what if I looked at it like, I am currently reducing my waste by 400 plastic bags a year? Whoa, that’s huge.”

Dr. Kalkstein mentioned a study regarding hotel towels. Simply pointing out that a majority of guests reuse their towels encourages others to do the same, reducing the amount of water and energy required to wash them every day.

Now, as I look around and see the ways I can continue to make changes in my life, I don’t feel so hopeless. I feel motivated hearing about the ways that others are taking baby steps. Getting one toy secondhand won’t save the planet, but it might continue to move the needle toward the lifestyle shift we need. I’ll be part of a collective of people who are doing their best to adopt sustainable practices, one small change at a time.

“When we have the right mindset that we can grow, we can change – I think we are more likely to change,” Dr. Kalkstein says. “That’s empowering.”

AP

Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul

Well, you don’t see this every day in America’s polarized politics.

Last week, the leaders of each party in Minnesota’s House of Representatives announced that committee chairs in the chamber will be equally divided come Jan. 14 when a new Legislature convenes. Two people will share custody of one gavel on each of 23 panels.

In addition, the leaders of each party (both women) are working on a plan to share the role of speaker in the tied chamber – a Democrat at some times, a Republican at others.

The reason for this amazing amity across the aisle?

The Nov. 5 election resulted in an evenly split state House (67-67), assuming legal challenges in two races don’t stand up.

“What makes it work is if people respect each other and have a fundamental decency,” Rep. Melissa Hortman, current House speaker and a member of the state’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, told Minnesota Public Radio. Her counterpart, GOP House Leader Lisa Demuth, told Twin Cities PBS, “This is going to force the ability to work together from the very start” and provides a “perfect opportunity” for civility.

In the state’s Senate, Democrats will still hold a one-seat advantage. And Gov. Tim Walz, who was the 2024 Democratic vice presidential candidate, still holds veto power. Yet, as Ms. Demuth told WCCO radio, “[Voters] have chosen balance. They’ve sent us back equally, not one party above the other or below in the House.” A big test for the House will come by May when the state Legislature must pass a two-year budget.

This model of balanced leadership may be an underappreciated aspect of U.S. politics. “Moderates are often overlooked in contemporary research on American voters,” wrote six political scientists in a 2022 academic paper using statistical analysis.

Conventional wisdom holds that American voters are polarized, the scholars wrote, but most voters “give a mix of liberal and conservative responses on surveys and few are consistently and firmly on one side of the aisle.” Moderate voters are also “especially consequential” in driving political accountability and candidate selection.

Through forced bipartisanship, Minnesota’s incoming House members may soon show Americans that not all voters are of a single ideological dimension. With a spirit of equality and an ear for listening, politicians need not govern with a winner-take-all mentality or stay in power through partisan gerrymandering. Minnesota may well live up to its nickname as the North Star State.