SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Groups that want more civil discourse in this country are building support for a different system of elections called approval voting - and they say it could boost the fight against climate change.

In approval voting, people are asked to mark all the candidates they approve of, rather than just picking one. The candidate with the most approval votes wins.

Christine Morshedi is a volunteer with the Center for Election Science. She said the winner is then the consensus choice rather than the most extreme.

"In approval voting, you would end up with the choice that most people would accept, as opposed to a more radical that a small minority really, really wants, which is what can happen right now," Morshedi said.

Approval voting also injects a more positive tone into the campaign, because candidates have more of an incentive to appeal to a wide range of voters. The idea is gaining steam in the environmental community, which has been stuck a partisan divide.

Mark Reynolds, executive director with the nonprofit Citizens' Climate Lobby, said the fight against climate change is too important to be mired in the culture war between right and left.

"Our primary ask is to make climate a bridge rather than a wedge issue; use it as an excuse to work together," Reynolds said. "You don't get any durable legislation unless it is bipartisan."

So far, approval voting is not in use in any California cities. However, Fargo, North Dakota, recently became the first large town to adopt the system. And a measure to switch over to approval voting is on the ballot in St. Louis next month.

Examples of proposed policies and candidates tied to false claims of election fraud have spread to Minnesota, and a new national report found the movement is not slowing down ahead of this fall's vote.

A trio of voter-rights groups issued findings into how state legislatures are trying to subvert elections, including more leeway to reject results, requiring partisan or outside audits, and shifting power away from election administrators. Some ideas have been floated by Minnesota Republicans but are not likely to pass under the current balance of power.

Rachel Homer, counsel for the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, said simply proposing them poses a threat.

"This is about everyone in support of democracy," Homer asserted. "Both political parties really need to be standing against this movement toward autocracy."

Despite calls for unity, Republicans are seeing more candidates for statewide offices who either perpetuate the stolen-election narrative, or suggest current laws need restrictions they said would tighten election security.

The Minnesota GOP recently endorsed such a candidate running for Secretary of State, the office overseeing elections. The report said 175 such laws were introduced in the U.S. this year.

Homer argued false election-fraud claims, taking shape following Donald Trump's loss in the 2020 presidential vote, have ballooned to a five-alarm fire. She noted even if most bills do not pass, voters are still being exposed to theories soundly rejected by the courts.

"These bills are being proposed by a lot of legislators across a lot of states," Homer observed. "They clearly think there's an audience for it. "

The groups behind the report emphasized it is important to remember most administrators, staffs and volunteers are committed to free and fair elections.

Sylvia Albert, national voting and elections director for Common Cause, said outside the findings, potentially having some candidates espousing such views take office is concerning. If election results were to be rejected without a valid reason, she said it might be harder to seek recourse.

"So, there definitely is an ability to challenge in court, [but] the courts are leaning more and more toward stepping away and letting the political process run itself," Albert stressed. "What that does, is not protect the people who don't have power, which are normal Americans."

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

The pandemic appears to have increased the level of violence in U.S. cities, and a new study found local officials and mayors, especially those of color, face the brunt of it.

Heidi Gerbracht, co-founder of the Women Mayors Network and founder of Equity Agenda, said death threats, vandalized homes and outrage at public meetings have all been reported by local government officials.

"They're having to change their lives to continue serving because of these threats," Gerbracht pointed out. "There is absolutely concern about escalation. There's concern about their physical safety and their family's physical safety."

Gerbracht noted the increasing violence, as documented in research by Oklahoma State University, requires a response from local governments, which may include protective services from local police departments. Online safety and physical training for mayors is being offered this month by the Mayors Innovation Project.

In interviews with more than 3,000 mayors last fall, 70% said they knew someone who chose not to run for office because of the hostile nature of the work.

Rebekah Herrick, professor of social sciences and humanities at Oklahoma State University, who cowrote the report, said social media is driving the increased violence.

"94.5% of mayors reported what we call psychological violence," Herrick reported. "Things like social-media attacks, verbal attacks at a public meeting; 24.2% reported receiving at least one threat."

Gerbracht added the exposure of an elected leader's personal information also is becoming more common, a level of harassment causing local leaders to decide against seeking public office.

"We just have this expectation as the public that this isn't a problem for local elected officials," Gerbracht emphasized. "There is a real need for people to understand that this is not just politics. This is not just what you should expect to get into public service."

Good-government groups are criticizing the Supreme Court's decision Monday eliminating rules on how much a candidate can spend to pay back loans he or she made to the campaign.

The justices sided with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who sued over rules, which said a candidate can only raise $250,000 after an election to pay back a personal loan.

Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs for Common Cause, said this means big donors can funnel huge amounts of cash directly to newly elected officials.

"This decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court allowing more big money in politics and further opening the door to corruption and big moneyed interests calling the shots," Scherb contended.

The decision undermines part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

In the supporting brief, Chief Justice John Roberts said the rule placed too great a burden on core political speech. In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued the decision, quote, "greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought it right to stop ... and can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute."

Scherb emphasized he hopes it will drum up more support for the DISCLOSE Act, which would require campaigns and groups spending money to influence politics to report more about their funding, but he is not optimistic.

"We're not holding our breaths that 10 Senate Republicans would vote for something like this," Scherb acknowledged. "But if more big money is going to be spent in politics, it absolutely has to be disclosed. The public deserves to see who's trying to influence their voices and their votes."

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.