FARGO, N.D. -- The U.S. Supreme Court today takes up arguments in a high-stakes abortion case. It coincides with divisive arguments over voter fraud, mask mandates and school curriculum, and recent findings suggest many Americans could use more civics knowledge as they debate the issues.

This fall, the Annenberg Public Policy Center released its annual survey of overall public "smarts" about the branches of government. Adults who correctly named all three branches increased to 56%, the highest since the survey began in 2006.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, called it woefully inadequate.

"If one doesn't understand that there are three branches, doesn't understand the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, that lack of knowledge increases the likelihood that when asked whether someone thinks that if the Supreme Court issues unpopular rulings, it might be best to get rid of the Supreme Court, a person is more likely to say yes," Jamieson cautioned.

Some divisive issues in the scope of government and constitutional protections have surfaced in North Dakota, including the state taking part in a lawsuit to overturn a workplace vaccine requirement for COVID-19. Mask-mandate debates also surfaced at many school board meetings across the state this fall.

While there has been more conversation about boosting civics education in schools, Jamieson feels the responsibility lies with the public in general to learn more. She added foundational knowledge of government is always important, but must be stressed in times like these.

"In an environment in which the branches are under stress, it becomes more important -- not less -- that the public understand why the founders set up the structure that we have," Jamieson argued.

She pointed out the news media can help by including more information when reporting on legislation or other matters related to government.

The survey revealed 61% of Americans incorrectly believes under the First Amendment, Facebook is required to allow all people to express themselves freely on the platform. And just over one in three people surveyed knew the correct lengths of terms for federal lawmakers.

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

A wave of new Arizona voters in the 2020 election changed the normally conservative state to one where progressive candidates and ideas have a fighting chance, but some are feeling deserted by a vote Wednesday night from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., against changing the Senate filibuster.

The move blocked an effort by Democrats to pass new voting-rights legislation. Dozens of supporters, including the powerful Emily's List Political Action Committee, said they are reevaluating or outright pulling their support.

Roy Tatem, political director for the group Our Voice Our Vote Arizona, said Sinema has left many of her supporters scratching their heads.

"We feel that she's abandoned those of us who supported her," Tatem stated. "I've had a number of conversations with her directly around some of the specific issues that we were dealing with, and I had no idea that she would just be so distant."

Sinema said while she supports the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, she refuses to modify the filibuster in order to pass them with a simple majority.

Sinema's election to the Senate, along with Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., was hailed as proof conservatives had lost their tight grip on Arizona politics.

Tatem thinks Sinema has alienated many of the people who put her there, including women, and Arizona's Black, Latino and LGBTQ communities.

"In 2018, Kyrsten received over 130,000 African American votes," Tatem recalled. "This is according to the NAACP. And so, we believe that African Americans are completely turned off from her and her position."

Tatem added his group represents a broad spectrum of progressive voters across Arizona, many of whom are now actively searching for a Democratic candidate to run against her in 2024.

"So we don't understand, what is her North Star here?" Tatem questioned. "What is guiding her or advising her to take such a hard position on maintaining the filibuster, when so many of us have articulated the desire to remove it?"

If Iowa wants to create healthier outcomes for its residents, advocates say there are steps policymakers can take right now to make it happen, and an upcoming event highlights what they cite as some of the most glaring needs.

As the legislative session takes shape, there are calls to extend postpartum health coverage for new mothers under Medicaid, which in Iowa ends after 60 days. The federal government is now giving states the option to extend the coverage to 12 months.

Stacy Frelund, government relations director for the American Heart Association of Iowa, said it would make a big preventive-health difference.

"You think about heart disease and stroke, and how many mothers are impacted, mothers and babies," Frelund remarked.

Supporters argued an expansion would also help reduce racial disparities in maternal health. At the same time, groups like the Heart Association worry about proposals to add requirements for people receiving public assistance.

The bill's sponsors asserted they are needed to improve management of the programs and avoid federal fines, but critics countered they will hurt access. Health priorities are the topic in a "Virtual Day of Action" Jan. 26.

Frelund pointed out they also want to see more support for a component of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Double Up Food Bucks program allows SNAP recipients to stretch their dollars when buying fruits and vegetables, but those funds have dried up, forcing dozens of stores to drop the program.

"We know that there's need across the state for healthy foods," Frelund observed. "The more we can make it easier for people to make that healthy choice is the better for all of Iowa."

There are also calls to expand access to early childhood education through Head Start programs, with supporters contending they can improve healthy behaviors in young children. Right now, only 6% of Iowa kids under age three who qualify have access to Early Head Start.

After a defeat on Wednesday, Democrats in the U.S. Senate say they'll keep trying to pass voting-rights legislation, and one Wisconsin group wants any new proposals to exclude a provision in the bill which did not pass.

Barbara Beckert, director of the Milwaukee office of Disability Rights Wisconsin, said the package considered by the Senate this week included a paper-ballot mandate. She pointed out it concerned many voters with disabilities, because the ability to cast a paper ballot, privately and independently, is not an option for some.

"We think it's important to have a carve-out for voters covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), so they would not be required to vote by paper ballot," Beckert explained.

Beckert noted current law does not include such a mandate, and some folks with disabilities already use accessible voting machines or vote absentee without generating a paper ballot.

Last year, a coalition of 20 disability-rights groups voiced their opposition to the mandate, arguing it would disenfranchise voters with disabilities and stifle innovation to develop voting systems better suited to their needs.

Beckert added voting-rights legislation is important to ensure fair access for Wisconsinites. Her group thinks future efforts should include provisions for screen-reader-accessible and ADA-compliant absentee ballots.

"And that would allow equitable access to absentee voting for voters who are blind, or have other disabilities, where they do not have the ability to physically mark the ballot and need assistive technology," Beckert emphasized.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 19 states passed laws restricting voting access in 2021. Some similar bills in Wisconsin were vetoed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

During this week's Senate debate, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., criticized her counterpart, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., for encouraging Wisconsin's Legislature to take control of the state's elections. Baldwin, quoting reporting from the New York Times, alleged Johnson had said the process was legally permissible.

"'An extraordinary legal argument debunked by a 1932 Supreme Court decision and a 1964 ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court,' end quote from the New York Times," Baldwin said.

In a statement, Johnson argued Democrats, in attempting to bypass the filibuster to get the voting-rights legislation passed, were mounting a federal takeover of elections, calling the move a "naked power grab."