It has been a year since demonstrators stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to change the official outcome of the 2020 presidential election, and new data suggests threats of political violence are on the rise.

Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League said people in Wyoming and across the U.S. need to be paying attention and to stay engaged through voting, volunteering, attending school board and city council meetings in order to protect democracy, which he calls a contact sport.

"You can't watch it from the cheap seats; you've got to be on the field," Greenblatt asserted. "Not reading Facebook or liking a post on Instagram, and thinking you've somehow engaged in civic society. We need people to get off their phones and get into the world."

Researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies found incidents of domestic terrorism have increased dramatically since 2015, fueled mainly by white-supremacist, anti-Muslim and anti-government extremists.

A new Ipsos-NPR poll found nearly one in five Americans said political violence may be necessary, either to protect democracy or what they see as American culture and values.

Greenblatt's new book, "It Can Happen Here: Why America is Tipping From Hate to the Unthinkable - and How We Can Stop It," warned some democracies have dissolved in a storm of violence, but it can also happen through more subtle and insidious ways.

While the system seems to have survived last year's contested presidential election, Greenblatt sees worrisome indicators.

"The effort to pass laws that would obstruct the ability of people to vote and participate in our democratic process, that would gerrymander Congressional districts, to further increase polarization and tribalism," Greenblatt outlined.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe democracy is at risk of failing.

Greenblatt, the grandson of a Nazi Holocaust survivor, said policymakers can help by passing legislation protecting the right to vote. And he noted CEOs, faith leaders and everyday Americans also have a role to play.

"Number one, we all need to call out hate when it happens," Greenblatt urged. "We need to interrupt intolerance before it takes root, even when it originates on your team, or from your political group or from within your tribe."

When North Dakotans head out to cast their ballots later this year, there is a chance some will do so in a voting center and not a designated precinct.

Jurisdictions cited the flexibility of voting centers when measuring what worked in the pandemic. North Dakota approved voting centers in 2007.

In the 2020 general election, all but five counties offered them. Unlike precincts, the sites are not bound by strict residential requirements. Local residents can choose to vote at any participating site in their respective county.

DeAnn Buckhouse, election coordinator for Cass County based in Fargo, said they intend to make more use of them this year.

"So, if they want to go on their lunch hour, they can go someplace that's close to where they work as opposed to rush home, get the kids," Buckhouse explained.

She noted freedom and convenience on Election Day mirrors the options people have if they choose to do early voting. Election experts pointed out while voting centers have advantages, they warn about confusion if they are not advertised enough.

It is unclear exactly how many counties will stick with voting sites in 2022. A much smaller number used them in 2018.

Buckhouse emphasized technology plays a big part in moving forward with voting centers, noting the state purchased new equipment in 2019, which means local offices do not have to rely on stacks of preprinted ballots if they want to make better use of the sites.

"We can have blank ballot stock that the machine will print once the voter has made their selection," Buckhouse added.

She stressed it is important because in more populated counties, voters in one area are likely to have different races to decide on than voters in other areas.

Currently, voting centers are allowed in 18 states. Among neighboring states, South Dakota is on the list.

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

The Indiana House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a controversial bill barring schools from teaching about Critical Race Theory, which examines history, culture and the law through the lens of race and identity.

The bill would also require districts to post curriculum materials online and establish a curriculum advisory committee.

Rep. Tony Cook, R-Cicero, one of the bill's sponsors, said parents should be able to weigh in on what their kids are learning.

"The overriding intent of this bill is to provide curricular transparency," Cook asserted. "As well as to empower parents by returning them the opportunity to participate in the curriculum process."

Indiana's bills are part of a national push by Republican lawmakers to restrict the teaching of Critical Race Theory in classrooms. Education Week reports more than a dozen states have enacted such policies. Democrats and social justice organizations say the measures are an attempt to sweep portions of America's history under the proverbial rug.

Rep. Tonya Pfaff, D-Terre Haute, a teacher with nearly three decades of classroom experience, said she received more than 900 emails urging her to vote against the bill.

"Students are not fragile," Pfaff argued. "They want to learn, and they want their teacher to be honest about the uncomfortable truths of the past and the present."

Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, argued discomfort is necessary to promote change.

"The only way you can get people to change is through two ways: either dissatisfaction, and that's discomfort, or through agitation, and that's discomfort," Smith contended.

The bill now goes on to the Senate for further consideration, where The Associated Press reported it faces an uncertain future. A similar bill in the senate died after one of its authors drew national attention for arguing teachers should be impartial when teaching about Nazism.

There's another chapter in Ohio's redistricting saga. Several groups filed legal challenges asking the Ohio Supreme Court to declare revised state legislative district maps invalid, arguing they violate the Ohio Constitution's partisan fairness mandates.

After the state's first maps were declared unconstitutional, the Ohio Redistricting Commission went back to the drawing board and approved new maps Saturday.

Maki Somosot, communications and narrative director for the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, said the map drawers identified districts in the original maps leaning slightly Republican, and revised the lines just enough to create razor-thin Democratic-leaning districts.

"This is just another example of our legislators putting their own party over people's interests," Somosot asserted. "At the end of the day, if we're going to build a democracy that works for all of us, that means that we need to pick our leaders and not the other way around."

Gov. Mike DeWine, who sits on the Ohio Redistricting Commission, indicated the revised map is as close to proportional as possible, and argued it conformed to all other provisions required by the constitution. The commission has until noon on Friday to respond to the objections.

Ohio's voting breakdown is 54% Republican to 46% Democrat.

Collin Marozzi, deputy policy director for the ACLU of Ohio, explains the revised maps give Republicans a 57-42 advantage in the House and a 20-13 advantage in the Senate.

"There really is a tilt, a very intentional skew, to put the Democratic seats in a much more precarious position rather than the Republican districts which have been drawn to ensure a level of safety for those members," Marozzi contended.

Meanwhile, the Ohio General Assembly is tasked with redrawing congressional districts after the state Supreme Court found the map violated partisan gerrymandering rules. Marozzi noted redistricting is now a hot-button issue among voters.

"The maps that are ultimately adopted from one state to another in the aggregate has the ability to change the party in power in the U.S. House of Representatives," Marozzi pointed out. "And people have rightly begun to view redistricting as a linchpin for democracy."

Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Michigan and Texas are among the states where there are also legal challenges over newly drawn districts.