Advocates for democracy reform say there is another way to hold elections that will better represent more communities.

Proportional representation would be a change from the way current elections are run as winner-take-all affairs where people must win more than half of the votes.

Sol Mora, civic-engagement manager with the Coalition of Communities of Color in Oregon, said people of color don't make up 50 percent of the electorate in most places, so they often struggle for proper representation under this system.

"Proportional elections on the other hand," said Mora, "they're a voting system that really works to ensure that minority groups have a measure of representation in proportion to their share of the voters."

Portland currently is in the middle of a once-in-a-decade city charter review and reconsidering its city council makeup. Advocates want the commission examining the charter to look into setting up proportional representation.

Any suggested changes to the charter will go before Portland voters in November.

Mora said proportional elections would create more diverse coalitions for candidates.

"For example, renters in the city or folks that support climate action," said Mora. "It's really creating an avenue for any of those groups of voters who can rally behind the ideas and values that they share to actually elect someone who also shares those beliefs."

Mora said alternative forms for election are in place across the country, including in Benton County, Oregon, which uses ranked-choice voting in which voters rank candidates in order of preference.

Jay Lee is a research associate with the democracy program at the Northwest think tank Sightline Institute. He said proportional representation has a number of upsides, especially for communities of color.

He said it also could reduce the amount of money spent on campaigns since candidates would need to win over a smaller percentage of voters.

"You reduce the incentive to spend more and more and more money on advertising budgets and campaign spending," said Lee, "just to get that last half a percent over your opponent."

Lee said reducing how much is spent on elections also could lower the barrier for new candidates and small campaigns.

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.