Why Adam Hamilton Earned Our Endorsement in Kansas

Adam Hamilton Kansas U.S. Senate endorsement by the Centrist Independent Voter

I did not expect Kansas to become one of the more interesting Senate races we reviewed this year.

Republican Roger Marshall begins with the advantages of incumbency and of running in a state that has not elected a Democratic senator since 1932. But the Democratic nominee, Adam Hamilton, is not a conventional candidate.

Hamilton spent more than three decades leading the Church of the Resurrection, a large United Methodist congregation containing Republicans, Democrats and independents. His career has largely involved persuading people who disagree about difficult subjects to remain in conversation with one another.

Washington could use some of that.

What attracted us most, however, was not Hamilton’s biography. It was the contrast between his understanding of public office and Marshall’s record in the Senate.

Marshall voted to reject legitimate electoral votes after the 2020 election. He has supported President Trump’s broad use of tariffs, resisted congressional efforts to reclaim war powers, and repeatedly supported controversial presidential nominees even when other Republican senators were willing to vote no.

Hamilton, by contrast, argues that Congress should reclaim authority that has migrated to the executive branch. He opposes broad unilateral tariffs, favors secure borders while supporting legal immigration, and has developed a political style based more on persuasion than partisan warfare.

That does not mean we agree with him about everything.

We would like a much clearer account of the role Hamilton believes the United States should play in the world. Ukraine and NATO are part of that question, but the issue is broader: alliances, deterrence, military restraint and the degree to which America should remain engaged internationally.

We also think he needs to say more about deficits and entitlement reform. Some of his proposed tax credits strike us as bad policy, and his health-care approach differs from our own.

His religious background raised another question for us.

Clergy are no less entitled to public office than anyone else. But public officials govern people of every religion and of no religion. Religious doctrine cannot become governmental doctrine.

Hamilton has explicitly rejected Christian nationalism and defended separation of church and state. His own position on abortion is revealing: he speaks openly about the moral value he places on unborn life while also arguing that legislators should not become women’s spiritual advisers.

That strikes us as an important distinction.

A senator is entitled to bring his values into public life. He is not entitled to turn his church’s theology into civil law.

Hamilton appears to understand that.

He remains an underdog. Kansas is still Kansas. But recent polling suggests this is not merely a symbolic candidacy, and Hamilton appears capable of assembling the kind of coalition that has elected Democratic Governor Laura Kelly: Democrats, independents and enough moderate Republicans willing to cross party lines.

Endorsements are comparative judgments, not declarations of ideological agreement.

We have reservations about Adam Hamilton. But compared with Roger Marshall’s record, Hamilton offers greater independence, greater respect for democratic institutions and a political temperament that Washington badly needs.

That was enough for us.

The Centrist Independent Voter endorses Adam Hamilton for the United States Senate from Kansas.

Read our full endorsement of Adam Hamilton for U.S. Senate.

See all of Centrist Independent Voter’s 2026 U.S. Senate endorsements and races under review.

Why We Chose Scott Colom in Mississippi

The Centrist Independent Voter endorses Scott Colom for Mississippi U.S. Senate

I did not expect Mississippi to produce one of our more difficult Senate endorsements.

Cindy Hyde-Smith was the easy part. Her vote to reject valid electoral votes after the 2020 election, her record on Ukraine, and her repeated willingness to defer to Donald Trump when Congress should have been defending its own constitutional powers convinced us that Mississippi would be better served by someone else.

The harder question was Scott Colom or Ty Pinkins.

Pinkins gave us something we genuinely like. He is running as an independent and says he would caucus with neither party. More importantly, he has been discussing the creation of a bloc of independent senators—a Fulcrum Caucus—that could potentially hold the balance of power in a closely divided Senate.

We have supported that idea in other races. A handful of senators who could bargain over committee organization, amendment rights and other Senate procedures might loosen the grip of the two parties and make Congress work a little more like the institution the Constitution intended.

But there is an important distinction.

I am enthusiastic about using that leverage to reform the Senate. I am much less enthusiastic about using it to make enactment of a substantially left-wing policy agenda the price of organizing the chamber. Pinkins has suggested both. His support for universal health care and other economic policies goes considerably beyond our own approach to health care.

If Pinkins were proposing to reserve the leverage of a Fulcrum Caucus primarily for institutional reform—and if he appeared to be the stronger candidate against Hyde-Smith—I think we would have endorsed him.

Neither appears to be true.

Colom, meanwhile, has a record that is unusually attractive for a Democratic candidate in a deeply Republican state. As a district attorney, he has combined aggressive prosecution of violent crime with diversion and rehabilitation for first-time nonviolent offenders. He has earned respect from Republican officials as well as Democrats and has demonstrated a willingness to pursue wrongdoing by members of his own party.

He also presently has something Pinkins does not: a plausible, although still difficult, path to defeating Hyde-Smith.

There are positions where we disagree with Colom, and I remain particularly interested in hearing a clear statement from him on Ukraine and NATO. An endorsement is not a declaration that a candidate agrees with us about everything.

It is a choice among the candidates actually running.

In Mississippi, after giving Ty Pinkins considerably more thought than I initially expected, we chose Scott Colom.

Read our full endorsement of Scott Colom for U.S. Senate.

See all of Centrist Independent Voter’s 2026 U.S. Senate endorsements and races under review.

CIVPAC Endorses Brian Bengs for U.S. Senate in South Dakota

Centrist Independent Voter endorses Brian Bengs for U.S. Senate in South Dakota in the 2026 general election.

Our endorsement of independent candidate Brian Bengs for the United States Senate from South Dakota was not an easy one.

Republican Senator Mike Rounds has done some things we respect. He has been a strong supporter of Ukraine, and after the 2020 election he rejected Donald Trump’s unsupported claims of widespread fraud and said plainly that Trump had lost a fair election.

But more recently, Rounds has too often gone along with an increasingly powerful presidency rather than insisting that Congress exercise its own constitutional responsibilities.

Bengs offers something different. He is running as a genuine independent and says he would caucus with neither major party. Along with several other independent Senate candidates, he has discussed creating an independent caucus that could serve as a fulcrum between Republicans and Democrats.

We find that possibility enormously attractive.

Congress has surrendered too much authority to presidents of both parties, while party leadership increasingly determines what individual members are expected to support. Even a small group of independent senators could make bipartisan coalitions easier and force Congress to behave more like an independent branch of government.

We have substantial disagreements with Bengs. We oppose his proposed wealth tax and have serious reservations about parts of his health-care and economic agenda. An endorsement does not require agreement on every issue.

It does require a judgment about which candidate would make the Senate—and the country—better.

In South Dakota, we believe that candidate is Brian Bengs.

Read our full endorsement of Brian Bengs for U.S. Senate.

See also Centrist Independent Voter’s 2026 candidate endorsements.

CIVPAC has endorsed Sherrod Brown over Jon Husted in Ohio’s 2026 U.S. Senate race.

CIVPAC endorses Sherrod Brown in the 2026 Ohio U.S. Senate race

This was a close call. Husted is stronger on several issues, school choice, right-to-work principles, and the Hyde Amendment. He also deserves credit for supporting Ukraine and for rejecting election denial after January 6.

But his Senate record matters. On controversial nominees, Trump’s tariffs, and congressional war powers, Husted has repeatedly sided with the administration even when other Republican senators chose to break with it.

Brown has plenty of positions we dislike, particularly on protectionism, unions, and price controls. But in the political environment of 2026, we believe the stronger need is for an independent legislative check on executive power.

Under a different president and Congress, this endorsement might go the other way.

Read the full endorsement

See all of CIVPAC’s 2026 candidate endorsements

CIVPAC Endorses Josh Turek for U.S. Senate in Iowa

Centrist Independent Voter endorses Josh Turek for U.S. Senate in Iowa, with the U.S. Capitol and Iowa farmland.

This may be the closest thing CIVPAC has published to an endorsement by faint praise.

We have endorsed Josh Turek for the United States Senate from Iowa over Republican Ashley Hinson. But this is not an endorsement in which one candidate clearly reflects our views and the other clearly does not.

Both candidates have strengths. Both have weaknesses. And under different national circumstances, I can easily imagine CIVPAC reaching the opposite conclusion.

Ashley Hinson has positions we like. She is generally more market-oriented than Turek. She supports right-to-work laws and school choice, positions substantially closer to our views on labor unions and K–12 education. She voted to accept the certified results of the 2020 presidential election and supported the Respect for Marriage Act. She is not simply an election-denying MAGA caricature.

Josh Turek, meanwhile, has plenty of positions we do not like.

He supports a wealth tax on billionaires. We do not. Our taxation, spending and debt policy favors a progressive tax system but puts considerable weight on economic efficiency, broad tax bases and long-term fiscal balance rather than new taxes on accumulated wealth.

Turek also supports federal food-price-gouging restrictions. We generally distrust price controls and laws that attempt to suppress price signals rather than address the underlying causes of scarcity.

He supports the PRO Act, which conflicts with our view that workers should be free to organize but that states should remain free to enact right-to-work laws. He would end school vouchers, while CIVPAC supports carefully designed experiments with vouchers and charter schools subject to common transparency and testing standards.

His foreign-policy views are also less developed than I would like in someone seeking a seat in the United States Senate.

So why endorse him?

Partly because endorsements are comparative judgments, not ideological purity tests.

Turek has demonstrated something we value enormously: an ability to represent people who do not necessarily share his party affiliation. Donald Trump carried his Iowa House district, yet Turek won it. He has crossed party lines on consequential votes and has been effective in a legislature overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans.

He is also substantially closer to us on abortion and personal liberty. And his combination of stronger border enforcement with a legal path for long-established undocumented residents is much closer to the compromise reflected in our immigration policy than either open-ended permissiveness or mass-deportation politics.

Turek also strongly opposes Trump’s broad tariffs. That puts him much closer to CIVPAC’s trade policy, which favors open trade, predictable rules and restoring greater congressional control over the use of tariffs.

Hinson, meanwhile, increasingly identifies herself with Donald Trump and his agenda. She has supported his broad tariff policies, which we regard as economically damaging and particularly inappropriate for an agricultural state.

She also voted against the 2026 Ukraine Support Act despite having previously expressed stronger support for resisting Russian aggression. CIVPAC’s Russia and Ukraine policy places considerable weight on deterrence, alliance reliability and denying Russia the benefits of territorial aggression.

Most importantly, the current political environment changes the weight we assign to these differences.

If Donald Trump and Trumpism were not dominant forces within the Republican Party, this endorsement might be different.

If Democrats controlled the presidency and Congress and the greater need were for a market-oriented check on the left, this endorsement might also be different.

In that environment, Hinson’s positions on taxes, school choice, labor policy and regulation might well carry greater weight.

But we do not make endorsements for an imaginary political system. We make them for the one that exists.

Today, institutional independence, constitutional restraint, respect for individual liberty, sensible trade policy, support for American alliances and a willingness by members of Congress to act as legislators rather than extensions of a president deserve unusual weight.

On balance, Turek comes out ahead.

Not by much.

That is why “endorsement by faint praise” seems about right. It is not meant as an insult to Turek. It is a recognition that serious political choices are often between imperfect alternatives.

CIVPAC’s purpose is not to find candidates with whom we agree on everything. It is to decide which available candidate is more likely to move government in a sensible, centrist and institutionally responsible direction.

In Iowa, by a narrow margin, we believe that candidate is Josh Turek.

Why We Are Endorsing Chris Harden in Georgia’s 11th District

Chris Harden endorsement for Georgia’s 11th Congressional District, with GA-11 highlighted on a map of Georgia.

Our endorsement of Chris Harden for Congress in Georgia’s 11th District is an unusual one because we previously endorsed his Republican opponent, John Cowan, in the Republican primary.

At the time, we admired Cowan’s willingness to challenge Marjorie Taylor Greene, reject conspiracy politics, and speak frankly about Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. We thought we were supporting an independent-minded Republican. In any case, he was still the best option among those running in the Republican primary.

After watching Cowan during the run-off primary and the general-election campaign, we no longer believe that describes the candidate before us. Cowan now says he is “100% behind President Trump.” The independence we valued seems to have disappeared just when political ambition made it inconvenient.

Harden is hardly a finished product. He is a first-time candidate and, in our view, has more learning to do—particularly on economics and foreign policy. But his background in political science, history and law shows in his strong commitment to due process, constitutional protections and the rule of law. He also describes himself as a moderate Democrat and has explicitly said that he believes in market solutions.

Most important, Harden comes across as a decent and principled person.

We do not confuse decency with policy expertise. But expertise can be acquired. Character and political independence are harder to manufacture.

As we say in the endorsement, Chris Harden may be a diamond in the rough. In this race, we would rather send someone to Washington who still has things to learn than someone who appears willing to discard deeply held principles when they conflict with political ambition.

Read our full endorsement of Chris Harden for Georgia’s 11th Congressional District.

See all of CIVPAC’s 2026 candidate endorsements and races under review.

CIVPAC Endorses James Talarico for U.S. Senate in Texas

CIVPAC endorsement graphic for James Talarico for U.S. Senate in Texas, 2026 general election.

Centrist Independent Voter has endorsed Democrat James Talarico for the United States Senate from Texas over Republican Ken Paxton.

This is not an endorsement of every part of Talarico’s agenda. He is to our left on several economic issues, and we have significant disagreements with some of his proposals on taxes, spending and health care. But he is also a thoughtful and unusually interesting candidate who has shown a willingness to talk about policy in practical rather than purely ideological terms.

Paxton’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, his close identification with Trumpism and his broader record raise fundamental concerns about institutional responsibility and the independence we expect from a United States senator.

Talarico offers Texas voters a very different kind of politics. We will disagree with him, sometimes substantially. But we believe he would bring greater respect for democratic institutions, greater independence of judgment and a more constructive approach to governing.

In a Texas Senate race that has become genuinely competitive, that is enough to make the choice clear.

Read CIVPAC’s full endorsement of James Talarico.

See CIVPAC’s 2026 U.S. Senate general-election endorsements and races under review.

Centrist Independent Voter (CIVPAC) has endorsed Senator Susan Collins for re-election to the U.S. Senate from Maine.

Maine U.S. Senate general election graphic with Maine state outline, compass rose and CIVPAC endorsement of Susan Collins.

This is not an endorsement without reservations. Collins has too often supported President Trump when stronger independence would have been welcome. But in recent months she has also shown that she is still willing to break with her party on important institutional and policy questions, including voting against Todd Blanche for attorney general, opposing continued military action against Iran without congressional authorization, and challenging parts of the administration’s tariff and immigration policies.

Her Democratic opponent, Troy Jackson, is a serious candidate with substantial experience in Maine government. We agree with his support for Ukraine, but his positions on Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, eliminating the Senate filibuster and restructuring the Supreme Court move well beyond the pragmatic reforms CIVPAC favors.

We do not endorse Collins without reservations, but in this race we believe she is clearly the better choice.

Read the full CIVPAC endorsement of Susan Collins.

See all CIVPAC 2026 endorsements and races under review.

Centrist Independent Voter (CIVPAC) has endorsed former North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper for the U.S. Senate in November.

North Carolina U.S. Senate endorsement graphic for Roy Cooper with the state outline and U.S. Capitol.

Cooper is not a perfect fit for CIVPAC. We disagree with him on some economic and education policies, and Republican Michael Whatley is closer to us on several issues, including school choice and parts of immigration and energy policy.

But Cooper brings a long record of competent statewide leadership, experience governing with a Republican legislature, and demonstrated willingness to reach bipartisan agreements. He has also supported Ukraine, taken a pragmatic approach to immigration, and shown a healthier understanding of the institutional role of an elected official.

Whatley, by contrast, has made loyalty to President Trump central to his campaign and previously echoed unsupported claims about widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

Elections require choices among the candidates actually running. On balance, Cooper is clearly the better choice.

Read the full CIVPAC endorsement of Roy Cooper.

See all CIVPAC 2026 candidate endorsements and races under review.

Centrist Independent Voter Endorses Jessica Killin in Colorado’s 5th District

Colorado general-election endorsement graphic featuring the state outline, the U.S. Capitol and the Centrist Independent Voter compass rose.

Centrist Independent Voter has endorsed Jessica Killin, the Democratic nominee for Congress in Colorado’s 5th Congressional District.

Killin is an Army veteran who describes herself as part of “Team Normal.” We disagree with her on some economic policies, particularly proposals aimed at restricting institutional housing investors and increasing assistance to homebuyers when housing supply remains constrained.

But Killin gets several important things right. She opposes President Trump’s tariffs, recognizes the need to increase housing supply, supports a combination of border security and legal status for otherwise law-abiding immigrants, and believes Congress should reclaim authority it has surrendered to the executive branch.

Her foreign-policy background is also important. Killin served eight years in the Army and worked on NATO expansion and peacekeeping in Europe. She has spoken strongly about the importance of American alliances and NATO to U.S. national security.

Her Republican opponent, Representative Jeff Crank, has taken the other side on several issues that matter greatly to us, including voting against the Ukraine Support Act and against congressional efforts to limit unauthorized presidential military action against Iran.

We do not expect candidates we endorse to agree with us on everything. We do expect them, on balance, to offer the better combination of sound policy, independent judgment and respect for democratic institutions.

We believe Jessica Killin does.

Read our full endorsement of Jessica Killin.

See also Centrist Independent Voter’s 2026 candidate endorsements.