Centrist Independent Voter has endorsed Representative Maggie Goodlander in the September 8 Democratic primary for New Hampshire’s 2nd Congressional District.
Goodlander has served in Congress only since January 2025, but she has already demonstrated the institutional seriousness and willingness to work across party lines that Centrist Independent Voter looks for in candidates.
Her background includes service as a Navy Reserve intelligence officer, constitutional-law professor, Justice Department official and adviser to Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman. In Congress, she has worked on government transparency, Pentagon accountability, fiscal responsibility and ethics reform.
Goodlander also supports Ukraine, favors immigration reform that combines secure borders with a legal path for long-established undocumented residents, and has signed the Promise to America, whose principles include capitalism, fiscal responsibility, free speech, secure borders and continued American leadership abroad.
We do have an important disagreement with Goodlander over her vote to end $3.3 billion in annual direct military assistance to Israel. But she continues to support Israel’s security and American assistance for Israeli air defense. Her primary opponent, Paige Beauchemin, takes a considerably more restrictive position on American support for Israel and is also challenging Goodlander from the party’s ideological left on several other issues.
No candidate will agree with us on everything. Goodlander offers the stronger combination of experience, institutional judgment, political realism and bipartisan potential.
CIVPAC has endorsed Aly Richards in Vermont’s August 11 Democratic primary for governor.
Richards is the more practical and responsible choice over economist Amanda Janoo. Although CIVPAC disagrees with Richards on the appropriate size and role of state government, she has demonstrated an ability to build coalitions, turn policy goals into workable legislation and confront the costs and practical limitations of government programs.
The contrast is particularly clear on health care. Both candidates support government-guaranteed universal primary care, but Janoo proposes a substantially more expensive state-funded system supported by large income-tax surcharges. Richards has rejected that approach as economically and politically unrealistic and has emphasized preserving federal and insurance funding rather than shifting the full cost to Vermont taxpayers.
Richards also offers a more practical approach to Vermont’s housing shortage, workforce problems and stagnant population. Her emphasis on increasing housing construction, improving administration and adopting policies that can actually pass the legislature makes her the stronger Democratic nominee.
This endorsement applies only to the Democratic primary. CIVPAC will evaluate the general election separately after voters choose a nominee to face Republican Governor Phil Scott.
CIVPAC has endorsed Maurice Mercer in the August 11 Democratic primary for Alabama’s 6th Congressional District.
Mercer is a former Pelham City Council president with experience in business, small-business ownership and local government. His platform combines support for competitive markets and reduced unnecessary regulation with secure borders, humane immigration reform, accountable law enforcement and respect for religious freedom.
He is an unusually strong fit for CIVPAC. Rather than treating corporations, profits or law-enforcement officers as presumptive enemies, Mercer emphasizes competition, opportunity, constitutional rights and practical cooperation among government, business, workers and local communities.
Alabama’s 6th District is heavily Republican, and Mercer would face a difficult general election. That is not a reason to ignore his candidacy. Political organizations should help elevate thoughtful centrists even when their path to victory is narrow. Candidates such as Mercer can broaden their parties, improve political debate and offer voters a meaningful alternative to both right-wing and left-wing politics.
Minnesota voters face two important Democratic primaries on August 11. CIVPAC has endorsed Representative Angie Craig for the open United States Senate seat and state Senator Matt Klein in Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District.
Angie Craig offers the strongest combination of legislative experience, political pragmatism and general-election appeal in the Senate field. She has repeatedly won a competitive congressional district and understands that Democrats must speak to rural, suburban and independent voters as well as the party’s most committed activists.
Our endorsement of Matt Klein is more comparative. We disagree with several of his economic and health-care positions, but his experience as a physician and state senator makes him the best available choice to succeed Craig in a politically competitive district. His principal opponents are substantially farther from CIVPAC on health care, immigration enforcement, economic policy and military assistance to Israel. His potential Republican opponent, Eric Pratt, is unopposed in the primary. We will revisit the race after the Democratic primary is over.
These endorsements do not imply complete agreement with either candidate. They reflect CIVPAC’s continuing effort to identify the most pragmatic and responsible choices available to primary voters.
A couple of days ago, I heard Felix Frisch discuss Promise to America with Elie Honig on SiriusXM. I came away thinking that we had found an organization that belongs on CIVPAC’s list of centrist resources.
Promise to America is an effort to give moderate Democrats something they have often lacked: a simple, affirmative statement of what they believe. It was developed by a group of young political organizers working with Democratic Representatives Tom Suozzi of New York and Adam Gray of California—the only two Democrats who captured Republican-held House districts won by Donald Trump in 2024.
The organization is directed by Felix Frisch, the 20-year-old son of former Colorado congressional candidate Adam Frisch. Felix worked on his father’s two campaigns and says he drove more than 50,000 miles through western and southern Colorado. That experience appears to have taught him something national political organizations sometimes forget: candidates must listen to the voters they need to persuade, not merely repeat the views of the activists.
Promise to America asks Democratic candidates and elected officials to embrace six broad principles:
Growth, competition and broadly shared prosperity
Safety, security and human dignity
Fiscal discipline
Government that works
Free speech, respect and common purpose
Confident patriotism and national renewal
The pledge summarizes those principles in unusually direct language:
“We are capitalist, not socialist.”
“We want safety, not lawlessness.”
“We are responsible, not reckless.”
“We believe government should solve problems, not create them.”
“We are mainstream, not extreme.”
“We are proud, not ashamed of America.”
CIVPAC agrees with all six statements.
That does not mean that slogans are a substitute for policy. Saying that government should be fiscally responsible is easier than identifying which programs should be reduced, which taxes should be increased or which promises should be reconsidered. Supporting secure borders does not by itself tell us what a workable immigration system would look like. Supporting capitalism does not relieve government of the responsibility to preserve competition, protect opportunity and address genuine market failures.
But political organizations need both policies and an identity. Voters want to know not only what a candidate proposes to do, but also what kind of person—or party—they are being asked to trust.
Promise to America offers a recognizable identity: economically pragmatic, socially tolerant, patriotic, serious about public safety, supportive of effective government and willing to persuade people who do not already agree.
That is a useful answer to the impression that Democrats must choose between offering no clear governing philosophy and adopting the philosophy of the democratic socialist left.
The pledge’s emphasis on persuasion may be especially important. American elections are not won by assembling the purest possible collection of beliefs. They are won by building coalitions. That requires candidates to speak respectfully to voters who may disagree with them on abortion, guns, immigration, taxes, policing, climate policy or cultural questions.
A political party that treats disagreement as evidence of moral failure will steadily shrink the number of people it can represent.
The Democratic Party needs people who understand that defeating MAGA politics requires winning voters outside safely Democratic cities and districts. The party cannot build a durable national majority by telling culturally moderate, working-class, rural and suburban voters that they must accept every position favored by the progressive left.
Centrists should not limit themselves to warning Democrats about what they must reject. They need to describe what they are for.
Promise to America has made a promising start.
Its principles do not constitute a complete governing program, but they describe a political temperament that is badly needed: confident without being arrogant, patriotic without being uncritical, market-oriented without being indifferent, and moderate without being timid.
We are therefore adding Promise to America to CIVPAC’s list of centrist organizations. We hope its candidates and supporters will move beyond a pledge to develop specific, credible policies. It took CIVPAC years to develop our current portfolio of centrist public policies. Promise to America has existed for only a few weeks.
We also hope Democratic leaders will listen to people such as Tom Suozzi and Adam Gray, who have demonstrated that they can win voters in places where elections are genuinely contested.
And we will be watching Felix Frisch. It is encouraging to hear a young political leader speak about persuasion, pluralism and coalition-building with a maturity that is often missing from American politics.
CIVPAC has endorsed Charlie Hatcher in the Republican primary and Chaz Molder in the Democratic primary for Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District.
Endorsing candidates in both parties may seem unusual, but it reflects the purpose of an independent centrist organization. We do not begin by choosing a party and then searching for reasons to support its nominee. We evaluate the candidates actually running and ask which candidate in each primary offers voters the strongest combination of competence, responsible government and appeal beyond the party’s most committed base.
In the Republican primary, that candidate is Charlie Hatcher.
Hatcher is a farmer, veterinarian, business owner and former Tennessee commissioner of agriculture. He offers Republican voters a more serious and accomplished alternative to incumbent Representative Andy Ogles, whose congressional career has been characterized too often by ideological performance, inflammatory rhetoric and the pursuit of national attention.
Hatcher would also be the more appealing Republican candidate in the general election. His executive experience, agricultural background and emphasis on competent government give him a better chance of reaching voters who may share conservative instincts but are weary of political theater.
In the Democratic primary, CIVPAC endorses Chaz Molder.
Molder has twice been elected mayor of Columbia in heavily Republican Maury County. His record includes balanced budgets, investments in public safety and infrastructure, and no increase in the city’s property-tax rate. Whatever disagreements CIVPAC may have with individual elements of his platform, he has demonstrated an ability to govern and to earn support beyond the Democratic base.
That experience distinguishes him from the rest of the Democratic field. Democrats hoping to compete in Tennessee’s 5th District need more than a candidate who can mobilize reliable Democratic voters. They need someone capable of persuading independents and at least some Republicans. Molder has already shown that he can do that.
These endorsements are limited to the party primaries. CIVPAC will evaluate the general-election nominees after the primaries are complete.
For now, our message to voters in both parties is straightforward.
Republicans who want a more responsible representative and a stronger general-election nominee should choose Charlie Hatcher.
Democrats who want an experienced candidate with the best chance of building a broader coalition should choose Chaz Molder.
A healthier political system requires both parties to nominate candidates capable of governing—and capable of speaking to people who do not already agree with them.
CIVPAC has endorsed two Democratic congressional candidates in Michigan: Bridget Brink in the 7th Congressional District and Callie Barr in the 1st Congressional District.
The districts are different, and neither candidate should be treated as a generic national Democrat. Both bring experience particularly relevant to the people they seek to represent.
Bridget Brink — Michigan’s 7th District
Bridget Brink is a career diplomat and former United States ambassador to Ukraine. She served under presidents of both parties and represented the United States in Kyiv during Russia’s invasion. She resigned from government after concluding that the Trump administration was placing pressure on Ukraine while accommodating Russia.
Brink brings seriousness, integrity and extensive national-security experience to a competitive central Michigan district. At a time when American alliances and democratic values are under pressure, Congress needs members who understand both the human consequences of aggression and the strategic importance of resisting it.
Her career also demonstrates that public service need not begin with partisan ambition. She spent decades representing the United States before seeking elective office.
Callie Barr is a military spouse, veteran advocate, teacher and attorney seeking to represent northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. Her campaign emphasizes affordability, health care, housing, energy costs and the practical needs of families who often feel overlooked by Washington.
Barr’s understanding of military families is particularly relevant in a region with a strong tradition of service. She also offers Democrats an opportunity to compete in a difficult district with a candidate whose biography and priorities are grounded in the community rather than in national ideological politics.
An endorsement is not merely a prediction about who is most likely to win. Sometimes it is also a statement that a serious candidate is making the right kind of argument in a place where that argument needs to be heard.
Brink and Barr represent two important forms of public service: international leadership in defense of American interests and practical advocacy for families at home. CIVPAC is pleased to endorse both.
CIVPAC has endorsed former Representative Elaine Luria in Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District.
Luria brings an unusual combination of military experience, legislative experience and demonstrated commitment to constitutional government. Before entering Congress, she served for 20 years as a Navy officer. In the House, she developed a reputation for seriousness on national security and later served on the committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol. She is now seeking to reclaim the district she represented from 2019 through 2022.
CIVPAC does not expect to agree with Luria on every issue. We would, of course, prefer a true centrist, but she represents the kind of center-left leadership the country needs: pragmatic, experienced, internationally engaged and willing to place constitutional responsibility ahead of immediate political convenience.
Virginia’s 2nd District includes a large military and veteran population and deserves a representative who understands both national defense and the obligations that accompany public power. Elaine Luria has demonstrated that understanding.
CIVPAC’s endorsements are not offered as kingmaking exercises. We recognize that we do not have that kind of influence. They are public markers: statements about the kind of politics we believe deserves support and the kind of politics we believe should be resisted.
CIVPAC has endorsed three Democratic members of Congress in Washington state: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Adam Smith and Marilyn Strickland.
They represent different districts and different styles of leadership, but all three demonstrate that Democratic politics need not be dominated by its most ideological voices.
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez — Washington’s 3rd District
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez represents a politically difficult district in southwest Washington. A small-business owner with roots in the skilled trades, she has developed a reputation for independence, practical problem-solving and a willingness to depart from her party when she believes her district requires it. She won a Republican-leaning district in 2022 and expanded her margin in 2024.
CIVPAC does not endorse every departure from party leadership merely because it is independent. We endorse Gluesenkamp Perez because her independence generally reflects the interests of the people she represents.
Adam Smith is an experienced legislator and one of the Democratic Party’s most knowledgeable voices on national security. He has represented Washington in Congress since 1997 and currently serves as the leading Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Smith combines a broadly center-left domestic outlook with a realistic understanding of alliances, military power and America’s international responsibilities. At a time when parts of both parties are tempted by isolationism or ideological simplification, that experience matters.
Marilyn Strickland brings executive experience, practical judgment and close attention to the military families, veterans, workers and businesses of Washington’s South Sound. She is seeking a fourth term in Congress.
Strickland is a pragmatic Democrat who understands that public programs must deliver visible results. Her attention to infrastructure, economic opportunity and the quality of life of servicemembers and their families makes her a strong fit for her district.
These three endorsements do not suggest that the candidates are identical or that CIVPAC approves every vote they cast. They reflect our belief that the Democratic Party and the country need experienced national-security voices, pragmatic representatives of competitive districts and legislators focused on making government work.
CIVPAC does not favor Democratic control of Congress or Republican control of Congress in the abstract.
Our concern is institutional balance.
The Constitution assumes that Congress will defend its institutional role against the executive. In practice, party loyalty often overwhelms institutional responsibility. Members of Congress too often behave less like members of a separate branch of government and more like members of the president’s party team.
Divided government is not ideal. It is a second-best safeguard. If Congress will not check a president because it is Congress, perhaps an opposition-party Congress will check a president because it is the opposition party.
That is not a perfect solution. Divided government can produce obstruction, gridlock, posturing, and crisis. But it may still be safer than unified partisan control when party loyalty is too strong and institutional restraint is too weak.
In 2026, this principle may lead CIVPAC to favor some Democratic candidates as a check on this Republican executive. That should not be mistaken for a general endorsement of Democratic control of Congress.
In a different cycle, if Democrats held the White House — especially under a DSA-aligned or far-left president — the same principle could lead CIVPAC to favor Republican control of Congress, if Republicans nominate candidates fit to serve as a constitutional check.
Our preference is not partisan control. Our preference is constitutional balance, institutional restraint, and resistance to one-party overreach.
The more hopeful answer is that one of the two major parties might become moderate enough, responsible enough, and institutionally serious enough to be trusted with unified power. If that happened, divided government would be less necessary. But neither party has yet earned that level of trust.
This connects directly to CIVPAC’s idea of a true win-everywhere strategy.
Winning everywhere means nominating candidates who can actually represent the voters in the places they hope to serve. It means being broad enough, serious enough, and trusted enough to compete where the party’s national brand is weak. It also means having a national brand that does not make that impossible.
Too often, both parties say they want to win everywhere while behaving as if every district should be represented by the same national ideological brand.
A party captured by its ideological base cannot really win everywhere. It can win safe seats. It can hope for favorable waves. But it cannot rebuild trust in places where voters fear that unified party control would become ideological overreach.
A true win-everywhere strategy requires rejecting extreme ideological litmus tests, nominating candidates suited to their districts, respecting constitutional limits, and showing voters that winning power would not become permission for factional domination.
Candidate selection matters, even if success or failure of the party is inevitable in that state or district.
When Democratic primary voters choose practical center-left candidates over far-left or DSA-aligned alternatives, they make the Democratic Party more governable and more trustworthy. When Republican primary voters choose practical center-right candidates over MAGA, election-denying, or authoritarian-populist alternatives, they do the same for the Republican Party.
The center is not asking the two parties to become identical. Disagreement within constitutional boundaries is healthy. But there is a difference between ordinary policy disagreement and a politics that treats institutions as obstacles, opponents as enemies, and victory as permission to dominate.
Democracy is not stable merely because elections are held. It also requires parties that can be trusted with power, leaders who respect limits, and voters who reward seriousness over performance.
CIVPAC’s position is therefore straightforward: divided government may be necessary when neither party has earned full trust. The better long-term answer is for at least one party — and ideally both — to become moderate, responsible, and institutionally serious enough to be trusted with power.
The first party to learn that lesson may not merely win more elections.
It may deserve to govern.
Until then, please remember that even if your side wins by substantial majority, you do not have a mandate to pursue your wildest dreams. You have an opportunity to demonstrate that you can be trusted with power.
