There are three essential components to a healthy democracy: elected officials, voters and political opposition. The first two make the most noise and get the most attention.

But that third pillar really matters too.

According to Ballotpedia, the online nonpartisan organization that tracks election data, of the nearly 14,000 elections across 30 states that the group covered this week, 60% were uncontested — with only one candidate for a position, or for some roles, no candidate at all.

Much of this week’s postelection analysis has been focused on the mayoral race in New York City and Zohran Mamdani’s victory. Yet the same night, as democracy in America took center stage, more than 1,000 people were elected mayor without facing an opponent.

Only about 700 mayoral races tracked by Ballotpedia gave voters any choice. Dig a little deeper and you find more than 50% of city council victories and nearly 80% of outcomes for local judgeships were all without competition.

That’s a problem.

Elections without political opposition turn voting — the cornerstone of our governance — into performance art. The trend is heading in the wrong direction. Since Ballotpedia began tracking this data in 2018, about 65% of the elections covered were uncontested. However, for the last two years the average is an abysmal 75%.

It’s a symptom of broader disengagement. Over two and a half centuries, a lot of lives have been sacrificed trying to perfect this union and its democracy. And yet last November, a third of America’s eligible voters chose not to take part.

Are we a healthy democracy or masquerading as one?

Doug Kronaizl, a managing editor at Ballotpedia who analyzes this data, told me the numbers show Americans are increasingly more focused on national politics, even though local elections have the greatest effects on our daily lives.

“We like to view elections sort of like a pyramid, and at the tippity top, that’s where all of the elections are that people just spend a lot of time focused on,” said Kronaizl, who’s been at the nonprofit since 2020. “That’s your U.S. House races, your governor races, stuff like that. But the vast majority of the pyramid — that huge base — is like all of these local elections that are always happening and end up being for the most part uncontested.”

Take New York, for example. For all the hoopla around Mamdani’s win, the fact is most of the state’s 124 elections weren’t contested. Iowa had 1,753 races with one or zero candidates; Ohio had more than 2,500.

And that’s being conservative. In some cases, if an election is uncontested, ballots aren’t printed and the performance art is canceled. Ballotpedia says its data doesn’t include outcomes decided without a vote.

We have elected officials. We have voters. But political opposition? We’re in trouble — especially at the local level, down at the base of the pyramid. The foundation of democracy is in desperate need of repair.

* * *

The former mayor of Tempe, Ariz., Neil Giuliano, has dedicated most of his life to public service. He said when it comes to running for office, people must remember the three M’s: the money to campaign, the electoral math to win and the message for voters.

“It used to be the other way around,” he told me. “It used to be you had a message and you talked about what you believed in.” Now, however, “you can talk about what you believe in all day long,” he said, but if you don’t have the money and the data to target and reach voters, “it’s either a vanity effort or a futility effort.”

When an interesting electoral seat opens in Arizona, Giuliano — who was elected to the city council in 1990 before serving as mayor from 1994 to 2004 — is sometimes approached about running again. For two decades now, his answer has been the same: No, thank you.

Instead, the 69-year-old prefers mentoring candidates and fundraising. He also sits on the board of the Victory Fund, the 30-year-old nonpartisan organization that works to elect openly LGBTQ+ candidates at all levels of government.

Giuliano said the rise in uncontested elections can be explained by two discouraged groups: Some people don’t run because they believe the positions don’t matter. Others are “so overwhelmed with everything going on they’re not going to alter their life,” he said. “It’s already challenging enough without getting into a public fray where people hate each other, where people need security, where people are being accosted verbally and on social media.”

That sentiment was echoed by Amanda Litman, co-founder and president of Run for Something. Her nonprofit recruits and supports young progressives to run for local and state offices. Since President Trump was elected last November, Litman said, the organization has received more than 200,000 inquiries from people looking to run for office — which could indicate some hope on the horizon.

“I think the problems have gotten so big and so deep that it feels like you have to do something — you have to run,” she said. “The number one issue we’re hearing folks talk about is housing. The market in the last couple of years has gotten so hard, especially for young people, that it feels like there’s no alternative but to engage.”

* * *

Indeed, these are the times that try men’s souls, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Paine. He wrote those words in “The American Crisis” less than two years into the Revolutionary War, when morale was low and the future of democracy looked bleak. It is said that George Washington had Paine’s words read out loud to soldiers to inspire them. And when the bloodshed was over and victory finally won, the founders drafted the first article of the Bill of Rights because they knew the paramount importance of political opposition. That is what the 1st Amendment primarily protects: freedom of speech, the press and assembly and the right to petition the government.

Today, the crisis isn’t tyranny from abroad, but civic disengagement.

And look, I get it.

Whether you watch Fox News, CNN or MSNBC, it usually seems as though no one in politics cares about you or your community’s problems. We would have a different impression if we listened to local candidates. There are thousands of local elections every year, starving for attention and resources, right at the base of the pyramid. Since the 20th century — when national media and campaign financing exploded — we have been lured into looking only at the tippity top.

One reason political opposition in local races is critical to democracy is that it teaches us to get along despite our differences. The president will never meet most people who didn’t vote for them, but a local school board member might. Those conversations will affect how the official thinks, talks, campaigns and governs. When the system works, politicians are held accountable — and are replaced if they get out of step with voters. That’s a healthy democracy, and it’s possible only with all three elements in place: elected officials, voters and political opposition.

* * *

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has dedicated most of his life to public service. He said he learned early on to care about his community because he grew up during the civil rights movement, “when they were sending dogs to attack human beings.”

Today, the 72-year-old is a 2026 gubernatorial candidate in California. He told me when it comes to the rise in uncontested elections, people have to remember “democracy is a living, breathing thing.”

“Not everybody can run for office, not everybody wants to run for office, but everybody needs to be involved civically,” he said. “We have an obligation and a duty to participate, to read about what’s going on to understand and yes sometimes to run when necessary.

“We got to stand up to the threat to our democracy, but we also got to fix the things we broke … and it’s a lot broken.”

Voters often want something better than the status quo, but without political opposition on the ballot, it can’t happen. That’s the beauty of democracy: It comes in handy when elected officials forget government is meant to serve the people — not the other way around.

Leanna Hubers contributed to this report. YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary block on Friday on a lower court’s order requiring the Trump administration to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program amid the government shutdown. 

The decision came shortly after a federal appeals court on Friday denied a Trump administration request to temporarily block the lower court ruling.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Jack McConnell rejected the administration’s effort to only partially fund the benefits program for some 42 million low-income Americans for November as the shutdown drags on, giving the government 24 hours to comply. 

“People have gone without for too long,”  McConnell said in court.

DOJ ACCUSES FEDERAL JUDGE OF ‘MAKING MOCKERY OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS’ IN SNAP APPEAL

After the appeals court ruling, the Trump administration filed the emergency appeal to SCOTUS late Friday. 

“Given the imminent, irreparable harms posed by these orders, which require the government to transfer an estimated $4 billion by tonight, the Solicitor General respectfully requests an immediate administrative stay of the orders pending the resolution of this application by no later than 9:30pm this evening,” an administration spokesperson told Fox News. 

New York Attorney General Letitia James responded to the Supreme Court decision Friday, calling it a “tragedy.” 

“This decision is a tragedy for the millions of Americans who rely on SNAP to feed their families. It is disgraceful that the Trump administration chose to fight this in court instead of fulfilling its responsibility to the American people,” she said in a statement. 

The Supreme Court ruling came after the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Friday said it is working to comply with a judge’s order to fully fund the program for November. 

In a letter sent to all regional directors of the SNAP program on Friday, Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary for USDA’s Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, said, “FNS is working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances in compliance with the November 6, 2025, order from the District Court of Rhode Island.”

He added, “Later today, FNS will complete the processes necessary to make funds available to support your subsequent transmittal of full issuance files to your EBT processor.”

TRUMP SAYS SNAP BENEFITS WILL ONLY RESUME WHEN ‘RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS’ OPEN GOVERNMENT

Penn said the department would keep regional directors “as up to date as possible on any future developments and appreciate your continued partnership to serve program beneficiaries across the country. State agencies with questions should contact their FNS Regional Office representative.”

He scolded the Trump administration for failing to comply with the order he issued last week, which required the U.S. Department of Agriculture to fund the SNAP benefits programs before its funds were slated to lapse on Nov. 1, marking the first time in the program’s 60-year history that its payments were halted. 

The judge also said Trump officials failed to address a known funding distribution problem that could cause SNAP payments to be delayed for weeks or months in some states. He ordered the USDA to tap other contingency funds as needed.

DOJ ACCUSES FEDERAL JUDGE OF MAKING ‘MOCKERY OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS’ IN SNAP APPEAL

“It’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here,” McConnell said Thursday. 

Trump administration officials said in a court filing earlier this week that they would pay just 65% of the roughly $9 billion owed to fund the SNAP program for November, prompting the judge to update his order and give the administration just 24 hours to comply.

“The evidence shows that people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur,” McConnell said. “That’s what irreparable harm here means.”

Fox News’ Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report. 

The Supreme Court temporarily blocked an order late Friday night that would have forced the government to backfill the country’s largest anti-hunger program — a move the administration claimed would require it to “raid school-lunch money” to keep families fed.

The decision, issued on behalf of the court by Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, put a brief hold on the district court order that would have forced the Trump administration to pay out $4 billion for food stamps — formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — to keep it afloat through November amid the ongoing government shutdown.

That hold is set to expire 48 hours after the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on whether to compel the payment or allow food assistance to lapse for millions of Americans who rely on it.

The courtroom drama began late on Thursday, when a U.S. district judge ordered the federal government to pay the $4 billion by 5 p.m. Friday.

The administration responded with a breakneck appeal, filing around breakfast time Friday in the 1st Circuit and again at the Supreme Court in the middle of dinner.

“There is no lawful basis for an order that directs USDA to somehow find $4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett A. Shumate wrote in the 1st Circuit appeal.

The administration’s only option would be to “to starve Peter to feed Paul” by cutting school lunch programs, Shumate wrote.

On Friday afternoon, the appellate court declined to immediately block the lower court’s order, and said it would quickly rule on the merits of the funding decree.

The administration immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, demanding the justices block the move by 9:30 p.m. Eastern.

“The district court’s ruling is untenable at every turn,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his petition, saying it would “metastasize” into “further shutdown chaos.”

SNAP benefits are a key fight in the ongoing government shutdown. California is one of several states suing the administration to restore the safety net program while negotiations continue to end the stalemate.

Millions of Americans have struggled to afford groceries since benefits lapsed Nov. 1, inspiring many Republican lawmakers to join Democrats in demanding an emergency stopgap.

The Trump administration was previously ordered to release contingency funding for the program that it said would cover benefits for about half of November.

But the process has been “confusing and chaotic” and “rife with errors,” according to a brief filed by 25 states and the District of Columbia.

Some states, including California, have started disbursing SNAP benefits for the month. Others say the partial funding is a functional lockout.

“Many states’ existing systems require complete reprogramming to accomplish this task, and given the sudden — and suddenly changing — nature of USDA’s guidance, that task is impossible to complete quickly,” the brief said.

“Recalculations required by [the government’s] plan will delay November benefits for [state] residents for weeks or months.”

In response, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ordered the full food stamp payout by the end of the week. He accused the administration of withholding the benefit for political gain.

“Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, [the administration] chose the latter — an outcome that predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers,” he wrote.

“This Court is not naïve to the administration’s true motivations,” McConnell wrote. “Far from being concerned with Child Nutrition funding, these statements make clear that the administration is withholding full SNAP benefits for political purposes.”

The Supreme Court has now extended that deadline through at least the weekend. A fuller decision from the 1st Circuit or the Supreme Court could nullify it entirely.

The 1st Circuit is currently the country’s most liberal, with five active judges, all of whom were named to the bench by Democratic presidents. But the Supreme Court has a conservative supermajority, and has regularly sided with the administration in decisions on the emergency docket.

While the 1st Circuit deliberates, both sides are left sparring over how many children will go hungry if the other prevails.

More than 16 million children rely on SNAP benefits. Close to 30 million are fed through the National School Lunch Program, which the government now says it must gut to meet the court’s order.

But the same pool of cash has already been tapped to extend Women, Infants and Children, which is a federal program that pays for baby formula and other basics for some poor families.

“This clearly undermines the Defendants’ point, as WIC is an entirely separate program from the Child Nutrition Programs,” McConnell wrote.

In its Friday order, the 1st Circuit panel said it would issue a full ruling “as quickly as possible.”

In her order, Justice Jackson said it is expected “with dispatch.”