COLLEGE PARK, MD – Across battleground states and districts, majorities of both Democrats and Republicans agree on numerous policies related to presidential use of military force and America’s role in the world. These findings come from battleground surveys of nearly 20,000 Americans by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive House districts.

Placing restrictions on presidents’ authority to use military force without congressional approval is favored by bipartisan majorities in most battlegrounds:

• requiring Congressional approval for Presidents to use nuclear weapons first in response to a non-nuclear attack
• cutting off funding for military action after 60 days, if the President fails to get congressional approval

Providing military aid to Ukraine, continuing to be part of NATO, and generally participating in collective security agreements are favored by majorities of both Democrats and Republicans in every battleground surveyed.

Foreign aid programs to assist developing countries are favored by very large bipartisan majorities in every battleground, including for humanitarian relief, health, economic development, education, democracy, human rights and the environment.

Participating in international nuclear weapons agreements gets bipartisan majority support in every battleground, including:

• continuing to abide by the international moratorium on nuclear testing
• having nuclear arms control treaties with Russia

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the 14th in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive US House districts. The results for all individual states and districts can be found HERE.

With this release – the last in the series – the project has identified 82 policies with bipartisan majority support in every battleground state and district surveyed, and over a dozen more with bipartisan support in most battlegrounds.

Surveys on a total of fifteen topics have been released, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally.

Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, Low-Income Assistance, Families and Children, Social Security, Immigration, Abortion and Birth Control, The Role of “We the People”, Energy and Environment, Federal Taxes, Campaign Finance and Government Reform, and Criminal Justice.

Presidential War Powers

A proposal to automatically cut off funding for President-initiated military actions after 60 days, unless Congress approves it, is favored by 72 to 91% of Democrats, 41 to 83% of Republicans (majorities in 31 out of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed), and 60 to 83% overall. Nationally, this proposal is favored by 82% of Democrats, 63% of Republicans, and 71% overall.

Requiring a President to get Congress to issue a formal declaration of war in order for the President to launch a nuclear strike in response to a non-nuclear attack, is favored by bipartisan majorities (Democrats 57 to 93%, Republicans 63 to 89%, overall 60 to 81%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 64%, Republicans 77%, overall 69%).

Aid to Ukraine, Collective Security, and NATO

The US continuing to provide military assistance to Ukraine, including military equipment, ammunition, training and intelligence is favored by majorities overall in every battleground state and district (53 to 78%), and majorities of Democrats (62 to 91%). Among Republicans, it is favored by majorities in 31 out of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed (39 to 72%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 75%, Republicans 58%, overall 65%).

Consistent with this, large bipartisan majorities favor US foreign policy placing a high priority on upholding the principle of collective security, by contributing to collective military operations and/or using economic sanctions in response to international aggression (Democrats 68 to 97%, Republicans 68 to 88%, overall 67 to 84%). Nationally, eight in ten are in favor (Democrats 76%, Republicans 87%).

Whether the US should continue participating in NATO, which requires coming to the defense of other members if they are under attack, has been under debate recently. Given the full description of what being a member of NATO entails, bipartisan majorities favor the US continuing to participate (Democrats 75 to 95%, Republicans 58 to 83%, overall 70 to 83%). Nationally a very large bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 89%, Republicans 79%, overall 83%).

Foreign Aid

Bipartisan majorities in every battleground surveyed favor the US providing six types of foreign aid to countries in need.

• Humanitarian relief: providing food, medical care, and shelter to victims of disasters like famine, a flood, or a war. (Battlegrounds: Democrats 84 to 97%, Republicans 74 to 91%, overall 81 to 92%. Nationally: Democrats 94%, Republicans 89%, overall 90%).
• Health: treating diseases (including HIV and malaria); preventing the spread of diseases; improving health outcomes (especially for mothers and children); train doctors and nurses; ensure access to clean water. (Battlegrounds: Democrats 84 to 98%, Republicans 71 to 89%, overall 78 to 91%. Nationally: Democrats 93%, Republicans 87%, overall 89%).
• Economic development: improving food production, developing infrastructure, and building up their private enterprises and financial systems. (Battlegrounds: Democrats 74 to 93%, Republicans 63 to 83%, overall 70 to 86%. Nationally: Democrats 86%, Republicans 76%, overall 80%).
• Education: training teachers, encouraging school attendance (such as by offering school lunches), and improving literacy. (Battlegrounds: Democrats 81 to 96%, Republicans 62 to 88%, overall 76 to 90%. Nationally: Democrats 90%, Republicans 80%, overall 85%).
• Democracy: protecting and promoting free and fair elections, human rights, a free press and the rule of law. (Battlegrounds: Democrats 80 to 96%, Republicans 71 to 85%, overall 75 to 89%. Nationally: Democrats 91%, Republicans 82%, overall 86%).
• The environment: preserving the environment, reducing pollution, transitioning to energy sources that produce less or no pollution, and preparing better for natural disasters. (Battlegrounds: Democrats 83 to 96%, Republicans 56 to 85%, overall 69 to 89%. Nationally: Democrats 91%, Republicans 74%, overall 82%).

Nuclear Testing

Whether the US should continue to abide by the international moratorium on nuclear testing – something which has been debated recently – was asked. Bipartisan majorities in every battleground surveyed are in favor, including 72 to 93% of Democrats, 62 to 88% of Republicans, and 68 to 87% overall. Nationally over three quarters are in favor (Democrats 81%, Republicans 77%, overall 78%).

The US having nuclear arms control treaties with Russia, which limits both countries’ nuclear weapons and requires extensive inspections and information sharing, is favored by large bipartisan majorities (Democrats 69 to 91%, Republicans 65 to 91%, overall 72 to 85%). Nationally, eight in ten Democrats (79%) and Republicans (81%) are in favor (overall 79%).

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

About the Surveys

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded July 21 – August 17, 2026, to a total of 19,949 adults, including 600–2016 in each of the 11 states, and 499–592 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 8.9%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 8.1%, and the maximum weights range from 3.7 to 10.0.

The national survey was fielded February 11–26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control were managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. The distribution of partisan affiliation was within expectations, based on voter registration data for non-leaners and/or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index for leaners, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project is conducting and releasing a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts, being released on a rolling basis through the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC) and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization that seeks to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

States surveyed: Alaska; Georgia; Iowa; Maine; Michigan; Minnesota; Montana; Nebraska; New Hampshire; North Carolina; Ohio; and Texas.

Congressional Districts surveyed: Arizona’s 1st and 6th; Colorado’s 8th; Iowa’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th; Maine’s 2nd; Michigan’s 4th, 7th, 8th and 10th; Montana’s 1st; Nebraska’s 2nd; Nevada’s 3rd; New Jersey’s 7th and 9th; New Mexico’s 2nd; New York’s 3rd, 4th, 17th and 19th; Oregon’s 5th; Pennsylvania’s 1st, 7th, 8th and 10th; and Washington’s 3rd.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting the public and bringing the people’s views into the public discourse. It conducts surveys with representative samples on policies proposed by elected officials and shares its findings with government officials, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – New surveys of nearly 20,000 Americans in 11 states and 28 congressional districts, all with competitive races, reveal majorities of both Democrats and Republicans agree on over a dozen reforms to the criminal justice system.

Policing

• prohibit use of chokeholds
• require body cameras
• establish a duty to intervene when another officer is using excessive force
• require reporting of police misconduct to a national database
• hire independent prosecutors in cases in which an officer is charged with using deadly force

Judicial Discretion in Sentencing

• reduce mandatory minimum sentence for first-time drug offenders
• allow judges to give early release to prisoners convicted as juveniles after serving 20 years

Solitary Confinement

• substantially limit the reasons that solitary can be used, and for how long

Criminal Records

• limit employers and licensing boards from using criminal records to reject or fire someone for:
  • arrests without charges, or charges without convictions
  • petty non-violent crimes
  • crimes unrelated to the tasks of the job
  • misdemeanors and felonies, several years after their sentence
• automatically seal records for non-violent drug offenders

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the 13th in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts. The results for all individual states and districts can be found HERE.

Surveys on a total of fifteen topics are being released, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally.

With this release, the project has identified 73 policies with bipartisan majority support in every battleground state and district surveyed, and over a dozen more with bipartisan support in most battlegrounds and in all cases nationally.

Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, Low-Income Assistance, Families and Children, Social Security, Immigration, Abortion and Birth Control, The Role of “We the People”, Energy and Environment, Federal Taxes, and Campaign Finance and Government Reform.

Policing: Use of Force and Accountability

Prohibiting the use of chokeholds that prevent breathing or block the flow of blood or oxygen to the brain is favored by 78 to 95% of Democrats, 46 to 86% of Republicans (majorities in 38 out of 39 battlegrounds surveyed), and 63 to 86% overall. Nationally, 86% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans are in favor, and 78% overall.

Requiring all officers to wear body cameras and turn them on whenever they are responding to a police call or interacting with a suspect, is favored by 83 to 96% of Democrats, 71 to 90% of Republicans, and 76 to 91% overall. Nationally, 90% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans are in favor, and 90% overall.

Bipartisan majorities also favor making it a duty for officers to intervene when they perceive another officer is using excessive force, and providing officers with training for when and how to do so (Democrats 87 to 97%, Republicans 76 to 90%, overall 79 to 91%). Nationally, 91% of Democrats and 88% of Republicans are in favor, and 88% overall.

Requiring record submission to a national database of police misconduct when an officer has engaged in misconduct is favored by bipartisan majorities (Democrats 83 to 96%, Republicans 75 to 90%, overall 78 to 90%). Nationally, 92% of Democrats and 87% of Republicans are in favor, as are 89% overall.

For cases in which a law enforcement officer has been charged with using deadly force, bipartisan majorities favor the federal government providing funds to states so they can hire an independent prosecutor (Democrats 78 to 94%, Republicans 62 to 85%, overall 70 to 86%). Nationally, 85% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans are in favor, as are 78% overall.

Sentencing: Judicial Discretion Over Sentences

Reducing the mandatory minimum sentence for federal drug offenders from 10 years to 5 years is favored by 61 to 93% of Democrats, 42 to 86% of Republicans (majorities in 36 of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed), and 56 to 87% overall. Nationally, 74% of Democrats and 60% of Republicans are in favor, as are 67% overall.

Giving federal judges the option to give early release to prisoners convicted as juveniles who have served at least 20 years in prison, is favored by bipartisan majorities (Democrats 67 to 91%, Republicans 51 to 81%, overall 63 to 84%). Nationally, 79% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans are in favor.

Solitary Confinement: Reasons for and Length of its Use

Currently, there are no federal laws limiting the use of solitary confinement. A person can be placed in solitary as punishment for violating prison rules, or for their own safety. There is also no federal limit on the amount of time a person can be placed in solitary. Respondents were presented a spectrum of proposals for limiting the reasons that solitary can be used, and for how long it can be used including not allowing its use at all.

Large bipartisan majorities favor limiting the use of solitary confinement, so it can not be used as punishment for minor violations, and is limited to 30 consecutive days or 40 days in a two-month period or an even more restrictive policy (Democrats 81 to 97%, Republicans 64 to 92%, overall 77 to 94%). Nationally, 90% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans support this position, as do 82% overall.

Bipartisan majorities in most battlegrounds – 30 out of the 39 surveyed – go further and favor prohibiting solitary confinement from being used as punishment of any kind. Rather, they favor limiting its use to reasons of safety for the prisoner themself, and to no more than 15 consecutive days or 20 days in a two-month period or an even more restrictive policy (Democrats 59 to 84%, Republicans 47 to 71%, overall 55 to 72%). Nationally, 69% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans support this position, as do 59% overall.

Criminal Records: Use in Hiring and Firing, Sealing Records

In many states, a person can be disqualified from a job (i.e. have their application rejected, get fired) or denied a professional license, because of their criminal record. Bipartisan majorities favor prohibiting employers and licensing boards from disqualifying a person on the basis that they were:

• arrested but not charged, or charged but not convicted (Democrats 65 to 94%, Republicans 48 to 89%, overall 59 to 87%). Among Republicans, majorities are in favor in 38 of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed. Nationally, 65% of Democrats and 66% of Republicans are in favor, as do 65% overall.
• convicted of a petty, nonviolent crime, such as littering, jaywalking, failing to pay a parking ticket, or loitering (Democrats 57 to 82%, Republicans 45 to 80%, overall 57 to 79%). Among Republicans, majorities are in favor in 38 of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed. Nationally, 63% of Democrats and 59% of Republicans are in favor, as do 60% overall.
• convicted of a crime unrelated to their ability to responsibly perform the job (Democrats 55 to 86%, Republicans 46 to 72%, overall 53 to 70%). Among Republicans, majorities are in favor in 36 of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed. Nationally, 58% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans are in favor, as are 57% overall.

Bipartisan majorities also favor limiting the period of time during which a person can be disqualified for a misdemeanor, one year after they complete their sentence, or for a felony, five years after they complete their sentence (Democrats 74 to 95%, Republicans 64 to 90%, overall 70 to 90%). Nationally, 82% of Democrats and 79% of Republicans are in favor, as are 79% overall.

For a person convicted of a non-violent drug offense, bipartisan majorities favor automatically sealing the record of that crime five years after the person has finished their sentence or probation, so it is not available to employers or landlords (Democrats 72 to 95%, Republicans 55 to 89%, overall 66 to 88%). Nationally, 83% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans are in favor, as are 77% overall.

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

Methodology

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded July 21 – August 17, 2026, to a total of 19,949 adults, including 600–2016 in each of the 11 states, and 499–592 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 8.9%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 8.1%, and the maximum weights range from 3.7 to 10.0.

The national survey was fielded February 11–26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control were managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project is conducting and releasing a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts that are being released on a rolling basis between now and the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC) and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization that seeks to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

States surveyed: Alaska; Georgia; Iowa; Maine; Michigan; Minnesota; Montana; Nebraska; New Hampshire; North Carolina; Ohio; and Texas.

Congressional Districts surveyed: Arizona’s 1st and 6th; Colorado’s 8th; Iowa’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th; Maine’s 2nd; Michigan’s 4th, 7th, 8th and 10th; Montana’s 1st; Nebraska’s 2nd; Nevada’s 3rd; New Jersey’s 7th and 9th; New Mexico’s 2nd; New York’s 3rd, 4th, 17th and 19th; Oregon’s 5th; Pennsylvania’s 1st, 7th, 8th and 10th; and Washington’s 3rd.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting the public and bringing the people’s views into the public discourse. It conducts surveys with representative samples on policies proposed by elected officials and shares its findings with government officials, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – As Americans’ trust in US political institutions remains near an all-time low, new battleground surveys of nearly 20,000 Americans reveal bipartisan majority support for major political reforms. These findings come from surveys conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive House districts.

The following reforms – all based on proposed Congressional legislation – are favored by majorities of both Democrats and Republicans in all battlegrounds surveyed, and nationally, with one exception.

Government Reforms:

• Require that all Congressional redistricting be conducted by non-partisan citizen commissions
• Place term limits on Members of Congress
• Use ranked choice voting for Congressional elections (bipartisan support in 31 out of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed)
• Prohibit stock trading by members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices
• Require Supreme Court Justices to abide by the same ethics standards used by all other federal judges

Campaign Finance Reforms:

• Pass a new Constitutional amendment to allow Congress to restrict corporate and PAC spending on elections, effectively overturning Citizens United
• Provide tax credits for campaign contributions by small donors
• Impose stricter disclosure rules on campaign-related spending by corporations, unions and other groups

One political reform that was rejected by a bipartisan majority in every battleground surveyed was to rescind the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits nonprofits from endorsing or contributing to candidates.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the 12th in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts. The results for all individual states and districts can be found HERE.

Surveys on a total of fifteen topics are being released on a rolling basis until the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. This release covers two of those topics. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally.

With this release, the project has identified 65 policies with bipartisan majority support in every battleground state and district surveyed, and a dozen more with bipartisan support in most battlegrounds.

Previously released surveys: Federal Taxes, Energy and Environment, Role of “We the People”, Abortion and Birth Control, Immigration, Social Security, Families and Children, Low-Income Assistance, Healthcare, Housing Affordability, and Artificial Intelligence.

Congressional Redistricting

Bipartisan majorities favor requiring that every Congressional district be drawn by a commission of citizens in each state, made up of equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents (Democrats 75 to 96%, Republicans 67 to 92%, overall 69 to 90%). Nationally, 83% of Democrats and 81% of Republicans are in favor, and 81% overall.

Term Limits

Passing a constitutional amendment to set term limits for Congress, of four terms for the House and two terms for the Senate, is favored by 76 to 95% of Democrats, 68 to 92% of Republicans, and 74 to 88% overall. Nationally, 83% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans are in favor, and 82% overall.

Ranked Choice Voting

Using ranked-choice voting in all congressional elections with three or more candidates is favored by 55 to 97% of Democrats and 53 to 85% overall. Among Republicans, 41 to 79% favor it, including majorities in 31 of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed. Nationally, 70% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans are in favor, and 66% overall.

Ranked choice voting was explained as follows, starting with a three-person race as an example: “Voters not only select their first choice but can also select their second choice. Then, if no candidate gets a majority, the one with the fewest votes is eliminated. Voters who favored the eliminated candidate then have their votes switched to their second choice. The tally is recalculated, and the candidate with a majority of votes wins. If there are more than three candidates, the process is repeated until a candidate gets a majority.”

Banning Stock Trading in Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court

Prohibiting high-level officials in the government from trading stocks in individual companies (but still allowing them to trade shares of funds that include stocks in numerous companies) is favored by large bipartisan majorities. This includes prohibitions on:

• members of Congress (Democrats 65 to 94%, Republicans 63 to 88%, overall 70 to 84%; Nationally: Democrats 75%, Republicans 78%, overall 76%)
• the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices (Democrats 54 to 92%, Republicans 55 to 82%, overall 61 to 81%; Nationally: Democrats 70%, Republicans 74%, overall 71%)

Requiring Supreme Court Justices to Comply with Standard Code of Ethics

Currently, federal judges are legally required to comply with a set of ethical standards, but Supreme Court Justices are not. Requiring that Supreme Court Justices comply with the same ethical standards as other judges is favored by 70 to 95% of Democrats, 67 to 93% of Republicans, and 68 to 90% overall. Nationally, over eight in ten are in favor (Democrats 86%, Republicans 87%, overall 85%).

Overturning “Citizens United”

Passing a new constitutional amendment to allow Congress and state legislatures to restrict or prohibit corporations and PACs from spending money to influence elections – effectively overturning the Citizens United decision – is favored by overwhelming bipartisan majorities (Democrats 80 to 93%, Republicans 73 to 89%, overall 77 to 89%). Nationally, over eight in ten are in favor (Democrats 85%, Republicans 82%, overall 82%).

Encouraging Small Campaign Donors

Encouraging small campaign donors, by making half of campaign contributions by small donors refundable in the form of a tax credit, is favored by 58 to 91% of Democrats, 52 to 76% of Republicans, and 56 to 80% overall. Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 72%, Republicans 63%, overall 67%).

Stricter Campaign Finance Disclosure Rules

Imposing stricter disclosure rules on campaign-related spending, for example advertisements about a candidate or controversial public issue, is favored by very large bipartisan majorities.

• Require corporations, unions, and other groups, when spending money on campaign-related activities, to immediately report this to their shareholders and members, to the public, and to the Federal Election Commission (Democrats 80 to 95%, Republicans 75 to 94%, overall 78 to 90%). Nationally, this is favored by 85% of both Democrats and Republicans, and 83% overall.
• Require the Federal Election Commission to publicly disclose the names of significant donors paying for TV or radio ads in support of candidates or related to controversial public issues (Democrats 76 to 92%, Republicans 65 to 86%, overall 73 to 85%). Nationally, this is favored by 85% of Democrats, 80% of Republicans, and 81% overall.
• Require federal contractors to publicly disclose their donations to groups that spend money on campaign-related activities (Democrats 76 to 93%, Republicans 70 to 89%, overall 74 to 86%). Nationally, this is favored by 83% of Democrats, 82% of Republicans, and 81% overall.

Continue Prohibition on Nonprofits Endorsing Candidates

Congressional legislation has been put forward to rescind the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits nonprofits that receive tax-deductible donations, such as churches and universities, from endorsing and providing financial support to political candidates. Large bipartisan majorities support continuing that prohibition (Democrats 69 to 91%, Republicans 63 to 85%, overall 70 to 82%). Nationally, eight in ten say the same (Democrats 80%, Republicans 80%, overall 79%).

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

Methodology

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded July 21 – August 17, 2026, to a total of 19,949 adults, including 600–2016 in each of the 11 states, and 499–592 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 8.9%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 8.1%, and the maximum weights range from 3.7 to 10.0.

The national survey was fielded February 11–26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control were managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. The distribution of partisan affiliation was within expectations, based on voter registration data for non-leaners and/or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index for leaners, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project is conducting and releasing a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts, being released on a rolling basis through the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers, and candidates about the findings, and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

States surveyed: Alaska; Georgia; Iowa; Maine; Michigan; Minnesota; Montana; Nebraska; New Hampshire; North Carolina; Ohio; and Texas.

Congressional Districts surveyed: Arizona’s 1st and 6th; Colorado’s 8th; Iowa’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th; Maine’s 2nd; Michigan’s 4th, 7th, 8th and 10th; Montana’s 1st; Nebraska’s 2nd; Nevada’s 3rd; New Jersey’s 7th and 9th; New Mexico’s 2nd; New York’s 3rd, 4th, 17th and 19th; Oregon’s 5th; Pennsylvania’s 1st, 7th, 8th and 10th; and Washington’s 3rd.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting the public and bringing the people’s views into the public discourse. It conducts surveys with representative samples on policies proposed by elected officials and shares its findings with government officials, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – While Congress has reduced taxes on high incomes and the very wealthy over the last half century, majorities of both Democrats and Republicans in the battlegrounds favor increasing taxes on those groups. This finding comes from new surveys of over 20,000 Americans about federal taxes conducted in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive House districts, and nationally.

Imposing an annual federal tax of 2% on wealth over $50 million and 3% over $1 billion is favored by large majorities of Democrats and Republicans in every battleground state and district surveyed, and nationally. This would raise an estimated $200 billion in revenue.

Raising the capital gains tax on households with income of at least $200,000, by taxing their gains the same as ordinary income, is favored by majorities of Democrats in all battlegrounds, and majorities of Republicans in 31 of the 39 battlegrounds. Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor. This would raise about $164 billion in revenue.

Applying the estate tax to more inherited wealth, by lowering the exemption from $15 million to $5 million, is favored by majorities of Democrats in all battlegrounds, and majorities of Republicans in 27 of the 39 battlegrounds. Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor. This would raise about $17 billion in revenue.

Increasing the income tax on income of $1 million or more is favored by majorities of Democrats in all battlegrounds, and majorities of Republicans in 21 of the 39 battlegrounds. Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor. This would raise about $73 billion in revenue.

Taxing hedge fund managers’ income like ordinary income is favored by bipartisan majorities in all battlegrounds and nationally. This would raise about $1 billion in revenue.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the 11th in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts. The results for all individual states and districts can be found HERE.

Surveys on a total of fifteen topics are being released on a rolling basis until the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally.

With this release, the project has identified 54 policies with bipartisan majority support in every battleground state and district surveyed, and a dozen more with bipartisan support in most battlegrounds.

Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, Low-Income Assistance, Families and Children, Social Security, Immigration, Abortion and Birth Control, The Role of “We the People”, and Energy and Environment.

Survey Design

Respondents were presented options for changing federal tax rates on different income groups, along with proposals for new taxes. For each option, they were told how much federal revenue would be increased or decreased, based on estimates from nonpartisan sources, including the Joint Committee on Taxation and Congressional Budget Office.

Wealth Tax

Imposing a tax of 2% on wealth over $50 million and 3% on wealth over $1 billion is favored by a bipartisan majority in every battleground state and district surveyed. This includes 81 to 95% of Democrats, 58 to 84% of Republicans, and 70 to 87% overall. Nationally, eight in ten are in favor (Democrats 88%, Republicans 72%). This would increase revenue by an estimated $200 billion.

Capital Gains Taxes

Respondents were told that capital gains are earnings from the sale of stocks and property, and that they are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. They were presented proposals for taxing the capital gains of several high income groups the same as ordinary income.

For households with income of $200,000 to $500,000, taxing their capital gains like ordinary income is favored by majorities overall and of Democrats in every battleground (overall 52 to 83%, Democrats 55 to 94%). Among Republicans, majorities are in favor in 31 of the 39 battlegrounds (40 to 81%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 69%, Republicans 61%, overall 64%). This would raise $26 billion in revenue.

For households with income of $500,000 to $1 million, taxing their capital gains like ordinary income is favored by more bipartisan majorities in the battlegrounds (Democrats 67 to 87%, Republicans 43 to 73%, overall 57 to 72%), and nationally (Democrats 79%, Republicans 65%, overall 72%). This would raise $18 billion in revenue.

For households with income of $1 million or more, taxing their capital gains like ordinary income is favored by bipartisan majorities in all battlegrounds (Democrats 74 to 92%, Republicans 54 to 73%, overall 65 to 79%), and nationally (Democrats 83%, Republicans 70%, overall 76%). This would raise $120 billion in revenue.

Income Taxes

Respondents were informed of the current effective income tax rate on multiple high income groups, which they were told is the actual total percentage of income that is federally taxed, after deductions and credits. They were given options for raising or lowering the tax rate, or keeping it the same.

For incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, raising the effective tax rate from the current average of 21 percent up to at least 24 percent is favored by a majority overall and of Democrats in most battlegrounds (overall 43 to 65%, Democrats 49 to 79%), and a majority of Republicans in nine battlegrounds (Republicans 32 to 63%). Nationally, slightly more than half are in favor (Democrats 59%, Republicans 49%, overall 52%). This would increase revenue by $145 billion.

For incomes of $500,000 to $1 million, raising the effective tax from the current 25 percent up to at least 28 percent is favored by a majority overall and of Democrats in nearly all battlegrounds (overall 46 to 67%, Democrats 47 to 82%), and a majority of Republicans in 11 battlegrounds (31 to 62%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 67%, Republicans 54%, overall 60%). This would increase revenue by $48 billion.

For incomes of $1 million or more, raising the effective tax from the current average of 27 percent up to at least 29 percent is favored by a majority overall and of Democrats in every battleground (overall 52 to 70%, Democrats 51 to 87%), and a majority of Republicans in 21 battlegrounds (40 to 60%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 69%, Republicans 55%, overall 60%). This would increase revenue by $73 billion.

Hedge Fund Managers Tax

Ending the special tax for managers of private investment funds, by taxing their income like ordinary income and thus raising $1 billion in revenue, is favored by a bipartisan majority in every battleground. This includes 75 to 93% of Democrats, 57 to 81% of Republicans, and 69 to 84% overall.

Estate Tax

Respondents were given options for changing the estate tax, including by applying the tax to more inherited wealth or eliminating the tax entirely, or keeping it the same.

Majorities in nearly all states and districts (50 to 82%) favor applying the tax to more inherited wealth by lowering the tax exemption from the current $15 million down to $5 million. This includes majorities of Democrats in every battleground (64 to 87%), and majorities of Republicans in 27 of the 39 battlegrounds (38 to 84%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor of applying the estate tax to more inherited wealth (Democrats 71%, Republicans 59%, overall 64%). This would increase revenue by $17 billion.

While in 12 battlegrounds less than half of Republicans favor expanding the estate tax, there is no Republican majority support in those battlegrounds for eliminating the tax entirely.

Corporate Tax

Raising the effective corporate tax rate from the current 12 percent up to at least 14 percent is favored by majorities of Democrats in every battleground (53 to 82%), but majorities of Republicans in just 15 of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed (38 to 66%). Overall, majorities raise it in nearly all battlegrounds (50 to 70%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority favor raising it by at least two points (Democrats 71%, Republicans 56%, overall 62%). This would increase revenue by $41 billion.

Tax on Buying Stocks

Imposing a tax of 0.01% on stock purchases is favored by majorities in nearly all battlegrounds (48 to 82%). This includes majorities of Democrats in every battleground (54 to 95%), but majorities of Republicans in just 17 of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed (36 to 82%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 62%, Republicans 53%, overall 56%). This would increase revenue by $30 billion.

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

Methodology

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded July 21 – August 17, 2026, to a total of 19,949 adults, including 600–2,016 in each of the 11 states, and 499–592 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 8.9%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 8.1%, and the maximum weights range from 3.7 to 10.0.

The national survey was fielded February 11–26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. The distribution of partisan affiliation was within expectations, based on voter registration data for non-leaners and/or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index for leaners, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project is conducting and releasing a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts, being released on a rolling basis through the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

States surveyed: Alaska; Georgia; Iowa; Maine; Michigan; Minnesota; Montana; Nebraska; New Hampshire; North Carolina; Ohio; and Texas.

Congressional Districts surveyed: Arizona’s 1st and 6th; Colorado’s 8th; Iowa’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th; Maine’s 2nd; Michigan’s 4th, 7th, 8th and 10th; Montana’s 1st; Nebraska’s 2nd; Nevada’s 3rd; New Jersey’s 7th and 9th; New Mexico’s 2nd; New York’s 3rd, 4th, 17th and 19th; Oregon’s 5th; Pennsylvania’s 1st, 7th, 8th and 10th; and Washington’s 3rd.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting the public and bringing the people’s views into the public discourse. It conducts surveys with representative samples on policies proposed by elected officials and shares its findings with government officials, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – While elected officials are divided on whether the government should seek to reduce emissions from coal, oil and gas, new surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive congressional districts reveal substantial common ground among the general public.

Large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans in every battleground state and district surveyed say it should be a high priority for the federal government to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and that the government should adopt a goal of reducing emissions by 2% a year.

To reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, bipartisan majorities favor using a combination of tax incentives and regulations, including:

• tax incentives for producing energy that has no greenhouse gas emissions (solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear)
• tax incentives for improving the energy-efficiency of homes and buildings
• requiring new cars to get more miles per gallon
• requiring electric companies to get a minimum portion of their energy from sources that do not produce greenhouse gas emissions

Bipartisan majorities say the government should work together with other countries to reduce emissions globally.

Transitioning away from fossil fuels will result in job losses in those industries. To mitigate those effects, large bipartisan majorities favor the government helping fossil fuel workers who lose their jobs, by providing them with financial assistance and job training.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This release is the tenth in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by PPC in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts in advance of the midterm elections.

Surveys on fifteen topics are being released on a rolling basis, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending legislative proposals in Congress – have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. PPC is exploring whether the same bipartisan common ground found at the national level exists in the battlegrounds. The results for all individual states and districts surveyed can be found HERE. Previously released surveys: Demand for Public Consultation, Abortion and Birth Control, Immigration, Social Security, Families and Children, Low-Income Assistance, Healthcare, Housing, and Artificial Intelligence.

Making it a High Priority to Reduce Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Overwhelming bipartisan majorities say that working to reduce air pollution should be a high priority for the government, including 91 to 98% of Democrats, 68 to 94% of Republicans, and 78 to 94% overall. Nationally, 94% of Democrats and 79% of Republicans say it should be a high priority, as do 86% overall.

Large bipartisan majorities also say that working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be a high priority for the government, including 87 to 99% of Democrats, 55 to 89% of Republicans, and 73 to 92% overall. Nationally, 93% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans say the same, as do 81% overall.

Adopting the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the US by 2% a year is favored by 84 to 96% of Democrats, 54 to 84% of Republicans, and 69 to 85% overall. Nationally, 90% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans are in favor, as are 80% overall.

Providing Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy and Energy-Efficiency

Providing tax credits for the production of energy that has no carbon emissions (e.g. solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear) is favored by 81 to 96% of Democrats, 49 to 90% of Republicans, and 68 to 89% overall. Arizona’s 6th district is the only district surveyed in which less than half of Republicans are in favor (49% favor and 50% oppose). Nationally, 86% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans are in favor, as are 77% overall.

Providing tax credits for improving the energy-efficiency of homes and buildings is favored by 79 to 94% of Democrats, 68 to 87% of Republicans, and 75 to 89% overall. Nationally, 91% of Democrats and 79% of Republicans are in favor, and 84% overall.

Regulating Emissions of Cars and Electric Companies

Requiring that new cars get more miles per gallon is favored by 78 to 93% of Democrats, 62 to 82% of Republicans, and 70 to 85% overall. Nationally, 86% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans are in favor, as are 80% overall.

Requiring electric companies to get a minimum portion of their electricity from sources that do not produce greenhouse gas emissions is favored by 80 to 94% of Democrats, 48 to 83% of Republicans, and 66 to 82% overall. Michigan’s 8th district is the only district surveyed in which less than half of Republicans are in favor (48% favor and 51% oppose). Nationally, 87% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans are in favor, as are 76% overall.

Working to Reduce Emissions in the US and Internationally

The US making a commitment, together with other countries, to reduce their emission of greenhouse gases is favored by 83 to 96% of Democrats, 60 to 84% of Republicans, and 73 to 89% overall. Nationally, 91% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans are in favor, as are 82% overall.

A significant part of international efforts to reduce emissions is countries working together to study and share data about energy use and greenhouse gases, and their effect on the climate. Large bipartisan majorities favor the US government taking part in these efforts, including 83 to 96% of Democrats, 58 to 84% of Republicans, and 69 to 89% overall. Nationally, 89% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans are in favor, as are 82% overall.

Assisting Fossil Fuel Workers Who Lose Their Job

To help workers who lose their job in the coal, oil, and gas industries as a result of the shift to carbon-free forms of energy, very large bipartisan majorities favor the government providing financial assistance and job training to help them transition to other employment. This includes 76 to 97% of Democrats, 67 to 89% of Republicans, and 76 to 91% overall. Nationally, 89% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans are in favor, as are 85% overall.

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

Methodology

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded July 21 – August 17, 2026, to a total of 19,949 adults, including 600–2,016 in each of the 11 states, and 499–592 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 8.9%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 8.1%, and the maximum weights range from 3.7 to 10.0.

The national survey was fielded February 11–26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project will conduct and release a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts that will be released on a rolling basis between now and the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

States surveyed: Alaska; Georgia; Iowa; Maine; Michigan; Minnesota; Montana; Nebraska; New Hampshire; North Carolina; Ohio; and Texas.

Congressional Districts surveyed: Arizona’s 1st and 6th; Colorado’s 8th; Iowa’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th; Maine’s 2nd; Michigan’s 4th, 7th, 8th and 10th; Montana’s 1st; Nebraska’s 2nd; Nevada’s 3rd; New Jersey’s 7th and 9th; New Mexico’s 2nd; New York’s 3rd, 4th, 17th and 19th; Oregon’s 5th; Pennsylvania’s 1st, 7th, 8th and 10th; and Washington’s 3rd.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting the public and bringing the people’s views into the public discourse. It conducts surveys with representative samples on policies proposed by elected officials and shares its findings with government officials, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – Despite the steady drumbeat of assertions that Americans are highly polarized, bipartisan majorities say that if the public were to have more influence on members of Congress, they would be more likely to find common ground. This is according to new surveys conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive congressional districts, and nationally.

In battleground states and districts surveyed people believe, on average, that federally elected officials do what the majority of Americans would do just 35 percent of the time (Democrats 35 percent, Republicans 38 percent). Bipartisan majorities also say that if members of Congress were more influenced by the people, they would be more likely to serve the common good.

When news outlets cover stories about public policy, bipartisan majorities say it is very important that public opinion data be included.

Surveys by PPC and others have consistently revealed that there is more common ground among the people than in Congress. For dozens of issues on which Congress has not been able to find agreement, bipartisan majorities of the public agree on concrete policy solutions. This is true nationally, and in PPC’s ongoing battleground survey series.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the ninth in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts. The results for all individual states and districts can be found HERE.

Surveys on a total of fifteen topics are being released on a rolling basis until the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally.

Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, Low-Income Assistance, Families and Children, Social Security, Immigration, and Abortion and Birth Control.

Federally Elected Officials Seen as Out of Step With the People

Asked to estimate what percent of the time elected officials in the federal government make the same decisions that the majority of Americans would make, the mean estimate was less than half the time. Estimates in the battlegrounds range from 32 to 41 percent (Democrats 30 to 42 percent, Republicans 31 to 48 percent). On average across the battlegrounds the estimate is 35 percent (Democrats 35 percent, Republicans 38 percent). Nationally, estimates were 41 percent of the time (Democrats 38 percent, Republicans 47 percent).

Congress Seen as More Likely to Find Common Ground, Serve the Common Good if They Would Listen to the People

Bipartisan majorities of over eight in ten say that if members of Congress were more influenced by the views of the people, they would be more likely to “find common ground” (Democrats 82 to 97%, Republicans 80 to 95%, overall 84 to 92%). Nationally, a large bipartisan majority said the same (Democrats 88%, Republicans 89%, overall 88%).

Even when presented the argument that polarization in Congress is just a reflection of the general public, large bipartisan majorities opted instead for the argument saying that if members of Congress were to take into account the views of the people, this would help break the logjam in government, because the people are less polarized than Congress. (Democrats 62 to 88%, Republicans 66 to 89%, overall 66 to 82%). Nationally, a large bipartisan majority says the same (Democrats 75%, Republicans 71%, overall 72%).

Overwhelming bipartisan majorities also say that if members of Congress were more influenced by the people than they are now, they would be more likely, “to serve the common good” (Democrats 77 to 94%, Republicans 79 to 94%, overall 80 to 90%). (National data is not available for this question.)

How Responsive Should Congress Be to the Majority Views of Their Constituents?

Very large bipartisan majorities say that if a clear majority of constituents agrees on what should be done about a policy, their views should have substantial influence on their members of Congress. Asked to rate how much influence it should have on a 0-10 scale, the mean response is 7.1 to 8.0 across all states and districts (Democrats 7.1 to 8.2, Republicans 7.2 to 8.2). Nationally, the mean response is 7.8 (Democrats 7.9, Republicans 8.1).

Strong Demand for Including Public Opinion in News Coverage of Policy Debates

Asked how often news pieces about a policy issue should include relevant public opinion data – when there is reliable data – large bipartisan majorities say most of the time or always (Democrats 71 to 88%, Republicans 67 to 89%, overall 67 to 81%). Nationally, a large bipartisan majority says the same (Democrats 81%, Republicans 79%, overall 78%).

Large bipartisan majorities also say that, if Congress is about to vote on a law, it is very or extremely important for news outlets to report on whether a majority of Americans favor or oppose that law (Democrats 65 to 84%, Republicans 60 to 85%, overall 64 to 77%). Nationally, a large bipartisan majority says the same (Democrats 75%, Republicans 79%, overall 75%).

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

Methodology

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded May 27 – June 25, 2026, to a total of 19,564 adults, including 600-2,000 in each of the 11 states, and 400-500 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 9.0%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 7.6%, and the maximum weights range from 1.9 to 6.9.

The national survey was fielded March 11-19, 2026 with 1,200 adults nationally. The response rate was 8.3%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 1.9.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This project is conducting and releasing a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts, being released on a rolling basis through the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

States surveyed: Alaska; Georgia; Iowa; Maine; Michigan; Minnesota; Montana; Nebraska; New Hampshire; North Carolina; Ohio; and Texas.

Congressional Districts surveyed: Arizona’s 1st and 6th; Colorado’s 8th; Iowa’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th; Maine’s 2nd; Michigan’s 4th, 7th, 8th and 10th; Montana’s 1st; Nebraska’s 2nd; Nevada’s 3rd; New Jersey’s 7th and 9th; New Mexico’s 2nd; New York’s 3rd, 4th, 17th and 19th; Oregon’s 5th; Pennsylvania’s 1st, 7th, 8th and 10th; and Washington’s 3rd.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting the public and bringing the people’s views into the public discourse. It conducts surveys with representative samples on policies proposed by elected officials and shares its findings with government officials, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – Since the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision, states have been allowed to criminalize abortion before fetal viability, and over a third of states have done so.

However, new surveys of nearly 20,000 Americans in battleground states and districts find that majorities of both Democrats and Republicans oppose criminalizing abortion before fetal viability. Majorities of Democrats in all but one state also oppose criminalizing abortion after viability, while majorities of Republicans are in favor.

To reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, bipartisan majorities favor the government maintaining or increasing access to birth control. Bipartisan majorities in every competitive state and district surveyed favor proposals to:

• increase funding to health care clinics so they can provide free or low-cost birth control to women who can not afford it
• prohibit states from banning or restricting access to birth control
• continue the federal requirement that health insurance covers birth control (with religious and moral exemptions for some employers).

These policies are derived from federal legislation.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This release is the eighth in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by PPC in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts in advance of the midterm elections.

Surveys on fifteen topics are being released on a rolling basis, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending legislative proposals in Congress – have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. PPC is exploring whether the same bipartisan common ground found at the national level exists in the battlegrounds. The results for all individual states and districts surveyed can be found here. Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, Low-Income Assistance, Families and Children, Social Security, and Immigration.

Criminalizing Abortion

Respondents were asked whether it should be a crime to provide an abortion, punishable with prison time or major fines for the doctor. Three options were presented:

• make abortion a crime at any point during the pregnancy (selected by 1 to 17% of Democrats, 9 to 34% of Republicans, 6 to 21% overall)
• make it a crime only after the fetus is viable (22–24 weeks), meaning it can likely survive outside the womb (selected by 16 to 40% of Democrats, 39 to 60% of Republicans, 28 to 49% overall)
• do not make it a crime (selected by 42 to 82% of Democrats, 17 to 39% of Republicans, 30 to 58% overall)

Thus, combining the second and third positions reveals that bipartisan majorities oppose making abortion a crime before fetal viability. This includes 82 to 99% of Democrats, 63 to 91% of Republicans, and 77 to 94% overall. Nationally, nine in ten Democrats (91%) and three in four Republicans (74%) say the same, and 84% overall.

Majorities of Democrats in all but one competitive state surveyed go further, and oppose making abortion a crime at all: 51 to 82%, with Alaska being the exception at 42%.

Proposals to criminalize abortion at earlier stages of pregnancy have also been put forward. A 2024 PPC survey asked the same question as in the current survey, but included an additional option to criminalize abortion after 15 weeks. Even with that option included, bipartisan majorities nationally and in six swing states still supported not making abortion a crime before fetal viability (National: Democrats 90%, Republicans 61%; Six swing states: Democrats 83 to 93%, Republicans 57 to 70%).

Views in States with Abortion Bans Before Fetal Viability

Since the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, 20 states have made abortion a crime at stages before fetal viability, or at all stages, including several states that were surveyed. In Texas, providing an abortion is a crime at all stages of pregnancy. In Iowa and Georgia, it is criminalized after 6 weeks of pregnancy. And in Nebraska and North Carolina, it is criminalized after 12 weeks.

Contrary to their state’s law, large bipartisan majorities in each of those states oppose criminalizing abortion before fetal viability.

• Texas: Democrats 91%, Republicans 66%, overall 77%
• Iowa: Democrats 97%, Republicans 72%, overall 84%
• Georgia: Democrats 86%, Republicans 72%, overall 80%
• Nebraska: Democrats 94%, Republicans 63%, overall 79%
• North Carolina: Democrats 90%, Republicans 70%, overall 82%

Access to Birth Control

Three proposals to maintain or increase access to birth control get robust bipartisan support in every competitive state and district surveyed.

Bipartisan majorities favor the government increasing funding to health care clinics so they can provide long-term birth control for free or at low-cost to women who can not afford it (Democrats 83 to 96%, Republicans 59 to 87%, overall 72 to 88%). Nationally, 91% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans are in favor, and 81% overall.

Ensuring a nationwide legal right to purchase birth control, by prohibiting states from banning or restricting access to it, is favored by bipartisan majorities (Democrats 78 to 95%, Republicans 57 to 83%, overall 69 to 86%). Nationally, 86% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans are in favor, and 79% overall.

Continuing to require that health insurance cover birth control, with some religious and moral exemptions for some employers is favored by bipartisan majorities (Democrats 74 to 96%, Republicans 64 to 86%, overall 74 to 88%). Nationally, 90% of Democrats and 77% of Republicans are in favor, and 82% overall.

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

About the Surveys

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded July 21 – August 17, 2026, to a total of 19,949 adults, including 600–2,016 in each of the 11 states, and 499–516 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 8.9%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 8.1%, and the maximum weights range from 3.7 to 10.0.

The national survey was fielded February 11–26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. In some states and districts, partisan affiliation was within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project will conduct and release a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts that will be released on a rolling basis between now and the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting the public and bringing the people’s views into the public discourse. It conducts surveys with representative samples on policies proposed by elected officials and shares its findings with government officials, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – While immigration is a highly divisive issue in Washington, DC, new surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 congressional districts across the country reveal substantial bipartisan common ground among the public on proposals to address the millions of undocumented people living in the US.

For the vast majority of undocumented immigrants – people who have been in the US for years and have no criminal record – majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favor offering them a pathway to become legal residents, if they pay a penalty and any owed taxes. For people brought to the US illegally as children, bipartisan majorities favor offering them a pathway to citizenship. These proposals have bipartisan support in every state and district surveyed.

For undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of a crime, deportation is favored by bipartisan majorities.

To deter immigrants from coming to the US illegally for work – the primary motivator for most immigrants – and steer them into a legal pathway, bipartisan majorities in every competitive state and district surveyed favor a proposal to:

• require employers to verify new employees’ legal status using E-Verify, and
• increase the number of work visas in line with the demand for labor

To reduce the amount of time that asylum-seekers wait in the US for their court hearing, which is often years, bipartisan majorities favor hiring more immigration court judges to speed up asylum cases.

All proposals presented were derived from Congressional legislation.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the seventh in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.

Surveys on a total of fifteen topics will be released on a rolling basis until the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here. Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, Low-Income Assistance, Families and Children, and Social Security.

Addressing Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.

For undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of a crime, large bipartisan majorities favor the government deporting them (Democrats 70 to 91%, Republicans 85 to 98%, overall 80 to 90%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 79%, Republicans 94%, overall 85%).

For undocumented immigrants who have been in the US for years, and have not committed a crime, bipartisan majorities favor offering them legal status if they pay a penalty and any taxes they owe (Democrats 75 to 89%, Republicans 55 to 78%, overall 65 to 84%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 84%, Republicans 69%, overall 77%).

For undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US illegally as children, and have not committed a serious crime, large bipartisan majorities favor offering them a path to citizenship (Democrats 80 to 95%, Republicans 60 to 82%, overall 70 to 86%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 89%, Republicans 76%, overall 83%).

Reducing Illegal Immigration

To reduce the number of immigrants coming to the US illegally for work, which is the main reason they do so, and steer them into a legal pathway, a two-part proposal is favored by bipartisan majorities:

• require employers to verify the legal status of their workers using the E-Verify system, and
• increase the number of work visas in line with the demand for workers.

Over two-thirds of Democrats (75 to 90%) and Republicans (67 to 89%) are in favor, and overall (76 to 85%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 84%, Republicans 82%, overall 83%).

Reducing Wait Times in the U.S. for Asylum Seekers

To reduce the amount of time that asylum seekers wait in the US for their court hearing, which can be several years, bipartisan majorities favor hiring several hundred more asylum judges and staff to significantly speed up the process of evaluating claims (Democrats 72 to 87%, Republicans 66 to 83%, overall 71 to 83%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 83%, Republicans 73%, overall 76%).

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

About the Surveys

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded May 27 – June 25, 2026, to a total of 19,564 adults, including 600-2,000 in each of the 11 states, and 400-500 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 9.0%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 7.6%, and the maximum weights range from 1.9 to 6.9.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project is conducting and releasing a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts, being released on a rolling basis through the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting the public and bringing the people’s views into the public discourse. It conducts surveys with representative samples on policies proposed by elected officials and shares its findings with government officials, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – While Congress has been unable to agree on solutions to prevent Social Security’s pending insolvency, new surveys of nearly 20,000 Americans in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive congressional districts reveal how Americans across party lines would tackle the budget shortfall and prevent benefit cuts.

Proposals to increase revenue and reduce spending, which together would eliminate Social Security’s budget shortfall, are favored by majorities of Democrats and Republicans across the battlegrounds. They would:

• subject income over $400,000 to the payroll tax
• gradually increase the payroll tax
• reduce benefits for top lifetime earners
• gradually increase the full retirement age

Proposals to increase benefits, that would slightly increase Social Security’s budget shortfall, are also favored by bipartisan majorities. They would:

• raise the minimum monthly benefit
• change cost-of-living adjustments, tying them to what older adults tend to buy, which would slightly increase benefits

These measures are derived from federal legislation, and proposals by the Congressional Budget Office, and the Social Security Administration.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the sixth in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.

Surveys on a total of fifteen topics will be released on a rolling basis until the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here. Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, Low-Income Assistance, and Families and Children.

Solving Social Security’s Budget Shortfall

Respondents were told they would be evaluating “options that would reduce the budget shortfall of the Social Security program and thus extend the amount of time that the program can provide full benefits.” Four options were presented along with the amount that each would reduce the program’s budget shortfall.

Bipartisan majorities in most of the competitive states and districts surveyed favor options that would completely eliminate the budget shortfall and solve Social Security’s long-term insolvency.

Increasing Revenue

Subjecting wages over $400,000 to the payroll tax – which currently does not apply to income over $185,000 – is favored by at least two-thirds of Democrats (73 to 89%) and Republicans (66 to 84%) in all states and districts surveyed, and overall (70 to 85%). Nationally, 83% of Democrats and 77% of Republicans are in favor (overall 79%). This proposal would reduce the budget shortfall by 61 percent.

Gradually increasing the payroll tax from 6.2 to 6.5 percent is favored by majorities of Democrats in all states and districts (55 to 81%). Among Republicans, majorities are in favor in 37 of the 39 competitive states and districts surveyed, with support ranging from 46 to 74%. Overall, majorities are in favor across the battlegrounds (56 to 72%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 66%, Republicans 61%, overall 62%). This proposal would reduce the budget shortfall by 15 percent.

Reducing Benefits

Reducing benefits for the top 20 percent of lifetime earners is favored by majorities of Republicans in all competitive states and districts surveyed (53 to 74%). Among Democrats, majorities are in favor in 38 of the 39 states and districts surveyed and divided in one (50 to 79%). Overall, majorities are in favor across the battlegrounds (56 to 73%). Nationally, a large bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 69%, Republicans 62%, overall 65%). This would reduce the budget shortfall by 11 percent.

Gradually increasing the full retirement age from age 67 to 68 by 2033 is favored by majorities of Democrats in 29 of the 39 competitive states and districts, with support ranging from 39 to 71%. Among Republicans, majorities are in favor in 36 states and districts, with support ranging from 46 to 72%. Overall, majorities are in favor in 32 states and districts surveyed (47 to 66%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 55%, Republicans 58%, overall 56%). This would reduce the budget shortfall by 15 percent.

Majorities are opposed to raising the retirement age in one state (Ohio 51%) and two districts (MI-7 52%, MI-10 51%). However, in none of these cases is there a majority of both Democrats and Republicans opposed.

Increasing Social Security Benefits

Respondents were also presented two options for increasing Social Security benefits, along with the amount that each would increase the shortfall.

Raising the minimum monthly benefit from $1,125 to $1,630 (i.e. equal to 125% of the federal poverty line) is favored by over two-thirds of both Democrats (72 to 84%) and Republicans (68 to 83%), and overall in all states and districts (72 to 82%). Nationally, 81% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans are in favor (78% overall). This would increase the budget shortfall by 8%.

Large bipartisan majorities favor changing the formula used to calculate annual increases in Social Security benefits, by tying them to the goods and services that older adults tend to buy, which would slightly increase benefits for all (Democrats 62 to 77%, Republicans 60 to 84%, overall 64 to 73%). Nationally, a large bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 73%, Republicans 70%, overall 70%). This would increase the budget shortfall by 12%.

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

About the Surveys

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded May 27 – June 25, 2026, to a total of 19,564 adults, including 600-2,000 in each of the 11 states, and 400-500 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 9.0%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 7.6%, and the maximum weights range from 1.9 to 6.9.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project is running a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts that will be released on a rolling basis between now and the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – As the cost of raising a child continues to be a major concern, new surveys of nearly 20,000 Americans in 11 competitive states and 28 congressional districts reveal extensive bipartisan common ground in support of wide-ranging federal assistance for families.

Large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans in competitive states and districts surveyed favor:

• increasing federal funding to establish free universal preschools
• subsidizing childcare for low- and middle-income parents
• increasing the Child Tax Credit, back to the level it was temporarily raised to during the Covid era
• establishing a national paid leave program to allow workers to take 12 weeks off to care for a new child, an ill family member, or themselves

The policy questions included in the surveys were derived from federal legislative proposals.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This release is the fifth in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by PPC in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts in advance of the midterm elections.

Surveys on fifteen topics are being released on a rolling basis, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending legislative proposals in Congress – have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. PPC is exploring whether the same bipartisan common ground found at the national level exists in the battlegrounds. The results for all individual states and districts surveyed can be found here. Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, and Low-income assistance.

Reducing the Cost of Preschool and Childcare

Bipartisan majorities support the federal government providing $25 billion to states or cities that want it, to help them create or expand preschool programs for 3- and 4-year-olds that would be available to all families free of cost. Over three quarters of Democrats (75 to 92%) and over half of Republicans (56 to 84%) are in favor. Nationally, 89% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans are in favor.

The federal government providing states with funds to subsidize childcare, so that low and middle income families spend no more than 7% of their income on childcare, is favored by bipartisan majorities (Democrats 79 to 93%, Republicans 56 to 84%). Nationally, 89% of Democrats and 77% of Republicans are in favor.

Increasing the Child Tax Credit

Increasing the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 up to $3,600, and making it fully refundable (meaning people who owe little or no federal taxes can get the credit as cash), is favored by large majorities of Democrats (73 to 91%) and Republicans (61 to 86%). Nationally, 84% of Democrats and 74% of Republicans are in favor. This is the amount the tax credit was increased to during the Covid-era, but that increase was temporary and expired in 2022.

Creating a National Paid Family and Medical Leave Program

Large majorities of Democrats (72 to 96%) and Republicans (57 to 80%) favor a proposal to allow all workers to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave, to care for a newborn or a family member with a health condition, or to recover from a serious illness. During that time they would receive two-thirds of their wages, up to $4,000 a month, which would be funded by a new 0.2% payroll tax on both employers and employees. Nationally, 84% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans are in favor.

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

About the Surveys

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded May 27 – June 25, 2026, to a total of 19,564 adults, including 600-2,000 in each of the 11 states, and 400-500 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 9.0%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 7.6%, and the maximum weights range from 1.9 to 6.9.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project will conduct and release a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts that will be released on a rolling basis between now and the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice Of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

Amid ongoing political debates about spending on low-income assistance programs, new surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive congressional districts reveal bipartisan common ground in favor of the federal government providing more assistance to low-income households.

When given the option to increase, decrease or maintain current levels, majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favored:

• Increasing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, also known as food stamps
• Increasing federal spending on Medicaid, to provide health insurance to more low-income people
• Raising the federal minimum wage

Proposals to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low-income workers without children, and expand eligibility, are also favored by majorities of both Democrats and Republicans.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the fourth in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.

Surveys on eleven additional topics will be released on a rolling basis between now and the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here. Previously released surveys include: Artificial Intelligence, Housing and Healthcare.

SNAP Benefits

Majorities of Democrats (71 to 93%) and Republicans (58 to 87%) say monthly benefits for individuals living alone should be higher than the current average of $170. Nationally, 88% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans say benefits should be higher.

Across the battleground states and districts surveyed, as a whole, the median Democrat says SNAP benefits for individuals living alone should be $250, and the median Republican $230. Nationally, the median Democrat proposes $250 and the median Republican $200.

For monthly SNAP benefits to single mothers, majorities of Democrats (58 to 80%) say it should be higher than the current average of $530. Among Republicans in ten states and 19 districts, majorities say the benefit should be higher (51 to 73%). In one state and nine districts, a majority of Republicans do not support an increase, but in no cases do a majority favor reductions. Nationally, 67% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans say benefits should be higher.

Across the battleground states and districts surveyed as a whole, the median Democrat says monthly SNAP benefits for single mothers should be $600, and the median Republican $554. Nationally, the median Democrat proposes $600 and the median Republican $550.

The government providing discounts on fruit and vegetables bought with SNAP benefits is favored by over two-thirds of both Democrats (78 to 97%) and Republicans (68 to 93%). Nationally, 93% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans are in favor.

Spending on Medicaid

Given the option to increase federal spending on Medicaid and cover more people, keep it the same, or decrease it and cover fewer people, majorities of Democrats (74 to 91%) and Republicans (51 to 83%) say it should be increased. Nationally, 83% of Democrats and 59% of Republicans choose to increase spending. (This survey finding was previously released on July 30.)

The Federal Minimum Wage

Told that the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and asked to specify how much they think it should be, overwhelming majorities of Democrats (90 to 99%) and Republicans (80 to 96%) chose a higher wage. Nationally, 97% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans chose to raise it.

Across the battleground states and districts as a whole, the median Democrat says it should be $15 an hour, and the median Republican $12. Nationally, the median Democrat also proposes $15 and the median Republican $11.

Tax Credits for Low-Income Workers Without Children

Bipartisan majorities favor several proposals to expand and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), specifically for low-income workers without children (who receive substantially less benefits than workers with children).

Raising the limit on the maximum amount of the EITC credit from $630 to $1,300 a year is favored by large majorities of Democrats (79 to 90%) and Republicans (64 to 85%). Nationally, 82% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans are in favor.

Raising the limit on the amount of savings people can have and still get the EITC credit (for individuals from $18,500 to $24,000; for married couples from $25,500 to $33,000) is favored by over two-thirds of Democrats (76 to 89%) and Republicans (68 to 86%). Nationally, 87% of Democrats and 77% of Republicans are in favor.

Lowering the age of eligibility from 25 to 21 is favored by majorities of Democrats (62 to 84%) and Republicans (52 to 71%). Nationally, 76% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans are in favor.

Support by Income Level

A separate analysis was conducted on the aggregate sample of all states and districts to determine the views of each of these policies by household income. Large majorities of people of all income levels – from under $30,000 to over $150,000 – support increasing SNAP benefits, spending on Medicaid, the EITC, and the minimum wage.

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

About the Surveys

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded May 27 – June 25, 2026, to a total of 19,564 adults, including 600-2,000 in each of the 11 states, and 400-500 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 9.0%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 7.6%, and the maximum weights range from 1.9 to 6.9.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.51.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This series will include surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts and be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid‑term elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions.

The goal of this effort is to reveal the public’s views – in competitive states and districts – focusing on policy questions that have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. The project seeks to educate the public, policymakers, and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

Project partners include the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP). None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – With healthcare costs continuing to rank among Americans’ top concerns, new surveys conducted in 11 competitive states and 28 congressional districts reveal common ground between Democrats and Republicans on proposals to reduce costs and increase access to health insurance.

Proposals for making drugs more affordable are supported by large majorities of Democrats and Republicans, including:

• capping the price of prescription drugs to the price they are sold for in other developed countries
• reforming patent laws to bring more generic drugs on to the market

To increase access to health insurance, large bipartisan majorities favor restoring the recently expired enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, which will lower the cost of insurance.

While Congress has scheduled reductions in future Medicaid spending, the surveys find little public support for this – less than one in four Democrats or Republicans. Instead, large bipartisan majorities favor actually increasing spending on Medicaid to provide coverage to more low-income households.

The surveys find strong bipartisan majority support – at least two-thirds of Democrats and Republicans – for expanding government insurance options, including:

• allowing people 55-64 to purchase a Medicare plan
• creating a government-run health insurance plan that anyone can buy into (i.e., a public option)

For treatment of substance use disorder, bipartisan majorities favor the government investing billions of dollars more to help ensure access for all who need and want it.

These policies are derived from recent or existing Congressional legislation or White House proposals.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the third in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.

Surveys on a total of fifteen topics will be released on a rolling basis until the midterm elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here.

Reducing the Cost of Drugs

Overwhelming bipartisan majorities favor the government setting maximum prices for drugs sold in the US, based on what the drugs are sold for in other developed countries (which is about half the price on average). Over eight in ten Democrats (80 to 96%) and Republicans (81 to 95%) are in favor. Nationally, 86% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans are in favor, and 86% overall.

Large bipartisan majorities favor a proposal to bring more generic drugs to market by making it “illegal for drug companies – whose patent on a drug has come to an end – to pay generic drug companies to hold off making and selling that drug.” (Democrats 69 to 89%, Republicans 71 to 86%). Nationally, 77% of Democrats and 79% of Republicans are in favor, and 76% overall.

Over two-thirds favor another patent reform proposal intended to lower drug prices: allowing the federal government to override a company’s drug patent and license other companies to produce that drug, if the government determines the price is unaffordable, and the drug was developed with federal funding. (Democrats 70 to 87%, Republicans 68 to 90%). Nationally, 78% of Democrats and 83% of Republicans are in favor, and 79% overall.

Reinstating Enhanced ACA Subsidies

Reducing premiums and deductibles for health insurance bought on the Affordable Care Act marketplace, by reinstating the enhanced subsidies that expired this year, is favored by 83 to 94% of Democrats and 65 to 85% of Republicans. Nationally, 90% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans are in favor.

Spending on Medicaid

Given the option to increase federal spending on Medicaid and cover more people, keep it the same, or decrease it and cover fewer people, majorities of Democrats (74 to 91%) and Republicans (51 to 83%) say it should be increased. Nationally, 83% of Democrats and 59% of Republicans say the same.

Expanding Government Health Insurance

Allowing people aged 55 years or older to purchase a Medicare plan is favored by 74 to 92% of Democrats and 66 to 87% of Republicans. Nationally, 84% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans are in favor.

Creating a “government-run public option (similar to Medicare) and allow all individuals who want to buy into it,” is favored by large majorities of Democrats (77 to 93%) and Republicans (66 to 84%). Nationally, 79% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans are in favor.

Funding for Substance Abuse Treatment

Large bipartisan majorities favor increasing federal spending on substance abuse treatment by $13 billion, “which would mean nearly all people who want and need treatment would get it” (Democrats 68 to 91%, Republicans 57 to 91%). Nationally, 93% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans are in favor.

In general, ensuring that every person who needs and wants substance use treatment can get it is seen as a high priority by overwhelming majorities (Democrats 89 to 97%, Republicans 75 to 95%). Nationally, 93% of Democrats and 86% of Republicans say the same.

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

About the Surveys

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded May 27 – June 25, 2026, to a total of 19,564 adults, including 600-2,000 in each of the 11 states, and 400-500 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 9.0%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 7.6%, and the maximum weights range from 1.9 to 6.9.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, region, marital status, and home ownership to match the respective adult population. The national sample was also weighted by Census region and partisan affiliation. In the state and district samples, the distribution of partisan affiliation were within expectations, based on voter registration for non-leaners and/or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index for leaners, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project will conduct and release a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts that will be released on a rolling basis between now and the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice Of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – While Democrats and Republicans in Congress recently came together to pass legislation addressing the cost of housing, new surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive congressional districts shows that majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favor policies that go substantially further.

The recently-enacted law provides more tax incentives to build or repair affordable housing, which large bipartisan majorities favor, but they also favor the government investing tens of billions of dollars to help build more housing affordable to low- and middle-income households.

Large bipartisan majorities also favor the government providing an additional $24 billion in rental assistance for the very low-income, elderly and disabled. The new law does not include an increase in spending on rental assistance.

Under the new law, corporations are prohibited from owning more than 350 single-family homes, but bipartisan majorities in all competitive states and districts surveyed favor a more restrictive policy of prohibiting large corporations from owning any single-family homes.

The policy questions included in the survey were derived from federal legislative proposals.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This release is the second in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by PPC in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts in advance of the midterm elections.

Surveys on fifteen topics will be released on a rolling basis, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending legislative proposals in Congress – have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. PPC is exploring whether the same bipartisan common ground found at the national level exists in the battlegrounds. The results for all individual states and districts surveyed can be found here.

Providing Tax Credits to Build Affordable Housing

A proposal for the federal government to provide, “tax incentives to home builders to build or repair homes affordable to low- and middle-income households” – consistent with the new law – was favored by over two thirds of Democrats (77 to 93%) and Republicans (71 to 87%) in all competitive states and districts surveyed. Nationally, 88% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans were in favor.

Investing Billions to Build Affordable Housing

Unlike the recent law, two legislative proposals call for substantial federal investments in affordable high density housing (e.g. apartment buildings, duplexes and triplexes). Both proposals receive bipartisan majority support in all states and most districts.

• For very low- and low-income households, investing $40 billion to increase high-density affordable housing supply is favored by 69 to 91% of Democrats. Among Republicans, majorities were in favor in all states and nearly all districts (52 to 81%), with divided views in two of the 28 House districts (49% favor). Nationally, 86% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans were in favor.
• For low- and middle-income households, providing $25 billion to local governments to increase high-density affordable housing supply is favored by 77 to 91% of Democrats. Among Republicans, majorities were in favor in all states and nearly all House districts (58 to 77%). In two of the 28 House districts, slightly under half of Republicans were in favor (45 and 49%). Nationally, 84% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans were in favor.

Increasing Rental Assistance

Over three-quarters of Democrats (80 to 93%) and majorities of Republicans (58 to 83%) favored, “spending up to $24 billion to provide more vouchers to help people pay rent who are very low income, disabled or elderly.” Nationally, 89% of Democrats and 74% of Republicans were in favor. The new housing law does not increase funding for rental vouchers.

Banning Large Corporate Ownership of Single-Family Homes

While the new housing law prohibits corporations from owning more than 350 single-family homes, large bipartisan majorities favored prohibiting large corporations from owning any: Democrats 76 to 89%, Republicans 64 to 86%. Nationally, 82% of Democrats and 77% of Republicans were in favor.

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

About the Surveys

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded May 27 – June 25, 2026, to a total of 19,564 adults, including at least 600 in each of the 11 states, and at least 400 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 9.0%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 7.6%, and the maximum weights range from 1.9 to 6.9.

The national survey was fielded March 11-19, 2026 with 1,200 adults nationally. The response rate was 8.3%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 1.9.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. Partisan distributions in each sample were within expectations, based on voter registration or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series

This series will include surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts and be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid‑term elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions.

The goal of this effort is to reveal the public’s views – in competitive states and districts – focusing on policy questions that have elicited bipartisan agreement nationally. The project seeks to educate the public, policymakers, and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

Project partners include the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP). None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice Of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.

COLLEGE PARK, MD – As artificial intelligence becomes integrated into more aspects of the economy and society, new surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive congressional districts reveal common ground between Democrats and Republicans on proposals to regulate artificial intelligence.

Large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans favor the federal government:

• creating a federal agency devoted to monitoring and regulating AI
• requiring existing and new AI programs that make critical decisions to pass a government test (e.g. health insurance claims, hiring, etc.)
• requiring deepfakes be labelled as such
• prohibiting political campaigns from using deepfakes

Large bipartisan majorities favor the U.S. working with other nations to create international treaties:

• regulating large-scale AI programs
• banning weapons that can fire on targets without a direct human command

In nearly all of the competitive states and districts surveyed, all proposals received two-thirds support among both Democrats and Republicans.

The domestic proposals tested are derived from congressional legislation, and the international ones come from international organizations, including the United Nations and Red Cross.

Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?

This survey release is the first in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.

Surveys on fourteen additional topics will be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid-term elections, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally. The results for all individual states and districts can be found here.

New Federal Agency to Oversee AI

Creating a new federal agency to, “monitor new AI programs and try to anticipate potential problems, define best practices for developing and using AI programs, make policy recommendations, and enforce regulation,” was favored by bipartisan majorities in all battleground states and districts surveyed. Among Democrats 76 to 89% were in favor, among Republicans 66 to 85%, and overall in the battlegrounds 75 to 83%. Nationally, 85% of Democrats were in favor, 79% of Republicans, and 80% overall.

Regulating AI Programs That Make Critical Decisions

Bipartisan majorities in all battleground states and districts surveyed favored two proposals to regulate, “AI programs that make decisions that can have significant impacts on people (e.g. in health insurance claims, loan applications, hiring, etc.),” that aim to ensure they, “follow regulations, have data privacy and security protections, and do not have unintended biases.”

Requiring new AI programs that will make critical decisions first pass a government-designed test was favored by 65 to 88% of Democrats, 69 to 91% of Republicans, and 71 to 85% overall across the battlegrounds. Nationally, the proposal was favored by 82% of Democrats, 78% of Republicans, and 78% overall.

Allowing the government to audit AI programs that are already being used to make critical decisions, was favored by 59 to 83% of Democrats, 59 to 80% of Republicans, and 58 to 77% overall across the battlegrounds. Nationally, the proposal was favored by 77% of Democrats, 73% of Republicans, and 74% overall.

Regulating Deepfakes

Two proposals to regulate AI-generated images, video and audio, known as deepfakes, are favored by bipartisan majorities in all battleground states and districts surveyed.

Requiring that any deepfakes, “distributed publicly – e.g. posted online or shown on TV – must have a label that states that it is not real and was generated by AI,” was favored by 84 to 95% of Democrats, 80 to 93% of Republicans, and 82 to 91% overall across the battlegrounds. Nationally, the proposal was favored by 88% of Democrats, 89% of Republicans, and 86% overall.

A proposal to, “prohibit political campaigns, including PACs, from using deepfakes in their campaign advertisements,” was favored by 71 to 93% of Democrats, 76 to 90% of Republicans, and 77 to 88% overall across the battlegrounds. Nationally, the proposal was favored by 83% of Democrats, 85% of Republicans, and 82% overall.

Creating an International Treaty to Regulate Large Scale AI

The US working with other nations to “create an international treaty to regulate large-scale AI programs,” was favored by bipartisan majorities in all battleground states and districts surveyed (70 to 89% of Democrats, 63 to 85% of Republicans, 70 to 84% overall across the battlegrounds). Nationally, this was favored by 82% of Democrats, 78% of Republicans, and 77% overall.

Banning Nations from Developing Fully Autonomous Weapons

Bipartisan majorities in all battleground states and districts surveyed favored the US working with other nations to, “create an international treaty that would prohibit the development and use of AI-powered weapons that can fire on targets without a direct human command” (62 to 90% of Democrats, 59 to 87% of Republicans, 69 to 84% overall across the battlegrounds). Nationally, this was favored by 82% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans, and 79% overall.

More Information

• Individual State and District Results
• Questions used for this analysis
• National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology

About the Surveys

The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded May 27 – June 25, 2026, to a total of 19,564 adults, including at least 600 in each of the 11 states, and at least 400 in each of the 27 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 9.0%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 7.6%, and the maximum weights range from 1.9 to 6.9.

The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026 with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.

Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control was managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.

The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, region, marital status, and home ownership to match the respective adult population. The national sample was also weighted by Census region and partisan affiliation. In the state and district samples, the distribution of partisan affiliation were within expectations, based on voter registration for non-leaners and/or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index for leaners, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.

About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Project

The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project will conduct and release a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts that will be released on a rolling basis between now and the mid-term elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.

In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.

Program for Public Consultation

The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, develops and conducts public consultation surveys, in which respondents are informed about and deliberate on policy solutions being proposed by elected officials, and give their recommendations. It seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting representative samples of citizens on key public policy proposals, and sharing its findings with officials in government, the media, other academics, and the general public.

Civic Innovation Center

The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.

Voice of the People

Voice Of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.