IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Latest news
Read More
Emily Scherer for The 19th; Getty Images
California’s New Law Aims To Close a Housing Gap for Domestic Violence Survivors
Oct 13, 2026
Domestic violence survivors often struggle to find housing, and California’s “Unseen and Unheard Housing Act” will help make more housing available to meet their specific needs.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill Sunday requiring cities and counties to factor in domestic violence survivors when planning for future housing.
The state’s 540 local governments are required to submit a plan for land use every five to eight years, depending on population size. The plan analyzes and proposes ways to meet community needs around climate change, health, economics and equitable opportunities. Within that is an assessment of housing supply and demand, which is required by law to include overviews of housing for seniors, people with disabilities, farmworkers, women-led households, households with five or more members and the unhoused.
Now cities and counties will have to account for the needs of domestic violence survivors, too.
“Our hope is that this bill will significantly increase the supply of permanent housing for survivors, and will bring funding, attention, and action to address the invisible crisis of domestic violence survivors falling into homelessness when they leave their domestic violence situations,” said Jennifer Willover, housing policy analyst at the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, which coordinates domestic violence advocacy and response across the state.
Domestic violence and housing go hand in hand. Some victims choose to stay in a home with abuse in order to keep them — or their kids — housed, while others find there is no place to go when they need to escape violence.
Domestic violence is often a precursor to homelessness: 17 percent of unhoused cisgender women experienced intimate partner violence — most often physical — in the six months prior to homelessness, according to a 2024 report.
Among unhoused survivors of recent domestic violence, 40 percent said the abuse was a factor in leaving their prior housing. Twenty percent said it was the main reason.
According to DomesticShelters.org, at least 70 percent of California’s 165 domestic violence services organizations provide emergency housing. But those stays are typically only one to three months; longer-term support is much more difficult for survivors to find — and funding for it is drying up.
Stable housing in the months and years after fleeing abuse is hard to come by. Cost is an enormous barrier, and survivors don’t always have income or money of their own. According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, many abusive partners exert financial control over victims, such as by forbidding them from working, refusing to put assets in their name or not allowing access to bank accounts.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis ranks California as one of the highest cost-of-living states, and rent in the most populous cities can be thousands of dollars a month. Credit checks can also make it harder to find a place to stay if an abusive partner coerced a victim into taking out loans or opened credit cards in their name.
This new law doesn’t provide any solutions, but it elevates the needs of domestic violence survivors who make up a large share of the population. Recent research from Tulane University showed 61 percent of women, 45 percent of men and 84 percent of gender-nonconforming people reported experiencing intimate partner violence across their lifetimes.
California’s New Law Aims To Close a Housing Gap for Domestic Violence Survivors was originally published by The 19th and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
empty classroom with desks and chalkboard
Photo by Ivan Aleksic on Unsplash
Who Gets a Seat?: Florida’s New Bans on Undocumented Students in Public Higher Education
Oct 08, 2026
Each year, roughly 8,000 undocumented students graduate from Florida high schools. In 2026, Florida became the newest state to pass a regulation prohibiting this population from enrolling in state public colleges and selective universities. In June 2026, Florida State Board of Education passed Rule 6A-10.0240, which requires all 28 Florida College System institutions to certify admitted students as citizens of the United States or have lawful presence. In September 2026, a separate state board extended a similar ban to Florida’s most selective public universities.
Throughout the United States, there are three states that have historically upheld similar barring policies: Alabama and South Carolina ban undocumented students from all public colleges and universities, while Georgia bars them only from its most selective public universities. Florida’s restrictions are administrative rules and regulations, not state laws passed by the Legislature. Similar bills died in committee during Florida’s 2026 legislative session.
What do Rule 6A-10.0240 and Regulation 6.001 restrict?
Rule 6A is categorized under the enrollment eligibility requirements for the Florida College System Institutions. The policy details that prior to being granted admission to any Florida College System institutions, students must provide proper documentation or proof of United States citizenship or lawful presence in order to successfully enroll in the institution. The rule applies to the 28 public colleges in the state but does not include public universities or private institutions. Some of the institutions under the Florida College System include Broward College, College of Central Florida, and Daytona State College. The rule does not apply to the 12 public universities in the State University System of Florida, which are overseen by a separate body called the Board of Governors.
However, on September 3, 2026, that Board of Governors voted unanimously to adopt a similar restriction for Florida’s selective universities. The board amended Regulation 6.001, its general admissions policy, so that anyone “present in the United States unlawfully” cannot enroll as a new student, beginning in the 2027-28 academic year.
Regulation 6.001 applies only to universities that did not admit all academically qualified applicants in the two most recent academic years. In other words, it covers selective public universities that turn away some qualified students. Currently, all 12 state universities use selective admissions. Students who are lawfully present, including international students on F-1 and J-1 visas, are not affected.
Together, the college rule and the university regulation mean that undocumented students will be barred from most of Florida’s public higher education system starting in 2027.
What Support are the New Rules Receiving?
Those in support of Rule 6A and Regulation 6.001 argue that taxpayer-funded public institutions should be reserved for students who are U.S. citizens or lawfully present in the country. Governor Ron DeSantis has described the June rule as putting Florida students and residents first. “I would rather have that spot go to a Florida resident,” DeSantis told reporters.
Other proponents of the new rules argue that they are simply formalizing expectations for students that already existed. Governor DeSantis has said that colleges never had a policy allowing students to be in the country without documentation, and that the rule simply requires them to verify status.
Supporters also argue that the state should not use public funds to benefit people living in the country without legal permission. After the Board of Governors vote, Lieutenant Governor Jay Collins called the September university rule “common sense.” He argued that Florida taxpayers should not pay for opportunities for people who entered the country illegally.
Supporters see the changes as the next step in a broader set of state policies. In 2025, DeSantis pushed lawmakers to repeal House Bill 851, the 2014 law that gave certain undocumented students in-state tuition rates. After the repeal, DeSantis described the enrollment ban as a natural follow-up, since the state no longer offered undocumented students tuition breaks.
Opposition to the New Rules
Some of the concerns shared by supporters of Rule 6A and Regulation 6.001 come under the assumption that undocumented immigrants are not taxpayers. However, critics point to data that show Florida raised about $1.8 billion in tax revenue from undocumented immigrants in 2022.
Many opponents also contend that the new rules contradict Florida’s state constitution which states that every child should receive adequate provision for education within the state’s borders. The new bans would affect undocumented students who are dual-enrolled in high school and college. The Florida Policy Institute (FPI) theorized that the state’s trend towards passing more restrictive policies will lead to undocumented students abandoning educational pathways, rendering them “locked out of higher education”.
Additionally, critics argue that the restriction on access to higher education will pose an economic burden to college and university systems. FPI stated that the new ban would lead to a loss of tuition and fees revenue, with an estimated loss of $15 million statewide. Opponents highlight that Florida colleges have struggled with declining enrollment rates and that the new rules will contribute to the declining enrollment.
Critics also argue that the State Board of Education overstepped its authority. Under Florida law, agencies may only adopt rules that carry out powers the Legislature has given them, and current law does not require college students to prove lawful presence. Critics add that the Legislature considered and rejected similar restrictions during its 2026 session.
Finally, critics argue the changes are openly discriminatory, prioritizing exclusion over opportunity. A coalition of immigrant advocacy and legal groups called the college rule “cruel” and urged the state to reconsider.
Future Outlook
Rule 6A-10.0240 and Regulation 6.001 are the latest in a series of restrictions on undocumented students in Florida higher education. Both take effect in the 2027-28 academic year. That gives colleges and universities about a year to build systems for checking students’ immigration status.
The changes have raised several questions about implementation. Rule 6A lets each school set its own verification procedures, and the Legislature’s Joint Administrative Procedures Committee, a bipartisan panel that reviews agency rules, warned that this approach gives each school too much discretion and could lead to different results at different colleges. The State Board of Education also has not clarified whether DACA recipients are covered under rule 6A.
The rules’ long-term future may depend on how these questions are answered. The Florida state legislature, which rejected similar bills in 2026, could write the policies into law, limit them, or leave them in place during its 2027 session.
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Camila Rojas is an undergraduate student at Barnard College of Columbia University.
Keep ReadingShow less
The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.
Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images
The CLARITY Act
Oct 02, 2026
The CLARITY Act
The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.
What does the CLARITY Act do?
The CLARITY Act sets up a regulatory structure for cryptocurrency or digital assets. The latest version of the bill defines a digital asset as “any digital representation of value which is recorded on a cryptographically-secured distributed ledger or other similar technology.” In other words, Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, and other similar technologies meant to be used as money or investments.
Why do we need any laws about crypto at all?
Right now, there is no comprehensive regulatory structure for cryptocurrency. The CLARITY Act “aims to establish rules governing how digital assets are issued, traded, intermediated, and supervised across the U.S. financial system.”
A major point of contention between legislators within each chamber of Congress and between chambers is how to divide (or if it should be divided at all) oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The SEC is much larger than the CFTC and has a reputation for more aggressive oversight than the CFTC. This version of the CLARITY Act gives the CFTC more power than the SEC. But at the same time, “The division would not assign every [cryptocurrency type] permanently to one agency. Classification would depend on the asset’s legal rights, offering structure, network development, issuer involvement, and the activity being regulated, which could leave some questions of regulatory authority involving both the SEC and the CFTC.”
What else is in those 600+ pages?
Punchbowl noted that the current version of the CLARITY Act includes a change to an existing law that would allow for criminal prosecutions related to blockchain issues. Specifically, “A key change would no longer explicitly shield certain decentralized finance developers from 18 USC 1960, the part of the federal criminal code that prohibits unlicensed money transmission. The liability protections are now civil, rather than criminal.”
This provision might be good for users of crypto, but is not popular with developers.
Punchbowl also says “Another provision directs the Treasury secretary to monitor for signs of bank deposit flight tied to stablecoin rewards 18 months after the enactment of the law. “ This is an attempt to address worries of (among others) community banks. NPR described the concerns of community banks in an article yesterday.
Trump and Crypto
President Trump has made truly staggering amounts of money ($1.4 billion reported for 2025) off of his own cryptocurrency and related digital assets through his family-owned World Liberty Financial. Would the CLARITY Act prevent him from further enriching himself while in office?
The answer here tends to depend on who you ask and which party they belong to. The Associated Press reported on September 14 that “Trump agreed to new ethics rules to get a crypto bill across the line”.
However, as Judd Legum of Popular Information noted, the CLARITY Act grandfathers in Trump’s existing business interests.
Nor does it appear to address a move also reported Monday morning by the Washington Sun in which wallets matching known holdings of President Trump and his sons were moved into “vesting contracts”. These contracts require that no sales occur for at least two years, e.g. the end of the President’s legally final term as president. Presumably, because the President already has these tokens and the CLARITY Act grandfathers in existing cryptocurrency ownership, nothing in this move would be affected by the law should it ever pass.
The current version of the CLARITY Act was apparently weak enough with respect to banking industry concerns for four Republicans to join all Democrats in voting no on a procedural vote that, for now, brings progress on the CLARITY Act to a halt.
What does that mean for you if you have opinions about the CLARITY Act?
There’s more time to learn about cryptocurrency if you need to, about the bill if you need to and to contact your members of Congress if you have concerns. You can get contact information for your members from the GovTrack homepage.
The CLARITY Act was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Trump's "Restoring Truth and Sanity" order targets how museums and parks present slavery and racism. Why one writer says Americans should push back.
Nisian Hughes/Getty Images
Trump's Mendacious, Deceitful Rewriting of American History
Sep 30, 2026
History is made of two parts. One is indisputable facts and the other is the interpretation of those facts. The history of history is filled with varying interpretations of the basic facts, usually tinted by the perspective of the historian or commentator. That perspective can be the writer's political leanings, his philosophy, or any number of personal biases.
All historians, however, whether conservative or liberal, regardless of philosophy generally agree on the basic facts. For example, while there are fringe groups and individuals who deny that the Holocaust happened—that 6 millions Jews were killed by the Nazis—no reputable historian disputes that fact.
There is one class of individuals, however, who seek to rewrite historical facts to suit their needs, to reflect what they feel are the true facts of the country they lead, that supports their version of what has either made their country great or what the obstacles to greatness have been. These individuals are the dictators, the autocrats, who have ruled a country with a combination of demagoguery, fear, and force.
Hitler and Stalin were well-known for rewriting the history of their countries to suit their purposes. For example, Hitler in his antisemitic rant denounced German Jews in every way possible, calling them vermin, despite the fact that it was generally acknowledged that Jews played an important role in the advancement of German culture and science. All references to the achievements of Germans who were Jewish were removed from textbooks and encyclopedias. He prohibited Jewish involvement in all areas of German life and culture. He blamed Jews for the defeat of Germany in WWI—the infamous "stab in the back."
Stalin literaly rewrote Russian history to make the Soviet state part of the arc of history that made Russia great, downplaying the role of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution while giving the Russian people a dominating role in that history, minimizing other nationalities.
President Trump is seeking to rewrite American history in a typical Trumpian fashion. In his Executive Order, "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," he claimed that "revisionists' [liberals] have distorted American history for their ideological purposes and that he was restoring the truth. But in fact, Trump is the one who has distorted the truth of American history to suit his purposes and viewpoint.
In his Executive Order, he said that over the past decade, efforts have been made to rewrite American history, "replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth." To reverse that trend, he has among other things instructed the National Park Service and a variety of museums and other sites to remove all information which "inappropriately disparage Americans, past or living." This includes information about slavery, treatment of Native Americans, and a host of other subjects.
But slavery is an objective fact whose parameters and particulars are well known. Yet American history for much of our existence has been short on the acknowledgment of the role that slavery and racism have played in the development of American culture. It is only in the last 4 or 5 decades that the ugly truth of these aspects of American history and culture have begun to be factually presented at our nation's historic sites and museums, and in our school textbooks.
And even so, much is white-washed. As an example, people who visited Mt. Vernon—George Washington's home on the Potomac River—years ago, saw and heard nothing of Washington's slaves when on the tour; in 2015 that was no longer the case, but the information presented about the slaves was not telling it as it was; it was definitely softened.
Trump's Executive Order accuses revisionists of "casting our founding principles and historical milestones in negative light." It accuses them of taking our "legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness" and instead calling that legacy "racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed."
Not so. Liberals, such as myself, are not muted in their praise of our founding principles and all the advances that America has made. At the same time, however, they are unflinching in recognizing the ways in which the country has not lived up to its founding principles and feel that America will only truly experience its greatness when it lives up to those values.
The Executive Order further states that history should be "uplifting." To the extent that the facts warrant that, I would strongly agree; in my writing, and that of other liberals, the uplifting facts of our founding and existence are prominently featured. Indeed, the uplifting nature of our founding principles as stated in the Declaration of Independence is the basis of our hope for the future. But important aspects of our history that are not uplifting must be stated as well so that history is a true learning experience.
Trump cannot tolerate recognizing anything negative about American history because he feels it places America in a bad light and brings with it an obligation to right past wrongs. But his White supremacist and nativist supporters do not support righting past wrongs against Blacks, regardless whether those wrongs still impact their lives in the 21st century.
Through Trump's Executive Order, he has sought and largely succeeded in removing all mention of slavery and racism from our historic sites and museums. This is hardly "restoring truth" to American history. This is a huge affront to millions of Americans, not just the 15% who are Black.
Perhaps the most shocking aspect of his rewriting our history in a way that panders to his White supremacist and nativist supporters is that there have been no real protests—comments yes, but no protests—by the Americans people let alone the Black community to Trump's attempt to sanitize our history. He seeks to remove the ugliness from American history and in so doing has removed the story of the incredible strength of character that slavery and racism gave rise to. What a sad commentary on our times.
(In this connection, it is interesting to note that the only massive protests during Trump's second administration have been to protest Trump's immigration enforcement policies (ICE) and to protest the ways in which Trump has rolled back the advancement of women by prohibiting all DEI programs among other means.)
This is my second article on this topic (see, "Trump's Perversion of American History"), so important do I feel it is that Americans understand their country, both its promise and greatness as well as its weaknesses. Americans should take to the streets to protest this perversion of American history. We will only make America greater if we acknowledge what has weakened America and take the necessary steps to right past wrongs.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home