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.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
black and white love print crew neck shirt
Photo by Cyrus Crossan on Unsplash
The Fragile Promise of the Ballot
May 31, 2026
Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were not just redefinitions of election law; they marked a critical shift away from the federal government’s duty to ensure equal ballot access—a duty fundamental to democracy.
The consequences were swift and broad. Within hours, Shelby County, Texas, imposed strict voter ID rules that federal officials had previously blocked under the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions. Soon after, North Carolina reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Across parts of Alabama, Georgia, and other Southern states, polling places closed or moved, often in communities with large Black populations. What once required federal review could now proceed quickly.
Meanwhile, supporters argue these rulings protect election integrity and return constitutional authority to states. The Court’s conservative majority contends portions of the Voting Rights Act reflect an earlier era and place outdated burdens on local governments. From this perspective, current conditions do not justify federal oversight.
Nevertheless, the evidence for widespread voter fraud remains negligible, while these laws impose uneven burdens on voters. Elderly, rural, student, and disproportionately Black and Latino communities still face the longest lines, fewest polling places, and greatest bureaucratic obstacles. The issue is no longer whether discrimination precisely mirrors the past, but whether the law recognizes it when it takes more sophisticated administrative forms.
The significance of these decisions lies not only in their immediate effects but also in what they reveal: The Supreme Court is narrowing the national commitment to protecting democratic participation. Where the Voting Rights Act once embodied active federal defense of democracy, the Court now treats voting inequities as isolated technicalities, underestimating their systemic impact.
This shift was particularly evident when Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was effectively dismantled in Shelby County. I am old enough to remember the national optimism surrounding America’s supposed racial progress. At that time, many declared the country had moved beyond the conditions that made federal oversight necessary. Yet history moved faster than that narrative. Almost immediately, legislatures introduced new voting restrictions, revised district maps, and narrowed pathways to participation.
What emerged was not the overt disenfranchisement of the Jim Crow era but a strategic transformation: democracy increasingly shaped through procedure and administration, not force or explicit exclusion. Today’s voter suppression manifests through policy and design, quietly maintaining barriers and undermining the ideal of equal participation.
History suggests such moments of regression are never permanent. From Dred Scott v. Sandford to the era of poll taxes and literacy tests, institutions have often lagged behind the nation’s democratic aspirations. Progress has depended less on judicial inevitability than on sustained civic pressure from ordinary citizens insisting the Constitution apply to them fully.
That pressure continues. Voting-rights groups stay in courtrooms and statehouses. Grassroots organizers keep registering voters in communities long targeted for exclusion. Citizens still wait in long lines, believing participation matters—even when systems seem designed to exhaust their faith.
The Supreme Court may interpret the law, but it cannot alone answer the central democratic question: Who is entitled to full participation in American public life? That question persists—and history suggests it will always depend on both judicial action and citizens resolutely defending democracy’s unfinished promise against new forms of exclusion.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Worn american flag with white embroidered stars and red stripes.
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
Veterans Caught in the Justice System Need Support, Not Neglect
May 30, 2026
Roughly 200,000 service members leave the military each year. As a retired brigadier general who spent more than three decades in the U.S. Army, I know that most of them return home stronger from their service with a greater sense of pride and purpose.
But many veterans also carry invisible wounds. Suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other combat-related trauma, too many fall into the criminal justice system and still need our help.
Nearly one-third of veterans have been arrested and booked into jail at least once, compared to one in five non-veterans. Veterans are now twice as likely as non-veterans to face incarceration, and tens of thousands are currently imprisoned. The suicide rate for veterans is approximately 1.5 times higher than the rate among the general population, and it’s especially high for veterans leaving incarceration.
Unfortunately, the way we currently manage struggling veterans undermines recruitment and jeopardizes the health and safety of our veterans, their families, their communities, and, ultimately, our country.
The federal government recognizes this problem. In April, the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs held a bipartisan hearing exploring how to help justice-involved veterans.
I was there testifying on behalf of the Council on Criminal Justice Veterans Justice Commission. Launched in 2022, the Commission was chaired by former U.S. Defense Secretary and U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel and included former Defense Secretary and White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, as well as other leaders representing veterans, the military, the Veterans Administration, community advocates, and various sectors of the justice system.
Its aim was to examine the extent and nature of veterans’ involvement in the criminal justice system and develop recommendations for evidence-based policy changes that enhance safety, health, and justice for veterans and their families.
I outlined several of those recommendations in my testimony.
To start, we need more support for veterans when they reenter civilian life. Changes must start at the Pentagon by creating a dedicated office to support transition, adopting evidence-based programs to help at-risk service members, and expanding access to VA health benefits.
Next, we need more effective responses when veterans do break the law. That means expanding alternatives to prosecution and incarceration—such as diversion and treatment programs—and doing a better job of identifying veterans who end up in the system.
Finally, we need more resources for veterans during incarceration and when they re-enter their communities. This includes providing VA health care for those behind bars, prioritizing hiring of justice-involved veterans, and removing barriers that make it harder for veterans to access housing and benefits after release.
Beyond the Senate hearing, we’ve seen other encouraging signs that both the federal government and states are prioritizing veterans.
Earlier this year, Congress provided $4 million in the Justice Department budget for a National Center on Veterans Justice, as recommended by the Commission. The Center should act as a hub to improve the success of justice-involved veterans by identifying and replicating best practices nationwide and establishing robust program evaluation so we can invest in what works. If implemented properly, it will revolutionize how the justice system treats the unique cases of our veterans. States are also taking action. Following a Commission recommendation, Nebraska passed a law creating alternative sentencing options for veterans, and similar legislation is pending in several other states.
To be sure, veterans who break the law must be held accountable for their actions. But as a nation, we must also recognize our responsibility for the circumstances of military service that can contribute to criminal behavior. Our response should emphasize restoration, not punishment alone.
It is nothing short of tragic when those who once wore the cloth of our nation now wear the cloth of incarceration. We have a duty to uphold our military’s commitment that no man or woman who served our nation be left behind.
David MacEwen, a retired brigadier general, spent more than 30 years in the U.S. Army, concluding his service as the 59th Adjutant General. He is the director of the Council on Criminal Justice Veterans Justice Commission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Federal agents guard outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in downtown Los Angeles as demonstrations continue after a series of immigration raids began last Friday on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.
Getty Images, Spencer Platt
Senate Pushes $72 Billion ICE Funding Boost as Abuse Allegations Mount
May 30, 2026
Washington, D.C. — The Senate is preparing to begin a budget reconciliation process that could direct up to $72 billion in new funding to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a move that has prompted sharp criticism from civil rights groups who argue the agencies already operate with expanded enforcement powers and minimal oversight.
The proposal isn’t a standard spending bill. It’s a reconciliation package, which allows Republicans to advance it in the Senate with a simple majority rather than the 60 votes normally required to break a filibuster. That procedural choice makes it one of the most direct efforts yet to cement Trump’s immigration agenda without needing Democratic support.
The Latino civic organization Voto Latino is urging lawmakers to reject the proposal, citing a growing list of reported abuses, wrongful detentions, and deaths in custody. They argue the Trump administration has widened ICE and CBP’s enforcement authority without corresponding accountability from Congress, resulting in communities across the country experiencing increased detentions, wrongful deportations, and family separations. Despite billions in additional funding last year, the Senate is now considering tens of billions more, without what advocates describe as meaningful guardrails or reforms.
The organization argues that the agencies’ record under Secretary Markwayne Mullin reflects a pattern of abuse, inadequate medical care, and preventable deaths in custody. “Rewarding that record with a $72 billion blank check will only make it worse,” the group said.
Recent reporting from national and local outlets highlights the breadth of incidents fueling the backlash. The Texas Tribune documented the case of José Contreras Díaz, a longtime DACA recipient who was deported to Honduras while his wife was pregnant, later allowed to return, and then detained again, leaving him uncertain about what comes next. NBC Chicago reported that Kevin Gonzalez, an 18‑year‑old U.S. citizen with terminal cancer, died hours after his detained parents were released so they could say goodbye. In Georgia, WABE reported the death of Denny Adan Gonzalez, the second person to die in ICE custody in the state this year and the 18th nationwide in 2026.
Other cases involve U.S. citizens and military families and have raised concerns about the use of force:
- Brian Jose Morales Garcia, a U.S. citizen born in Denver, was deported to Mexico after a traffic stop despite repeatedly asserting his citizenship (Apr. 25, 2026).
- Deisy Rivera Ortega, the wife of an active-duty U.S. Army sergeant, was detained during a routine immigration appointment in Texas (Apr. 20, 2026).
- Marie‑Thérèse Ross‑Mahé, an 85‑year‑old French widow who married an American G.I., was held in a Louisiana detention center as her family struggled to reach her (Apr. 16, 2026).
- ICE agents smashed a car window to detain Edgar Gomez‑Ramirez in South Jersey (Mar. 30, 2026).
- Zoila Guerra Sandoval, whose daughter’s father died in the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse, is now facing deportation despite being the parent of a U.S. citizen child (Apr. 24, 2026).
Republicans argue the package is needed to restore and expand enforcement funding after Democrats blocked the usual appropriations process. Democrats, meanwhile, are expected to criticize it as an attempt to bypass standard spending rules and broaden ICE authority without sufficient oversight.
Next step is the Senate procedural review. Under reconciliation rules, every provision must have a direct budgetary effect — not simply function as a policy change framed as spending. That gives the Senate parliamentarian significant power over which elements Republicans can keep in the bill.
Voto Latino is calling on Americans, community leaders, and organizations to contact their members of Congress and demand a “no” vote on the reconciliation package. The group argues that Congress should not approve billions more for agencies accused of abuse, wrongful deportations, and family separations without implementing meaningful oversight and accountability measures.
As the reconciliation process moves forward, lawmakers face competing pressures over border security, civil liberties, and federal spending. Advocates warn that without reforms, expanded funding risks deepening the very problems already documented across the country.
Senate Pushes $72 Billion ICE Funding Boost as Abuse Allegations Mount was first published by the Latino News Network and republished with permission.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
Keep ReadingShow less
Childcare providers warn that Trump administration rollbacks and rising costs are pushing America’s fragile child care system toward collapse, leaving families and workers struggling to survive.
Lourdes Balduque / Getty Images
America Keeps Turning Its Back on Childcare; Families are Paying the Price.
May 29, 2026
Earlier this month, the Trump Administration sent a clear message to American families: child care is a personal problem, not a public responsibility.
The president’s executive order repealed federally mandated provisions that helped stabilize the child care industry after the COVID-19 shutdown. Without these safety nets, more programs will close their doors. What little federal support childcare providers had was already inadequate. I know this firsthand because, after three decades in the child care field, I was forced to face a harsh reality and close my doors.
As an organizer, I am now fighting in my home state of North Carolina to ensure others don’t do the same. But that fight is getting harder, with higher prices due to tariffs and the war. Now, childcare providers are facing these rollbacks. If America values children, then America must finally value child care and the people who provide it by committing to the public investment required to keep the system from collapsing.
For decades, the U.S. has structured child care as an individual burden carried primarily by women, families, and an underpaid workforce expected to hold together one of the country’s most essential systems through sacrifice alone. As a result, America continues to operate what is essentially 50 fragmented child care experiments layered onto a federally funded system with no consistent national floor for affordability, provider stability, or compensation.
The situation got more dire on Monday with the Trump administration’s executive order. It removed the cap that limited co-payments to 7% of the family’s income; eliminated requirements that direct services be provided through grants and contracts; and rescinded provisions that allowed childcare providers to be paid in advance for their service. In addition, it mandated reimbursement models for programs based on enrollment rather than by attendance. These provisions were enacted as a safety net to offset significant workforce shortages due to chronically low wages.
The same day, across the country, thousands of child care providers and parents protested, sending loud messages to legislators to “fix” the problem. While the needs may differ from state to state, there is one resounding national reality: the system is failing the very people it depends on to survive.
The consequences are impossible to ignore. The rollbacks are driving up costs for childcare providers – and families – at a time when people can least afford it. Rents are rising. Food prices are rising. Utilities are rising. And, for the first time in three years, American wages are not keeping up with inflation.
As an organizer, it rankles me to know that this year marks nearly 106 years since the ratification of the 19th Amendment, yet women still disproportionately carry the labor-intensive and financial burden of care work. The framework of child care has persistently shifted the economic risk of the care economy onto providers themselves. And when I meet with these providers, I hear the same refrains. They are continuously being asked to do more. More training. More documentation. More educational attainment. More compliance. More quality measures. But nowhere in that conversation is there the same urgency around childcare subsidies that help lower-income families afford care, sustainability, or whether the people carrying the system can continue to survive under its weight.
In almost any other industry, experts would recognize this as an unsustainable business model. But child care has historically been cast as “women’s work,” making it easier for society to normalize low wages, unpaid labor, and impossible expectations.
But these changes don’t just affect providers. For families, when quality programs disappear, that lack of access can ripple through every part of their lives. Parents may experience higher absenteeism at work, lost wages, and ultimately even job loss when stable care is no longer available. When families become desperate to keep their jobs to meet basic needs, some may feel forced to place their children in unvetted child care settings, simply because it is the only care they can access or afford.
The welfare of children sits at the center of mandated health and safety requirements, higher education expectations, and increasingly stringent quality systems. Many of these goals are important. But too often, the system appears to be designed to sustain itself rather than to adequately meet the needs of families, providers, and children simultaneously.
What continues to hold this structure together are the caring hearts of providers and the belief that children deserve safe, nurturing environments. But passion cannot continue to subsidize public policy failures.
Childcare providers cannot continue carrying this burden alone. If America truly values children, then legislators must make the public investment to keep the system from collapsing.
Danielle Caldwell is an organizer, early childhood Education Consultant and advocate. She is also a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project in partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More