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
Close up holding hands
Getty Images
Family First: How One Program Is Rebuilding System-Impacted Families
Feb 04, 2026
“Are you proud of your mother?” Colie Lavar Long, known as Shaka, asked 13-year-old Jade Muñez when he found her waiting at the Georgetown University Law Center. She had come straight from school and was waiting for her mother, Jessica Trejo—who, like Long, is formerly incarcerated—to finish her classes before they would head home together, part of their daily routine.
Muñez said yes, a heartwarming moment for both Long and Trejo, who are friends through their involvement in Georgetown University’s Prisons and Justice Initiative. Trejo recalled that day: “When I came out, [Long] told me, ‘I think it’s awesome that your daughter comes here after school. Any other kid would be like, I'm out of here.’” This mother-daughter bond inspired Long to encourage this kind of family relationship through an initiative he named the Family First program.
Long founded the program through Georgetown’s Prisons and Justice Initiative (PJI), where he serves as a program associate. Long was incarcerated when he was 18 years old and sentenced to life without parole. He served 26 years in various federal prisons before he regained his freedom in 2022 through DC’s Second Look Amendment Act, which expanded on previous legislation and allowed incarcerated individuals who were under 25 years old at the time of their crime and had served at least 15 years to request a reduced sentence. He started taking Georgetown classes through PJI’s Prison Scholars program when in the DC Jail, earned his Georgetown degree, and began working with PJI just days after his release.
PJI hosts many successful prison education and reentry programs to assist currently and formerly incarcerated individuals, but Long noticed a key gap in their work. “All our programs are a response-based method to this problem called mass incarceration,” he said. “How come we can’t incorporate a more preventative method program? You know, targeting the youth and the children of justice-impacted families and working on [breaking] the cycle of intergenerational incarceration?”
Nearly half of incarcerated individuals held in state prisons have children under the age of 18, and about 1.25 million children have an incarcerated parent. Many of these children’s lives are uprooted as they are forced to move in with other family members. They often face health and cognitive challenges during their development, as well as stigma that can lead to isolation and make it difficult for them to enjoy a “normal” childhood. Prisons and jails also make it difficult for parents and children to maintain contact. Two-thirds of incarcerated parents never receive visits from their children, mainly due to strict visitation policies and being located far—often hundreds of miles—from home.
“Men and women coming back to society have a certain apprehension as far as reintegrating themselves back into their child’s lives. They already feel a sense of shame, a sense of abandonment,” Long said. “So when we create experiences where the child and the parent can laugh together…you see how the family structure starts to reintegrate itself. And that end itself helps me combat the system of having children repeat the patterns that they saw from their parents.”
The Family First Program aims to strengthen family bonds through programming and outings for system-impacted parents and their children to experience together. Long began gaining interest by reaching out to families who were alumni of other PJI initiatives, including Trejo.
A Los Angeles native, Trejo was incarcerated for five years in federal prison before she moved to DC in 2021 in search of a fresh start. She graduated from the MORCA-Georgetown Paralegal Program in 2023 and now works at the DC Office of Human Rights. She also regained custody of Muñez after not having seen her for seven years, and soon after, her niece, Joellie. “I was learning to be a mother again all over,” she shared.
Trejo and Muñez have participated in the program since its first event, a two-hour financial literacy workshop for parents and children, which allowed them to learn and grow together. Other events since include trips to Legoland and Six Flags, kayaking on the Potomac River, and a holiday lunch. Up to 20 families usually participate, depending on the event, and children range from three years old to teenagers.
“The whole thing is how do we rebuild family bonds… by creating these experiences that were robbed due to the parents’ incarceration?” Long said. “As far as the actual outcome of the program, it’s beautiful.”
“It’s an amazing feeling,” Trejo said. “You know, to be able to create those memories through a program that's catered to returning citizens and their children.” She was thrilled that Nuñez loved the kayaking trip so much that she asked Trejo if they could do it again, just the two of them.
“I think Jessica and Jade really played a big part for me, just seeing that and witnessing that,” Long said. “Like, damn, this is something that’s needed.”
“I think that’s a critical missing aspect of crime prevention that people really don’t invest in,” he shared. “It’s easy to respond to something versus to actively prevent something from happening.”
One of the biggest challenges Long faces is organizing the events, given that all the participants—himself included—are still rebuilding their lives post-incarceration. Funding also always poses a challenge, and he hopes to have the means to fund more trips for more participants in the future.
What he is most hopeful for, however, is that Family First can serve as a model and inspire others to start similar initiatives. “I would appreciate that more than just somebody giving me money to continue running our program,” he said. “I’d love to see other people latch onto the idea and replicate it to a greater scale than I can do.”
“It gives a sense of pride for the child, you know, the child understands that yesterday, they may be able to remember time and their mom and dad wasn’t here, but it is also witnessing their mom and dad making strides to build a better life for the both of them.”
Alexis Tamm is a student at Georgetown University. An avid writer and aspiring journalist, she is passionate about solutions-focused reporting and driving change through storytelling.
Alexis was a cohort member in Common Ground USA's Journalism program, where Hugo Balta served as an instructor. Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn more by clicking HERE.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
American flag, gavil, and book titled: immigration law
Photo provided
Wisconsin Bill Would Allow DACA Recipients to Apply for Professional Licenses
Feb 03, 2026
MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin lawmakers from both parties are backing legislation that would allow recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to apply for professional and occupational licenses, a change they say could help address workforce shortages across the state.
The proposal, Assembly Bill 759, is authored by Republican Rep. Joel Kitchens of Sturgeon Bay and Democratic Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez of Milwaukee. The bill has a companion measure in the Senate, SB 745. Under current Wisconsin law, DACA recipients, often referred to as Dreamers, are barred from receiving professional and occupational licenses, even though they are authorized to work under federal rules. AB 759 would create a state-level exception allowing DACA recipients to obtain licenses if they meet all other qualifications for a profession.
According to Spectrum News 1, supporters of the bill argue the change would help Wisconsin address persistent labor shortages in fields that require state-issued credentials, including health care, education and skilled trades. During a January public hearing, lawmakers cited unfilled jobs across the state as a key motivation for the proposal.
“They are Americans who know no other country as their home. They have proven their value to our society by working, paying taxes, and staying out of trouble,” said State Rep. Joel Kitchens, R-Sturgeon Bay, said in support of the bill during a public hearing.
Kitchens said DACA recipients have already demonstrated their contributions to Wisconsin’s economy through employment and tax payments, Spectrum News 1 reported. Ortiz-Velez said allowing access to professional licenses could help keep trained workers in the state rather than losing them to neighboring states with fewer restrictions.
The legislation has also been framed as a workforce measure rather than an immigration policy change. Fox 6 Now reported that supporters emphasized DACA recipients already live and work in Wisconsin but are prevented from advancing into licensed professions due to state law.
“It’s not going to encourage illegal immigration. These people actually are here, and they’re kind of stuck in the middle of some things that are going on at the federal level.” said State Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez.
Advocacy organizations have publicly backed the proposal. One example is the ACLU of Wisconsin, which said the bill would remove a state-imposed barrier that limits economic opportunity for thousands of residents. The organization estimates that roughly 8,000 DACA recipients live in Wisconsin and contribute tens of millions of dollars annually in state and local taxes.
“The 8,000 Dreamers who live in Wisconsin, along with the undocumented community as a whole, play a vital role in keeping Wisconsin running,” said the ACLU on their website. “According to a Dreamers of Wisconsin tuition equity policy brief, DACA-eligible residents of Wisconsin pay $48 million in local, state, and federal taxes and make massive contributions to our economy. The difference that DACA recipients make economically is so significant that without them the state would lose $427 million in GDP annually.”
AB 759, which was introduced in December 2025, has already cleared the Assembly Committee on Regulatory Licensing Reform. The next step is for Assembly leadership to schedule the bill for a floor vote. If it passes the Assembly, it moves to the Senate.
The measure is the latest in a series of attempts by Wisconsin lawmakers to change state licensing law for DACA recipients, an issue that has resurfaced periodically at the Capitol over the past several sessions.
If enacted, the legislation would align Wisconsin with other states, such as California, Illinois, and Nevada, that allow DACA recipients to seek professional credentials.
Wisconsin Bill Would Allow DACA Recipients to Apply for Professional Licenses was first published on Wisconsin Latino News and republished with permission.
Angeles Ponpa is a multimedia journalist from Illinois.
Keep ReadingShow less
low light photography of armchairs in front of desk
Photo by Joakim Honkasalo on Unsplash
Overreach Abroad, Silence at Home
Feb 02, 2026
In March 2024, the Department of Justice secured a hard-won conviction against Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras, for trafficking tons of cocaine into the United States. After years of investigation and months of trial preparation, he was formally sentenced on June 26, 2024. Yet on December 1, 2025 — with a single stroke of a pen, and after receiving a flattering letter from prison — President Trump erased the conviction entirely, issuing a full pardon (Congress.gov).
Defending the pardon, the president dismissed the Hernández prosecution as a politically motivated case pursued by the previous administration. But the evidence presented in court — including years of trafficking and tons of cocaine — was not political. It was factual, documented, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the president’s goal is truly to rid the country of drugs, the Hernández pardon is impossible to reconcile with that mission. It was not only a contradiction — it was a betrayal of the justice system itself.
For the prosecutors and investigators who spent years building the case, the pardon was more than a legal reversal. It was a dismissal of their work. These are professionals who sift through evidence, protect witnesses, and risk their safety to bring traffickers to justice. To see a conviction erased and recast as “political” sends a chilling message: that justice is negotiable, and that the truth they fought to prove can be undone with a signature.
Days after pardoning Hernández, the president ordered a military strike in Venezuela, captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife on nearly identical drug-related charges, and declared that the United States would “run” Venezuela for the foreseeable future (Reuters). By making that declaration without acknowledging that Venezuela had a constitutionally designated vice president, the president dismissed the nation’s lawful succession process entirely. Meanwhile, Venezuela’s own Supreme Court directed Vice President Delcy Rodríguez to assume the presidency — a constitutional process the United States simply ignored. Members of Congress were not briefed beforehand, and several lawmakers said the strike lacked authorization or clarity about its purpose.
Venezuela, like the United States, has its own constitutional process for replacing leadership. For any American president to declare that he will “run” another sovereign nation is not only overstepping — it is a profound act of overreach. It disregards that country’s institutions, dismisses its lawful succession, and elevates personal authority above international norms. International law experts warn that the strike and capture likely violate the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force and the long‑standing rule that sitting heads of state cannot be seized by foreign governments — a warning Congress has yet to address. The most troubling part is not just that these actions occurred, but that Congress has yet to provide clarity, direction, or even assert its own constitutional power. Silence in the face of overreach is not neutrality. It is abdication.
Many Americans watching the president’s recent actions see not strategic leadership, but improvisation — a leader who treats governing like a personal performance rather than a constitutional responsibility. His public statements often contradict the Constitution or established U.S. policy, projecting confidence without knowledge or authority. World leaders recognize this gap. Some dismiss his claims, others exploit them, and adversarial nations such as China and Russia — countries he openly admires — understand the risks and opportunities created by erratic American leadership. This is not a moment for improvisation. It is a moment for constitutional discipline, and Congress must provide it.
This is not coherent strategy. It is selective enforcement. One foreign leader convicted of trafficking is pardoned. Another is pursued with airstrikes. The difference is not the crime. The difference is the president’s narrative.
The pattern is unmistakable. Strong, effective leaders do not crave praise. They do not demand gratitude. They do not measure success by applause. They act because the action is necessary, not because it flatters their ego. When any leader responds to criticism by asking why people are not thanking him, it reveals a deeper problem: decisions are being made for personal validation rather than national interest. That is not a strength. It is insecurity — and insecurity at the highest levels of government is dangerous.
Finding solutions is difficult when presidential decisions are driven by ego and impulse, and when Congress remains loyal, silent, or unwilling to perform its constitutional role. But that does not absolve Congress of responsibility. If our democracy is threatened or unsafe conditions emerge for the country or its citizens, responsibility will not rest solely with the president. It will rest with a Congress that failed to act, failed to check overreach, and failed to provide the clarity and direction the Constitution demands.
In recent weeks, Americans have watched in disbelief as bombs were dropped on ships and reports emerged of innocent people caught in the crossfire. Across communities, people asked basic questions — Why now? Under what authority? What is the plan? — and no answers came from Congress or the President. Instead of a nation projecting strength, we are rapidly becoming a nation defined by dysfunction and confusion. Melvin, an ex‑military relative, told me he is confused, frustrated, and desperate for transparency. He is not alone. When even those who have served this country cannot understand our actions or our objectives, something is profoundly wrong.
And the consequences of that dysfunction are already becoming visible. China has demanded Maduro’s immediate release and accused the United States of violating international law (Yahoo News). Russia has condemned the strike and warned of regional destabilization (NDTV). Venezuela’s vast oil reserves — among the largest in the world — make this more than a regional dispute. They make it a global flashpoint.
This is not a moment for applause. It is a moment for accountability.
There are steps we can take to restore guardrails and reduce the risks this moment has created. Congress must reclaim its constitutional war powers, require full briefings before any foreign military action, and reassert its authority over when and how the United States uses force. It must strengthen the independence of the Department of Justice so that prosecutions and pardons cannot be shaped by personal loyalty or selective justice. The president must stop sending mixed signals about national security, stop usurping authority that belongs to Congress, and stop pressuring the DOJ to serve political interests.
Congress must also reaffirm respect for the sovereignty of other nations and rebuild its oversight capacity by prioritizing accountability over loyalty. And the public must insist on that accountability — through letters, petitions, phone calls, town halls, and voting — because democracy only works when citizens demand clarity and courage from those who represent them. This is not a partisan worry. Americans across the political spectrum — Republicans, Democrats, and Independents — are united in their concern that both Congress and the President are drifting away from constitutional leadership.
Overreach abroad and silence at home are unacceptable — and the American people deserve leaders willing to confront both.
______________________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and a national advocate for ethical leadership, government accountability, and civic renewal.
Keep ReadingShow less
Congress 202
J. Scott Applewhite/Getty Images
America’s Operating System Needs an Update
Feb 01, 2026
As July 4, 2026, approaches, our country’s upcoming Semiquincentennial is less and less of an anniversary party than a stress test. The United States is a 21st-century superpower attempting to navigate a digitized, polarized world with an operating system that hasn’t been meaningfully updated since the mid-20th century.
From my seat on the Ladue School Board in St. Louis County, Missouri, I see the alternative to our national dysfunction daily. I am privileged to witness that effective governance requires—and incentivizes—compromise.
My fellow board members and I function effectively, not because we are more "neighborly" or morally superior to members of Congress. We function because the machinery of our governance incentivizes our decision to do so. We are bound by mandatory balanced budgets, strict sunshine laws, and inescapable face-to-face accountability. These forces prioritize serving the institution over performing for a camera or chasing social media traction.
Unlike a member of Congress who refuses open town hall meetings with constituents or fundraises off a viral clip of yelling at a witness in an empty committee room, the school board member has nowhere to hide. If the bus doesn’t show up, or the roof leaks, or the math curriculum is failing, I cannot blame "the deep state" or "corporate media." I have to answer to a parent I will inevitably run into at the grocery store that week. Ideology hits a hard ceiling when it meets reality.
The Crisis of Inverted Incentives
Our federal government lacks these enforcement mechanisms. In fact, its incentive structure has been inverted: Conflict is profitable, and resolution is suspect.
In the private sector—or indeed, on a local school board—failure to perform the core function of the job usually results in termination. In Washington, it now means a cable news booking. A government shutdown is not a mark of shame; it is a fundraising opportunity. Because we lack a mechanism that punishes failure, the stakes of our politics have artificially inflated. A Supreme Court vacancy is no longer an administrative event; it is a cultural apocalypse. A presidential election is no longer a transfer of power; it is viewed as a regime change.
At its core, this is not a crisis of the personnel that have been elected; it is a crisis of architecture. We cannot rely on local exceptions to save this republic; we must fix the national foundation. Fortunately, the remedy has been sitting in a drawer for years, albeit largely ignored by Washington.
A Modern “Team of Rivals”
In 2022, the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia convened the Constitution Drafting Project to draft the blueprint we need. They assembled three teams of legal scholars: Conservatives (led by Ilan Wurman), Progressives (led by Caroline Fredrickson), and Libertarians (led by Ilya Shapiro).
This was not a group of centrists splitting the difference to find a lukewarm middle. These were principled partisans recognizing that the current system is serving no one well. Despite conflicting fundamental beliefs, they negotiated a manual for structural repair. They agreed on five constitutional amendments designed to restore the accountability that local boards practice daily.
First, end the Supreme Court’s actuarial lottery. Currently, the balance of power shifts with the health of a single octogenarian. The proposed amendment establishes staggered 18-year term limits for justices. Crucially, it makes appointments automatic if the Senate does not vote within three months—ensuring that a nomination never again languishes in political purgatory.
Second, modernize the executive impeachment process. They proposed a trade-off: Raise the threshold to impeach (to three-fifths of the House) but lower the threshold to convict (to three-fifths of the Senate). This forces a broader consensus to bring charges and inhibits a small partisan minority from shielding a corrupt president.
Third, create a legislative veto. This would empower Congress to rein in the administrative state by overriding agency regulations with majority votes—effectively overturning the Supreme Court’s 1983 INS v. Chadha decision. It compels Congress to take accountability for the laws we live under, rather than delegating difficult choices to unelected agencies.
Fourth, remove the "natural-born" barrier. Allow naturalized citizens with 14 years of citizenship to serve as President—aligning the highest office with America’s sacred promise of meritocracy. After all, we are a nation defined by a creed, not by soil.
Fifth, unlock the amendment process itself. Recognizing that a system unable to adapt is destined to crack, they proposed lowering the threshold for new constitutional amendments to three-fifths of Congress and two-thirds of the states. This change keeps the judiciary from becoming a “permanent constitutional convention.”
The prospect of passing five amendments in our current climate may feel like a fantasy. Skeptics will argue that we cannot agree on the time of day, let alone the supreme law of the land. But the consensus achieved by these scholars—and the daily function of school boards in communities like mine—proves the divide is not unbridgeable.
We are destined to prosper—or fail—alongside the fellow Americans with whom we disagree. This package of amendments is the sturdiest off-ramp from our structural paralysis. It offers a truce based not on agreed ideology, but on shared maintenance of the house we all call home.
We need a federal government that fears failure as much as a school board member fears a rightfully disappointed constituent in the frozen food aisle. As we march toward July 4, 2026, we can keep shouting at one another while the roof caves in, or we can use the tools designed to repair it—should we desire another 250 years.
Peter Gariepy is a CPA and an elected member of the Ladue Schools Board of Education in St. Louis County, Missouri.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More