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
Your Vote Counts postid
Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties
Mar 02, 2026
New polling and expert analysis reveal a shifting and increasingly complex political landscape among Hispanic and Latino voters in the United States. While recent surveys show that economic pressures continue to dominate voter concerns, they also highlight a broader fragmentation of political identity that is reshaping long‑standing assumptions about Latino electoral behavior. A Pew Research Center poll indicates that President Donald Trump has lost support among Hispanic voters, with 70% disapproving of his performance, even though 42% of Latinos voted for him in 2024, a ten‑point increase from 2020. Among those who supported him, approval remains relatively high at 81%, though this marks a decline from earlier polling.
At the same time, Democrats are confronting their own challenges. Data comparing the 2024 American Electorate Voter Poll with the 2020 American Election Eve Poll show that Democratic margins dropped by 23 points among Latino men, raising concerns among party strategists about weakening support heading into the 2026 midterms. Analysts argue that despite these declines, sustained investment in Latino voter engagement remains essential, particularly as turnout efforts have historically influenced electoral outcomes.
Underlying both parties’ shifting fortunes is a broader trend: the Latino electorate is becoming more politically diverse and less predictable. Polling consistently shows that affordability, jobs, and housing are the top priorities for Latino voters, far outpacing issues like immigration. This focus on economic pressures cuts across ideological lines and contributes to what some experts describe as a fragmentation of the Latino vote, with voters increasingly aligning based on personal circumstances, generational differences, and varied cultural identities rather than a unified political bloc.
Together, these findings point to a dynamic and evolving electorate whose political behavior is shaped less by traditional party loyalties and more by economic realities and diverse lived experiences—making Hispanic and Latino voters one of the most closely watched groups ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties was first published on the Latino News Network and was republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Changing Conversations Around Immigration
Leif Christoph Gottwald on Unsplash
Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy
Mar 01, 2026
I am writing this not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as an American who believes that compassion and common sense must coexist. I understand why many people feel sympathy for those who come to the United States seeking safety or opportunity. That compassion is part of who we are as a nation. But compassion alone cannot guide national policy, especially when the consequences affect every citizen, every community, and every generation that follows.
For more than two centuries, people from around the world have entered this country through a legal process—sometimes long, sometimes difficult, but always rooted in the idea that a nation has the right and responsibility to know who is entering its borders. That principle is not new, and it is not partisan. It is simply how a functioning country protects its people and maintains order.
My concern today is not immigration itself, but the growing push to allow undocumented individuals to remain in the United States without going through the same due process that millions before them have respected. Before supporting such a drastic shift, we should consider the broader implications.
First, there is the matter of national security.
We do not need to look far back in history to understand the risks of ignoring who enters our country. The attacks on September 11th were a painful reminder that there are individuals who wish to harm the United States. Borders, regulations, and verification processes exist not to punish innocent people, but to prevent dangerous actors from exploiting gaps in our system. Have we forgotten how quickly one oversight failure can lead to tragedy—and whose family might bear that loss?
Second, there is the economic reality—especially when it comes to illegal employment.
Millions of undocumented individuals currently work without Social Security numbers, without W‑4 forms, and without being placed on official payrolls. Many are paid under the table at wages far below legal standards. This arrangement does not just harm American workers—it also creates a shadow labor market that rewards employers who cut corners and penalizes those who follow the law.
If the United States were to grant legal status to everyone already within our borders, we must ask a difficult but necessary question: How many of these workers would actually keep their jobs once employers are required to put them on the payroll?
Legal employment means employers must now pay:
• payroll taxes
• Social Security and Medicare contributions
• unemployment insurance
• workers’ compensation
• payroll processing fees
• and, in many cases, benefits
These are real costs—costs many employers have been avoiding for years. Once those costs become unavoidable, will these employers absorb them? Or will they quietly replace newly legalized workers with the next group willing to work off the books?
And what happens then?
We would suddenly have millions of people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, now eligible for federal assistance programs they previously could not access. That would create a surge in demand for housing aid, food assistance, healthcare subsidies, and unemployment benefits—programs already stretched thin.
Is it fair to the homeless who cannot access consistent support?
Is it fair to families working multiple jobs who still cannot cover medical bills?
Is it fair to parents who are told there is no funding available for their children’s needs?
These are not abstract concerns. They are predictable outcomes.
Third, we must ask why this issue has suddenly become a political emergency.
Where was this urgency during previous administrations—Democratic or Republican?
Why is this the moment when leaders are demanding sweeping changes to long‑standing immigration processes?
What has changed, and who truly benefits from this shift?
It is not the average American family.
It is not the workers already struggling with rising costs.
It is not the communities trying to stretch limited resources even further.
Before supporting policies that remove accountability and open the door to uncontrolled migration, we must step back from the noise of social media, the slogans, and the rhetoric. We need to look at the bigger picture and consider the long‑term consequences—not just the emotional appeal of the moment.
Compassion matters. But so do security, fairness, and sustainability. A nation cannot function without all four.
I am not asking anyone to abandon empathy. I am asking for balance, for honesty, and for a willingness to acknowledge that policies have real‑world effects. If we truly care about the future of this country—and about the people who call it home—we must approach this issue with clarity, not just emotion.
Scott Woodson is from Breinigsville, Pennsylvania.
Keep ReadingShow less
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure
SCOTUS Tariffs Case: Representative Government vs Authoritarianism.
Mar 01, 2026
The Supreme Court Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs) and consolidated related cases relate to the following issues:
(1) Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump; and
(2) If IEEPA authorizes the tariffs, whether the statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the president.
Aside from the aforementioned issues, a favorable SCOTUS ruling for the Trump administration would be a ruling for authoritarian policymaking over policymaking by representative government. Without elected legislators representing citizens' ideas and concerns, deliberating and debating policies.
The United States is a representative democracy. This means that citizens elect our government. These officials represent the citizens' ideas and concerns in government.
Former SCOTUS associate justice Antonin Scalia believed the structure of government, particularly the separation of powers, is the most important feature for preserving liberty, arguing that a Bill of Rights alone is insufficient without a system of checks and balances to prevent government overreach. He saw the Constitution's structural provisions as the "real constitution," essential for preventing tyranny and protecting individual liberties by dividing power horizontally among the branches.
In May of 2025, one of America’s greatest minds expressed one such concern: Warren Buffett criticized President Donald Trump’s hardline trade policy, without naming him directly, saying it’s a big mistake to slap punitive tariffs on the rest of the world.
“Trade should not be a weapon,” Buffett said, “I do think that the more prosperous the rest of the world becomes, it won’t be at our expense, the more prosperous we’ll become, and the safer we’ll feel, and your children will feel someday.”
Trade and tariffs “can be an act of war,” and I think it’s led to bad things. Just the attitudes it’s brought out. In the United States, I mean, we should be looking to trade with the rest of the world, and we should do what we do best, and they should do what they do best.”
Even if our elected representatives determine that United States industries warrant protection, tariffs are not the sole option; affordability varies significantly by the option chosen, whether it should be a revenue raiser or revenue neutral.
Tariffs are taxes imposed by governments on imported goods. The tax is paid by the company importing the product, and the cost can be passed on to domestic consumers through higher prices, thereby affecting affordability. This passing on of costs to consumers may eventually be only part of the cause of higher prices.
Businesses survive by making a profit margin on the costs they incur. Unless tariff costs are marked up, a business’s profit margin will shrink, to the dismay of its shareholders. Not marking up tariffs may gain the company market share; however, if its earnings are less appealing than competitors', its stock price may suffer. If profit maximization does not become outdated, the adverse effect of tariffs on affordability will outweigh the revenue raised.
In both form and substance, tariffs and a sales tax on imported goods are vastly different. Unlike tariffs, a sales tax is transparent to consumers, is not a cost of doing business for businesses, and cannot be marked up; therefore, its ultimate effect on affordability is less punitive than tariffs. An administration focused on affordability could consider a cash register sales dividend. Ideally, the sales dividend would be on domestically produced items purchased.
A revenue neutral sales tax on imported goods, with a sales dividend on domestically produced items purchased, could work as follows: If the sales tax rates on imported goods and sales dividend on domestically produced purchases were 24% and 6 %, respectively and the consumer purchased $100 of imported goods and $400 of domestically produced, the imported goods sales tax would be $24 and the domestic sales dividend would be $ 24, as well ($100 times 24% and $ 400 times 6%, respectively. The revenue-neutral sales tax on imported goods, with a sales dividend on domestically produced goods, will be transparent to American consumers.
The Trump administration has its own agenda on tariffs, much of which is not transparent. This tariff regime allows Trump to wreak havoc with our international relations, "End run around the legislative branch", as well as promises to end or significantly reduce Federal income taxes and promises $2,000 tariff dividend checks, with the inability to deliver on both promises.
Hugh J Campbell, Jr, CPA, is a Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) professional and a student of W. Edwards Deming, the American Statistician, often credited as the catalyst for the Japanese Economic miracle after WWII.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Immigration Was the Loudest Silence in Trump’s State of the Union
Mar 01, 2026
President Donald Trump spoke for 108 minutes during the 2026 State of the Union — the longest address in American history. He covered the economy, foreign policy, manufacturing, and national pride. But for all the words, one of the most consequential issues facing the country was reduced to a single statistic and then set aside.
Immigration — one of the administration’s signature issues — was nearly invisible in the address. A Medill News Service analysis shows the president devoted less than 10% of his remarks to the topic, amounting to roughly ten minutes in total.
And when he did touch on his immigration crackdown, his language stayed firmly in familiar territory.
Trump never used the word “immigrant” a single time during the entire address. Instead, he referenced the border 16 times and used terms like “criminals,” “aliens,” and “illegal” a combined 25 times.
Roughly two minutes of the speech were spent attacking Somali residents of Minnesota, whom he labeled “pirates” and accused of corrupting the state. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D‑Minn., the nation’s first Somali‑American member of Congress, repeatedly yelled at Trump from the chamber floor.
“You have killed Americans,” Omar yelled, referencing the fatal shootings of two Minnesotans, Renee Good and Alex Pretti by ICE agents earlier this year.
Trump then devoted another four minutes to promoting his immigration agenda through stories of Americans harmed by what he called “illegal aliens.”
Trump has repeatedly asserted that rising immigration is driving a surge in crime, but available data does not support that claim. Federal crime statistics do not distinguish offenders by immigration status, yet there is no evidence of any crime wave linked to migrants, whether along the U.S.–Mexico border or in cities experiencing the largest recent arrivals, such as New York and Chicago. Multiple studies using state‑level arrest records show that people living in the U.S. without legal status are, on average, less likely than U.S.-born citizens to be arrested for violent, property, or drug offenses.
The president briefly cited a drop in arrests for illegal border crossings. That was it. No mention of the sweeping enforcement actions underway. No acknowledgment of the human, economic, or legal consequences of the administration’s policies.
This silence is not occurring in a vacuum.
Here is the long list of major initiatives currently reshaping the immigration landscape:
- Expansion of immigration detention
- Continued construction of the border wall
- Efforts to end birthright citizenship
- Denial of bond for people in immigration custody
- Suspension of asylum at the border
- A mass‑deportation campaign that has sparked protests and was linked to two fatal shootings in Minnesota
These are not minor administrative tweaks. The detention expansion and the border wall alone represent nearly $100 billion in federal spending. The scale of ongoing enforcement operations have become a central point of tension in communities across the country.
Yet none of this appeared in the speech.
The omission did not go unnoticed. In the official Democratic response, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger criticized President Trump for his attacks on immigrants: “They have ripped nursing mothers away from their babies. They have sent children, a little boy in a blue bunny hat, children, to far off detention centers. And they have killed American citizens in our streets. And they have done it all with their faces masked from accountability.”
A State of the Union is more than a policy update. It is a declaration of national priorities. When an issue as consequential as immigration is reduced to a single line, it raises questions about transparency and accountability.
In the end, the loudest message on Tuesday night may have been the silence. At a moment when immigration policy is reshaping communities, straining local governments, and prompting legal battles nationwide, Americans were left without clarity on where the administration intends to go next.
A State of the Union is supposed to confront the country’s hardest questions. This year, one of the hardest was left unanswered.
Immigration Was the Loudest Silence in Trump’s State of the Union was first published on the Latino News Network and republished with permission.
Hugo Balta is the publisher of the Latino News Network, executive editor of The Fulcrum, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift