We are Florida voters who believe that every voter should have the right to cast a meaningful ballot. That is why we support the All Voters Vote initiative. Current Florida law prohibits most voters from voting in the elections that will determine who serves in our legislature, cabinet, and as our governor. With taxpayer funded closed partisan primaries in highly gerrymandered districts, the vast majority of Florida voters are currently prohibited from voting in important elections, and Florida is one of only 9 states with a closed partisan primaries. Millions of voters pay taxes to run elections in which they cannot vote. How is that fair. We believe that for the future of our state, we must change that. We believe that ALL voters should be allowed to vote. That is why we support elections that not only allow, but also encourage, ALL VOTERS to vote regardless of political or party affiliation. Allowing ALL registered voters the chance to vote in primary elections will help make our government more responsive to the people.
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
A California church models civil political dialogue through Living Room Conversations, showing how curiosity and listening can bridge divides and strengthen relationships.
Getty Images, Cultura Creative
A Conversation You’ve Been Putting Off?
Apr 14, 2026
The Episcopal church in Placerville, California, is not an obvious candidate for political harmony. Its congregation is roughly half conservative and half progressive — a split that, over the past decade, has torn apart faith communities across the country. But this one held together through the pandemic. Through two bruising election cycles and everything else, the congregation’s priest, Debra Sabino, managed to keep their core values front and center. And recently, its members decided they wanted to do more.
Start with what everyone already agrees on
Ken Futernick, co-lead of Bridging Divides El Dorado, was asked to facilitate an event after a recent Sunday service. He began with a simple exercise. He asked people to think about the most important things in their lives — and then to tell the person next to them where their relationships with friends and family ranked on that list.
Almost universally, relationships came out on top. Then Ken drew the obvious conclusion out loud: “If that’s true for all of us, then it would seem to follow that we would want to avoid doing anything that would harm those relationships – like painfully unpleasant conversations about politics that sometimes lead to estrangement.”
He acknowledged the most common solution: just avoid the hard topics entirely. “That’s a rational choice,” he said. “I’ve done it myself.” But he was there to offer something else: a way to have the conversation that actually strengthens the relationship, by approaching it through curiosity rather than argument.
Come to these conversations to understand, not to persuade. That’s the idea behind Living Room Conversations, a format that brings small groups of people together — four to six, typically — across lines of difference, and gives them a structure for actually hearing each other. It has been used in thousands of settings. Ken’s workshop went on to explore how the same approach could extend beyond a formal Living Room Conversation into the everyday conversations people have been putting off.
The phone call, the walk, and what happened next
The Living Room Conversation on immigration went well — people practiced listening, asking real questions, and sitting with views they didn’t share. Then Ken pointed toward the next step: you don’t need a group or a facilitator to do this. You just need one person you’ve been meaning to call. He asked if anyone wanted to role-play what that call might look like.
A woman named Dana Epstein volunteered, held a fake phone, and called “Bob” across the room. “Hi Bob, I’ve been thinking a lot about all that’s going on with immigration right now, and I’m curious what you think. I have a feeling we might not agree, but I’m not sure. Would you be willing to go on a walk with me to talk about it?”
“Bob” — also role-playing — hesitated. “I don’t want it to upset our relationship, but I am willing to give it a shot.”
“I don’t think it will,” Dana said. “I’m not trying to change your mind. I just want to understand what you think.”
They took their imaginary walk. He raised his concerns about immigration enforcement. Reflecting back on what she heard, she said, “So what I’m hearing you say is…” He confirmed she’d gotten it right. Then she shared her own perspective, without disputing his.
“It gave me a chance to practice inviting someone into a difficult conversation in a way that feels safe,” Dana said. “You only get better by trying, reflecting, and trying again.”
For Reverend Sabino, the moment revealed something deeper.
“Being with one another in love isn’t passive,” she said. “It’s a skill — and it can be learned. Watching people practice that conversation, and then applaud it, was one of the most tender moments I’ve seen in this ministry.”
Living Room Conversations, she added, offered more than a technique. “It gave people permission — to stay curious, to stay connected, and to trust that their relationships are strong enough to hold honest conversation.”
The homework assignment that matters most
Ken sent the congregation home with an assignment: before they meet again in a month, each person was encouraged to call a friend or relative — someone they suspected might see the immigration issues differently — and try to have that conversation. Not an argument. Not a debate. Just a walk, or a coffee, or a phone call built on curiosity.
Next month, they’ll sit in a circle and share how it went. Ken will also ask for volunteers to participate in another role play – this time, a gathering around the dinner table, where someone will say something like, “I know we usually stay away from politics, but I’d like to see if we can talk about an issue I’m guessing we’re all thinking about – not to argue, but to learn what one another thinks. If we are willing to give it a try, I will share a couple of things that I think will make the conversation something we all enjoy.”
This is the part that feels underrated in the current conversation about political division. Many of the proposals for restoring trust — in elections, in institutions, in each other — are large-scale: reform the algorithm, fix the primary system, change the incentives. Those efforts matter. But they take years, and they depend on people in power doing things differently.
What Ken is practicing, and what Living Room Conversations was built to enable, starts with a desire to connect. It asks one thing: that you approach someone you care about with genuine curiosity about how they see the world — not to fix them, not to be fixed, but to stay in relationship across the divide.
That matters for democracy in a specific way. A lot of distrust in our elections runs on the assumption that the other side isn’t just wrong but dangerous — that they would cheat, rig, or steal if they could. That assumption gets harder to hold once you’ve spent an hour on a walk, actually listening to someone from the other side. You may still disagree. You may even disagree more clearly. But you are less likely to believe they are your enemy.
The congregation in Placerville already knew that, in a way. They’d kept their pews full and their community intact through years that broke a lot of others. Ken’s workshop didn’t teach them a new value. It gave them a technique — a way to act on the thing they already believed, that relationships matter more than winning.
There’s probably someone you’ve been putting off calling.
Joan Blades is the co-founder of Living Room Conversations and MomsRising, and an organizer of the Trust in Elections initiative for the 2026 cycle.
Ken Futernick is co-founder of Bridging Divides – El Dorado and a professor emeritus at California State University, Sacramento. He is also a county school board trustee and the host of the podcast, Courageous Conversations about our SchoolsKeep ReadingShow less
Recommended
a group of flags
Photo by moises ferreira on Unsplash
Democracy Isn’t Eroding. It’s Evolving. The Question Is: Toward What?
Apr 14, 2026
I fell in love with democracy before I fully understood it.
In high school civics classes in the 1990s, I learned about a system that was imperfect in its origins but evolving toward something better. I believed in that evolution. I believed that democracy, if nurtured, could become more inclusive than the one it started as.
That belief stayed with me. It shaped how I studied political science in college and how I think about public life today. It’s why, over the years, people have encouraged me to run for office—not because I am a politician, but because I pay attention to how democracy works, who it works for, and who it leaves out.
Now, at 50 years old—standing alongside a democracy approaching its 250th birthday—I find myself asking a different question.
Not whether democracy is working.
But whether we are paying attention to what it is becoming.
Much of today’s public discourse suggests that democracy is eroding—under threat, unraveling, or being dismantled. These conversations often fall along familiar partisan lines, with each side blaming the other for its decline.
But I see something else.
I don’t believe democracy is eroding.
I believe it is evolving.
And that distinction matters.
Because if democracy is evolving, then this moment is not just about protecting it from collapse. It is about shaping the direction of its growth.
American democracy has always reflected who we were at the time it was created.
In its original design, it was not meant to include everyone. It concentrated power in the hands of a few and prioritized the interests of a select group. That was not a flaw of the system. That was the system.
Over time, however, we have pushed against those limits. Through struggle, advocacy, and collective action, democracy expanded. It became more inclusive—not because it was designed that way, but because people demanded it.
Every gain we point to today was the result of that pressure.
Which is why the idea that we can return to a time when democracy “worked better” is, at best, incomplete—and at worst, misleading. Because the truth is: it has never worked equally well for everyone.
We are now at an inflection point.
Not because democracy is breaking—but because it is moving.
The real question is not whether we can restore it to some imagined version of its past. The question is whether we want it to evolve in the direction it is currently going.
Because evolution is not inherently progress.
It is simply change.
And change, without intention, can just as easily reinforce the exclusions we have spent generations trying to dismantle.
Turning 50 has taught me something about milestones.
They are not just moments for celebration. They are invitations for reflection—for honesty about what has worked, what hasn’t, and what must change moving forward.
If that is true for a life, it should be true for a democracy.
As we approach 250 years, we should acknowledge how far we’ve come. But we must also confront the reality that democracy, in all its forms, has never fully served everyone all the time.
And it never will.
Because no system can.
In my work facilitating dialogue across differences, I have learned a simple truth: no one gets what they want all of the time.
That is not failure. That is the nature of collective life.
But a healthy system ensures that everyone gets some of what they need, some of the time.
That is the balance.
And that is where we are falling short.
Because right now, for many, it feels as though a select few are getting most—if not all—of what they want, while others are left navigating a system that does not reflect their needs, their voices, or their lived experiences.
If democracy is evolving, then shaping its future cannot be left only to those who hold formal power. It requires something of all of us.
That begins with civic responsibility—not in the abstract, but in practice. It means becoming more informed about the issues that shape our lives and going beyond headlines to understand how decisions are made and by whom. It means being thoughtful about who we choose to represent our voices—not just based on party affiliation, but on whether they reflect the kind of democracy we want to build.
It also requires a shift in how we think about democracy itself.
We cannot continue to approach it as a zero-sum game—where one group’s gain must come at another’s expense. In a country of more than 330 million people, democracy cannot function sustainably if it only works well for some while failing others. The goal is not for any one group to get everything it wants. That has never been possible.
But a functioning democracy must ensure that all people are able to access some of what they need, some of the time—and that no group is consistently excluded from the system’s benefits.
I do not hold elected office. I am not a policymaker.
But I live in this democracy.
I experience it every day.
And that experience matters.
Because democracy is not just something we study or debate. It is something we live. And the people who live within it—regardless of title or position—have a role in shaping what it becomes.
So as we approach this milestone, the question is not whether to celebrate democracy or criticize it.
The question is whether we are willing to take responsibility for its future.
Not by looking backward in search of a version that never fully existed—
but by deciding, together, what we are willing to learn, how we are willing to engage, and what we are willing to build.
Because democracy has always been evolving.
The question now is whether we will shape that evolution—or simply live with where it takes us.
Randi McCray is the Associate Director of School Community and Culture at the Yale School of Public Health and a Public Voices Fellow at Yale University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Engraving of three witches around a bubbling cauldron in a cave summoning an apparition of a rising demon in the background recalling a scene from Shakespeare's Macbeth..Image found in an 1881 book: "Zig Zag Journeys in the Orient" Published by John Wilson & Son, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Getty Images, KenWiedemann
Macbeth’s Warning: How Ambition and Power Threaten Our Democracy
Apr 14, 2026
“Something wicked this way comes…” chant the three witches in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, hailing the former general, now the new king of Scotland.
And indeed, something wicked this way has come to us, in the threat that we are facing to our democracy.
Macbeth is one of William Shakespeare’s shortest and darkest plays, a tragedy written over 400 years ago. It may seem odd to compare our current times with a play written in 1606, yet, as the stories from our past reveal, human nature has not changed. Shakespeare was a master of ascertaining character and chronicling the forces that act upon it, which in turn determine the fate of individuals and of nations.
Considered one of Shakespeare’s many masterpieces, Macbeth is the story of the man who would be king. Sound familiar?
It is an exploration of the devastating consequences of unbridled political ambition. This arrogance is considered so frightening that even the actors in the play are afraid of its unleashing. It is bad luck to say the play’s name in the theatre, and instead, Macbeth is referred to as “The Scottish Play.”
At the beginning of the play, the three witches have divined General Macbeth’s future and have predicted that he is going to be king. Once Macbeth gets a glimpse of the power he will wield and a taste of his predicted future glory, he will not be satiated until he has claimed the crown. To do so, he must kill the legitimate king. With his wife’s cajoling and assistance, he does. More murders must then be committed to cover up his first crime and to keep his hold on power.
During his reign of tyranny, Macbeth becomes paranoid, oblivious to his blind ambition. He expresses himself in soliloquies, as he does not have a “platform” for his rants, like “Truth Social.”
The witches have helped create the “monster” Macbeth has become, but “ego” plus the quest for power is a fatal potion with or without witches. If there are witches in our modern story, the press played the part in our current president’s accession. Back in 2016, there were 17 major candidates for the Republican nomination for president, and most political pundits thought his candidacy was largely a joke. But, after each of the 12 debates (except one he skipped in Des Moines), the media were far more interested in a sensational sound bite than any context. Fitting their bill was Donald Trump, with his penchant for controversy, dependably orchestrating a press conference that looked more like the final of a UFC Championship than a commentary on national issues.
We once did have a general who did ascend to power, our first president and the “father of our country,” George Washington. He refused to be a king, refused even to serve more than two terms as president, a voluntary ceding of power, which was basically unheard of at the time. And pretty much unheard of now as well, as the current concept of “public service” might more accurately be called “political service.” In a quote attributed to Washington, he said, “I did not overthrow George III (the King of England during the Revolutionary War) to become George I (or the first king of our newly formed democracy)." Washington lived that quote, proving his belief in its essence by his actions. He was tremendously popular and a war hero—he could have been king.
The theme of ambition and the corrupting nature of power is played out daily in our national arena. Unchecked ambition leads to destruction.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Lord Acton)
We in this country have a system of checks and balances to right us when we go too far left or too far right, or just too far. Will we demand that those we elected uphold these balances and do their jobs? Or, will we, like Lady Macbeth, after helping her husband murder the king, suffer the consequences and be forever washing the blood off our hands?
The story of Macbeth warns us that unchallenged authority degrades moral authority, very often leading to unethical behavior. And in its extreme, it leads to total corruption.
The “wicked coming this way” is this abuse of power.
So, here we are, 250 years after the inception of our nation, ready to celebrate its Semiquincentennial. And we have never, and do not—yet—have a king.
But we do have a “ruler.”
It is our Constitution.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."
Keep ReadingShow less
People protest for "family affordable Housing"
Photo provided
The American Dream Now Comes with a Higher Price Tag
Apr 14, 2026
Basma Ahmad leaves her apartment in Arlington, Va., just after 7 a.m., walking a few blocks to a Metro station before catching the train into Washington. By the time she reaches her office downtown, the commute has taken close to an hour.
Ahmad, 25, moved to the United States from Pakistan last year to work in policy research. She shares a three-bedroom apartment with two roommates, and her portion of the rent is about $1,100 a month.
“It’s manageable,” Ahmad said. “But when you start thinking about saving for the future — like actually buying a place someday — that’s when it starts to feel kind of far away.”
For generations, Americans considered homeownership one of the most recognizable markers of the American Dream. Purchasing a house long symbolized stability, upward mobility and middle-class security. But for many young people in the United States, navigating rising rents and home prices made that milestone harder to reach.
Housing affordability has moved to the center of economic anxiety and political debate in the United States.
The average first-time homebuyer in the United States rose to 40 years old, said Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., during a congressional discussion about housing affordability. Wagner serves on the House Financial Services Committee, which has held several hearings on housing and urban development in recent months.
The statistic has circulated in policy debates and news coverage, reinforcing concerns that the traditional timeline for achieving financial stability, from starting a career to eventually buying a home, may be shifting further into adulthood.
Housing costs also shape how Americans define affordability, according to a New York Times/Siena poll from January. Many respondents expressed greater concern about what they consider major life milestones, including owning housing, having a family and retiring comfortably.
From the same poll, 77% of the respondents agreed that achieving a “middle-class lifestyle” became harder than it was a generation ago. In particular, several economic forces have converged to make buying a home more difficult.
According to data from real estate brokerage Redfin, a household would need to earn roughly $110,000 a year to afford a typical U.S. home. Meanwhile, the company estimated the median U.S. household income to be just over $86,000.
“The primary problem younger Americans face is that the cost of buying a new home has risen more quickly than incomes,” said Yonah Freemark, principal research associate at the Urban Institute.
Mortgage costs have compounded the pressure. At current interest rates, a typical buyer would spend about 38% of income on housing payments, compared with about 24% before the pandemic, according to an analysis from J.P. Morgan.
“High interest rates have made taking out mortgages prohibitively expensive,” Freemark said.
At the same time, home prices have continued to climb. The 2026 Housing Supply Gap Report from Realtor.com estimates the United States is short more than four million homes, a gap that has contributed to rising prices and limited inventory.
Freemark added that because home values have increased quickly, the amount of debt people must take on also rose quickly.
How cities grow and how quickly housing supply can respond to demand also shapes housing affordability, according to Wallace D. Lira, urban development researcher at MIT.
In many cities, residents increasingly seek housing close to jobs and transit.
“But construction and land-use decisions often take years to adjust to that demand,” Lira said. “When housing becomes scarce in economically dynamic cities, younger residents tend to absorb the shock first.”
Across the country, rising costs are making younger Americans reimagine their future.
Diego Ramirez, a 20-year-old business economics student at the University of California, Los Angeles, said housing costs in Southern California are something he and his friends talk about often.
Ramirez shares a two-bedroom apartment in Westwood, Calif., with three other students and pays about $1,000 a month each for a shared bedroom.
“I mean, everyone talks about owning a house someday,” Ramirez said. “But in L.A., it’s hard to picture how that actually happens.”
Ramirez said some of his classmates already expect they may have to move away from the region after graduating if they want to afford housing.
“A lot of people assume they’ll end up somewhere cheaper,” he said. “L.A. is great, but it’s expensive.”
Some economists have disputed the widely cited statistics about the rising age of first-time homebuyers.
Craig Richardson criticized the survey data from the National Association of Realtors 2025 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers. Richardson said the data may not fully represent the broad population of buyers.
He cited Federal Reserve credit panel data that suggested the median age of first-time homebuyers is closer to 33 and had remained relatively stable since the early 2000s.
Still, economists broadly agree that housing affordability pressures have intensified.
During a hearing in the House Financial Services Committee, Stephen Moore, co-founder of Unleash Prosperity, said demand for housing surged after the pandemic while supply struggled to keep pace.
Moore cited a January poll from the National Association of Realtors and Hart Research showing 52% of Americans consider affordable housing a very important issue, while 85% consider homeownership essential to achieving the American Dream.
Young adults appear particularly pessimistic. Last year, 47% of young people in the U.S. who do not currently own a home said “they don’t foresee homeownership as an option for them ‘in the near future’,” said Moore.
Other economists emphasized deeper structural forces. Darrick Hamilton, chief economist at the AFL-CIO, said housing affordability challenges are tied to long-term economic trends that have made it harder for many households to accumulate and pass down wealth.
“[These conditions] are a result of policies that have concentrated capital and economic and political power,” Hamilton told the House Financial Services Committee. “Policies that prioritized speculation and profit over productive investment.”
As housing costs rise, the issue has also moved to the center of political debate in Washington.
During his Feb. 24 State of the Union address, President Donald Trump framed housing affordability as part of a broader challenge facing the country.
“Another pillar of the American Dream that has been under attack is homeownership,” Trump said.
He asked Congress to permanently prevent large investment firms from buying single-family homes.
“We want homes for people, not for corporations,” he said.
In Congress, lawmakers from both parties have debated a range of potential responses, including expanding housing construction, strengthening rental assistance programs and funding housing designed to remain permanently affordable.
Freemark said federal investment in housing could help stabilize the market.
“The federal government should be investing in housing that provides guaranteed affordability, such as through the construction of public and social housing,” he said.
For Ahmad, the debate often feels distant from the reality of her daily commute and monthly rent. She said she still hopes to buy a home someday, but the timeline feels uncertain.
“Back home, people talk about the American Dream like it’s something very clear,” Ahmad said. “Here it feels a little more complicated.”
For now, she said, the goal is simple. Keep saving and see what happens.
“But owning a home is always part of that picture,” she said.
André Hiroki is a journalism student at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, where he also studies economics. Originally from São Paulo, Brazil, he reports on business and public policy for Medill News Service’s “Medill on the Hill,” covering Congress and national issues.
The American Dream Now Comes with a Higher Price Tag was first published on California Latino News and was republished with permission. CALN is an affiliate of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More