In 2012, Fair Elections Center (formerly Fair Elections Legal Network) launched Campus Vote Project (CVP) to focus and expand its work around student voting issues. CVP works with universities, community colleges, faculty, students and election officials to reduce barriers to student voting. Our goal is to help campuses institutionalize reforms that empower students with the information they need to register and vote.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Ella Shapiro (center, lower row) worked with a non-profit, Rise Up Soccer Club, to lead an after-school program that provides free soccer clinics for girls.
Ella Shapiro: Transforming Athletic Experience Into Civic Action
Dec 21, 2025
For graduate student and Division I soccer player Ella Shapiro, athletics has always been about more than competition. Ella's commitment to leadership, service, and community empowerment earned her a place in The Team’s Engaged Athlete Fellowship, a national program that integrates civic engagement into college athletics.
The fellowship supports student‑athletes across the country as they develop nonpartisan civic projects on their campuses and in their communities. The Engaged Athlete Fellowship provides leadership training, mentorship, a financial stipend, and a multi‑day summit in Washington, D.C., where fellows present their work and connect with civic leaders.
Ella’s fellowship project reflects her belief that sports can be a powerful tool for equity. The Fulcrum spoke with her in a recent episode of The Fulcrum Democracy Forum.
- YouTube youtu.be
Working with Rise Up Soccer Club, a local nonprofit, she created an after‑school program offering free soccer clinics for girls, many of whom face financial barriers to participating in organized sports. The program focuses not only on technical skills but also on building confidence, teamwork, and leadership.
Ella says that the goal is to help girls “remain physically healthy, develop important life skills, and inspire them to be the best version of themselves so they can envision success in accomplishing all of their goals”.
The clinics have quickly become a community staple, drawing girls from across the region and creating a supportive environment where they can learn, collaborate, and grow.
Ella, who is pursuing a master’s degree in finance at Oakland University while playing on the women’s soccer team, says her motivation comes from a deep sense of responsibility. “I believe student athletes have a responsibility to use the platform and opportunities we have been given to uplift others and benefit our communities.”
Ella's long‑term goal is to continue blending athletics, leadership, and community service — a path she says was shaped by her experiences as a Division I athlete. “Playing college soccer has taught me how to overcome adversity, work with a team, and be a leader,” she notes.
With her fellowship project underway and growing, Shapiro is emerging as a model for how student‑athletes can use their platform to strengthen communities and inspire the next generation of leaders.
The Team, a nonprofit that integrates civic engagement into college sports, describes its mission as developing “teammates, leaders, and citizens” through award‑winning programming that connects athletics with civic responsibility.
The Bridge Alliance, the sponsor of the Fulcrum, is a partner of The Team.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash
Rebuilding Trust: Common Election Myths You Can Bust Around the Dinner Table This Holiday Season
Dec 20, 2025
As former election officials, we’ve seen firsthand the damage that false narratives and fraying trust in our country’s election process can do. We’ve experienced the personal attacks that are fueled by that distrust and know the impact of inaccurate theories going unchecked. But we also know that most Americans – including those who question the election process – want the same thing: free, fair, and secure elections.
The holiday season often brings together family members from across political ideologies. While some may opt to steer clear of conversations deemed “controversial,” they can be hard to avoid when you’re seated next to a relative at dinner who is spewing election narratives you know to be inaccurate. As you celebrate the holidays with family and friends in the coming weeks, here are ways you can respond to election myths if they arise in conversation.
Myth #1: Voting and Ballot-Counting Machines Are Not Secure
A common theory pushed by those who question the credibility of America’s elections is that our voting and ballot-counting machines aren’t secure or accurate and are vulnerable to manipulation. Their solution? Get rid of the machines, use only paper ballots for voting, and hand-count all ballots. What most people don’t realize is that over two-thirds of U.S. voters already vote using paper ballots, and for the 2024 elections, 99 percent of voters lived in locations where their ballot was cast with a paper record of their vote – even if they voted using machines. And, there is no evidence of widespread fraud with voting and ballot-counting machines.
When it comes to counting, research has consistently found hand-counting ballots to be less accurate, slower, and more expensive than using electronic counting machines, such as ballot scanners. As Charles Stewart III, who directs the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, told The Washington Post, "Computers – which ballot scanners rely on – are very good at tedious, repetitive tasks. Humans are bad at them.”
Still, skepticism about machines often stems from a misunderstanding of how our election systems are designed. Every voting machine in use today is tested, certified, and air-gapped (meaning it’s not connected to the internet), and nearly all of them are paired with voter-verified paper backups. Those paper ballots allow election officials to conduct post-election audits and confirm that results are accurate and trustworthy.
In other words, technology isn’t replacing paper records and security – it’s reinforcing it.
Myth #2: Mail-In Voting is Susceptible to Fraud
You may also hear some relatives say that mail-in voting is ripe for fraud. The truth is that mail-in voting has proven over time to be secure and trusted. There’s no evidence of widespread fraud in mail-in voting over the years it’s been used, and states use multiple tools to protect the integrity of mail-in ballots. Those include:
- Identify verification: Most states match the signature on the ballot envelope against the one on file. If they don’t match, the ballot is either not counted or, in many states, they go through a curing process where voters are contacted directly and given an opportunity to fix it.
- Bar codes: Many states now use bar codes, which allow election officials to track ballot processing and help voters know whether their ballot has been received. This also allows officials to identify and eliminate any duplicates.
- Post-election audits: 49 states conduct post-election audits to ensure that results are accurate and that outcomes are correct. Mail-in ballots are especially conducive to audits because there is a voter-verified paper record of each vote. These audits help ensure that the results are a true and accurate accounting of all votes cast in a particular election.
Mail-in voting is the third-most popular voting method. Nearly one-third of all voters voted by mail in 2024, including about one-fifth of Republican voters. In eight states (including some red states), mail-in voting makes up more than 70 percent of votes cast.
Millions of overseas citizens and military personnel also rely on mail-in voting to participate in elections, as it is their most common voting method. Eliminating mail-in voting would disenfranchise the very people who protect our country.
If you hear someone talking about how we should ban mail-in voting, you can point out how that would threaten our rights as voters and create significant hurdles for a huge swath of the electorate – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike.
Myth #3: Non-citizens Are Voting in Elections
Another common false narrative is that noncitizens vote in large numbers in our elections. This can be dispelled quickly. First, noncitizens are ineligible to vote in federal and state elections, and any noncitizen who attempts to vote faces extremely serious consequences. To even register to vote, the applicant must swear they’re a citizen under penalty of criminal prosecution. And, under a 1996 law passed by Congress, noncitizens who do vote face a fine, up to a year in prison, and deportation.
Given the grave consequences for violators and the multiple layers of verification systems in place, it’s no wonder that these cases are exceedingly rare. According to a database of voter fraud cases maintained by the Heritage Foundation, only 97 cases involve allegations of noncitizens voting from 2002 to 2023 – among hundreds of millions of votes cast during those two decades.
Rebuilding Trust
Whether focusing on machines, mail-in ballots, or noncitizen voting, these myths share a common thread: they are false narratives that undermine trust in our elections. The good news is that trust can be rebuilt. It starts with facts, yes, but also with showing trust in and support for the election officials and volunteer poll workers who keep our elections running smoothly.
These are our neighbors, coworkers, and friends – the heroes who make democracy work. As you debunk the myths above, humanizing the election officials and poll workers who are dedicated to upholding free and secure elections is important – and your conversations may present an opportunity to bring up reforms that have bipartisan support.
The work of protecting democracy is never finished. Our election systems are strong, and election officials from both parties agree on practical measures to make them even stronger. Those include measures like passing and improving laws to ensure election workers are protected from violent threats, harassment, and intimidation; and advocating for Congress to reaffirm that only Congress and states, not presidents, can set federal election rules.
As next year’s midterm elections approach, let’s not shy away from conversations about trust in our elections. Correcting myths – even around the dinner table this holiday season – helps build confidence in the system that belongs to all of us. The surest way to protect our democracy is to defend the facts, support the people who administer our elections, and strengthen the institutions that make every vote count.
Bill Gates is the former Maricopa County Supervisor. Cathy Darly Allen is the former County Clerk and Registrar of Voters in Shasta County, CA. Both are members of Issue One's Faces of Democracy initiative, a campaign of election officials and poll workers united to strengthen U.S. elections.
Keep ReadingShow less
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
Dec 20, 2025
Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.
Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.
Take Ukraine as a case in point. In the peace talks on Ukraine this year, Trump has insisted that Russia “holds the cards” in the ongoing conflict. But if Russia does indeed hold them, it is not because of some immutable law of geopolitics. It is because the United States—and Trump himself—has ceded those cards by failing to fully back Ukraine’s defense.
Power in international relations is not simply a fixed hand dealt by fate. Instead, choices, commitments, and the willingness to stand by allies all shape it. By declaring that Russia holds the cards, Trump disregards the moral responsibility the United States bears to ensure that Ukraine is not left vulnerable to aggression.
This card-game metaphor strips away the human stakes, treating war and diplomacy as transactional contests. By contrast, principled leadership recognizes national purpose and moral duty. When leaders use only the language of leverage, they obscure the deeper truth: democratic nations have a duty to resist authoritarian expansion, not just calculate strength. Trump’s language thus reflects a broader erosion of social or humanitarian responsibility.
America’s role in the world is not defined by who holds the cards alone. Far more important is whether those cards are played in defense of freedom or surrendered to expediency.
Trump has used this metaphor countless times. He asserted that the United States “held the cards” in its trade war with China, basing his claim on the size of America’s consumer market. Yet the data contradicts this claim. Even as U.S. tariffs reduced Chinese exports to America by nearly 30%, Beijing redirected its goods elsewhere, fueling a record $1 trillion trade surplus. Exports to Europe and Southeast Asia rose significantly, demonstrating China’s ability to reroute supply chains and blunt the impact of U.S. consumer leverage.
Moreover, China has repeatedly used its dominance in rare earth minerals as a counterweight—a sector worth billions annually and vital to defense systems, semiconductors, and electric vehicles. By imposing export controls on rare earths and finished magnets, Beijing makes clear that leverage is not one-sided. The U.S. may have a vast consumer market, but China’s grip on critical materials and its ability to diversify trade partners show that America’s “cards” are far from decisive. Trump’s metaphor thus often clouds reality. Global trade leverage is fluid. China has proven adept at offsetting Trump’s strategic claims.
Of course, Trump also loves to claim leverage over Congress. His constant insistence that he “held the cards” reveals a deeper pattern: he treats constitutional checks not as guardrails, but as obstacles to be bulldozed. In 2025, he tried to cancel nearly $5 billion in foreign aid—already approved by lawmakers—through a rare maneuver called a pocket rescission. He also deployed thousands of National Guard troops to cities such as Los Angeles and Chicago without the governor's consent. Courts later ruled these moves unlawful. He even fired independent agency officials at the Federal Trade Commission and other bodies, flouting statutory protections and claiming these actions proved executive leverage.
The reality, however, is more complex. Unlike the unilateral leverage Trump describes, real power is balanced by constitutional design. Courts have struck down several of his maneuvers, and even members of his own party questioned their legality. Congress retains the power of the purse, oversight authority, and the constitutional mandate to check executive overreach. Trump’s card-game metaphor focuses on unilateral action, whereas the constitutional system demands collaboration within shared powers. In truth, the cards are distributed by design in our Constitution, and democracy depends on respecting that principle.
Trump’s repeated use of the “holding the cards” metaphor may resonate with some as a symbol of dominance, but it ultimately fails to provide moral direction. Leadership is measured not by who bluffs or claims leverage, but by who upholds responsibility and principle.
Reducing governance to a card game overlooks the values that define America: freedom, trust, and a commitment to democratic institutions.
America needs leaders who play not just to win, but to serve the people and defend democratic values.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
apples and bananas in brown cardboard box
Photo by Maria Lin Kim on Unsplash
SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.
Dec 20, 2025
Millions of families just survived the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Now they’re bracing again as politicians turn food assistance into a bargaining chip.
Food assistance should not be subject to politics, yet the Trump administration is now requiring over 20 Democratic-led states to share sensitive SNAP recipient data—including Social Security and immigration details—or risk losing funding. Officials call it "program integrity," but the effect is clear: millions of low-income families may once again have their access to food threatened by political disputes.
SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, supports over 40 million Americans. It was created to address real hunger in the country, acknowledging that wages have not kept pace with the cost of living. The program ensures children, seniors, disabled adults, and working families can access food, regardless of which party leads their state. SNAP serves as an essential support, not a tool for political debate.
Yet now this vital assistance is being used for political leverage.
This moment lands especially hard because families just came out of another political standoff: the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. During the shutdown, SNAP recipients held their breath, wondering whether their November benefits — arriving during Thanksgiving — would come on time. Imagine heading into a holiday season not with excitement, but with anxiety about whether you can put food on the table.
When the shutdown ended, families exhaled. But that relief didn’t last long. Barely weeks later, the same families are once again living on high alert, scanning headlines to see whether their benefits could be delayed, reduced, or used as bargaining chips. The emotional whiplash is not a side effect — it is part of the harm.
People who already navigate daily precarity should not have to analyze political negotiations to determine whether their groceries will be covered next month. There’s something profoundly wrong with a system that forces families into a cycle of uncertainty every time elected officials pick a new fight. A federal judge has already stepped in—temporarily blocking the USDA’s demand that 21 states and Washington, D.C., hand over sensitive personal data on SNAP recipients, including Social Security numbers and immigration-related information.
Fraud is often invoked as justification for stricter oversight, but SNAP fraud rates remain extremely low—historically around 1 percent, according to the USDA’s own quality-control data. Experts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities note that SNAP already has one of the strongest oversight systems of any public benefit program.
States aren’t resisting oversight—they’re resisting exposing vulnerable residents to unnecessary risk. Digital privacy experts at the Electronic Privacy Information Center have raised red flags about the federal government’s push for a centralized database containing the personal information of tens of millions of low-income people. It warns that once all these records are aggregated, they “become vulnerable to breaches, misuse, and mission creep.”
We are not talking about fraud. We are talking about power. Food aid is becoming a pressure point in larger political battles. And the people who feel the consequences are not the politicians at the negotiating table; they are the families who rely on SNAP to prevent hunger. Children make up roughly 40 percent of SNAP participants, with millions more being older adults, people with disabilities, and working families trying to cover basic needs in an increasingly expensive economy.
Decades of research show the stakes: stable access to food is foundational to health, learning, and economic stability. Children’s HealthWatch warns that food insecurity “impedes children from reaching their full physical, cognitive, and psychosocial potential,” while the Food Research & Action Center finds that it increases adults’ risk of chronic disease, poor mental health, and higher health-care costs.
Public programs must be accountable. But accountability cannot be the excuse for punitive policies. We can protect program integrity without threatening people’s access to food or demanding unnecessary data that puts privacy and dignity at risk. We can strengthen oversight without turning hunger into a political consequence.
What we’re seeing instead is a reshaping of political norms — a willingness to use basic human needs as bargaining chips.
SNAP’s core benefits may be legally protected, but access to those benefits can still be destabilized through administrative pressure. Real reform requires elected officials who understand and reflect the needs of the communities they serve. Too often, the people most impacted by policy decisions look nothing like the people making them. Strengthening SNAP should include clear limits on how administrative funding can be used so it cannot be weaponized in political disputes. It also requires voters to choose representatives who will uphold those protections.
And even if you don’t work in policy, you still have influence. Getting involved—showing up at town halls, contacting representatives, supporting local food programs, and helping eligible families enroll in SNAP—sends a clear message: access to food is non-negotiable.
SNAP was designed to stabilize families and reduce hunger. It was never designed to be used as a carrot for compliant states or a stick for dissenting ones. If we lose sight of that, if we let children starve out of political spite, we lose sight of who we claim to be as a nation.
We must ask ourselves: If we’re willing to let food, the most basic human need, become leverage in political power plays, is there any line we can draw?
Randi McCray is a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project in partnership with Yale University. She is the Associate Director of School Community & Culture at the Yale School of Public Health, where she works to build inclusive dialogue across differences.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More