We live in a society in which civil discourse and political decision-making capacity are deteriorating quickly and uncomfortably. We experience this erosion in obvious ways through hyper-partisan politics, toxic media and social media, and even day-to-day interactions with colleagues, friends, and family. Civic Health Project aims to reduce polarization and foster healthier discourse and decision-making across citizenry, politics and media.
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

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans
(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?
Sep 30, 2026
GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.
- YouTube youtu.be
He is a moderate Republican, has won California's 22nd Congressional District five times since 2012 and lost it only once in 2018, by just 800 votes. He beat former Democratic Assemblymember Rudy Salas by three percentage points in 2022 and beat him again in 2024 by 1,692 votes, on a ballot Donald Trump carried.
This year, however, the registration math got even worse for him, although he did get the opponent he wanted: Democrat Randy Villegas.
Democrats Gerrymandered the District
Proposition 50 suspended California's independent redistricting commission and gave the Democratic legislature the pen, which drew a new map designed to flip up to five Republican-held seats. The 22nd was one of them.
According to the California Target Book 2026 analysis, the new lines shed around 60,000 heavily Republican voters out of Tulare, Kings, and Kern and replaced them with Democrats from Fresno and Bakersfield.
A Trump +5.8 percent district became a Trump +1.7 percent district.
The Democratic registration advantage widened from 11.7 points to 16.2 points.
Among the territory the Democrats’ new map cut loose was Hanford, in the Central Valley, where the incumbent Congressman Valadao was raised, where his family's dairy sits, and where he lives.
According to the California Target Book, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee put the seat on both its “Districts in Play” and “Red to Blue” lists.
The Dem-on-Dem Brawl to Get on the November Ballot
The Democratic Party spent the spring at war with itself over which Democrat would make it into the top two against Valadao.
The DCCC recruited Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, a Bakersfield physician and moderate member of the party who is also part of the California Problem Solvers Caucus.
Bains has a very independent streak. For example, she was the only California Democrat in the Legislature to vote against Governor Gavin Newsom's Proposition 50 redistricting bill. The New York Times called her a "Valleycrat," a traditional pick whose politics were more typical for a swing district like CD22.
The California DSA voter guide, by contrast, called her a "conservadem."
- YouTube youtu.be
Democrat Randy Villegas, a full-time college professor, challenged Bains from the left, running on a platform of Medicare for All, refusing corporate PAC money, and carrying the endorsements of the Working Families Party, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Ro Khanna, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Dolores Huerta, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and David Hogg's group, Leaders We Deserve.
- YouTube youtu.be
The California DSA's 2026 primary voter guide recommended Villegas.
“This race is an easy choice for DSA members: vote for Randy Villegas in California’s 22nd Congressional District.” - California DSA Voter Guide 2026
Outside groups spent $8,669,735 across 28 committees before a single vote was counted in June, according to independent expenditure filings for the cycle. Much of it was Democrats spending against Democrats.
New Democrat Majority put $750,946 into stopping Villegas. Blue Dog's BDA PAC added $600,000, Democratic Majority for Israel's PAC another $500,000, and Health Care Saves Lives $307,315. The money ran the other direction too. The Working Families Party PAC spent $232,817 against Bains, Progressive Promise spent $375,000, and American Priorities spent $330,000.
The support side split the same way. 314 Action Fund put $1,193,600 behind Bains and Project 218 added $999,419. Villegas drew $450,169 from Leaders We Deserve, $441,035 from the Working Families Party PAC, and $200,000 from the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC.
Bains called Villegas "radical Randy." Republicans called him a socialist. The California Democratic Party never settled on either of them: its pre-endorsement conference sent the race to caucus with Villegas at 55 percent. The convention vote ended with Bains at 56 percent and no endorsement issued, according to California Target Book. The DCCC supported Bains, and it was controversial. Afterward, Axios reported that House Democrats supporting Villegas were threatening to withhold dues from the DCCC over the whole affair.
In the June 2nd primary, only 79,757 voters showed up to vote, just shy of 25 percent of the district’s registered voters.
Republicans Got the Opponent They Paid For
The Congressional Leadership Fund is the super PAC aligned with House Republican leadership. In the primary, it spent $131,025 supporting Valadao and $86,097 attacking Villegas, which the California Target Book describes as an effort to lift him past Bains.
The New York Times reported that a Republican super PAC had quietly spent money boosting Villegas, assuming he would be the easier opponent for Valadao.
Republicans wanted the more liberal of the two Democrats. They got him.
Since the primary, the Congressional Leadership Fund has spent $784,756 against Villegas. It is now the largest single source of spending against the candidate it paid to advance.
The California Target Book says Valadao is the only Republican on the ballot who is creating a "five alarm fire" for his party. The gap between votes cast for the Republican and votes cast for the two Democrats makes it difficult to argue he is not at a disadvantage in November.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported in August that state party chair Rusty Hicks acknowledged there is "some work to be done" in the Central Valley, and that Paul Mitchell, the consultant who helped draw the Prop 50 maps, named the 22nd as one of the two hardest seats his party has to win.
Half a Million in the District are on Medicaid
According to MSNOW, the district has the highest number of Medicaid recipients in the entire nation, with nearly half a million enrollees.
- YouTube youtu.be
Nearly One in Three Voters Belongs to No Party
More than 100,000 voters in CD 22 are not affiliated with either major political party.
According to the latest registration data from votercount.ai, party registration in California's 22nd Congressional District (327,369 total registered voters) breaks down as follows: Democrats lead with 132,719 voters (40.54 percent), followed by Republicans with 90,457 (27.63 percent) and Non-Partisan with 77,870 (23.79 percent).
The remaining 8 percent is split among American Independent (13,679), Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, Green, and other minor parties.
In 2024, Trump carried this district 49.57 percent to 47.78 percent over Kamala Harris. Steve Garvey beat Adam Schiff here in the Senate race. On the same ballot, Valadao beat Salas by 1,692 votes. Voters approved Proposition 35 on permanent Medi-Cal funding with 72.84 percent but rejected Proposition 3 on the constitutional right to marriage, against the statewide result.
David Valadao (Republican, Incumbent)
David Valadao, born April 14, 1977, served one term in the state Assembly before winning this congressional seat in 2012.
He is a managing director of his family's Hanford dairies and owns 1,000 acres of farmland where they grow almonds, corn, and wheat as dairy feedstock.
In Congress, he serves on the House Agriculture Committee and the powerful House Committee on Appropriations during the 119th Congress, where he chairs the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. He also chairs the Republican Governance Group. He and his wife, Terra, have three children.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Valadao’s father, Eduardo, grew up in the Portuguese Azores as the youngest of eight and helped run the family dairy. CalMatters reported that Eduardo and his wife Maria bought their first cows a few years after immigrating and their own farmland several years after that in the early 1970s; that their son was expected to buck hay and feed the cows before school; and that Valadao later declared bankruptcy to clear the farm's delinquent loans.
His popularity with voters from outside the GOP rests heavily on his vote to impeach President Donald Trump after January 6, 2021.
NOTUS (now the Washington Sun) reported in January 2026 that Valadao is one of only two members of the GOP still serving after voting to impeach Trump. The President has endorsed primary challengers to other members of Congress who voted to impeach him, but never to Valadao.
Valadao told NOTUS in January 2026 that he and Trump speak regularly, keep an open line, and that the White House understands he holds a district Republicans need to win; if it does not work out, he would go back to milking cows. Asked by the Associated Press about the impeachment vote, he said he would let history decide how to interpret anything he has done.
Valadao did not back Trump in 2016, but he did in 2020. He has declined to say how he voted in 2024. His campaign literature promised to put people before political parties.
In Washington, D.C., he is an active member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, which brings together equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans to find common-ground policy solutions.
Valadao broke ranks with his fellow Republicans and voted to extend ACA health care subsidies.
- YouTube youtu.be
However, Dan Walters, the columnist from CalMatters, said Valadao’s vote for the Big Beautiful Bill could be his downfall. The law cut an estimated $28.4 billion from Medi-Cal and stripped insurance from an estimated 3.4 million Californians. Valadao had repeatedly promised not to vote for Medi-Cal cuts, and two-thirds of his constituents are on the program, according to Walters.
Valadao led California Republican representatives in pushing to halt the July 1, 2026, state gas excise tax increase, which raised the tax from 61.4 to 63.4 cents per gallon. He blames fuel prices on Sacramento rather than Tehran, telling a Bakersfield station in March after the war started that California has always had the highest prices in the country.
- YouTube youtu.be
California Farm Bureau president Shannon Douglass praised Valadao for pushing House leadership on emergency funding for specialty crop growers.
He has taken more than $30,000 this cycle from dairy, chicken, and sugar producer committees.
He opposed Proposition 50.
- YouTube youtu.be
On data centers, Valadao told the Sacramento Bee on September 6 that the facilities matter to the economy and national security, that Valley families already face high bills and water worries, and that the right approach listens to local input. He did not say whether he supports a moratorium. He told Politico that using the issue as a political weapon sounds irresponsible.
His scorecards run along party lines. In 2024, he rated 100 percent with the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Right to Life Committee, 92 percent with the National Rifle Association, 25 percent with the National Education Association, and 19 percent with Progressive Punch.
He raised $4.93 million for the cycle and had $3.37 million cash on hand at the end of June.
Randy Villegas (Democrat)
Randy Villegas, born November 12, 1994, was elected to the Visalia Unified School District board in 2021.
He is a full-time college professor.
- YouTube youtu.be
He describes himself as the son of Mexican immigrants. He grew up in Bakersfield and worked as a mechanic in his family’s auto shop and at the SWAP meet every weekend from his early high school years through college. He co-sponsored both of his parents for citizenship.
- YouTube youtu.be
“As a family auto shop owner, I know firsthand that small businesses are the backbone of our economy.” - Randy Villegas
He is highly educated. He graduated from Golden Valley High School in 2012, earned an associate's degree from Bakersfield College, and a bachelor's in political science from CSU Bakersfield in 2017. He has a master's and a doctorate in politics from UC Santa Cruz. He served as the president of the UC Santa Cruz Graduate Student Association.
He is a member of the United Auto Workers (UAW Region 6). When he attended UC Santa Cruz from 2017 to 2022, the campus experienced a major, historic strike. The DSA voter guide says, “he was a member as a student at UC Santa Cruz, where he organized and struck for cost of living and housing equity.”
- YouTube youtu.be
He interned for Rep. John Garamendi and at the Dolores Huerta Foundation, taught band (percussion) in the Kern and Santa Cruz schools for seven years, and he has been a member of the faculty at the College of the Sequoias since 2020.
The California DSA's 2026 primary voter guide recommends Villegas as an “exciting candidate,” describing a platform of Medicare for All, taxing the top 1%, AI regulation, and universal childcare as aligned with the DSA.
“Oliver Ma isn’t the only exciting candidate to come out of the Central Valley this election cycle. CA-22 is one of the districts restructured by Prop 50, giving Dems the best chance to flip it in decades, and after running milquetoast candidates for years, Randy Villegas, a Visalia school board trustee and organizer, is a candidate who may be able to flip it not just for Democrats but for working people…This race is an easy choice for DSA members: vote for Randy Villegas in California’s 22nd Congressional District.” - CA-DSA Voter Guide
The National Republican Congressional Committee has published at least five releases since July calling Villegas a socialist. Valadao told the AP that many of his constituents fled countries with socialist-leaning governments and that Villegas is running on those policies.
Villegas ran in the primary against both major political parties. His ads paired images of Valadao and fellow Democrat Bains and argued that they are both beholden to the same corporations. On the night he advanced, the Modesto Bee reported his declaration that the valley is not for sale.
In August, Villegas called for a one-year moratorium on new data centers in the Valley and proposed five federal standards, including paying the full cost of electricity and infrastructure, avoiding water waste, and building with local unions.
100,000 Independents Will Decide
Valadao has won this seat five times without a Republican majority, which means he’s traditionally attracted some of the more than 100,000 voters unaffiliated with either major political party.
The average age of these unaffiliated voters is just 39.2 years — a young cohort.
About 69 percent are under 45, and just 10 percent are 65+.
Ethnicity among the independent voters skews strongly Hispanic: among those with a known ethnic background, 70.9% are Hispanic (69,403), followed by English/Welsh (13.9%), Scots (2.0%), and Indian/Hindu (2.0%).
Independent voters have a history of low turnout. In the 2024 general (presidential), only 37,424 voted — a 35.9 percent turnout rate.
In the 2022 general (midterm) only 17,446 voted — a 16.7 percent turnout rate.
Campaign Could Cost $50 Million Before All Is Said and Done
Independent expenditures across the cycle now total $10,471,243.
The Associated Press, citing AdImpact, reported on September 5 that Republicans have spent or booked more than $13 million in airtime and digital through Election Day, with Democrats at $12.6 million, making CA-22 one of the five most expensive races in the country.
Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire? is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders
Sep 29, 2026
Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.
After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.
That principle was tested again a few decades later in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who weren't eligible to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Acts. The Supreme Court held that because he was born in the United States, he was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. While birthright citizenship, especially as it pertains to parental status, was still challenged by the U.S. government through various repatriation efforts, Wong Kim Ark’s precedent remains the foundation for modern birthright citizenship to this day.
On his first day in office in January of 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that denied automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents were undocumented or in the country temporarily. The administration argued that those children weren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States under the 14th Amendment.
The executive order, which cites Dred Scott, argues that “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”
The order was challenged in Trump v Barbara (2026), and in June of this year the Supreme Court rejected that argument. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court struck down the executive order and reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment protects birthright citizenship for children born in the United States, relying on the Constitution's text, specifically the Citizenship Clause, as well as the precedent set by United States v Wong Kim Ark.
In short, SCOTUS ruled: “Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”
In other words, President Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional and the executive branch was not able to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of immigrants with the stroke of his pen; however, the story doesn’t end there.
On Aug 6, President Trump issued two new executive orders addressing birthright citizenship.
The first order, Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, attempts to identify categories of children who, according to the administration, fall outside the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment and the ruling as recognized by the Supreme Court. This is specified within four categories.
The 2nd order, Ending Birth Tourism, takes aim at what the administration calls “birth tourism,” or when a foreign national enters the States on a nonimmigrant visa specifically for the purpose of giving birth.
These orders leave the state of birthright citizenship in a confusing place across the country, one that we will dive into in the next episode of Gov’t Stuff No One Explained.
Gov't Stuff No One Explained #4: Ending birthright tourism? youtube.com
Britton Struthers-Lugo is a journalist and visual storyteller. She works as a Digital Content Producer across The Fulcrum and The Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less

a golden scale with an eagle on top of it
Photo by Nellie Adamyan on Unsplash
A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike
Sep 29, 2026
“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.
The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.
My case is an uncomfortable test
I was an anti-Trump Republican presidential candidate who filed Section 3 lawsuits challenging Trump’s eligibility. I was indicted on Jan. 3, 2024, arrested six days later, and appeared on the New Hampshire Republican primary ballot two weeks after that.
Those facts understandably raise questions. But an honest account must include the facts that cut the other way. The IRS investigation began in 2018, years before my presidential campaign and Section 3 litigation. After a five-day bench trial, I was convicted on 33 tax counts, sentenced to 188 months, and lost the principal issues on appeal. No court has found political retaliation.
Yet the early start date cannot answer every later question. My civil lawsuits against Trump, the United States, and IRS personnel later became part of the basis for an obstruction-of-justice enhancement. The Fifth Circuit relied on those suits, a settlement proposal, an email notifying an agent that a lawsuit had been filed, and testimony that “multiple witnesses” were hesitant to testify because of my litigation history.
That does not prove the prosecution was political. It does show why the usual binary debate is too simple. A case may begin for legitimate reasons and still be expanded, accelerated, timed, publicized, or used at sentencing in ways influenced by politics. The reverse is also true: close election timing and political controversy may look suspicious while every official decision remains legitimate.
What both sides get right
The government’s strongest point is essential: a person cannot create immunity by declaring a candidacy, criticizing a president, or filing political litigation. Prosecutors must remain able to investigate and charge real crimes. A political figure should not receive a lower standard of accountability than anyone else.
The civil-liberties answer is equally important: prosecutorial discretion is broad, consequential, and often hidden. Decisions about whom to investigate, how aggressively to proceed, when to indict, whether to arrest publicly, what to say, and how to characterize protected political activity can damage democratic participation even when a charge rests on probable cause.
The Justice Department already recognizes both concerns. Its Principles of Federal Prosecution forbid decisions influenced by political association, activities, or beliefs. They also bar selecting investigative steps, charges, or timing for the purpose of affecting an election. A separate policy requires consultation with the Public Integrity Section when an action is likely to raise such an issue or even the perception of one.
But the same manual says these safeguards create no enforceable right and directs government lawyers to oppose efforts to litigate noncompliance. The public is promised neutrality while the records that would demonstrate it usually remain internal.
A lawfare audit before the target is known
Both parties should support the same stage-by-stage “lawfare audit” before knowing whether the target is Trump, a progressive prosecutor, a protest organizer, a conservative activist, or an obscure primary candidate.
- Preserve the original predicate. The government should record what first generated the matter: tax data, a complaint, an agency referral, a witness, surveillance, or another source. A legitimate origin should be demonstrable, not merely asserted years later.
- Document material changes. If the scope, personnel, resources, theory, or urgency changes after the subject becomes politically prominent, the responsible officials should record why.
- Explain election-sensitive timing. Before a major overt step close to an election, an independent career official should assess when the case became ready, why action is necessary then, and whether less disruptive alternatives exist.
- Preserve political contacts and protected activity. Contacts involving elected officials, campaigns, political appointees, party organizations, or intermediaries should be logged. Protected speech, association, litigation, and candidacy should not be used as aggravating conduct without a separate finding identifying the unlawful act.
- Permit limited neutral review. Upon a concrete showing of political contact, selective acceleration, or inconsistent treatment, a court or inspector general should be able to review the sealed record. Grand-jury material, sources, and methods can remain protected.
This process would not automatically dismiss charges, expose confidential evidence, or invite open-ended discovery. It would create a contemporaneous neutrality file that can later resolve a serious dispute. In emergency circumstances, action could proceed with prompt post-action review.
Let records replace partisan instinct
A lawfare audit could prove my suspicions wrong. It could show that neutral tax information generated the investigation, that later decisions followed ordinary practice, that no political contact affected the case, and that election timing reflected investigative necessity. That result would strengthen the government’s account.
It could also reveal an outside request, unexplained escalation, unusual timing, selective treatment, or impermissible reliance on political activity. If so, the public should know. The purpose is not to make the defendant’s accusation self-proving. It is to prevent the government’s denial from being self-proving too.
“Lawfare” should not mean “a prosecution of someone on my side.” It should describe the use of legal power for an improper political purpose, proved through evidence and tested against a neutral process. Suspicion alone is not enough. Neither is a legitimate first step a permanent excuse for everything that follows.
Candidates cannot immunize themselves by entering politics. Prosecutors should not immunize every later decision by pointing to a valid origin. A party that demands an audit only when its allies are targeted does not oppose lawfare; it opposes losing control of it.
John Anthony Castro is serving a 188-month federal sentence and continues to challenge aspects of his prosecution and sentence. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the principal rulings discussed below, and no court has found that the prosecution was politically retaliatory.
Castro is an incarcerated pro se federal appellant and former Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and president. He holds a J.D. from the University of New Mexico School of Law and an LL.M. in Taxation from Georgetown University Law Center, is a Harvard Business School alumnus, and is not licensed to practice law.
Keep ReadingShow less

Political ads and heated news reach kids too. Five practical ways parents and teachers can help children through the 2026 midterm election season.
Catherine Falls Commercial/Getty Images
Our Children Are Listening: How to Parent Through Election Season
Sep 29, 2026
Summer rarely ends all at once. It slips away by degrees. Neighborhood pools close, backpacks replace beach bags, and daylight shortens. The US Open tennis classic gives way to football as families rearrange weekends around school activities and kickoff times. Then another season arrives.
Political ads interrupt television viewing. Campaign mailers crowd the mailbox. Yard signs line the route to school. By fall, news about elections, wars, immigration, public safety, rising prices, and political conflict has followed us into our kitchens and living rooms. Adults talk about grocery bills, housing costs, health care, and the country’s future. Sometimes we speak with concern. Other times, we sound angry, frightened, or exhausted. All the while, our children are listening.
As the parent of a young school-age child, I am reminded that children don't have to understand every issue to recognize the feelings around it. A child may not know what a midterm election is or why adults disagree about public policy, but they recognize fear, anger, contempt, and uncertainty. Before politics becomes an argument they can understand, it is often an atmosphere they can feel.
That matters as the November 2026 midterm elections approach. Americans will choose representatives to Congress, along with state and local officials, depending on where they live. Adults will debate consequential questions about rights, resources, public policy, and the country’s direction. For children, however, some of their earliest lessons about public life will come from watching how the adults around them handle those disagreements.
They are learning whether people can disagree without becoming enemies, whether truth still matters when it complicates what we want to believe, and whether citizenship means caring only about winning or accepting some responsibility for one another.
Mister Rogers understood that children should not be left alone with feelings they cannot name. He did not hide difficult realities, but he also did not burden young minds with adult-sized fears. He offered a calm, trustworthy presence and language children could carry with them. Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood continues that tradition, helping children navigate change, express strong emotions, and practice kindness when life feels uncertain.
Parents, teachers, and caregivers can bring that same spirit into election season. Our children do not need us to make politics invisible. They need adults who can make a complicated world understandable without making it terrifying.
Five Ways to Help Children Through Election Season
1. Listen before you explain.
When a child asks, “Why are those people fighting?” or “Is that person bad?” our first instinct may be to provide an answer. A better response often begins with another question: “What did you hear?” “What do you think is happening?” or “What made you ask that?”
Children build meaning from fragments. A political ad warning of catastrophe may sound to a child like a prediction that something terrible is about to happen. A news report about war can raise questions about whether their own family is safe. An argument about immigration may frighten a child who is worried about a classmate or someone they love.
Listening helps us discover the question beneath the question. Sometimes a child needs information. Sometimes they need reassurance. Often they need to know that an adult is willing to hear them without dismissing their concern.
2. Tell the truth in words children can carry.
Honesty does not require sharing every disturbing detail. For younger children, use simple words and focus on broad ideas, like saying, “People disagree about which laws will help our community,” or “An election is one way people choose who will make important decisions.” Older children might be ready for more context and can talk about how families may have different concerns about money, safety, war, education, or whether people are being treated fairly. With any age, it helps to notice what your child is ready to understand. We should also be willing to say, “I don’t know yet.”
Children do not need adults who pretend to have every answer. They need adults whose words they can trust.
Age-appropriate truth names what is happening without transferring the full weight of adult anxiety onto a child. “Yes, people are arguing about this. It can sound scary. People are also working in different ways to address the problem.” That is not evasive. It gives a child enough truth to understand without asking them to carry what they are not yet equipped to hold.
3. Protect the emotional climate at home and at school.
Election season brings a flood of messages competing for attention. Some campaign advertising uses dramatic language and imagery, while television and online coverage can repeatedly expose families to conflict and disturbing events. Adults have more context for interpreting what they see. Young children often do not.
Turning off the television is not civic avoidance. Sometimes it is responsible care. Silence unnecessary alerts. Protect some mealtimes from political debate. Pay attention to what children hear during carpools, family gatherings, classroom transitions, and evenings when the television is playing in the background.
Adults deserve places to have serious political conversations. Children deserve spaces where they are not required to absorb those conversations without explanation.
4. Show them how to disagree without denying anyone’s humanity.
We can challenge an idea without ridiculing the person who holds it. We can object strongly to policies or actions without teaching children that entire groups of people are worthless. “I believe that policy could hurt families” communicates something different from “Anyone who supports it is a terrible person.”
Disagreement is an ordinary part of democratic life. Children should see adults ask sincere questions, examine information before repeating it, admit when they are mistaken, apologize for unfair words, and revise an opinion when evidence warrants it.
They should also learn that respecting someone’s humanity does not require excusing harmful behavior. We can establish moral boundaries, name injustice, and oppose what we believe is wrong without making cruelty our method. Those habits teach children something important about citizenship that no campaign slogan can.
5. Give children constructive ways to help.
One antidote to helplessness is participation. Even young children can experience what it means to contribute to a community's well-being. When appropriate, take them with you when you vote and explain what you are doing in simple terms. Let them see that elections are one part of civic life, not the whole of it.
Invite them to help collect food for a pantry, write a thank-you note to a teacher, clean up a neighborhood park, welcome a new classmate, help an elderly neighbor, or participate in a community project. These ordinary acts teach children that citizenship includes listening, serving, telling the truth, caring for neighbors, and noticing people whose needs might otherwise be overlooked.
Election season will eventually end. The commercials will disappear. Yard signs will come down. Votes will be counted, and another political cycle will begin soon enough. But our children will carry something from this season long after the advertisements are gone.
We cannot control everything they hear. We can help shape what they learn from it. They can discover that disagreement does not require dehumanization, that uncertainty does not have to become fear, and that citizenship involves more than choosing sides. Most of all, they can learn that when the world gets loud, the adults they trust can still listen carefully, speak truthfully, and show them how to take the next constructive step.
Our children are listening. What they hear from us now may shape how they learn to listen to one another later.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, and scholar-practitioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















