Democracy for All 2021 Action is a national campaign committed to building power for the people and making our government work for all of us. Our diverse coalition includes labor unions, think tanks, racial justice, environmental, reproductive health, and community organizations that represent millions of Americans. We are working toward implementing deep reforms in 2021 to unrig our political system once and for all.
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 folded American flag with red and white stripes and white stars
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
A Republic, If You Can Keep It — The Test of America’s Democratic Guardrails
Sep 14, 2026
Benjamin Franklin’s warning — “A Republic, if you can keep it” — was never meant to comfort Americans. It was a challenge. Franklin understood that a Republic survives not simply because a Constitution exists, but because each generation chooses to protect the principles that make self-government possible.
250 years later, America faces that challenge again.
The question before the nation is not whether democratic institutions matter. It is whether the guardrails designed to protect them are strong enough to withstand concentrated power, political division, and declining public trust.
The central concern is clear: a constitutional Republic depends on free and fair elections, independent institutions, a free press, and leaders willing to respect limits on power. When any of those foundations are weakened, citizens begin to question whether the system is working as intended.
The 2026 election cycle has intensified those concerns. Actions and statements from the administration involving election procedures, voting access, media relationships, and the role of federal authority have raised questions among democracy scholars, constitutional experts, journalists, and civic organizations about the appropriate boundaries of executive power.
The problem is not a single decision or moment. The problem is the cumulative effect of actions that test whether democratic guardrails will hold.
Elections are the clearest test because they represent the foundation of self-government. A Republic depends on citizens having confidence that their votes will be counted, that election administrators can perform their duties without improper pressure, and that political competition remains open to all eligible voters.
Recent history demonstrates both the vulnerability of elections and the strength of some safeguards.
In 2020, election officials in several states faced extraordinary pressure while carrying out their constitutional responsibilities. Officials in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and other states followed established procedures, certified results, and defended the integrity of their processes. Their actions demonstrated an essential lesson: professional election administration can serve as a powerful democratic guardrail when individuals place constitutional duty above political pressure.
Courts also play an important role in the response. Judicial review determines whether government actions comply with constitutional and statutory limits. Throughout recent years, courts have reviewed disputes involving voting procedures, executive actions, and election-related policies. These cases demonstrate that legal mechanisms remain available when citizens, states, and organizations challenge government actions.
However, solutions journalism requires examining not only what works, but also the limitations.
Court decisions often come after disputes have already developed. Litigation can take months or years. A legal victory may resolve one issue while leaving broader concerns about public trust and institutional stability unresolved.
Congress also has a constitutional role in maintaining accountability through oversight, legislation, and investigation. Yet the effectiveness of congressional oversight depends on lawmakers’ willingness to exercise that authority. When elected officials prioritize political loyalty over constitutional responsibility, a safeguard the Framers designed becomes less effective.
This is where citizens' role becomes central.
Franklin’s warning was not directed only at presidents, judges, or legislators. It was directed at the American people. The Framers understood that a Republic ultimately depends on civic virtue—the willingness of citizens to remain informed, engaged, and committed to the principles of self-government.
Across the country, citizens and organizations continue to use democratic tools.
Civil society groups have filed lawsuits challenging government actions they believe violate constitutional protections. Election organizations monitor voting systems and educate communities. Universities, researchers, and watchdog organizations study threats to democratic institutions. Journalists investigate government actions, provide public information, and hold leaders accountable through reporting.
These responses matter because they demonstrate that democracy is not passive. It is an active process maintained by people who participate.
The evidence shows that these efforts can make a difference. Election systems have continued operating. Courts have provided review. Investigative reporting has uncovered information the public needed to know. Civic organizations have created avenues for legal challenges and public engagement.
But the limitations are equally important.
Citizens cannot replace institutions. Journalists cannot enforce laws. Advocacy organizations cannot assume the responsibilities of elected officials. Courts cannot resolve every dispute immediately. Democracy depends on each part of the system fulfilling its role.
That is why so many Americans feel exhausted and discouraged. They are not only responding to individual political conflicts. They are confronting a deeper concern: whether institutions designed to protect the public are responding quickly and effectively enough when democratic norms are challenged.
The danger of democratic fatigue is real. When citizens believe their voices do not matter, they may withdraw. When people stop participating, the institutions that depend on public involvement become weaker.
The solution is not cynicism. It is sustained civic engagement.
Congress must use its constitutional oversight responsibilities. Courts must continue to review government actions independently. Election officials must protect fair and transparent administration. Journalists must continue informing the public. Civil society organizations must continue providing legal and civic resources. Citizens must participate beyond Election Day by voting, attending public meetings, contacting representatives, supporting credible information sources, and holding leaders accountable.
A Republic does not survive because its guardrails are never tested. It survives because people strengthen those guardrails under pressure.
The greatest lesson of this moment is that democracy cannot be preserved by institutions alone, nor by citizens alone. It requires both: leaders who respect constitutional limits and citizens who insist that those limits matter.
Franklin’s warning remains as relevant today as it was in 1787. He did not ask whether America would have a Constitution. He asked whether Americans would commit to keeping the Republic the Constitution created.
The responsibility remains where Franklin placed it. With the people.
A Republic, if you can keep it.
_________________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and technical writer whose work centers on civic responsibility and democratic engagement.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Washington’s Domestic Workers Win Protections After Years of Organizing
Sep 14, 2026
Years of rallying on the steps of the Capitol building, marching through streets and testifying before legislators have paid off for Washington’s house cleaners, childcare providers, gardeners and their supporters.
On March 9, Gov. Bob Ferguson signed the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights into law, making Washington the 13th state to ensure basic labor protections for domestic workers, according to the domestic employers network Hand in Hand. These rights include fair pay, written contracts and protection from discrimination for workers doing domestic services in a private residence.
Though these workers provide vital help to families and homeowners across the country, they have been excluded from fundamental labor rights for decades.
Silvia González, a community organizer at Casa Latina, helped lead the statewide fight for these protections. Casa Latina works for the well-being of Latino immigrants in Seattle, offering education, community organizing opportunities and connecting domestic workers with temporary jobs through their Day Worker Center.
State Sen. Rebecca Saldaña, center, stands with members of the Washington State Domestic Workers Coalition at the state Capitol on Feb. 28, 2026. The Domestic Workers Bill of Rights passed in the House that day, before being signed into law in March. (Photo courtesy of Casa Latina)
González came to Casa Latina in 2011 to find work as a house cleaner. When she learned that domestic workers like herself did not have fundamental rights to fair pay and often had to endure unsafe workplaces to make a living, she wanted a domestic workers bill of rights, González said.
In 2013, she joined Casa Latina’s staff, supporting their Mujeres Sin Fronteras program. This leadership program provides a space where women domestic workers can organize to advocate for better working conditions.
“This changed my life completely,” González said. “Working closely with Mujeres Sin Fronteras — every woman has different stories. Every woman is different, and these give to me more power for fighting for the labor rights. And it’s not easy, because most of these women are women of color, immigrant women, and they have a lot of challenges.”
In the United States, the domestic workforce is largely made up of Latino, Black and Asian American women. These workers are also twice as likely to be immigrants than other workers. González said it has been hard to rally domestic workers to speak to legislators in the state Capitol because they are afraid of current threats of immigration enforcement.
González’s time at Casa Latina and her own career as a domestic worker is not the only part of her life that has informed her activism. She has memories of her own mother working as a lavandera, doing laundry as a domestic worker in Mexico.
González described watching her mother spend hours washing clothes by hand on the banks of a river. “[Domestic workers] don’t receive enough money,” she said, her eyes tearing up under green sparkly eyeliner.
When González started her career as a domestic worker in the United States, these memories gave her the power to fight for fair pay for domestic workers, she said.
González went on to organize for Seattle’s bill of rights while working as a house cleaner. She is now one of 13 members on Seattle’s Domestic Workers Standards Board, which helps introduce further protections for domestic workers at the city level.
Though domestic workers in Seattle have had labor protections since 2018, those working in other areas of the state have been fighting for these fundamental rights for years.
González is also on the National Domestic Workers Alliance Board of Directors, who are trying to pass nationwide protections for domestic workers. Even as her work has risen to city, state and federal levels, González said she thinks of every win as a collective effort.
“It’s not only me. It’s Casa Latina also,” she said. “All my compañeras, all domestic workers — all the voices come with me.”
Lisbeth H., who asked to omit her last name, is another domestic worker who has been advocating for this legislation. She has helped raise over 28 children in her career as a childcare provider, commuting from Lynnwood to Seattle for nanny jobs.
“What it means for me, is that I don’t have to go and just ask for things to my future employers. I would go and say, there’s a bill that is protecting me,” Lisbeth H. said. “I think that kind of backs me up, supports me and gives me the strength to advocate more for myself.”
Lisbeth H. said the fair working conditions she has experienced were due to her employers’ ethics and her own negotiation skills, but she knew other workers did not know how to advocate for the same protections in their workplaces.
It was an empowering moment, Lisbeth H. said, to speak out in support of these protections. She has been rallying for a statewide bill of rights since 2024. This year, she worked behind the scenes to help pass the law with the Nanny Collective — an organization focused on educating childcare providers across Washington state about their rights in the workplace.
Casa Latina and the Nanny Collective are both part of the Washington Domestic Workers Coalition, a group of more than eight community organizations that came together in 2024 to pass the statewide bill.
Now, domestic workers across Washington will have rights to minimum wage, overtime pay, written agreements in a language they understand, advance termination notices, safer working environments, protection from retaliation and the right to file a complaint if a violation occurs.
State Sen. Rebecca Saldaña, D-Seattle, has been advocating for these protections for domestic workers since Seattle’s version of the bill passed in 2018. Saldaña was standing next to Ferguson in the Capitol when he signed the bill into law this March.
“It was so energetic. We had children, we had organizers, we had workers that had been working on this for basically a decade,” Saldaña said.
“This workforce in particular is so vulnerable, so under valued, so historically invisible,” Saldaña continued. “To be able to have them take center stage, to be able to have had the amazing bill signing that they’re able to do in the Capitol, and be able then to really see a difference in their workplaces, is priceless.”
The bill, which goes into effect July 1, 2027, helps create clear rules for both domestic workers and employers. Until the bill is in place, González said, she will be raising money to fund the implementation of the law. After that, she will continue advocating for more protections for domestic workers, beyond these basic rights.
This hard fought win owes itself to the ongoing persistence of Washington’s domestic workers and organizers like González and Lisbeth H.
“It was amazing, because since 2024 we tried, we pushed, and things didn’t work as we expected,” Lisbeth H. said. “When this happened, it was like telling everybody, ‘Hey, we won, we got what we need, because this is our work, we deserve dignity, and this will protect us more. It will not depend just on each of us to negotiate. We have a bill that now protects us.’”
Washington’s Domestic Workers Win Protections After Years of Organizing was first published by Washington Latino News and is republished with permission.
Ruby Storey is a freelance journalist, multimedia storyteller and incoming general assignment reporter at My Neighborhood News. In the University of Washington’s journalism and public interest communication program, she has found a passion for local reporting and uplifting the voices of communities who have been underrepresented in mainstream media.
Keep ReadingShow less
Constitution Day: Why Citizen Skepticism Keeps Democracy Strong
Sep 14, 2026
Constitution Day is September 17. In her Constitution Day Conversation with Fulcrum Contributor Rick LaRue, NYU School of Law professor and commentator Melissa Murray shares her appreciative yet critical perspective on the national government’s founding document. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Rick LaRue: Why do you think the Constitution matters today?
Melissa Murray: I read constitutional law’s underlying thread as: How do we create a government that is strong enough to be effective, but not so strong that it runs roughshod over the people and their rights? Even the original Constitution is a hedge against the prospect of government tyranny.
For example, my career started with family law, which involves constitutional provisions such as due process and equal protection. Two Supreme Court cases from the 1920s fascinated me because, while about parents’ rights, particularly in immigrant families, they highlighted a kind of pluralism conducive to democracy. These decisions surprised me given the nativism then prevalent in the country. They suggested that pluralism was an important hedge against tyranny. If citizens have different sources of allegiance and values, they may be skeptical when the state peddles its own orthodoxies. Such skepticism is essential to democracy.
RL: What compelled you to write your book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader?
MM: We live in a moment where we’ve divested civics education from our public schools, which seems inconsistent with the whole project of what the Constitution was meant to be about. We were supposed to be able to understand and grapple with it, which we can’t do if we’re not reading it.
I think the ultimate questions are: What’s the point of a constitution? Why was it written down? We have the longest surviving written constitution. A big part of why it was written down is that it was supposed to be read, debated, and grappled with by the people. In 2024, I talked with young people about the presidential election. Several women were angry about the current presidential administration. They were mad that Joe Biden had not done enough to curb police brutality, but ultimate control over law enforcement lies with local government. Separately, the rapper Luke Campbell was also attacking Joe Biden for things the president was not authorized to do under the Constitution’s Article II. So, it struck me that we had a whole generation of people who did not seem to understand how this document worked—through no fault of their own. That’s why I wrote this book.
“Almost from the start, the Constitution was determined not to be obsolete, but to be incomplete.”
RL: You highlighted the Populist Era. Can you elaborate on its relationship to constitutional change?
MM: Almost from the start, the Constitution was determined not to be obsolete, but to be incomplete; the Bill of Rights was ratified within a few years to remedy the document’s deficiencies in not providing explicitly for individual rights. The Reconstruction Amendments were spearheaded by the Reconstruction Congress after the American Civil War. Through judicial review and interpretation, the Supreme Court has changed the meaning of the Constitution. These recognized actors shape constitutional meaning, but we, the people, can do the same.
That is the most important lesson of the Populist or Progressive amendments. The 16th through 19th amendments were all driven by grassroots lobbying and activism. The 16th Amendment was born of an 1895 Supreme Court decision declaring a federal income tax to be unconstitutional. Because the Supreme Court said that Article I of the Constitution forbade Congress from levying a direct tax, the people—who wanted a progressive income tax to effectively counter regressive tariffs—began lobbying and working to amend the Constitution to allow it. They succeeded.
Then the people looked to the Senate, whose members were appointed by state legislatures. The people wondered why they could pick their representatives but not their senators. At the time, there was widespread corruption, with Senators being solicitous of the corporate interests that fed state legislatures. The people, drawing on that skepticism I mentioned, agitated, worked together, and ultimately succeeded in enacting and ratifying the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of Senators.
The 19th Amendment involved the people playing the long game. Feminists were fighting before the Civil War to have women included in the Constitution. It didn’t work, but they didn’t give up. They ultimately enfranchised women through the 19th Amendment, the largest expansion of the electorate in this country's history.
RL: There are numerous constitutional challenges confronting us today. Is there one you think deserves wider public attention?
MM: Some might argue we have no shortage of constitutional crises at this moment. But what we do have is a shortage of lay constitutional scholars who are grappling with this document and asking questions—of the people who represent them, and about the Supreme Court’s defense of the Constitution.
There are big questions about people’s voices, minority rule, and the Supreme Court's role in a representative democracy. The question of the Electoral College warrants extensive discussion. Also, does partisan gerrymandering, for example, require a statutory fix or a constitutional amendment? We have no shortage of constitutional questions.
RL: Speaking of crises, if you agree that the nation confronts them, what makes today’s situation rise to a crisis level or levels?
MM: What sets this period apart, and indeed makes it a serious constitutional crisis, are not still-vital questions about voting rights or military deployments, for example. Rather, the crisis or crises stem from the structural considerations that make it easier for a single branch of government to exercise outsized power. When the Framers were drafting the Constitution, the idea was to divide the power of the federal government among the three coordinate branches, each with the authority to check the others, so that no single branch could become too powerful or tyrannical. Right now, we have a Congress that is relatively supine and may even be facilitating some of the most excessive impulses of the other branches. We have a Supreme Court that, for example, is using the shadow docket to decide many cases without transparency or explanation. This situation is not what the Framers had in mind. They saw the federal government as marked by constant tension among the different branches. If one branch pushed, the other branches would resist. We’re not getting that resistance.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t substantive issues that are or may be at crisis levels. The rolling back of voting rights is one because it limits the electorate. I think, too, the Framers would be quite concerned to see the National Guard being deployed to American cities for immigration enforcement.
RL: Can we amend the Constitution again?
MM: It’s hard to amend the Constitution. The two methods in Article V, only one of which has been used, are both difficult by design. If the people, acting as the nation, really care enough about foundational constitutional commitments to write them down, it should be hard to change them. If you think about what happened in the dark days after 9/11, when we were prioritizing public safety, we might have changed many things regarding civil liberties that would have gone against foundational principles. But we couldn’t, in part because it was hard.
And it is doubly hard now because of the electoral distortion in the landscape. For example, the fact that state legislatures are significantly gerrymandered makes it a lot harder to get 38 states to ratify something. We also tend to have amendments in bursts. The Bill of Rights addressed the deficiencies in the original Constitution's rights protections, the Reconstruction Amendments addressed the rupture caused by the Civil War, and the Gilded Age amendments addressed the rise of populism. Then we have the 20th Century amendments, many of which were spurred by episodic incidents that, like the Bill of Rights, revealed deficiencies in the original document. Our current period may become a moment that sparks interest in some form of amendment process, leading to a burst of civic attention to constitutional meaning, assuming we reach the other side of it.
RL: In terms of prospective amendments, which ones might top your list?
MM: It is hard to think about what would address the electoral distortions in the landscape while also preserving the Constitution without changing it all the time. My immediate go-to is the Electoral College. We should eliminate it and have a popularly elected president. If John Kerry had won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote in 2004, which would have occurred if he had won the state of Ohio, that could have spurred the appetite for amendment. I think DC statehood and Puerto Rico statehood are possible candidates, especially for DC. An amendment gave DC residents representation in the House, but by a non-voting delegate, and its citizens do get to vote in the presidential election. There should probably be an amendment that goes further to make it possible for DC to be fully represented, i.e., via statehood.
RL: So, Constitution Day. When and how did you first observe it?
MM: I was 12 before I realized there was a Constitution. I had seen “Schoolhouse Rock” I knew how a bill became law. I knew there were three branches of government, but I didn’t know there was a document that established them. In 1987, I became aware of Constitution Day and the Constitution because of its bicentennial. That big anniversary is how and why I learned about both. I was a 7th grader, and I knew there had been a bicentennial about the Declaration of Independence, but what was this one all about? There were all kinds of contests at school, and I actually won second prize in an essay contest about the document.
Such anniversaries are always moments of teeth-gnashing: Should we be more celebratory? Should we be more reflective? As we sit here at the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding, we’re weighing: Who are we? Where have we been? Where are we going? And maybe we’re not entirely sure of or satisfied with our answers. But I don’t remember that kind of angst around the Constitution's anniversary. It just seemed to be about our having done something, and despite the document’s imperfections, despite its flaws and gaps, it survived, and it got better because we made it better. If the 250th anniversary of the founding is only a reflection of how we are doing, and whether we are doing it right, maybe in 11 years, assuming we get there, we will be in a position to say, “Wow, we really made it. We made it to 250 years of this idea of limited government of, for, and by the people.”
RL: Thanks, Melissa. That’s a great way to close. Happy Constitution Day!
Melissa Murray’s book is available from 37INK, a Simon & Schuster imprint.
Rick LaRue writes about constitutional structure and amendments at Structure Matters.
Keep ReadingShow less

As the US Constitution turns 250, one expert argues it was designed as an antidote to tyranny — and warns that antidote is now at risk.
photovs/Getty Images
Why the Constitution Remains Our Defense Against Tyranny
Sep 14, 2026
There are many analogies for constitutions, for example, a social contract, a blueprint, a roadmap. But as we mark the 250th birthday of the United States of America, I propose another: constitution as antidote.
Constitutions are always intentionally and carefully designed, more often than not as antidotes to heal and ward off ills that a country wishes - or existentially needs - to avoid. This is, and has historically been, true all around the world, although the study of how constitutions and constitutional change can address root causes of conflict and instability has evolved greatly, allowing us to harness their healing power more effectively.
Working at the intersection of conflict resolution and constitution-building for over 15 years has taught me a lot about the potency and potential of constitutions, including the hopeful expectations placed on them and their capacity to fulfill them. The South African constitution, written after the end of apartheid, provides a classic example. But there are many others like the Philippines, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Morocco - places where constitutions were designed as antidotes for everything from genocide to dictatorships.
In Nepal, the 2015 Constitution was born out of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the country’s decade-long civil war. The new Constitution was designed over nearly 10 years to serve as an antidote to not one but many woes. As stated in the preamble, the Constitution aims at “ending all forms of discrimination and oppression created by the feudal, autocratic, centralized and unitary system” of the past. With its promulgation, the people of Nepal committed to “protect and promote unity in diversity” and ushered in a new federal democratic republic to replace the historic unitary, Hindu monarchy.
In the case of the United States, our constitution was designed as an antidote for tyranny. It was meant to protect we the people from the whims of an arbitrary ruler, or worse yet, a mad king. Evidence of this is woven throughout our founding document, with nearly every provision corresponding to a grievance listed in the Declaration of Independence. The wrongs suffered at the hands of the King would be tolerated no longer. People would choose their representatives through regular elections. Soldiers would not be forced upon us in times of peace. A balanced separation of powers would ensure power was administered independently and fairly.
Anyone following the news will know that none of the countries listed above are without crisis today, including our own. Admittedly, the analogy of the Constitution as an antidote is limited insofar as a constitution can never be a magic shot that will leave a country perfectly healed immediately. Sometimes the same problems resurface in different ways, or new ones emerge, outpacing the Constitution’s ability to ensure peace. In South Africa, for example, while the post-apartheid Constitution has undeniably prevented that system from recurring and has led to more equity in government, the legacy of apartheid lives on in economic and social inequalities that have, in turn, given rise to violent uprisings and unrest. In Nepal, despite the reformed system, it took a youth-led revolution ten years after the promulgation of the new Constitution to finally wrest power from the political elite.
Still, the fact that these Constitutions were designed as antidotes holds true, and it shows in the commitment public officials and the people show to new constitutions presented as antidotes. Constitutions that are derived from the hopeful expectations for a better future, and that people recognize as such, can be impactfully evoked far into the future when crisis threatens them.
That is why Americans continue to look back to our founding 250 years ago. The expectations that the Founders placed on the Constitution as an antidote to tyranny were so explicitly and strongly expressed that they echo across centuries. Our shared commitment to the antidote’s success, including our willingness to tinker with it but refusal to give it up, is what has allowed us to overcome the constitutional crises we faced.
From addressing the grievances expressed in the Declaration of Independence to confronting the inequities and devastation caused by the original text and the legacy of slavery it protected, our Constitution has endured. It has stood for 250 years as a bulwark against the main threat it was meant to neutralize-- tyranny-- and any changes made to it were to make our democracy and nation better, demonstrating our shared commitment to pursue “a more perfect union.”
The success of the American Constitution as an antidote is due, in large part, to the commitment and respect shown to it not only by the American people, but by all the Presidents and administrations that have led us in the last 250 years. This is evidenced in our long history of peaceful transfers of power, of handshakes and congratulations, of accepting the will of the people. It is evidenced in Nixon’s resignation and Bobby Kennedy’s insistence, even while serving as Attorney General in his own brother’s administration, that he served the American people, not the President.
Today, Todd Blanche declares the opposite. The Trump administration proudly and flagrantly violates our Constitution almost daily. Its lack of commitment to the project of American democracy revives the very malady that we set out so many years ago to protect ourselves against.
In movies and fiction, destroying an antidote is a high-stakes moment. Usually, it is the villain who destroys the antidote as a means of gaining control, sometimes control over enemies and sometimes over the whole world.
Our current administration is that villain, and our antidote is at grave risk. We, the people, must fight to save it.
Let us not allow the story that began in 1776 to end with the villain smashing the vial, our hope, on the floor. Let’s be the heroes instead. America’s cherished antidote has protected us for centuries; it is time we took up the mantle and defended it in return.
Amanda Cats-Baril is the Project Manager and Content Strategist for Lawyers Defending American Democracy and its Meeting the Moment initiative. An international human rights lawyer, Amanda formerly served as a USAID Foreign Service Officer.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















