IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Crowd waving flags
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
The Government We Value Is Fading
Mar 02, 2026
What's happening in our country? Americans are living through a political transformation we did not vote for, did not debate, and did not consent to — and it is happening in real time. [NPR]
America was built on a radical idea: that a diverse people could govern themselves, that power would be shared, and that no leader could ever place himself above the law. The framers designed a Constitution that divided authority, checked ambition, and protected the voices of ordinary citizens. They feared concentrated power. They feared silence. They feared exactly what we are witnessing today.
We were promised a participatory democracy — a nation where the government listens, responds, and protects. Yet Renee Good, a mother of three, was killed by an ICE agent in her own community. [Family Equality] And people like Alex Pretti — shot nine times in Minnesota just seventeen days later — reveal how far the government has drifted from its basic duty to protect life. [TIME]
The truth is, we did not vote or legislate for this.
What we are watching unfold is not the result of public debate or democratic choice. It is the result of strategic decisions made by a small circle of operatives and loyalists who have been reshaping our institutions while Americans were focused on survival — food, shelter, healthcare, safety. [NPR]
And this is what makes the moment so dangerous. People came to this country for freedom of thought, belief, and freedom from government control. Many fled nations where political values were imposed on them by force or fear. Now, in the country built to protect individual liberty, we are watching a movement determined to force its political values on everyone else, even when those values contradict the Constitution they claim to defend.
This is the contradiction at the heart of our crisis: a free country cannot survive when one faction insists on imposing its worldview on the entire nation. That is not democracy. That is not constitutional governance. That is the beginning of authoritarian rule.
Our democracy feels as if it is on pause. Congress has gone quiet. [NPR] The Supreme Court has stepped back from its role as a check. The Department of Justice appears aligned with the president’s priorities [NPR], and court orders are ignored or delayed. [The Hill]
When one branch expands while the others retreat, the balance the framers designed collapses — and the people lose the protections only a fully functioning democracy can provide.
Americans are not unhappy because they dislike democracy. They are unhappy because no one is listening — and because a government that does not listen cannot be participatory, responsive, or truly democratic. While families struggled with food prices, housing costs, medical bills, and the pressure of staying afloat, the people elected to represent them were focused elsewhere.
As Americans fight to survive, a small circle of political operatives and loyalists is quietly reshaping the government — infiltrating agencies, weakening institutions, and concentrating power in ways the framers feared. [POLITICO]
None of this is happening by accident. The people now driving federal policy include many of the same operatives, strategists, and former officials who helped design or promote Project 2025. [Newsweek] Their return to government has allowed the blueprint to be implemented through appointments, agency directives, and enforcement priorities — all without public debate or legislative approval.
Many of the authoritarian features we are now witnessing — the consolidation of executive power, the sidelining of independent agencies, and the use of government to punish political opponents — mirror the strategies outlined in Project 2025’s own planning documents. [TIME]
At the same time, ethics watchdogs have documented that the president has financially benefited from government spending at his private properties, raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest and the use of public funds. [CREW]
These patterns — loyalists in key positions, policy shaped by a private blueprint, and personal financial gain intertwined with public office — are hallmarks of a system shifting away from democratic accountability and toward concentrated, self‑reinforcing power.[NPR]
This did not happen overnight. The erosion of our democracy has been slow, deliberate, and strategic. Project 2025 did not wait for 2025; it began taking shape in 2023, quietly guiding appointments, agency priorities, and enforcement strategies before most Americans had even heard its name.
And perhaps the most painful contradiction is this: even as the administration targets immigrants with cruelty and suspicion, many of its own leaders — including the president’s own family — are the direct beneficiaries of America’s immigrant promise.
As the late Congressman John Lewis — a lifelong champion of civil rights and democratic courage — reminded us: “Democracy is not a state. It is an act.” [Democracy Journal]
Authoritarians depend on exhaustion. They depend on cynicism. They depend on people believing that nothing they do matters. As Rep. Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez has warned, cynics and defeatists end up telling the same story authoritarians need us to believe — that hope is naïve, that resistance is futile. But that story is false. And we cannot afford to fall for it.[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez | Facebook]
Americans must reclaim the democracy the framers designed — not by wishing for it, but by acting for it.
To restore balance, protect the vulnerable, and ensure that Congress once again serves as a check — not a chorus — we must vote in every election, at every level, local, state, and federal. We must pay attention. That means researching, staying informed, and following the votes cast in Congress, because votes reveal priorities, expose loyalties, and show us who is serving the people and who is serving a private agenda. And we must support leaders working to protect democracy—and vote out those who are not.
We must strengthen the civic infrastructure that authoritarian systems depend on weakening. That means joining or donating to civic organizations, civil rights groups, watchdog nonprofits, and community coalitions that defend democratic norms and hold leaders accountable.
We must also peacefully protest. The First Amendment was written for moments like this — when government power grows unaccountable, and citizens must make themselves visible. We must continue using our phone cameras to document what is happening in our streets, because evidence matters. Our current system protects abusers and labels victims as threats or terrorists.
And we must confront another painful truth: the federal government has not been cooperating with state governments — especially those led by officials who refuse to align with the president’s agenda. Blue states appear to be targeted with punitive policies, withheld resources, and public hostility — a direct violation of the constitutional principle that the federal government serves all Americans. This is not how a constitutional democracy behaves — and Americans must insist that the federal government stop targeting states for political punishment. What is missing is compassion, empathy, and the moral grounding that should guide public service.
We rebuild habits of participation. We talk to neighbors. We show up. We organize.
The government we value will fade if we let it. Authoritarianism is taking root in real time only if we refuse to pull it out by the roots. And democracy — as John Lewis reminded us — is not a state; it is an act. This is our act: to vote, to research, to pay attention, to join, to donate, to protest peacefully, to organize — together — to insist that the United States remain a nation where power is shared, rights are protected, and government answers to the people, not the other way around. Democracy can still be saved, but only if we act. And now it is our turn to perform it.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership, government accountability, and civic renewal. She writes about constitutional responsibility, institutional integrity, and the urgent need for public‑centered governance.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
FILE - The dome of the Arizona Capitol building is illuminated in blue as buildings and structures around the state are lit in blue, April 15, 2020, in Phoenix.
AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File
A Breakdown of Anti-Immigration Bills Moving Through the Arizona Legislature in 2026
Mar 02, 2026
Arizona’s 2026 legislative session is set to break records for the most bills introduced in the state’s history and it comes as no surprise that immigration has been one of the hottest topics.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have introduced numerous bills related to immigration enforcement, border security, protesting and documenting law enforcement activity.
“What I’m seeing is duplicative federal bills,” said Rep. Mariana Sandoval (D-Goodyear). “[Republicans] want to codify whatever the federal government is doing at the state level.”
In an interview with CALÓ News, she said state and local governments should not be in the business of enforcing federal immigration laws, saying it undermines community trust, public safety and local control.
Here are some of the anti-immigration bills moving, stalling or dying this session.
Senate Bill 1520
Introduced by Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-Flagstaff) and Sen. Mark Finchem (R-Prescott), the bill would require Arizona state agencies to share information upon request with the federal government about people who are in the country without legal status or who have overstayed a visa. The law would expire in 2028 unless renewed.
Wayne Wauneka, a Diné behavioral health worker, said the bill, “creates a system built on fear and surveillance instead of care and community.” He said it would prevent people from reaching out and receiving necessary mental and behavioral health services.
The bill passed through the Senate Military Affairs and Border Security committee along party lines and now heads to the Senate Rules Committee.
Senate Bill 1635
This bill, sponsored by Sen. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) would make it a misdemeanor offense for “unlawful alerting,” making it a crime to knowingly warn someone about law enforcement activity in their area if the intent is to “hinder, delay or prevent” an arrest.
The bill applies to electronic messages, verbal statements, gestures or other forms of intentional signaling. Violations would be prosecuted by the attorney general or county attorneys and classified as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Organizations like Puente Movement for Migrant Justice and legislators like Sen. Analise Ortiz (D-Phoenix) have become known for alerting the community of Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in their area. The bill does not directly mention ICE monitoring, but advocates say it is meant to stop exactly that.
It is currently held in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as its initial hearing was postponed.
House Bill 2904
Sponsored by Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-Goodyear), the bill declares fentanyl trafficking a public health crisis and directs the Arizona Department of Health Services to address it, stopping fentanyl overdoses by beefing up border security and addressing public health.
“Thank God we have a president that has focused on having a secure border,” Montenegro said during a committee hearing. “But that doesn’t always happen, and in those instances, we as a state have a responsibility to our citizens to make sure that we are protecting them.”
Noah Schramm, a policy strategist with the ACLU of Arizona, argued that the bill uses ambiguous language, like “unlawful invasion,” that does not exist in state law, and could lead to “even higher incarceration rates for low-level offenders,” without addressing the opioid epidemic.
The bill passed along party lines and now heads to the House Rules Committee for a vote.
Senate Bill 1055
Introduced by Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-Flagstaff), the bill would require local authorities to alert ICE when someone without legal status is arrested, intending to enforce established laws and protect ICE agents.
“When this is not carried out, it puts an undue burden on the safety and the well-being of law enforcement,” she said. “Then ICE does not have to go looking and put themselves in danger in neighborhoods.”
ACLU’s Schramm said the bill “is a way of strong-arming state and local law enforcement into using their limited resources to help ICE.” He also said the current statute does not obligate law enforcement to prolong arrests solely for determining immigration status.
The bill passed through committee and now heads to the Senate floor for a vote.
Other bills to watch
- HB 2689: Requires hospitals receiving certain state funds to ask patients to self-report their citizenship or immigration status (without affecting care or sharing personal identities) and submit aggregate quarterly and annual reports to the state, analyzing totals and the financial impact of uncompensated care for those without legal status.
- SB 1421: Bars banks and check cashers from accepting certain IDs issued to undocumented immigrants and prohibits loans that rely on an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number for identification. It also requires proof of lawful presence before sending money abroad, with oversight and penalties enforced by the state — a potential setback for those relying on remittances.
- HB 2416; SB 1707; SB 1157: Appropriations bills providing millions of dollars for security along the southern border.
- HB 2811: Expands the crime of obstructing governmental operations to include using or threatening violence to hinder a lawful arrest and makes that conduct a Class 5 felony instead of a misdemeanor.
- SB 1152: Requires state and local agencies to verify immigration status before providing certain public benefits and to report suspected immigration violations to federal authorities. It also makes people with pending asylum applications ineligible for those benefits.
- SB 1474: Requires state and local law enforcement agencies to train officers on immigration enforcement and bans policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. It also empowers the Attorney General to take legal action against local governments that restrict that cooperation.
- SB 1457: Allows state funds to be used for advanced air mobility and purchasing aircraft for border security purposes, with priority given to counties along the international border.
Sandoval said the surge in immigration-related bills reflects sharply different approaches at the Capitol. Some lawmakers seek to mirror federal enforcement efforts, while others focus on retaining local control.
She said the debate ultimately comes down to community voice and participation, arguing that influence comes from collective action and that residents who are able should engage in the process and make their priorities known.
To track and monitor bills yourself, visit https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview. The site provides updates on votes, fact sheets and original and amended bill texts.
A Breakdown of Anti-Immigration Bills Moving Through the Arizona Legislature in 2026 was originally published by CALÓ News, shared by Arizona Luminaria, and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Your Vote Counts postid
Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties
Mar 02, 2026
New polling and expert analysis reveal a shifting and increasingly complex political landscape among Hispanic and Latino voters in the United States. While recent surveys show that economic pressures continue to dominate voter concerns, they also highlight a broader fragmentation of political identity that is reshaping long‑standing assumptions about Latino electoral behavior. A Pew Research Center poll indicates that President Donald Trump has lost support among Hispanic voters, with 70% disapproving of his performance, even though 42% of Latinos voted for him in 2024, a ten‑point increase from 2020. Among those who supported him, approval remains relatively high at 81%, though this marks a decline from earlier polling.
At the same time, Democrats are confronting their own challenges. Data comparing the 2024 American Electorate Voter Poll with the 2020 American Election Eve Poll show that Democratic margins dropped by 23 points among Latino men, raising concerns among party strategists about weakening support heading into the 2026 midterms. Analysts argue that despite these declines, sustained investment in Latino voter engagement remains essential, particularly as turnout efforts have historically influenced electoral outcomes.
Underlying both parties’ shifting fortunes is a broader trend: the Latino electorate is becoming more politically diverse and less predictable. Polling consistently shows that affordability, jobs, and housing are the top priorities for Latino voters, far outpacing issues like immigration. This focus on economic pressures cuts across ideological lines and contributes to what some experts describe as a fragmentation of the Latino vote, with voters increasingly aligning based on personal circumstances, generational differences, and varied cultural identities rather than a unified political bloc.
Together, these findings point to a dynamic and evolving electorate whose political behavior is shaped less by traditional party loyalties and more by economic realities and diverse lived experiences—making Hispanic and Latino voters one of the most closely watched groups ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties was first published on the Latino News Network and was republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Changing Conversations Around Immigration
Leif Christoph Gottwald on Unsplash
Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy
Mar 01, 2026
I am writing this not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as an American who believes that compassion and common sense must coexist. I understand why many people feel sympathy for those who come to the United States seeking safety or opportunity. That compassion is part of who we are as a nation. But compassion alone cannot guide national policy, especially when the consequences affect every citizen, every community, and every generation that follows.
For more than two centuries, people from around the world have entered this country through a legal process—sometimes long, sometimes difficult, but always rooted in the idea that a nation has the right and responsibility to know who is entering its borders. That principle is not new, and it is not partisan. It is simply how a functioning country protects its people and maintains order.
My concern today is not immigration itself, but the growing push to allow undocumented individuals to remain in the United States without going through the same due process that millions before them have respected. Before supporting such a drastic shift, we should consider the broader implications.
First, there is the matter of national security.
We do not need to look far back in history to understand the risks of ignoring who enters our country. The attacks on September 11th were a painful reminder that there are individuals who wish to harm the United States. Borders, regulations, and verification processes exist not to punish innocent people, but to prevent dangerous actors from exploiting gaps in our system. Have we forgotten how quickly one oversight failure can lead to tragedy—and whose family might bear that loss?
Second, there is the economic reality—especially when it comes to illegal employment.
Millions of undocumented individuals currently work without Social Security numbers, without W‑4 forms, and without being placed on official payrolls. Many are paid under the table at wages far below legal standards. This arrangement does not just harm American workers—it also creates a shadow labor market that rewards employers who cut corners and penalizes those who follow the law.
If the United States were to grant legal status to everyone already within our borders, we must ask a difficult but necessary question: How many of these workers would actually keep their jobs once employers are required to put them on the payroll?
Legal employment means employers must now pay:
• payroll taxes
• Social Security and Medicare contributions
• unemployment insurance
• workers’ compensation
• payroll processing fees
• and, in many cases, benefits
These are real costs—costs many employers have been avoiding for years. Once those costs become unavoidable, will these employers absorb them? Or will they quietly replace newly legalized workers with the next group willing to work off the books?
And what happens then?
We would suddenly have millions of people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, now eligible for federal assistance programs they previously could not access. That would create a surge in demand for housing aid, food assistance, healthcare subsidies, and unemployment benefits—programs already stretched thin.
Is it fair to the homeless who cannot access consistent support?
Is it fair to families working multiple jobs who still cannot cover medical bills?
Is it fair to parents who are told there is no funding available for their children’s needs?
These are not abstract concerns. They are predictable outcomes.
Third, we must ask why this issue has suddenly become a political emergency.
Where was this urgency during previous administrations—Democratic or Republican?
Why is this the moment when leaders are demanding sweeping changes to long‑standing immigration processes?
What has changed, and who truly benefits from this shift?
It is not the average American family.
It is not the workers already struggling with rising costs.
It is not the communities trying to stretch limited resources even further.
Before supporting policies that remove accountability and open the door to uncontrolled migration, we must step back from the noise of social media, the slogans, and the rhetoric. We need to look at the bigger picture and consider the long‑term consequences—not just the emotional appeal of the moment.
Compassion matters. But so do security, fairness, and sustainability. A nation cannot function without all four.
I am not asking anyone to abandon empathy. I am asking for balance, for honesty, and for a willingness to acknowledge that policies have real‑world effects. If we truly care about the future of this country—and about the people who call it home—we must approach this issue with clarity, not just emotion.
Scott Woodson is a Pennsylvania‑based writer and U.S. Navy veteran exploring the challenges facing everyday Americans. As a new voice in public commentary, I focus on clarity, respect, and practical solutions in debates over immigration and other national concerns.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift