As we celebrate Juneteenth, Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson Jr., vice president of partnerships and programming for the Bridge Alliance, shares his thoughts on our nation's newest federal holiday in "Reflections on Juneteenth."
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
Mark Mirko/Connecticut Public via Getty Images.
Activating the Citizenry: Why Third Spaces Are the Key to Saving Democracy
Aug 10, 2026
Americans aren’t hanging out together as much as they used to, and it’s having a crippling impact on democracy. It sounds dramatic, but it’s true. According to Montesquieu, who wrote The Spirit of the Laws in 1748, democracy requires three basic background conditions to be viable: relative economic equality; an active, connected citizenry that can work for common causes, which he called civic virtue; and a government with separated powers.
When asked if the United States was a monarchy or a republic, Benjamin Franklin declared, “a republic . . . if you can keep it.” In contemporary American society, each one of these conditions has weakened since Franklin’s cautionary quote in 1787.
What a Free People Looks Like
Franklin was stating what all supporters of democracy must understand: it is always the people who ensure that they will collectively rule and not be ruled over. No historical bequest nor institutional design allows a people to remain free without their own vigorous participation.
Today, the freedom we make together is in danger because we have allowed the habits and institutions that bring us together to atrophy. Since the work of Theda Skocpol and Robert Putnam in the 1990s, we have known that American civil society and the trust, knowledge, skills, and fellowship that they foster, have been in decline. Although the fact of this decline has been endlessly cited, we have not taken the implications nor the imperative of its reversal seriously enough.
Free people require what sociologists call third spaces outside of their homes and workplaces. Third spaces are where people can gather, build relationships with each other, develop cooperative goals and interests, share and vet information, and build skills necessary for leadership, collaboration, and accomplishment. America used to have many such spaces. After the Civil War, Americans of all kinds, often led by newly free Black people, began busily building civic and mutual aid organizations across the United States. These organizations were usually segregated by race and sex, but they were integrated across class and proliferate. From mother’s clubs to Elks’ lodges and unions to mutual insurance agencies, the period from the 1880s to the 1920s was one of dynamic civic cultivation. By the middle of the 20th century, most Americans belonged to a federated organization, and there were dozens of organizations that boasted memberships that equaled 1% or more of the American population. These groups spread through local chapters connected to national structures, expanding their reach.
Scaling Up Local Engagement
These civic groups were not professionally managed, donor-funded advocacy organizations; that form did not come to dominate civil society until the late 1960s. Instead, these were federated “translocal” associations that were rooted in local communities and bonded to them through membership, regular gatherings, and direct service but still connected across, state, regional, and national levels. Indeed, some groups even boasted international presence. Federated assemblages were primarily powered by dues, not donors, so they required broad-based, committed support. They were run on a mostly volunteer basis by people who acquired the knowledge and skills they needed through the process of working with and for their communities. It was through these civic third spaces that large swaths of the American public were able to develop and affirm shared values and nurture the skills, connections, and solidarity that allowed them to set ambitious agendas for both local service and advocacy for public social programs at the municipal, state, and national levels.
If not for the robust civil society infrastructure that existed, the New Deal, which is often lauded as being the result of President Roosevelt’s energetic leadership, would not have been possible. And the social movements of the middle 20th century could not have been as effective. Indeed, the largest translocal federated groups—like the Fraternal Order of the Eagles (of which FDR was a member), the Grange, the Prince Hall Masons, the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, and the National Association of Colored Women—worked tirelessly for a diverse array of programs that both set the agenda and charted the landscape of political possibility for the 20th century. Many advocated for social insurance, national education programs, anti-lynching, Veteran’s benefits, and diverse workforce opportunities for Americans. These institutions provided meeting places, civic education, skill building, and community for their members. Public education was organized and new constituencies and new voters were mobilized. Translocal civic organizations were spaces where people learned that they could do things together, and that they could solve problems by coordinating with their fellows while also demanding accountability from their governors. The people within these organizations built social capital and political efficacy, which became the scaffolding for the new world they were ushering into existence. The people also learned that when they organized for fun and common purpose, they became the engines of democracy. This rich landscape of civic association was a crucial background condition for building modern America, the incarnation of the republic that came closest to egalitarian democracy. The vision, which is now at grave risk.
Americans Want to Engage
Today, while about a third of Americans volunteer time to improve their community in some way, only 6% reported belonging to “a business or civic group such as such as Rotary, League of Women Voters, Masons, or Junior League,” suggesting a decline in spaces that can serve the relational and skill-building functions required for democratic sustenance. According to Kettering and Gallup’s recent Democracy for All Project survey, those who participate in the civic lives of their communities are also more likely to affirm democratic values, believe ordinary people can create change through a myriad of activities, and be registered to vote.
However, a crucial finding in the Kettering-Gallup poll does point toward a solution. While about 33% of people are community participators, an additional 30% say that they wish they could be. There is a lot of latent desire for the kind of community connection that makes democracy both possible and strong. When asked what keeps them from being as involved in civic life as they want to be, 47% of respondents indicate lack of time due to work and family obligations. What you might not expect is that the next most common barriers are not being invited to participate (43%) or not being shown where and how to get involved (42%).
In the same spirit of John Dewey and Jane Addams’ famous quote, “The cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy,” I submit that the cure for the ills of a civil society in decline is the robust invitation to reinvigorate our social, civic, and political connections through third-space, translocal associations that do more than politics. Such spaces can join us together in and beyond our neighborhoods and help to make both the tough work and considerable pleasures of collective self-rule actual, in small and large ways.
Democracy Depends on What We Do Together
The freedom that Americans laud—right now, everywhere—is not the automatic inheritance of any people. Instead, it is established in our practices of meeting one another where we are and deciding that we can, that we must, and that we will decide our fates together. The cultivation of this kind of freedom is not primarily accomplished in heroic displays on battlefields or through triumphs in the courts nor even in landslide victories on election day. Any of these things may be necessary but none are sufficient on their own. People must come together, deciding that they care for one another and will fight to secure each other’s liberty on equal terms. This kind of togetherness and resolve used to be called civic virtue, but such virtue is not merely the result of individual characters. Civic virtue is brought forth through the collective practices, institutions, routines, and rituals that we keep and which bring us together across differences to do things for ourselves and one another. This is the ground upon which a republic is built and maintained, and it is the space that it is essential to reinvent and reinvigorate now. It is the only way we will be able to continue to answer Franklin’s muttered charge in the affirmative: “Yes, sir, as for the republic, we the people intend to keep it.”
This article was originally published as part of From Many, We, a Charles F. Kettering Foundation blog series that highlights the insights of thought leaders dedicated to the idea of inclusive democracy.
Deva Woodly is professor of political science at Brown University and a Charles F. Kettering Foundation research fellow.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Three law books beside opened notebook
Photo by Mikhail Pavstyuk on Unsplash
Answering the Call, Lawyers Must Lead the Defense of Democracy
Aug 09, 2026
This year marks the 250th anniversary of our founders’ Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. But the constitutional democracy it enabled - designed to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - is now threatened, not by a foreign adversary, but from within.
Persistent constitutional and statutory transgressions, coupled with the continued erosion of democratic norms that once safeguarded our institutions, have undermined the foundations of our democratic order. They have also shaken Americans’ confidence in its durability.
The 250th anniversary, meant to be a moment of reflection and celebration, now stands as a call to action in the spirit of the document it commemorates. If we act with the resolve this moment demands, our response to these threats, like the Declaration itself, will be genuine cause for celebration.
To be clear, these threats are not abstract, and our responsibilities are not hypothetical. We must ask ourselves plainly:
Can we remain silent when constitutional provisions and laws are repeatedly tested, and in some cases, clearly violated; when institutions designed to serve all Americans are hobbled or commandeered for personal or political ends; when false claims are systematically deployed to undermine the legitimacy of elections; when voting rights are burdened or votes diluted through redistricting for partisan political gain; when the press is bullied and attacked to undermine its credibility and stifle criticism?
Can we stand by while opposing views and candidates are delegitimized through baseless personal attacks; while judges are threatened or harassed in their personal lives because of a ruling; while actors, including elected officials, generate falsehoods on matters big and small with such regularity and audacity that they cripple the exchange of ideas, and normalize lying and misinformation in public life?
Like the grievances against the Crown in the Declaration, these conditions call us to action.
No one should answer this call more urgently than lawyers. They occupy a unique position in our constitutional democracy — one not shared by other citizens. The legal profession holds a near-exclusive, state‑sanctioned authority to represent parties and shape the issues presented to courts. As such, they play a singular role in enabling access to the judiciary, where individual rights can be adjudicated and constitutional questions resolved. The courts cannot act without a case or controversy, and it is lawyers who must bring those cases forward for judicial review. And, they have done so.
Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed challenging the current administration's actions across a wide range of topics, including immigration, civil liberties, citizenship, federal employment, taxes, and spending. Courts have issued many preliminary and final rulings, often halting or staying illegal policies and actions. We can be proud of the indispensable role that lawyers have played in enforcing democratic rights through the courts and challenging laws and actions that undermine democratic principles or threaten our democratic system.
But while court orders addressing unconstitutional or illegal conduct can reinforce the rule of law and create space for civil society to operate, they are not sufficient on their own to meet the threats facing our democracy. It is citizens, including lawyers in their role as citizens (citizen‑lawyers), who must fill that space with their voices, their actions, and, most importantly, their vote - especially in the face of undemocratic actions that fall within the bounds of the law and therefore outside the reach of the courts.
Conduct that violates democratic norms and principles cannot go unanswered. It is important to identify and condemn undemocratic actions in traditional and social media. But full-throated opposition often requires us to leave our comfort zone. A protest gains power when it is in person, in public, and in concert with fellow citizens. This is the collective voice represented by the Declaration.
As important as it is, we must do more than vote: we must defend the right of all citizens to vote and encourage participation. We need to work together to remove barriers and disincentives to voting and, where barriers remain, organize paths around them. Volunteering at the polls and educating voters about their rights and responsibilities strengthens the voting process and increases participation. High participation fortifies elections.
Unconstitutional, illegal, or undemocratic conduct is often bolstered by denials or misrepresentations that twist facts, misstate the law, or invoke a contrived emergency. Citizen-lawyers can be a force‑multiplier in cutting through the fog of disinformation, especially on matters of law; this may be their most important role outside the courtroom. A lawyer’s lifeblood is separating the proven from the unproven, the relevant from the irrelevant, and fact from opinion. Uncovering the truth and exposing disinformation will clarify what’s at stake and strengthen public opposition to undemocratic and illegal policies.
The Declaration’s 250th anniversary calls all of us to exhibit the same courage that animated its signing. Lawyers and citizens working together must confront constitutional illegality, expose disinformation, and defend the vote. Given their role as bridges between citizens and the courts and their training in the pursuit of truth, lawyers, in their dual capacities, must lead when our democracy is under attack. Moving forward with resolve, we will realize the promise of the Declaration of Independence.
This series from Lawyers Defending American Democracy connects the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to current events that threaten democracy and the justice system. Each piece highlights the unique responsibility lawyers carry—through their oath, professional obligations, and roles in their communities—to help the public understand what’s at risk and to speak out when democratic principles are under threat. LDAD’s call to action is straightforward: as the Founders once did, we must recognize threats to constitutional values, demand accountability, and act to defend them.
Michael Curry is a University of Texas Law School graduate who served for over a decade as an adjunct professor. Retired, he is a volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy, serving as the Meeting the Moment co-lead for Texas.
Keep ReadingShow less
Now Is the Time To Become an Election Judge
Aug 09, 2026
As a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, I can recognize the legitimacy of the looming threat of ICE deployments at polling stations to intimidate and influence voters this fall during the midterm elections. In our state alone, we need 30,000 election judges to ensure a smooth election takes place. To fight against this threat and ensure we have free and fair elections, it is time for more community members to become election judges.
When I was in my senior year of high school, I reached out to the county office in Norman County, Minnesota (located in Northwestern Minnesota). Following a phone call, I was selected to serve as an election judge trainee for the 2024 presidential election. As the only trainee for our county, I gained valuable communication and leadership skills, while also learning about the inside workings of a polling station. In discussions with classmates then, and since, I have been continually shocked to realize how few people are aware that they can serve in this role, let alone what being an election judge means. Moving to the Twin Cities and serving during the 2025 Minneapolis Municipal Election further showed me the lack of awareness surrounding election judging among today’s youth. This experience also further enriched my perspective as to the value of this service.
An election judge is a temporary paid state election official who is trained to handle all parts of the voting process at the polling place. Election judges can take up numerous positions throughout the polling station to help voters get where they need to be on election day. Some examples of typical stations at a polling place include the greeter, the voter registrant, and the ballot counter.
When I first served, I was grateful to have been trained into the role by the many incredible public servants within the Norman County election office. To see the innerworkings of an election for the first time, at 17, was incredibly fascinating. In this role, among other responsibilities, I aided the other election judges in helping open and sort envelopes, count ballots, and carry boxes around the polling place. This experience opened my eyes to a new avenue of the world of public service that I had never heard of before. It gave me greater appreciation for the hard work that makes our electoral process possible.
Moving to the Twin Cities, I was excited to serve once more as an election judge in the 2025 Minneapolis Municipal election. Seeing the inner workings of an election in Minneapolis was fascinating as well. Similarly to when I served in Norman County, the support of my fellow election judges made this experience memorable and impactful in my personal and professional skill development. Among the stations that I took on in Minneapolis, my favorite was explaining the voting process to voters after they registered. Helping people understand their rights and how to engage in the voting process was truly special and rewarding. It made me so happy to hear from my fellow first-time voters (as I was 18 at the time), as well as from others who recognized the significance of this simple, yet impactful day. In the span of about three hours, I spoke to roughly 200 voters in this role.
Serving as an election judge is a valuable experience that I believe community members should take part in. It is a quick-moving role with different responsibilities that can be allocated based on personal strengths and weaknesses. Election day will be busy, but the job will be fun, and many incredible friendships will be made.
County and city offices are hiring throughout the country right now for both primary elections and the general election in November. If you are interested in serving as an election judge, I would strongly encourage reaching out to local county or city offices. There are both partisan and non-partisan affiliations available, and demand typically depends on the region you are looking to serve in. More information can be found on your local Secretary of State website.
Maxwell Fjeld is a community organizer and student at the University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management.
Keep ReadingShow less
Latino voters
AI generated photo
Latino Voters Stand to Lose the Most if Supreme Court Greenlights Trump’s Mail‑Voting Power Play
Aug 09, 2026
Weeks before Americans cast their midterm ballots, President Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate an executive order that would sharply restrict mail‑in voting. Courts have already blocked the order, calling it an overreach that would inject federal control into state‑run election systems. But the administration is pressing ahead anyway, and the consequences — especially for Latino voters — could be profound.
Mail‑in voting is not a luxury. It is how working parents, seniors, rural voters, people with disabilities, and millions of naturalized citizens participate in democracy. It is how communities that have historically faced barriers to the ballot box finally gained reliable access. And it is how Latino voters — the fastest‑growing segment of the electorate — have expanded their political power. When a president asks the Supreme Court to take that access away, we should be clear about what is happening: this is not about election integrity. It is about power.
Voto Latino Executive Director Beatriz Lopez put it plainly in her statement responding to the emergency request: Every time the Latino electorate becomes too large to ignore, new attempts emerge to make voting harder. Her warning is not abstract. Trump is not only seeking to restrict mail‑in voting; he is simultaneously pressuring Senate Republicans to pass the SAVE Act, a bill that would impose burdensome proof‑of‑citizenship requirements and risk purging millions of eligible voters — including naturalized citizens and married women — from the rolls. Taken together, these efforts form a coordinated strategy to shrink the electorate from multiple directions.
The legal filings tell the same story. According to VoteBeat, the executive order would require states to submit federal “citizenship lists” to the U.S. Postal Service, and only voters appearing on those lists would receive mail ballots. Election officials warn that the system is untested, unworkable, and impossible to implement safely this close to Election Day. Democracy Docket notes that 23 states have urged the Supreme Court to uphold the block, arguing that the order would “implode the midterms” by forcing USPS — a mail carrier — to become a gatekeeper of voting rights.If allowed to proceed, the order would not fall evenly across the electorate. It would hit hardest where mail‑in voting is most essential: communities with long work hours, limited transportation, inconsistent access to polling places, and high numbers of naturalized citizens. In other words, it would hit Latino voters. It would hit the very communities that have spent decades fighting for equal access to the ballot.
The Supreme Court could rule at any moment. Whatever the outcome, one truth remains: democracy is not defended by silence. Latino voters have expanded their political power through persistence, organization, and the belief that their voices matter. That belief is being tested again. And as Voto Latino made clear, the community is not backing down. They are watching, organizing, and preparing to ensure that every eligible Latino voter can be heard — this November and every election after.
Latino Voters Stand to Lose the Most if Supreme Court Greenlights Trump’s Mail‑Voting Power Play was first published by the Latino News Network and was republished with permission.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More