More Equitable Democracy launched in January 2018 and serves as a nonprofit intermediary working with communities of color to advance electoral system reforms that increase representation for underrepresented communities. We strive to be co-creators within these communities to establish stronger bonds of democracy while empowering these groups with education, research, and the tools to strategically implement long-term change.
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

The voter registration office at the Nueces County Courthouse in Corpus Christi, Texas on Sept. 11, 2024. Voting rights groups are challenging the state's use of a federal database to check the citizenship status of people on the state's voter roll.
Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat
Voting Rights Groups Challenge Texas’ Removal of Potential Noncitizens From the Voter Roll
Apr 13, 2026
What happened?
Voting rights groups are suing the Texas Secretary of State’s Office and some county election officials to prevent the removal of voters from the state’s voter roll based on use of a federal database to verify citizenship. They also claim the state failed to crosscheck its own records for proof of citizenship it already possessed before seeking to remove voters.
What’s the dispute?
Last fall, the Texas Secretary of State’s Office announced it had used a federal database newly overhauled by the Trump administration — a tool from the Department of Homeland Security previously used for years to verify the immigration status of individuals seeking benefits — to verify the citizenship of more than 18 million Texans on the state’s voter roll. The office said at the time it had identified 2,724 “potential noncitizens,” and had directed counties to investigate.
Votebeat subsequently exclusively reported that some voters included in that figure may have already provided proof of citizenship to the state while obtaining a driver’s license or state ID at the Texas Department of Public Safety. At least one county later confirmed that some of the flagged voters there had done so.
In the lawsuit, filed in a federal district court in Austin Thursday, the plaintiffs said the database, known as SAVE, is unreliable, and that Texas’ use of it to remove people from the rolls, including some who are naturalized U.S. citizens, is a violation of the National Voter Registration Act.
The plaintiffs said in the filing, which cited reporting by Votebeat and other news outlets, that the Secretary of State’s Office “did not consult Department of Public Safety data—a known source that could confirm citizenship for many registered voters—before placing the burden on the voter to provide documentary proof.”
Who are the plaintiffs?
The nonprofit watchdog Campaign Legal Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of multiple voting rights and advocacy organizations, including the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Texas LULAC, LULAC Council 102, and nonpartisan advocacy group Common Cause and its members.
What are the plaintiffs asking for?
The plaintiffs want the court to declare that the state’s removal of voters from the rolls using the SAVE database violates the National Voter Registration Act, and want the court to prohibit the Texas Secretary of State’s Office from sending lists of potential noncitizens to the counties without “further, uniform investigation,” the lawsuit says.
They also asked the court to prohibit the state and county election officials from removing people from the voter roll “solely because they have been flagged as noncitizens by the SAVE system” and to order that anyone who was removed be placed back on the voter roll until “it can be conclusively proved that such voters are not currently U.S. citizens”.
What happens now?
The state and county defendants have yet to file a response to the complaint. The Texas Secretary of State’s Office declined to comment Friday. At least one other lawsuit filed in federal court challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s use of the SAVE database is also still pending.
Read more Votebeat coverage of the state’s use of the SAVE database:
- Texas is diving into a federal database to check voter citizenship. Some experts are worried. July 22, 2025
- Texas counties begin checking on ‘potential noncitizens’ on voter rolls. Here’s what they’re finding. Oct. 31, 2025
- Texas counties are looking into ‘potential noncitizens’ on voter rolls, and say DPS may have proof of citizenship for some, Dec. 2, 2025
Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.
Voting Rights Groups Challenge Texas’ Removal of Potential Noncitizens From the Voter Roll was originally published by VoteBeat Texas and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

Protester wraps himself in a pre-revolution flag at an anti-war rally on April 8. Modern
Iran flags fly in the background.
Jamie Gareh/Medill News Service
Iranian Immigrants React to Cease-Fire Agreement, Divide Deepens
Apr 12, 2026
WASHINGTON - At a recent “No Kings” rally outside the U.S. Capitol, a few demonstrators waved a large Iranian flag.
The U.S. and Israel had launched the war in Iran exactly one month earlier. As protestors chanted, a woman, carrying the old flag of Iran — from before the 1979 revolution — approached the bearers of the modern flag and yelled “traitor!” They then repeatedly hurled insults at each other, yelling “traitor” back and forth.
Since the war’s start, a sharp political schism has grown among the Iranian diaspora. While many Iranian Americans have fervently opposed the war, worried about the destruction it has caused in Iran, some have welcomed it, often viewing it as a necessary vehicle for regime change.
Many of those who support the war are part of a growing movement calling for the restoration of the shah, the monarchy that ruled Iran before its 1979 revolution. As the war broke out, many in this movement celebrated in the streets, waving the pre-revolution flag, which for many has become a symbol of Iran’s former monarchy. The two sides have reacted differently to the 2-week cease-fire announced by President Donald Trump on Tuesday.
Fatemeh Keshavarz, an Iranian American writer who strongly opposes the war, said she breathed a “sigh of relief” when the cease-fire was announced. Earlier that day, in a post on Truth Social, Trump had warned that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if a deal between the warring nations was not reached by 8 pm. He had threatened to bomb large parts of the country.
However, Keshavarz remained skeptical of the cease-fire.
“I am worried that they would just use that time to replenish bombs and guns,” said Keshavarz. “They have done this before to other countries.”
Ghazal Jahanshah, who demonstrated at an anti-war protest the day after the cease-fire was announced, echoed a similar sentiment.
“My sister called me yesterday [before the announcement], and she said maybe it’s the last time we talk. I don’t know,” she said. She expressed joy that Trump didn’t carry out his threat but said, “I don’t think a cease-fire means a cease-fire.”
However, many who had supported US intervention, such as Ben Kristof Jamshidi, were disappointed by the cease-fire. They felt that the Trump administration had abandoned its promise of regime change.
“I was like, they’re leaving us with this regime?” Jamishidi said. “If they give the regime some room to breathe, they’re just going to mass execute people.”
After the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the beginning of this war, his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, took over. Many analysts expect him to continue his father’s hardline approach.
However, notably, both supporters and opponents of the war expressed doubt that the cease-fire would hold. Despite Jamshidi’s initial disappointment in the cease-fire, he now expects another advance by Trump to oust the current regime before the two-week end date. He said this brings him a sense of relief.
“First of all, for my own mental health, that’s what I’d like to believe. But at the same time, has he ever revealed his plan to the whole world before doing anything?” Jamshidi said.
He explained that he has spent nearly half his life under the regime’s dictatorship, and knows “how bad it is.”
“We really want it gone by any means necessary, and if that means bombs, then so be it,” he added.
Others who want another shah in Iran argued that the war needs to start again.
“We don’t see this war as a war,” said Peyman Bakhshayesh, who supports the shah’s return. “It was rather a rescue operation.”
Niki Akhavan, an Iranian American professor at Catholic University, attributed the rise in pro-war sentiment among Iran’s diaspora to the thousands of peaceful demonstrators the Iranian regime killed during mass protests in Iran in late December and January. She explained that, in her view, a sense of hopelessness combined with what appeared to be online propaganda campaigns propelled the rise of the pro-shah movement.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) commissioned Zogby Analytics to conduct a mixed-mode online and live-operator telephone survey of 508 Iranian-Americans between March 24-27, 2026. www.iranianamericanpoll.org
NOTE: Based on a confidence interval of 95%, the margin of error for 508 is +/- 4.4 percentage points.
A recent poll conducted by the National Iranian American Council found that nearly a third of Iranian Americans supported the war. That was a decrease from the first days of the war, when 49% of Iranian Americans surveyed said they either strongly or somewhat supported the war. At that time, 49% also opposed the war, marking an almost exactly even political division just over a month ago.
The same study found that the primary reason for this decline in support was the “killing and injuring of innocent civilians,” with 61% of participants citing this. According to the U.S.-based human rights group Human Rights Activist News Agency, around 1,600 innocent civilians were killed before the cease-fire.
The world now looks to an uncertain future for Iran. The sharp divisions within its diaspora continue, although they have diminished. Still, for many Iranians like Jahanshah, one desire for their homeland remains across ideologies.
“Whatever will happen, I hope that it comes from the people. That’s all,” she said.
Jamie Gareh is a graduate student at Medill.
Keep ReadingShow less
Gabriel Rodríguez: Strengthening Immigrant Communities
Apr 12, 2026
For more than two decades, the Centro de Ayuda (Center of Help) in Annapolis, Maryland, has served as a lifeline for immigrant families navigating life in Maryland. The nonprofit provides a wide range of culturally responsive services — from English and citizenship classes to youth programs, health navigation, and legal‑rights education. Its mission is to help Latino and immigrant residents access the tools, information, and support networks needed to thrive.
The organization has become especially vital in recent years as demand for language access, health resources, and community advocacy has grown. Centro de Ayuda partners with local schools, health departments, and civic institutions to bridge gaps that often leave immigrant communities underserved. Its staff and volunteers work directly with families, offering guidance on everything from school enrollment to accessing public benefits, and connecting residents with trusted local services.
At the center of this work is Executive Director Gabriel Rodríguez, who has helped guide the organization through a period of expansion and renewed visibility. Rodríguez, who previously served as Director of Programs, stepped into the leadership role with a background that spans nonprofit management, education, and the arts. Under his direction, Centro de Ayuda has continued strengthening its programming while deepening its partnerships across Anne Arundel County.
The Fulcrum spoke with Rodriguez on a recent episode of The Fulcrum Democracy Forum.
- YouTube youtu.be
We first met Rodriguez during the filming of The Fulcrum’s series The 50: Voices of a Nation, which explores how Americans across the country engage with democracy at the local level. In the Maryland episode, he noted that many immigrant families place mental health on the back burner because daily pressures like work, housing, and financial stress take priority, making trusted community organizations essential for connecting them with reliable health information and support.
- YouTube youtu.be
Rodriguez's participation in the Maryland installment of the series highlights the broader civic and democratic challenges immigrant communities face — and the essential role organizations like Centro de Ayuda play in addressing them.
As The 50 continues documenting community leadership across the country, Rodríguez’s work underscores how local, culturally grounded institutions can bolster civic participation, public health, and community resilience.
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
A Tale of Two Pandemics: Public Health and Democracy from H1N1 to COVID-19 and Beyond
Apr 12, 2026
One of the greatest public health advancements for children in the United States and across the globe is the development of vaccines to save lives. When I was a child, my parents were grateful to have me and my brothers participate in early polio trials as the disease raged in neighborhoods. As a mother and grandmother, I have welcomed the advances that kept my children and now my grandchildren healthier. I knew my children were safer when they entered school because health policies were in place to protect everyone. As Secretary of HHS, I oversaw an effort to develop a vaccine and mobilize that vaccination effort against H1N1. This flu strain was lethal to children and young adults in 2009 and 2010 and was the first pandemic the US had experienced in 70 years. So I have personal and professional experience throughout my life with beneficial vaccines.
As the Secretary of HHS for five and a half years, I learned a lot dealing with public health officials and leading responses to outbreaks of unknown origin. I also learned the importance of using credible, consistent information that is based on reliable science to quell fears and prepare the public for group response. The people’s confidence in a trustworthy information environment is a foundation of our democracy and is also critical to our public health.
Putting Science First: The H1N1 Response
An unknown strain of flu virus greeted me almost immediately upon entering office in 2009. I learned there was no available vaccine, that the virus started in Mexico and was already in the United States and Canada, and that children and young adults who weren’t normally victims of seasonal flu were becoming very ill or dying. That was alarming, and the prospects for a global pandemic were terrifying.
In the US, leaders across the cabinet were mobilized for a rapid response, and a communication strategy of giving the public clear, scientifically based information about what we knew and, as important, what we didn’t know, was quickly implemented under President Obama’s leadership. Rule number one was to follow the science. We would not risk lives for the sake of politics.
Work quickly began in the US and other countries to develop an effective vaccine, and progress was shared with health ministers, first in the Americas and then throughout the world, on a regular basis. The US closely coordinated efforts with the World Health Organization (WHO) and committed to vaccine-sharing agreements with under-developed nations when a vaccine was available.
We were lucky that the virus ultimately wasn’t as lethal as it had initially appeared. Trust and investment in science led to a vaccine that helped to curtail the rapid spread of H1N1 by late summer 2009. A national vaccination effort was underway in the fall. The vaccine targeted the most vulnerable populations first and then all eligible Americans as production increased. The US participated in vaccine-sharing, so as the flu season moved across the globe, other countries were prepared and could limit illness and death. Lower-income countries received life-saving vaccines through previously negotiated international agreements and donations.
But clear communication, international trust and coordination, and shared responsibility to assist countries with little ability to buy medicines were key components of limiting deaths and curtailing the spread of disease. The public trusted the information and the recommendations they were given. Although fear and uncertainty persisted until we had a safe vaccine and enough was manufactured to satisfy demand, Americans trusted the process, listened to the experts, and followed the best scientific advice.
COVID-19: When Science and Politics Collide
Those principles of clear, scientifically based information, as well as collaboration and cooperation with health ministers in countries around the world, began to break down in 2020 with the emergence of COVID-19. For the first time in the US, political leaders openly disputed scientific recommendations, and public health information and recommendations were treated as partisan issues.
Since COVID-19 was also a novel virus with no vaccine available, initial recommendations about the spread and containment changed with time as more was learned about the disease. The White House didn’t use the bully pulpit to calm fears or bring people together, but instead political leaders made accusations about the motives of long-serving health experts, made recommendations about remedies and treatments that were not tried or tested, and openly disputed decisions by elected leaders in the opposite political party about keeping their citizens safe and secure. Despite pushing forward the vaccine that ultimately ended the pandemic, the first Trump administration sowed seeds of uncertainty and distrust that continue to hamper public health efforts today.
Politics and Public Health in the Post-COVID-19 Era
Now after living through the long nightmare of COVID-19, with millions of deaths and economic losses, the second Trump administration has further eroded our public health framework, at home and abroad. The huge success of the COVID-19 vaccine, saving millions of lives in America and around the world, is now a casualty of the current vaccine skeptics. The world health alliances, so critical to identify, inform, and contain outbreaks before they reach American shores, are now operating without the US. We have withdrawn from WHO and from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the international partnership for vaccine sharing.
And within the US, a formerly small band of vaccine skeptics has grown into a political force, urged on by the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, who spent decades suing vaccine companies and making unsubstantiated claims linking vaccines to autism. Public health officials have been driven from their jobs, and the US is no longer collecting and sharing health data on outbreaks.
The primary public health agency in the US, the CDC, has been decimated with staff and leadership firings and a 40% budget cut. We are once again seeing outbreaks in the US of childhood diseases proclaimed eradicated years ago.
Before the measles vaccine, around three to four million children in the US got the wildly contagious disease every year, leading to tens of thousands of hospitalizations and hundreds of deaths annually. Since 1963, when the vaccine was developed, it is estimated that measles vaccinations have prevented over 90 million deaths worldwide. The current US outbreak of measles—over 2,000 cases reported in 2025 largely among unvaccinated individuals resulting in hundreds of hospitalizations and at least two child deaths—is horrifying in a country where a measles vaccine is safe, effective, and affordable.
It is alarming to see public health undermined and expertise discounted by appointed public officials who maintain, without any scientific evidence, that vaccines are more harmful than the diseases they prevent. Currently those same federal appointees and their allies in states are working to undermine the comprehensive school-vaccine mandates, declared constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1922 and expanded to all states by 1980.
The Secretary of HHS has now fired all the experts on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, established in 1964, replacing them with many vaccine skeptics. Already the new committee has suggested that several childhood vaccines be removed from the recommended list of shots and that parents should be given wide latitude on refusing vaccinations for entry into school. Some on the new committee have even suggested that all vaccine recommendations should be eliminated.
The new US health officials have disrupted and withdrawn from surveillance and joint research programs with health ministers around the world. Americans are now less safe and secure as novel viruses cross our borders and infect our citizens. And now we are seeing the dangerous policies of top health officials putting our children and grandchildren at risk.
Demanding Experts We Can Trust
I am confident that parents want their children to be healthy and that they try very hard to keep their children from harm. I also know that many parents are overwhelmed with work and family obligations and want the best possible professional advice on health issues. It is dangerous to intentionally undermine parental confidence about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. And expanding immunization exemptions undercuts protections that children who medically can’t tolerate a vaccine gain when their classmates are vaccinated.
As the grandmother of five, including a two-year-old who is too young to receive all the necessary immunizations, I am bewildered and alarmed by the efforts to dismantle over 50 years of progress on childhood diseases. The individuals who are the top health officials in the US should be trusted to give accurate and scientifically based recommendations for the public good. That is not happening in the US in 2026, and we must demand better for the health of our children and grandchildren.
Kathleen Sebelius is the former governor of Kansas and served as the Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services from 2009 to 2014. She continues policy work with KFF (formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation) and co-leads the Health Strategy Group for the Aspen Institute. She is the Kettering Foundation’s inaugural David Mathews Democracy Fellow.
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.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















