The National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers is a member-led Association dedicated to structural election reforms in the public interest. We provide support to our member organizations through shared resources, best practices, and regular convenings. What unites us is being pro-voter, not anti-party. We favor a robust competition of numerous political parties and independents, and a level playing field on which that can occur. Our members have led campaigns for changes that increase electoral competition like Colorado's more open primary and redistricting reform, Maine's statewide ranked choice voting initiative, and California's top-two nonpartisan primary system.
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 Fulcrum Opens Applications for 2026 Fall Journalism Fellowship
Jun 30, 2026
Applications are now open for the Fall 2026 Fulcrum Fellowship, a solutions‑focused journalism program designed to train emerging reporters in narrative complexity and community‑centered storytelling. The fall cohort will run from September 14 through October 20, and applications will be accepted until August 3.
The Fulcrum Fellowship is part of the publication’s broader NextGen initiative, which aims to expand opportunities for student journalists and elevate youth voices in coverage of democracy, civic engagement, and public policy. The program builds on the success of previous cohorts and reflects The Fulcrum’s commitment to nurturing journalists who can move beyond polarized narratives.
Executive Editor Hugo Balta, an accredited solutions‑journalism trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network (SJN), leads the fellowship. Under his direction, participants receive hands‑on training in solutions journalism and “complicating the narrative” techniques — approaches that help reporters illuminate not only challenges facing democracy but also the responses emerging in communities nationwide.
As part of an SJN sponsorship, students receive training in climate solutions journalism and produce an original reported story that applies those techniques. This added component expands the fellowship’s focus on narrative complexity and equips emerging journalists with tools to cover climate challenges through evidence‑based, community‑centered reporting.
“We’re seeking young journalists who want to tell richer, more human stories,” Balta said. “This program provides the training and mentorship they need — and reinforces that journalism should empower communities, not just report on them.”
Fellows receive mentorship from the publication’s editorial team and opportunities to publish original reporting. Each fellow who completes the program receives a $1,000 stipend.
The fellowship is open to undergraduate and graduate journalism students in the United States who are in good academic standing. Application materials include:
- A current résumé
- Examples of published or academic work
- A cover letter explaining how the fellowship supports the applicant’s growth
- One letter of recommendation
All materials must be emailed to newsroom@fulcrum.us with the subject line “Fall Fulcrum Fellowship application.”
Expanding Student Journalism Through Partnerships
This year marks the first time The Fulcrum is expanding its fellowship program into the fall, made possible through funding from the Hortencia Zavala Foundation. Fellows will also have the opportunity for their published work to appear on the Latino News Network, extending the reach of their reporting to audiences engaged in conversations about democracy, civic participation, and community renewal.
Key Dates
- Application Deadline: August 3
- Fellowship Dates: September 14 – October 20
Students interested in solutions‑focused journalism and civic storytelling are encouraged to apply early.
READ: Six Emerging Journalists Selected as 2026 Summer Fulcrum Fellows
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
Recommended
Texas Department of Public Safety Region II Headquarters on Oct. 1, 2025 in Houston. The state is using DPS records to cross-check a list of registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens using a federal database.
Antranik Tavitian for The Texas Tribune
Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records
Jun 30, 2026
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office is now checking whether 2,724 registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens may have already provided proof of citizenship to the Texas Department of Public Safety, elections division director Christina Adkins said during a meeting with county election administrators earlier this month. That check comes after county elections officials found the federal database used to generate the list flagged some voters who had already given citizenship documentation to DPS when they registered to vote.
Texas officials in October sent counties the list of potential noncitizens generated by checking the state’s voter roll of more than 18 million registered voters against a federal database used to verify citizenship. Soon after the state released the list, counties began to investigate the flagged registrants and mail notices asking them to provide documented proof of citizenship.
County election officials have since confirmed some of the flagged voters were citizens, though a total number was not immediately available. In addition, they found that hundreds of the flagged voters had registered through DPS, which requires proof of citizenship, such as a passport, and keeps copies of such documents on file.
In Travis County, for example, voter registrar Celia Israel asked the state to check the registrants flagged as potential noncitizens in the county against DPS records. The Texas Secretary of State’s Office did so, and found that out of the 97 individuals flagged as potential noncitizens in the county, 11 had already provided proof of citizenship.
Adkins during the meeting said that Travis County officials were the only ones who had requested that the state conduct the check of the records through DPS, according to a recording of the Secretary of State Office’s meeting with county election officials obtained by Votebeat. Now, the state is conducting these checks for flagged voters statewide.
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office had previously told Votebeat and the Texas Tribune that it did not initially check the registrants flagged as potential noncitizens against DPS’ records before sending the list to county election officials to investigate.
That decision prompted a March lawsuit from voting rights groups and some Texas voters who said the state should have done so. The lawsuit is still pending in federal court.
In the meantime, local election officials in some counties have already removed some flagged voters from the voter rolls after they did not respond to requests to provide proof of citizenship.
It’s not clear why the Texas Secretary of State’s Office is checking the list of potential noncitizens against DPS records now and how county election officials will be directed to respond to the findings. The Secretary of State’s Office declined to comment for this story.
Officials push for additional safeguards to use the SAVE database
The federal database state election officials used to identify potential noncitizens is known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, database. The Trump administration overhauled SAVE last year, making it free for states to use and easier to search, and it has urged election officials around the country to use it to search for potential noncitizens on their voter rolls.
Experts and election officials have raised concerns about the SAVE database’s accuracy and reliability, and advocacy groups have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the administration’s changes and how SAVE is being used.
According to the recording, Adkins said the state did not initially check the list of potential noncitizens identified by SAVE against DPS records because that agency already uses the SAVE database.
“Initially, we didn’t think that there would be any kind of substantial difference, but obviously, we have found that there are some discrepancies,” Adkins said in the meeting.
Adkins said the discrepancies affected a “small fraction” of the total list and could be a result of outdated information kept by the SAVE database or by DPS — for example, some of the individuals flagged by the SAVE database may have recently become naturalized citizens — or due to clerical errors.
“No dataset is going to be 100% perfect,” she told county officials. “That’s why we can’t cancel voters outright” without additional investigation.
Adkins said another reason the state didn’t check DPS records before sending the lists to counties in October is because DPS must manually check each record, which takes a long time, and would have left counties with less time to investigate ahead of the March 3 primary election. Federal law restricts election officials’ ability to conduct systematic voter list maintenance within 90 days of a federal election, meaning the window for counties to investigate ahead of the primary ended in early December.
“We wanted to get that data in your hands, where you could at least address some of the kind of low-hanging fruit, is the way I would say it,” Adkins said.
In an emailed statement after this story initially published, DPS officials said the agency is working with the Secretary of State’s Office to “review and provide information from the Driver License System as it relates to registered voters, and requests to verify voter citizenship status are being prioritized.”
During an interim House Elections Committee hearing earlier this month, state lawmakers discussed how the state can ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote. At that hearing, Travis County election officials told lawmakers the state’s move to cross-check the results from the SAVE database with DPS data should be the standard moving forward. Others told lawmakers to consider the amount of time and resources it takes election officials — in counties already strapped for funding — to investigate whether a registrant is a potential noncitizen.
Last year, Texas lawmakers proposed a bill that would require Texans to provide documented proof of citizenship to register to vote, but it failed to pass before the end of the legislative session. The bill was among the most sweeping proof-of-citizenship proposals introduced anywhere in the country, applying not only to new applicants for voter registration but also retroactively to 18.6 million voters already registered in the state.
Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.
Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records was originally published by Votebeat Texas and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
The 50: Indiana
In Indiana, Three Organizations Push Back Against Barriers to Democracy
Jun 29, 2026
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana —After months of political pressure and millions of dollars spent backing primary challengers, President Donald Trump was largely successful in urging Indiana Republican voters to remove several GOP state senators who opposed the congressional redistricting plan during the May primary election. The shake‑up has intensified debate over how Indiana’s political maps are drawn — and who ultimately benefits.
- YouTube youtu.be
The League of Women Voters of Indiana argues that the state’s current redistricting system has produced a level of single‑party dominance that weakens democratic accountability. According to the organization, supermajorities can operate with little incentive to compromise, negotiate, or engage the public.
“We’re not attacking Republicans. We’re attacking supermajorities,” said Barbara Tully, a League Board member. “Right now, the Republican caucuses have all the power… Everything goes on in secret behind the doors. There’s no negotiation between the two. That’s not right.”
League leaders say the consequences are most visible at the ballot box. When districts are drawn in ways that all but guarantee one party’s victory, they argue, candidates have fewer reasons to engage with voters outside their base.
Linda Hanson, President of the League, said noncompetitive districts erode the basic expectation that elected officials should answer to the public as a whole.
“If you have candidates who are not in competitive districts, they’re also not going to feel they need to talk to all the public,” Hanson said. “They just want to put an R or a D by their names and have that stand for who they are.”
Common Cause Indiana points to a deeper structural issue: lawmakers draw the very districts they run in. Julia Vaughn, Policy Director for the organization, calls it a built‑in conflict of interest that fuels partisan gerrymandering and can dilute the voting power of diverse communities by splitting up established communities of interest.
“This was an attempt not just to silence the voices of Democratic voters but also to silence communities of color,” Vaughn said. “The two congressional districts that were targeted are by far the most diverse communities in our state.”
Both groups say the solution is to remove redistricting authority from elected officials and hand it to an independent, politically balanced citizen commission with no personal stake in the outcome.
Alongside its policy advocacy, the League is investing in long‑term civic engagement through a peer‑to‑peer high school ambassador program. The initiative hires and trains students to promote voter registration and education within their own schools, aiming to build stronger civic habits among future voters.
Investing in the Next Generation
Even as they push for structural reform, advocates are working to strengthen civic engagement among young Hoosiers.
The League of Women Voters of Indiana is investing in a peer‑to‑peer high school ambassador program that hires and trains students to serve as voting advocates within their schools.
Meanwhile, the Indiana Bar Foundation is expanding civic literacy statewide through classroom resources, competitions, and teacher training.
“We provide professional development, trainings, and resources for teachers,” said the Foundation’s Executive Director, Charles Dunlap. “They’re on the front lines in the classroom, and we see our role as supporting them.”
The Foundation tracks engagement in programs like High School Mock Trial and We the People to measure impact.
Kate Hollingsworth, a 2026 spring intern with the Indiana Bar Foundation, represents the kind of civic‑minded young leader these programs aim to cultivate. Fresh off her high‑school graduation, she and her We the People team advanced from the state finals to the national competition.
“It’s such a good experience — something all students should do,” Hollingsworth said. “It gives you civic perspectives you can use no matter what career you pursue.”
Hollingsworth believes young people must develop their own political voice rather than inherit one from older generations or party labels. She said meaningful civic engagement requires separating issues from partisanship and listening respectfully to different viewpoints.
“I’ve spoken about current issues in a mature way, and I’ve gotten negative feedback from older people,” she said. “But I respond respectfully. It’s important not to shut out other opinions.”
She added that political identity should not dictate every belief.
“People get stuck on having a certain party label,” she said. “But what matters is thinking about what’s best for our country.”
Though their strategies differ, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and the Indiana Bar Foundation share a common purpose: protecting and strengthening democratic participation in Indiana.
In a moment when voting rights are contested and civic trust is fragile, their work offers a reminder that democracy is not self‑sustaining. It requires advocates, educators, and institutions willing to stand up for the principles that bind a nation together.
And in Indiana, those voices are speaking loudly.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
The 50 is an award-winning documentary series. The four-year multimedia initiative led by The Fulcrum, travels to communities in every state to uncover what motivated Americans to vote in the 2024 presidential election. Through in-depth storytelling, the project examines how the Donald Trump administration is responding to those hopes and concerns—and highlights civic-focused organizations that inform, educate, and empower the public to take action.
Keep ReadingShow less
People watch as US President Donald Trump makes a national address on television at Brooklyn Diner Times Square on April 1, 2026 in New York City. US President Donald Trump's address to the nation is expected to lay out the framework for ending the conflict in Iran.
Adam Gray / Getty Images
When Duty Isn’t a Priority: A Megalomaniac President Abuses the Nation
Jun 29, 2026
What does it mean when the presidential oath becomes a performance instead of a promise? It means the nation is left vulnerable to a leader whose actions suggest that personal power may matter more than the Constitution he swore to defend.
He raised his right hand and swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” Yet millions of Americans have watched a president whose conduct repeatedly raises doubts about his commitment to that oath. His attacks on constitutional limits, his hostility toward oversight, and his tendency to treat institutional constraints as obstacles to personal objectives have led many to conclude that constitutional duty is no longer his governing priority. When the oath becomes symbolic rather than binding, the consequences are carried by the public.
Across the country, Americans feel something deeper than political disagreement. Many describe instability, exhaustion, and concern about an administration that often appears more focused on loyalty, image, and personal power than on public service.
A megalomaniac leader is defined not by a single act, but by a pattern of behavior. Political psychology associates such traits with grandiosity, inflated self‑importance, a need for admiration, intolerance of criticism, and a desire for control. Critics argue that the president’s conduct reflects these traits: demanding loyalty, attacking opponents, rewarding flattery, and framing disagreement as betrayal.
His public image appears central to his leadership style. He has promoted portrayals of himself as a heroic, powerful, symbolic figure. Supporters may view these as political theater; critics see a leader preoccupied with personal greatness. A president grounded in constitutional duty does not require constant self‑mythologizing—the office itself carries authority.
That impulse extends into efforts to attach his name, image, and personal brand to public institutions and national symbols. The significance of monuments, commemorative projects, and branding efforts lies not in any single proposal, but in what they suggest about governing priorities. Symbolic projects become revealing when they overshadow substantive policy needs.
A president’s priorities are revealed not only by what he says but by what he chooses to pursue.
Americans have repeatedly expressed concern about housing affordability, healthcare costs, wages, infrastructure, and economic stability. Yet public attention is often drawn toward symbolic projects and political spectacles centered on the president himself. Critics argue that this contrast reflects a deeper imbalance: while citizens seek solutions to urgent problems, government attention is redirected toward personal recognition.
The issue is not simply vanity. The issue is governance.
Every hour devoted to personal glorification is an hour not devoted to public problems. Taxpayer resources are not unlimited, and government attention is not symbolic—it is consequential. Public funds exist to solve problems, maintain infrastructure, protect rights, and address national needs, not to elevate individual political figures.
While families struggle with housing costs, healthcare expenses, childcare, and economic uncertainty, critics argue that governance often shifts toward symbolic displays, political grievance, and personal branding. Whether through naming efforts, public spectacles, or highly visible self‑referential projects, many Americans see a government increasingly oriented around one individual rather than the population it serves.
This is where concerns about megalomania become relevant. The issue is not a clinical label, but a governing pattern: when self‑focus becomes dominant, priorities shift. Public attention, political capital, and taxpayer resources risk being diverted toward sustaining a leader’s image rather than addressing public needs.
The pattern extends beyond symbolism. The president has frequently attacked judges who rule against him, characterized oversight as persecution, and portrayed institutional constraints as obstacles to his agenda. Supporters argue he is confronting entrenched interests, while critics see a deeper unwillingness to accept limits on presidential authority.
Independent courts, congressional oversight, inspectors general, and accountability mechanisms exist to prevent the concentration of power. When a president repeatedly challenges those safeguards, concerns about executive overreach become clear.
The same concerns arise when examining promises and performance. Presidents of all parties fall short of campaign promises, but critics argue that this presidency is marked by a recurring pattern of sweeping claims, shifting explanations, and refusal to accept responsibility. When narrative becomes more important than accountability, public trust erodes.
Over time, this produces consequences that extend beyond politics. Trust in institutions weakens, polarization intensifies, public servants operate under increased pressure, and citizens become less confident that government is acting in their interest. These are not abstract outcomes—they shape how people experience government in daily life, from economic stability to institutional reliability.
The consequences accumulate into something more serious: erosion of shared confidence in democratic systems themselves.
This is where the risk becomes structural. Political psychologists and constitutional scholars warn that when leadership centers on personal ambition, erodes accountability, and treats safeguards as illegitimate, it creates the conditions for democratic backsliding. Tyranny does not appear in a single moment; it grows when limits on power are steadily weakened or dismissed.
A presidency that concentrates attention on loyalty, undermines oversight, and elevates personal image above institutional restraint does not immediately become authoritarian. But it creates an opening for authoritarian drift: reduced accountability, weakened institutional independence, and normalization of personal power over constitutional limits.
When duty is abandoned, the nation absorbs the abuse—through weakened institutions, distorted priorities, and a presidency centered on personal power rather than public service.
The Framers anticipated this danger. They designed a system of separated powers precisely because they understood that no leader could be trusted with unchecked authority. The Constitution was not written for ideal leaders but for flawed ones—and for moments when ambition overwhelms restraint.
The events surrounding January 6 intensified concerns about how fragile democratic norms can become under strain. Millions watched violence unfold at the Capitol as Congress carried out its constitutional duty. What alarmed many Americans was not only the attack itself but what they viewed as an inadequate response from a president whose foremost responsibility was to defend constitutional order. Critics argue that the episode revealed how quickly institutional stability can be tested when loyalty to a leader competes with loyalty to the Constitution.
Concerns about presidential priorities also extend to foreign policy. Critics argue that several major decisions have contributed to instability, uncertainty, and economic disruption. When projecting strength becomes the goal rather than a strategy, the result is volatility rather than security.
Restoring duty requires every branch of government to fulfill its constitutional role. Congress must exercise oversight, use its power of appropriations, pass legislation, and, when necessary, pursue impeachment. Courts must uphold the law, protect due process, and enforce constitutional limits. Public institutions must remain accountable to the Constitution rather than to any individual officeholder.
Citizens have responsibilities. They must remain informed, reject normalization of abuses of power, participate in civic life, demand accountability, and vote. The Constitution provides remedies, but those remedies depend on a public willing to use them.
A republic survives only when its citizens insist that leaders serve the country—not themselves.
An abusive president who seeks to place his name, image, and personal brand at the center of public life is not simply building a legacy. Critics argue he is attempting to make himself inseparable from the nation itself. The taxpayers who fund government deserve more than spectacle, branding campaigns, political retaliation, and displays of personal grandeur. They deserve constitutional leadership focused on their needs.
The Framers understood the danger of leaders who confuse themselves with the country they govern. They wrote the Constitution not to flatter presidents, but to restrain them—especially those who place personal ambition above public duty. The Republic survives only when the Constitution, not the president, defines the limits of power.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership and civic renewal. She writes about democracy, constitutional duty, and the role of citizens in strengthening public life.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More