A group of former Republican and Democratic officials are forming a new political party called "Forward." Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and former Republican Christine Todd Whitman joined CNN's New Day to discuss.
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
3D Render of a Topographic Map of the Caribbean Sea with the clouds from September 08, 2017.
FrankRamspott/Getty Images
Federal Cuts to Research Have Impacted Hurricane Season; How is Florida Fighting Back
Sep 02, 2026
MIAMI, FLA — In 2025, Carlos Martinez, a senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, was working as a fellow at the National Science Foundation, managing the Coastlines and People Program, which used federal funds to connect climate science to hazards along the coasts of the U.S.
But after the signing of a slate of executive orders on January 20, 2025, cuts, freezes, and rescissions to the National Science Foundation, as well as other government agencies the federal government viewed as ‘wasteful,’ Martinez foresaw his future at the NSF, and he left the agency by June of that year.
“I was actually finishing that fellowship with the intent of pursuing future job opportunities at the agency,” said Martinez. “And then we saw what happened in January of 2025, where… the administration brought a sledgehammer and destroyed and fractured the entire research enterprise within the federal government… I knew there wouldn't be opportunities for me to stay.”
But Martinez isn’t alone.
After President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, cuts to federally funded scientific research projects led to the loss of over 20,000 jobs over the year, according to a study by the Progressive Policy Institute.
In Florida, one of the states most affected by Hurricanes, these cuts are echoed through loosened forecasting, mitigation, and preparation efforts. As hurricane season approaches its peak, experts across the nation are raising questions about the state’s ability to prepare for and recover from a hurricane.
But Florida has found ways to adapt to the cuts, especially through state-funded projects—such as Florida’s Hurricane Loss Mitigation Project and Resilient Florida—that provide funding to fill gaps left by the cuts.
What are the cuts, and how do they affect Florida?
Around the country, several government agencies work hand in hand to prepare for, recover from, and forecast climate disasters, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Weather Service (NWS), and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Over the past year, each agency has experienced several funding cuts that have drastically affected how states handle climate disasters.
The Trump Administration has cut more than 100 climate studies at the National Science Foundation by reducing funding for projects related to keywords the administration says are at odds with its political agenda.
As for the NSF’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027 (FY2027), the Trump Administration is requesting a 54% decrease from the foundation’s FY2026 budget of $8.8 billion, leaving it with a little bit over $4 billion.
In 2025, the Trump Administration announced a plan to end a large portion of NOAA's climate research by reducing funding for the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) Office by over $485 million, effectively eliminating the office.
OAR serves as NOAA's main research arm, conducting scientific research and providing data to help develop technology for forecasting, warning systems, and understanding natural disasters affecting the country.
Although Congress rejected this proposal, it still moved certain research projects and operations to the National Weather Service, reducing OAR's overall funding by nearly 10%, according to a congressional report.
In 2026, Congress again faced the task of cutting funding for OAR and other NOAA functions to allocate budget for FY 2027. According to reports from the Congressional Research Service, House appropriators on July 28 declined the Trump Administration’s proposal to shut down OAR for a second year, instead choosing to cut OAR programs by only 2 percent.
But these proposed cuts to NOAA aren’t the only ones affecting researchers and climate scientists around the country.
In December 2025, the Trump Administration announced plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado, the nation’s largest and most important atmospheric science center.
For Melina Matos, assistant professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Fla, these proposed changes to NCAR’s operations signify an important move in the work done by scientists who work on national multi-year projects, such as those at NOAA and the NSF.
“We work with the community, we inform the community, we work a lot with this applied research… I’m not alone in doing that,” said Matos. “We have so many scientists that do that, and we are great, and we help the whole world. And suddenly… [our work] is gone.”
But scientific research isn’t the only aspect being cut by the federal government. Recent cuts to FEMA have also shaken up the world of climate resilience and disaster preparedness.
FEMA works to provide logistical capacity and expertise based on the needs of communities across the country. This is done through its role in coordinating the distribution of essentials such as food, water, and medical supplies to local communities.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA sent over 17,000 personnel and delivered 20 million liters of water during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
But following recent changes to FEMA’s operations — including a 14% cut to FEMA’s workforce, the closure and eventual reinstatement of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant, nonrenewal of emergency call-center contracts, and the cancellation of a door-to-door canvassing initiative in disaster areas — the agency has left its most vulnerable communities fighting to ensure proper disaster recovery and its staff at a dead end.
Additionally, the NWS has also been affected by cuts that have severely impacted its operations and forecasting abilities. The agency works to provide “weather, water, and climate data, forecasts, warnings, and impact-based decision support services,” according to its website.
Recent cuts, however, have created gaps in the service’s ability to operate 24/7 and suspended operations, including daily recurring weather balloon launches, and created gaps in public broadcast warnings and communications.
In Florida, the roles of each of these agencies are crucial to the state’s ability to address these weather events. Across the state, the NWS operates seven offices dedicated to monitoring regional weather 24/7.
NOAA operates a wide range of offices within the state as well, including an Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection and three Natural Estuarine Research Reserves that serve as spaces for scientists to study historical aspects of the state’s composition and climate.
According to reporting from the WLRN, Miami’s NWS office was operating with about half of its normal staffing by 2025. WLRN also reported that about a dozen scientists at NOAA’s Virginia Key Offices in Miami were laid off.
16 scientists working in local fisheries and half a dozen working on projects surrounding hurricane modeling and forecasting were also fired, according to a report from NPR.
Yoca Arditi-Rocha, CEO of the CLEO Institute — a Miami-based “non-partisan organization exclusively dedicated to climate crisis education and advocacy,” according to its website — believes that these cuts are imperative to the state’s reaction to hurricanes.
“Hurricanes don't care about politics, and they don't care who you vote for; they don't care about geographies, and they truly respond to physics,” Adriti-Rocha said. “And Florida is one of the most hurricane-exposed states in the nation. So our ability to protect lives and to protect our communities, our property, and our economy should be of all everybody's best interest.”
Adriti-Rocha explains that these cuts not only weaken funding towards research, but also what she calls institutional knowledge.
“It's about weakening the foundation that informs emergency management, that informs local planning, that informs infrastructure investment, insurance risk assessments, and quite frankly, public communication,” said Adriti-Rocha. “When research slows, the ability to anticipate future risk also slows. I think when you have fewer resources to tell the public to prepare and to prepare for what you know, the bottom line is we have fewer resources to do so effectively and safely.”
What is the state doing to fight back?
But when federal funding disappears, many functions once funded by the federal government are redirected to state and local governments.
Florida’s Hurricane Loss Mitigation Project, a mitigation program aimed at minimizing hurricane damage, is state-funded and run by Florida’s Division of Emergency Management.
Resilient Florida, enacted by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May 2021, specifically works to ensure coordination of Florida’s resilience in coastal and inland area but protecting waterways, coastlines, and shores.
The program has created a wide range of grants that counties, municipalities, and special districts can apply for to address flooding and sea-level rise impacts, plan for vulnerabilities, and implement mitigation projects.
Although the program was originally set to expire in 2025, the state legislature renewed it last year without any controversy.
However, concerns about the program’s survival arose after the establishment of Florida’s version of the Department of Governmental Efficiency (FL DOGE), which began cutting state funding for projects aimed at combating climate change.
According to a report from FL DOGE, various efforts have been made to create investments in climate advocacy and resilience programs around the state, based on a controversial finding by the U.S. Department of Energy that “scientific evidence does not support claims of a long-term increase in so-called ‘extreme’ weather events, including hurricanes, tornadoes, [and] floods.”
Experts were concerned that these cuts would affect Resilient Florida, one of the largest state-led resilience efforts in the country, but after securing funding from a $6 billion deal with the Seminole Gaming compact, an agreement between the Seminole tribe of Florida and the state government for online betting to fund environmental projects, the project will continue to be funded at $150 million.
The program’s ability to cut through state funding to remain active reveals the larger role Congress plays in allowing state-funded and even federal programming to persist.
Various proposed cuts targeting NOAA and other government agencies faced scrutiny from Congress and were ultimately rejected, including a cut to NOAA facilities that would have shut down all weather and climate research labs.
But as the federal administration keeps pushing for deeper cuts, Martinez emphasizes that Congress's and the courts’ roles in deciding the future of environmental programming and emergency management become more pronounced.
“Congress has done some things, particularly appropriating funds and rejecting the proposed funds that the administration wanted, but the administration is still using very slow disbursement tactics to lapse funding in order to get to the funding levels that the president wanted, and this has an oversight authority,” said Martinez.
Arditi-Rocha notes that when it comes to protecting the environment, Congress needs to set aside its partisan biases.
“Protecting Americans' lives from hurricanes or wildfires or extreme heat is not a partisan issue. Should not be a partisan issue,” said Arditi-Rocha. “Every family and every community can benefit from accurate forecasts.”
Organizations and non-profits such as the Ocean Conservancy Group have also worked to create advocacy for change.
In June, Ocean Conservancy, an organization that works to protect the world's oceans through advocacy, set off on a statewide “Florida Needs NOAA” tour, sounding the alarm about the impacts of funding cuts on the state while informing citizens about NOAA and climate research.
At the University of South Florida St. Petersburg, the recently founded Florida Flood Hub for Applied Research and Innovation arose from the very Senate bill that funded Resilient Florida. The research lab hopes to direct state funds towards projects related to mitigating flood risks.
Other projects at universities that fill some of the gaps left by state and federal funds include the Wall of Wind (WoW) simulator at Florida International University, which simulates hurricanes for testing building materials and design.
What’s next for resilience science and natural disaster preparedness?
Bryan Koon, President and CEO of IEM International worries about the future of resilience science and the consistency of national funding towards emergency management projects.
“There's a lot of moving parts right now that particularly local government are going to find challenging in how they deal with disasters because [states] just don't know where the support's coming from,” said Koon. “They don't know where the money's coming from, and the money's looking to be reduced in the future, particularly in Florida.”
His agency, which works primarily with state and local agencies following natural disasters and other emergencies,
Matos believes that although funding for scientists and researchers is being cut, they believe in the importance of their work and may continue to pursue it even if it isn’t at the federal level.
“We cannot just stop funding, and the science that we are working on right now in terms of resilience, in terms of mitigation,” said Matos. “It's something that is extremely important because it will make of how can communities be safer.”
Gabriela Quintero is an incoming freshman at Barnard College of Columbia University, pursuing her B.A. in Political Science and Economics. Interested in politics, migration, policy, and culture, she hopes to pursue a career in political and cultural journalism.
Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly referred to IEM International as Integrated Emergency Management.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
An American & Canadian flag waving in the wind
Getty Images
Just the Facts: What’s Changed in U.S.–Canada Tariffs Since March 2025
Sep 02, 2026
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and a spirit of inquiry, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our newsgathering and the selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
In March of 2025, I wrote a column for The Fulcrum, Just the Facts: Canadian Tariffs, that set out to do something simple: strip away the rhetoric and explain, plainly, what tariffs between the United States and Canada actually were, what each country imposed, and why. That piece went on to become the most‑read article in Fulcrum history — more than 300,000 readers — because people were hungry for clarity in a debate that had become clouded by politics, slogans, and selective memory.
Eighteen months later, the facts themselves have changed. What was true in March 2025 is not fully true today. The tariff landscape is no longer a set of long‑running disputes over dairy, lumber, and steel. It has become a full‑scale tariff war — one with new legal authorities, higher rates, broader targets, and a collapse in trust between two countries that once prided themselves on the world’s most integrated economic relationship.
The rhetoric on both sides is stronger than ever, and sorting through it all is difficult. So, just like then, here are “Just the Facts”
The 2025 Baseline
In 2025, the tariff story was familiar:
- Canada protected its dairy, poultry, and egg sectors with tariffs exceeding 200%.
- The U.S. imposed duties on Canadian softwood lumber and maintained Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum.
- Both countries operated within the framework of NAFTA/USMCA, with disputes but also stability.
- The U.S. ran a trade deficit with Canada, driven largely by energy imports.
- Supply chains were deeply integrated, and both economies benefited.
That was the world readers saw in March 2025. It is not the world we are living in now.
The U.S. Escalation: Section 338
The single biggest change since your 2025 column is the United States’ decision in mid‑2026 to invoke Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — a rarely used statute that allows the U.S. to impose tariffs up to 50% on goods from countries deemed to be discriminating against American commerce.
The U.S. imposed 50% tariffs on a wide range of Canadian exports, including:
- Motor vehicles
- Dairy products
- Alcoholic beverages
- Steel and aluminum products (on top of existing tariffs)
- Dozens of consumer and industrial goods
This was not a symbolic move. It applied to roughly $20 billion of Canadian exports and represented the maximum tariff allowed under Section 338. It also applied even when goods otherwise qualified under the USMCA — a major departure from the trade rules that had governed North American commerce for decades.
Canada’s Response: Retaliatory Surtaxes
Canada responded in September 2026 with its own escalation: retaliatory tariffs of 15%, 25%, and 50% on more than 700 U.S.‑made products.
These included:
- Cheese, seafood, and processed foods
- Clothing, cosmetics, and household goods
- Appliances, electronics, and industrial equipment
- Steel, aluminum, and agricultural machinery
Canada had rolled back many retaliatory tariffs in earlier years. Now it is re‑escalating — and doing so at scale.
Negotiations Have Broken Down
In 2025, the U.S. and Canada were arguing. In 2026, they are not even talking.
Negotiations collapsed in August 2026, with each side accusing the other of bad faith. The U.S. described Canada’s actions as “retaliation,” while Canada accused the U.S. of using “economic integration as a weapon.” The deterioration of political trust is now part of the factual landscape.
The Economic Relationship Has Shifted
In 2025, the defining feature of U.S.–Canada trade was integration. Today, integration persists, but it has become a vulnerability.
Tariffs now hit the very sectors that bind the two economies together:
- Autos and auto parts
- Steel and aluminum
- Agriculture and food processing
- Electronics and machinery
Businesses face higher costs, more uncertainty, and more compliance risk. Importers have to navigate new tariff schedules, new classifications, and new rules about goods already in transit. The administrative burden is now part of the economic impact.
The Trade Imbalance Still Exists — But the Meaning Has Changed
The U.S. still imports more from Canada than it exports, largely because of energy. But the significance of that imbalance has shifted. In 2025, it reflected integration. In 2026, it reflects exposure: tariffs now hit sectors that feed directly into U.S. manufacturing, transportation, and consumer markets.
What Hasn’t Changed
Some fundamentals remain:
- Canada still protects dairy and poultry with high tariffs.
- The U.S. still maintains long‑running duties on softwood lumber.
- Both countries still depend heavily on each other economically.
But these constants now sit inside a much more changing environment.
Where Things Stand Now
The U.S.–Canada tariff relationship has moved from dispute to confrontation. The legal tools being used are more aggressive. The tariff rates are higher. The number of affected products is larger. And the political trust that once stabilized the relationship has eroded.
The facts today are sharper than they were in March 2025. And they matter more — for farmers, manufacturers, consumers, and the millions of workers whose livelihoods depend on international trade.
The rhetoric will continue. But the facts are clear:
North America’s trade relationship has entered a new phase — one defined not by integration, but by escalation.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Gen Z is often called politically disengaged, but new data on youth turnout, town halls, and global movements tells a more complicated story.
SDI Productions/Getty Images
Don’t Count Gen Z Out of Democracy
Sep 02, 2026
There is an increasingly common belief that Gen Z (aged 18-29) are disengaged from politics or civic life. This generation has lived through a major recession, a pandemic, and a decade of Donald Trump as the ubiquitous public figure, leaving them disillusioned and disconnected from our democracy. The reality is a bit more complicated.
“Youth are not disengaged, they’re just engaged in a different way,” says Rachel Janfaza, founder of the research firm Up-and-Up, which focuses on Gen Z political and cultural attitudes. Her research suggests that youth simply engage in non-institutional ways. She points to the recent election of Zohran Mamdani as New York City mayor, who extensively used social media to reach voters, as an example of a politician who connected with Gen Z voters.
The Bridge Alliance sought to explore this question in a novel civic engagement experiment recently. We recruited two members of Congress from both parties, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pennsylvania), to a telephone town hall meeting to focus on youth engagement. And only 18–29-year-old constituents of the representatives’ district were invited to attend. One metric captured was willingness to attend the meeting. More than 40,000 constituents were called to attend, and 15 percent of those asked, almost 6,000 people, joined the meeting – the exact percentage of a typical congressional telephone town hall meeting. This suggests this generation is just as engaged in this format of civic engagement as the general public.
While voting is often cited as a youth engagement metric – and younger voters generally do vote in fewer numbers than older voters – when the election seems consequential, they’ll turn out. Just over 50 percent of Gen Z voted in the election of 2020, the fourth-highest turnout number for that generation since 18-year-olds got the vote in 1972.
And this is not just an American phenomenon. “While youth disillusionment with established modes of governing may be real, the potential power of youth mobilization to challenge entrenched power is equally evident,” said Erica Chenoweth and Matthew Cebul in their Journal of Democracy article, “Why Gen Z is Rising.” “Youth mobilization has been a primary feature of recent efforts to bring change and accountability to ineffective governments around the world,” they wrote. Youth protests were central to the recent toppling of the India Education Minister after nationwide demonstrations erupted over critical competitive exam paper leaks, high youth unemployment, and systemic education flaws.
The research seems to be clear: youth engage in politics and democracy when they have a REASON to participate, and their participation is meaningful. I got a first-hand view of this phenomenon when working as a congressional staffer in the 1998. An exciting state legislator was seeking to make history: State Representative Tammy Baldwin (now, U.S. Senator Baldwin) ran in the Democratic primary for the U.S. House of Representatives seat around Madison, Wisconsin, defeating the Democratic National Committee-backed county executive. Her campaign energized University of Wisconsin students in a way not seen since in recent years in part because, if elected, she would be (and is) the first LGBTQ person elected outright to the U.S. House. In the six student-heavy voting wards around campus, Baldwin secured more than 70 percent of the vote, and some estimates suggest that half of the student body voted in that election. (Note: it helped that Baldwin is an outstanding politician and that Wisconsin has same-day registration.)
I would suggest three factors drove this youth engagement in Baldwin’s election. First, young people like making history. Whether it’s challenging the American war in Viet Nam or electing the first Black president, the thrill of making one’s mark in the history books attracts a young heart. Second, youth want to make a difference. They want their engagement to mean something, which means the cause or candidate must have a fighting chance to win. Third, to quote the song from the School of Rock musical, they want to “stick it to the man.” The unconventional idea of electing a gay or lesbian to the U.S. House was just a fun way of disrupting the established order.
There is a tendency in America to be cynical about the future. And to be sure, we’re up to our eyeballs in societal problems. Yet I believe that the generation coming to power will surprise the cynics. A 2024 survey showed that 79 percent of Gen Z say “they have a great future ahead.” In a very short time, we’ll find out if they’re right.
Bradford Fitch is a Senior Advisor to the Bridge Alliance, former CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation, and author of “Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."
Keep ReadingShow less
A view of the California State Capitol in Sacramento, California.
(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Assembly Democrats Defend Independent Voters Against a Party-Driven Effort to "Undo the Top Two" Nonpartisan Primary
Sep 02, 2026
SACRAMENTO, Calif. A new constitutional amendment introduced in the California Assembly Monday would guarantee every voter, regardless of party preference, the right to vote in all publicly funded and administered elections. It has drawn support from a notably broad coalition of Democratic lawmakers who are putting voters first.
Simply put, this amendment—ACA 24—would codify in the California constitution that the right to vote derives from citizenship, not upon affiliation with a political party.
ACA 24 comes on the heels of a coordinated effort by influential figures in both major parties to close California’s primaries, a campaign branded “Undo the Top Two.” Filed in 2026 by longtime Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio, the repeal effort has attracted a bipartisan roster of party insiders, including former California Republican Party chair Ron Nehring, Reform California chair Carl DeMaio, California Federation of Labor Unions president Lorena Gonzalez, and California Democratic Party chair Rusty Hicks.
Their goal is a return to a semi-closed system that would deny independent voters a meaningful choice. More than 5.2 million Californians are registered “No Party Preference,” a bloc that helped elevate 2026 primary turnout to a record 41%, the highest in California history.
Since California voters adopted the nonpartisan top-two primary in 2010, the Legislature has come to look far more like the state it represents. Women’s representation nearly doubled and people of color became a majority of lawmakers for the first time, a shift reformers attribute to opening primaries to every voter rather than to party insiders. Rolling the system back would hand that gatekeeping power back to the parties.
It also sits against a larger constitutional question now moving through the courts: whether the right to vote at a decisive stage of a publicly funded election comes from citizenship or from party membership. On that question, the two parties tend to agree on one thing, that the primary belongs to them.
The Right to Vote Amendment draws the opposite line. Sponsored by More Choice California, a coalition of election reform advocates and organizations led by the Independent Voter Project, it would enshrine into law the following:
“No eligible voter shall be excluded from meaningful participation at any integral stage of any publicly funded election, including primary elections, on any basis including political party preference.”
It is a simple but far-reaching principle that most voters understand and support. All eligible voters deserve an equal and meaningful vote at all integral stages of a publicly funded election, including primary elections.
Neither party should be allowed to use its internal rules or legal standing to override a citizen’s right to vote, a threat More Choice California has explicitly stated comes from “both sides.”
Republican leaders and aligned special interests are trying to repeal Alaska’s nonpartisan Top Four system, which includes primaries open to all voters and candidates. They tried and failed in 2024 but have placed another repeal initiative on the 2026 ballot. Republicans in Texas and South Carolina are suing to close their primaries to party members only.
At a moment when California politics is often reduced to intraparty factionalism, a dozen Assembly Democrats from different regions and ideological wings of the party put their names on the same bill, agreeing that the right to an equal and meaningful vote should be protected.
Below is a look at the legislative coalition pushing the amendment.
Lead Author
Stephanie Nguyen (D-Elk Grove) represents the 10th Assembly District and is carrying the amendment as lead author. A daughter of Vietnamese refugees, Nguyen built her career in community nonprofit leadership, serving as executive director of Asian Resources, Inc. and director of the Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber Foundation. In the Assembly, she has established a reputation as a prolific, detail-oriented lawmaker who authors dozens of bills a session on everything from elder financial abuse protections to health care access. Now she has taken the lead on a constitutional amendment that limits a party’s ability to control election access, including her own party’s, underscoring the nonpartisan nature of the effort.
"This is a voter-centered bill, not a party bill," Nguyen said in a statement.
"I have colleagues I respect in both the Republican and Democratic parties who may not agree with me on this, and I understand that. But this measure is not about our parties. It is about the voters we all answer to. Every one of them helps pay for these elections, and every one of them deserves an equal say in who represents them."
Joint Authors
Anamarie Avila Farias (D-Martinez)
Representing the 15th Assembly District, Avila Farias brings direct experience fighting for fair representation. Before her election, she served on the Contra Costa County Board of Education, the Martinez City Council, and the California Housing Finance Agency board. She also has a history with voting-rights litigation, having been involved in a California VRA case that forced her local school district to abandon at-large elections in favor of district-based ones. That background gives her a firsthand understanding of what it means when an election system fails to give voters meaningful, equal participation.
Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City)
Representing the 11th Assembly District, Wilson has emerged as one of the Assembly’s most independent-minded members. She has been outspoken about the need to strengthen voter trust in elections and has shown a willingness to buck party leadership when she believes it is the right direction for voters.
“Democracy works best when every eligible voter has a seat at the table,” said Wilson:
“Our political system should make room for every voice, not create barriers. The right to vote is fundamental, and it should never depend on choosing a political label. ACA 24 is about ensuring every voter has the opportunity to fully participate in our democracy.”
David Alvarez (D-San Diego)
Representing the 80th Assembly District, Alvarez came to Sacramento after serving on the San Diego City Council, including as council president, giving him a grounding in the nuts and bolts of local election administration that few state legislators bring to the capitol. His support reflects a pragmatic, voter-access-first approach.
Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park)
Representing the 48th Assembly District, Rubio has built a reputation as a coalition-builder willing to work across the aisle on practical governance questions rather than ideological ones. Her willingness to co-sponsor a measure that limits both parties’ control over primaries fits a pattern of putting constituent access above party convenience.
Coauthors
The coauthor list reads like a cross-section of the Assembly’s Democratic caucus, spanning generations, regions, and ideological lanes:
Blanca Pacheco (D-Downey), a former Downey mayor, brings a local-government, good-governance perspective and chairs the powerful Assembly Rules Committee.
Lisa Calderón (D-Whittier) chairs the Assembly Insurance Committee. One of the state's first Latina legislative aides' decades earlier, she has built a reputation for pragmatic, results-driven policymaking,
Alex Lee (D-San Jose), one of the legislature’s youngest and most independent voices, has repeatedly shown a willingness to challenge entrenched interests, including his own party’s leadership, on transparency and reform.
Corey Jackson (D-Moreno Valley) has made a name fighting for underserved Inland Empire communities and challenging entrenched ways of doing business when he sees them working against ordinary voters.
Patrick Ahrens (D-Santa Clara) represents a newer generation of members who campaigned on government accountability and has carried that theme into their legislative work.
Jasmeet Bains (D-Delano), a physician and the first Sikh American woman elected to the California Legislature, has not been afraid to break from caucus positions when she believes her Central Valley constituents are better served.
Mike Gipson (D-Carson), a longtime South Bay-area legislator, brings the perspective of a veteran who has watched primary and election-access fights play out over multiple cycles.
José Luis Solache (D-Lynwood), a former Lynwood mayor, adds another local-government voice grounded in direct election administration.
Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood) has built a legislative record focused on expanding access and representation for her Inglewood-area constituents.
Assembly Democrats Defend Independent Voters Against a Party-Driven Effort to "Undo the Top Two" Nonpartisan Primary is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More