Nonprofit VOTE was founded in 2005 by a consortium of state nonprofit associations and national nonprofit networks to provide resources and trainings for the nonprofit sector on how to conduct nonpartisan voter participation and election activities. Nonprofit VOTE partners with America's nonprofits to help the people they serve participate and vote. We are the largest source of nonpartisan resources to help nonprofits integrate voter engagement into their ongoing activities and services.
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
California’s civic seal is growing. Now we must expand access.
Mar 26, 2026
America is about to turn 250. For many teachers, the question is not just what to celebrate, but how to prepare students to shape what comes next. One civics teacher recently captured the mood: yes, this anniversary can be a celebration, but if we stop there, “are we really preparing ourselves for the next 250?”
In California, there is a practical answer: give more students real opportunities to engage thoughtfully in civic life, and build clear, supported pathways to recognize those efforts. That’s the promise of the California State Seal of Civic Engagement (SSCE), a diploma seal awarded to high school students who meet state criteria tied to civic learning and participation.
California is not alone. Roughly a dozen states now offer civics diploma seals, in part to signal that civic knowledge, skills, and engagement are valued student accomplishments, not just part of high school graduation requirements.
Our new five-year analysis of California SSCE participation shows both sustained growth and uneven access. In the Seal’s first year (2020–21), 5,310 students earned it. By 2024–25, 23,040 students did. Growth like that suggests a strong interest in civic learning, even amid heightened political tensions.
Despite this growth, access remains limited. In 2024–25, fewer than one in five eligible schools awarded the Seal. Participation is also concentrated geographically: five counties accounted for roughly 71 percent of all Seals awarded statewide that year.
The most visible gaps are in settings where students may already feel distant from traditional recognition. In 2024–25, just one juvenile court, one community day, and two opportunity schools awarded the Seal, and standalone special education schools did not participate. If the SSCE is meant to expand civic opportunity, ensuring that it reaches these contexts will require flexible pathways and targeted implementation support.
We also want to be clear about what California public data can and cannot tell us. It does not include student demographic information about Seal recipients, nor do they measure the depth or quality of civic learning behind an award. Because districts have flexibility in how they implement statewide criteria, participation patterns can reflect differences in local capacity, resources, and design choices. Those nuances are not fully captured in the public data. Even so, participation patterns still offer a practical map of where civic recognition is possible and where it appears out of reach.
So, what would it take to move from promising growth to equitable, statewide access? We think the next phase requires not only continued adoption but sustained investment in the infrastructure needed to support high-quality civic learning at scale.
Teachers are being asked to teach democratic ideals amid heightened political tension and public scrutiny. Under those conditions, it can be difficult to move beyond required content and create space for sustained civic practice. In many classrooms, civics instruction necessarily prioritizes the founding documents, with little time remaining for meaningful student civic engagement.
But civic learning worthy of a Seal also requires structured opportunities for students to apply what they learn in the real world. It looks like students are listening closely enough to restate a classmate’s viewpoint, trace a local issue to the policies that shape it, and then deliberate on what responsible action might look like without turning classmates into adversaries.
Some readers may worry that civic action in school risks becoming partisan advocacy. That concern deserves careful consideration. But civic learning aligned with the Seal is not about telling students what to believe. It is about teaching them how to research claims, weigh evidence, identify missing perspectives, deliberate in good faith, and take informed action. Those are skills that strengthen democracy across ideological lines.
The data should serve as a prompt, not a victory lap. Expanding access will require normalizing Seal pathways across districts, supported by clear guidance and sustained professional learning. It will also require adapted support for underrepresented settings, including juvenile court, community day, opportunity, and special education contexts, where flexible pathways and dedicated resources matter most. And it will require investment in teacher capacity for civic instruction, because the Seal will not scale on goodwill alone. As participation grows, California should also strengthen public reporting on participation patterns so expansion remains intentional and gaps can be addressed directly.
There is one more encouraging sign worth naming: many Seal-participating schools serve students in economically disadvantaged communities. In 2024–25, about two-thirds of schools that awarded the Seal received Title I funds. That suggests civic recognition is not confined to affluent districts. The next challenge is ensuring that civic opportunity does not depend on geography, school type, or existing district capacity.
If America’s 250th anniversary is going to resonate in California classrooms, it cannot be just a commemorative lesson. It must be a recommitment to the everyday skills of self-government. The State Seal of Civic Engagement offers a strong foundation on which to build. With targeted support and sustained investment, California can ensure that meaningful civic learning becomes a standard part of the high school experience, not a privilege reserved for those in certain zip codes.
Robert Medrano is the Program Director at Teach Democracy.
Jenifer Crawford is a Professor of Clinical Education at USC Rossier School of Education.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
As the United States nears its 250th anniversary, Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson explores the nation’s founding contradictions, enduring racial inequalities, and the ongoing struggle to align democratic ideals with reality.
Getty Images
America at 250: Patriotic Lament From Her Darker Sons
Mar 25, 2026
As the United States approaches its 250th birthday, the nation confronts a moment that should stir both celebration and sober reflection. A quarter millennium is no small achievement in the long arc of human governance. Republics have faltered far sooner. Yet anniversaries, especially ones of this magnitude, are not merely commemorations of survival. These observances are invitations to take inventory. Thus, demanding that we ask not only what we have built, but what we have become.
The American story is told in two intertwined registers. One is triumphant: a daring rebellion reshaping political thought, expanding liberty. The other is quieter and often suppressed: a republic professing universal rights while sanctioning human bondage, preaching equality but benefiting only a select few. In our 250th year, we are invited to see these two narratives as inseparable, each shaping and challenging the other.
For those of us who inherit both America's ideals and its failures, the upcoming anniversary brings a complex sense of hope and heaviness. As a fifty-one-year-old Black American, trained to interrogate history rather than accept it at face value, I cannot ignore the contradictions at the nation’s origins. The same parchment that boldly declared “all men are created equal” was signed in a country where my ancestors were denied their humanity. This is not an aside to the American story; it is at its center. A century later, James Baldwin expressed the same tension, writing that he loved America more than any other country in the world and, for that reason, insisted on the right to criticize her perpetually. Their patriotism, like mine, was not sentimental but demanding. It was the patriotism of those who believe the American creed is worth holding accountable and worth redeeming.
That tension remains unresolved today. Two hundred and fifty years have not erased the color line that W.E.B. Du Bois described as the defining problem of the twentieth century; the divide between Black and white Americans and the system of racial separation that governed so much of the nation's life. If anything, this color line has proven remarkably adaptable, reappearing in the persistent segregation of schools and neighborhoods, the disproportionate incarceration of people of color, and enduring racial wealth gaps. The right to vote, once secured through the sacrifices of abolitionists and civil rights activists, has again become a contested terrain. Disinformation circulates with unprecedented speed, turning the public square into an arena where facts themselves are up for negotiation.
Such conditions tempt a nation toward two extremes: nostalgia for a mythic, unified past and fatalism that democracy is nearing its end. Both positions misread the American project. The United States has never been stable or morally settled. It is, and has always been, an argument about who belongs and what freedom requires.
To understand the significance of the 250th anniversary, we must resist the urge to see the founding as a finished achievement. The Constitution was not meant to be a monument, but a framework open to revision and debate. American progress has never come from complacency. It has advanced through the efforts of abolitionists, suffragists, labor organizers, civil rights activists, and countless citizens who refused to accept imposed boundaries. Our democracy survives because of persistent dissent and the willingness to challenge what has come before. As we approach this milestone, the real test is not only whether the nation has endured, but whether it has learned from its past.
Learning, in this context, means telling the truth about the past without falling into cynicism or myth. It means acknowledging that the American experiment began in contradiction and required generations of struggle to align ideals with reality. Expanding democracy did not diminish the founding vision, but furthered it.
For America to thrive for another 250 years, the republic must protect the mechanisms through which citizens hold leaders accountable. The right to vote should serve as the bedrock of legitimacy, not as a tool for partisan gain. It is just as vital to confront economic inequalities that threaten the middle class and erode faith in social mobility. These responsibilities also extend beyond our borders, as the nation navigates a world where democratic norms face growing pressure. Crucially, we must recognize that America is not a completed story, but an ongoing negotiation between aspiration and reality. The changing place of those previously excluded. Those who were denied, later contested, and are now indispensable. Revealing something central about the country itself—America's promise grows stronger only when those at its margins make their voices heard.
This is why the most honest form of patriotism may be the kind that refuses to flatter the nation into complacency. The prophets of American democracy, like Frederick Douglass, the journalist and activist Ida B. Wells, the author and essayist James Baldwin, and the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., did not love the country despite its contradictions. They loved it by confronting them. Their critique was based on the conviction that the ideals set forth in 1776 make a just society possible. The 250th anniversary is not merely a birthday. It is a test.
The test is whether Americans can summon the civic imagination required to extend democracy into the next century. Can the nation move beyond the reflexive tribalism that has come to dominate political life? Can it build institutions resilient enough to withstand the pressures of misinformation and the temptation of authoritarianism? Can it cultivate a public ethic that recognizes diversity not as a threat but as a source of democratic vitality? The answers to those questions will not be determined by commemorative speeches. They will be determined by the everyday choices of citizens, who decide whether democracy is something they practice or merely inherit.
As one of America’s darker sons, I write not to indict but to lament. The American experiment is incomplete, its history marked by both failure and renewal. Each generation inherits unfinished work. The story of our nation will not be written by those who turn away from its challenges, but by those who confront its complexities with honesty and resolve. As we approach 250 years, let our patriotism be measured by our willingness to strive for a more just and inclusive future. This milestone is not just a time to remember, but a charge to build the America that its highest ideals promise. The next chapter depends on all of us.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
Keep ReadingShow less
Glowing ai chip on a circuit board.
Photo by Immo Wegmann on Unsplash
AI - Its Use, Misuse, and Regulation
Mar 25, 2026
There has been no shortage of articles hailing the opportunity of AI and ones forecasting disaster from AI. I understand the good uses to which AI could be put, but I am also well aware of the ways in which AI is dangerous or will denigrate our lives as thinking human beings.
First, the good uses. There is no question that AI can outthink human beings, regardless of how famous or knowledgeable, because of the amount of information it can process in a short amount of time. The most powerful accounts I've read have been in the field of medical research: doctors have fed facts into AI, asking for a diagnosis or a possible remedy, and AI has come up with remarkable answers beyond the human mind's capability.
Clearly, AI, in the hands of knowledgeable professionals, can assist them in doing their work and improving our lives.
That, however, is where the good news ends. And it all depends on the phrase "in the hands of knowledgeable professionals." AI in the hands of everyday people, as it is already today, is a danger to themselves and our society. Let me give you some examples.
Perhaps the worst are the many reported cases where individuals are using AI as a companion or advisor. People, mostly teenagers, it appears, are looking to chatbots for emotional support, including advice on suicide, because they don't have someone to confide in. AI may sound like a person and be able to respond to what someone says or asks, but it isn't trained to respond to the complexities that make up a person's emotional state. Further, they are currently designed mostly to reassure people with doubts; if someone is in emotional trouble, reassuring that person that he's doing the right thing is probably exactly the wrong thing to do.
Another class of cases are people—I assume again very lonely people—who look to chatbots as a love or sex object. There was a report of one teenage boy who committed suicide in order to "join" his chatbot love. People are confusing illusion and reality.
It has also been reported that many people who are having problems with the medical profession or who just don't have access to a doctor are using chatbots to self-diagnose. The reader may well ask, if professionals can use AI for this purpose, why can't the average layman? The answer is that AI depends on the quality of the information it is given about the problem it is being asked to solve. The old expression, "Crap in, crap out," clearly applies here. Medical problems are so complex that it is unlikely the patient can identify all the factors AI needs to properly answer the question.
A second class of harm comes from the use of AI by individuals intent on creating misinformation, whether on the right or the left, to influence people's responses to political events.
We have seen the impact that misinformation on social media has had. Now we have the added impact of AI. As was just reported by The New York Times, a "torrent of fake videos and images" has been generated by people using AI to create reactions to the Iran war online. The impact of these images is strong because people tend to believe what they see; AI has been perfected to a level where, even in the hands of amateurs, one cannot tell that an AI-generated video or image is fake.
An entirely different kind of harm comes from people—whether students or adults—who use AI to generate a variety of work products—papers, applications, articles. To say that this practice is a no-no is obvious. When someone submits work-product, it should be their own, meaning it results from their own mind. Using AI to generate such things is just another way of cheating.
But the problem is not just that these people are being dishonest about what they have submitted. It's that they haven't used their mind. Remember the famous words of Descartes: "I think, therefore I am." The development and use of one's mind is what makes people grow, increase their ability to process information, and perform tasks. Using AI yields no growth.
The list goes on and on. But the general point is the one I started with: In the hands of professionals, AI is already very useful for analyzing difficult or rare situations, and it will likely become even more so. However, in the hands of the average person, it is either a way to meet an emotional need that isn't being satisfied in the real world, an invitation to be lazy or cheat, or a way to spread misinformation to achieve a goal.
While I sympathize deeply with people who are lonely and look to their chatbot to mitigate that loneliness, it is a bad and dangerous answer. For those using AI because their human providers are inadequate, their problem is very real, but using AI is again a bad and dangerous answer.
People in both these situations are suffering from a failure of society—of humans—to provide an environment where people are nourished and heard. Whether it's within the family, in the workplace, or in one's relationship with a healing or other provider, this is a serious societal problem. But chatbots are not the answer.
The answer, as I see it, is twofold. First, the law needs to regulate the use of AI. Its use should be restricted to assisting professionals in analyzing problems. AI products (e.g., chatbots) should not be available to the average person. AI should be treated similarly to a controlled substance; only people licensed to use it can obtain it.
Let the tech giants howl at this limitation on their ability to make money from their AI investments. Even with restricted use, I have no doubt that they can figure out how to make a good profit.
Second, society and families are failing people in numerous ways. Parents need to change the way they raise their children (see my book, Raising a Happy Child). Doctors need to communicate better with their patients. And society needs to stop sending people messages of inadequacy. The latter will, in all likelihood, never come about. And so children will continue to be harmed by what they learn from the media and by their interactions with others.
If we cannot change society, then we have to provide children (or adults) with the means to see themselves differently so they are not damaged by these interactions. (See my book, Discover Your Power.) Turning to chatbots to resolve the problem is not the answer.
Finally, AI should not enable people to influence an already chaotic political landscape by distributing misinformation. This dangerous tool must be kept out of the hands of all but professionals working in areas where the benefits of AI are clear.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less
man in gray hoodie and blue denim jeans kneeling on green grass field during daytime
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
Cancel Cesar Chavez: Continue The Fight For Justice
Mar 25, 2026
As a young journalist, I covered the funeral of Cesar Chavez in 1993 and have interviewed Dolores Huerta several times over the past 30 years.
They were heroes to me and my family, icons of the Chicano civil rights movement.
Reading this week in The New York Times the allegations that Chavez raped Huerta and groomed and assaulted minor girls was devastating. My heart felt like it split open knowing one of our greatest civil rights leaders was capable of such evil.
As a child my mother’s family in the 1950s migrated from picking cotton in Texas to Midwestern states, where they picked beets and tomatoes.
They eventually made it to rural Illinois and transitioned from farm work to factory work in Chicago. But my mother never forgot her farm worker roots.
Growing up in the Chicago suburbs in the 1970s, as a family we picketed local grocery stores asking people to boycott lettuce and grapes. My parents taught us about the history of the farm worker movement and its leaders Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta.
For more than 60 years, Huerta held on to the secret of her coercion and assault that resulted in her secretly having two of Chavez’s children.
Huerta issued a public statement Wednesday, “I have never identified myself as a victim, but I now understand that I am a survivor — of violence, of sexual abuse, of domineering men who saw me, and other women, as property, or things to control.”
In the 1998 interview I did with Huerta she acknowledged that she and Chavez would argue. It was her idea for a grape boycott. He wanted it to be a potato boycott.
“It took a fight to get that. In fact, probably the only reason I won that fight was because he was on the seventh day of a fast and he was weak,” she told me. “We never argued about philosophy because we shared the same philosophy. We argued about strategy. Should it be grapes or potatoes? Sometimes he would win, and sometimes I would win.”
She did not reveal to me or anyone until now the deeper reality of their encounters.
For too long we haven’t believed women, or offered them protection from predators. This has created a culture of silence.
In the case of Jeffrey Epstein, an estimated 1,000 girls and young women were trafficked. Besides Epstein, who died in prison, and Ghislaine Maxwell, sentenced to 20 years in prison for conspiring to sexually abuse minors, nobody else has been charged.
We know the names of other men in the files from former President Bill Clinton to current President Donald Trump, the latter mentioned at least 38,000 times. They should and other men in the files should be investigated.
At least in the United Kingdom Prince Andrew was arrested but not for sexual abuse but for alleged misconduct in office.
It is unconscionable the U.S. is not investigating the men in the Epstein files.The accountability for the victims is nonexistent. Now who will be held accountable since Chavez died in 1993?
It’s important to investigate who knew about Chavez’s grooming of girls at his compound and if there are other victims who may yet come forward.
The message must be swift and clear. Cesar Chavez day, celebrated in California and other states as an official holiday on March 31, should be cancelled as a holiday.
Already the United Farm Workers Foundation has cancelled Chavez Day activities. There are reports of cancellations of events in Arizona, California and Texas. A Chavez memorial statue at Fresno State was immediately covered up after news broke. Chavez’s name should be taken off streets, schools and other landmarks. His murals should be painted over.
Instead on March 31 the world should honor all people who have been victims of sexual abuse and violence.
It’s important to remember the values of the movement of economic equality for the farm workers who feed our country and still toil in the fields.
Today, the movement matters as farm workers, immigrants and Latinos are targets of the ICE raids. The fight for economic justice, civil rights and worker protections continues. Huerta, 95, who has fought for this justice, fairness and equity, continues her pursuit.
“The farmworker movement has always been bigger and far more important than any one individual,” Huerta said in her statement. “Cesar’s actions do not diminish the permanent improvements achieved for farmworkers with the help of thousands of people. We must continue to engage and support our community, which needs advocacy and activism now more than ever.”
I’m reminded of how Huerta leads a chant at the end of most of her speeches. I last heard her speak in Albuquerque in the summer of 2023.
“Who’s got the power?
We’ve got the power!
What kind of power?
People power!
She ended with the phrase she coined, “Yes, we can.”
¡Sí, se puede!”
Yes, we can keep fighting for justice for women and workers.
Cancel Cesar Chavez: Continue The Fight For Justice was first published on CA Latino News and was republished with permission. CALN is an affiliate of the Latino News Network.
Teresa Puente is an assistant professor at California State University, Long Beach. She teaches courses in News Reporting and Ethics, Social Media Communication, and Bilingual Magazine Reporting and Production.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization