Any organization created to raise and spend money on a political campaign is dubbed a PAC.
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

A landmark Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act could reshape Latino and Black political representation in Texas. Guillermo Ramos and other leaders warn the decision may weaken protections against discriminatory election systems in school boards and city councils.
The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Decision Could Reshape Local Government Across Texas
May 15, 2026
Guillermo Ramos remembers seeing few elected leaders who looked like him while he was growing up in the 1980s in Farmers Branch, a fast-growing affluent suburb northwest of Dallas.
Over the years, Latino representation continued to lag, he said. In 2015, after he had become a lawyer, he decided to do something about it.
Ramos stepped forward as the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District, alleging that its at-large system of electing board members violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by denying Latino voters the right to elect representatives of their choice. At the time, Latino voters made up 56% of the district, but every Latino school board candidate had lost since at least 1995, the lawsuit said.
The case settled, and as part of the agreement, Ramos was appointed as the board’s first Latino trustee. The settlement also replaced the at-large system — in which every seat was filled by districtwide vote — with what’s known as cumulative voting. The new system lets voters cast as many votes as there are seats on the board, but allows them to stack their votes on a single candidate or spread them across multiple candidates.
Ramos, now 51, won the next election to keep his spot on the board, which he said created a ripple effect that drew in more Latino candidates.
“They felt at this point that if they throw their hat in the ring, that they’re going to have actually a shot at getting elected. And that’s what happened,” Ramos said.
Changes like those in the Carrollton-Farmers Branch School District played out over decades on local governing bodies all over Texas, enabling representation of Latino and Black voters. Those changes were a direct result of claims brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices or electoral maps that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or language minority status.
But a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last week weakened that key provision, and Ramos and others say it could make it harder and more uncertain for other candidates of color to follow the path he took to local office.
The effects of the decision, which struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, are reverberating around the country and setting off a new cycle of redistricting for partisan advantage. Experts say there is still a lot of uncertainty about how the decision will play out, especially at the local level and when it comes to nonpartisan local governmental bodies such as Texas school boards and city councils.
“The judges in the opinion are discussing congressional elections, not school board elections, even though that’s where Section Two has been applied probably more frequently,” said Christian Grose, director of the Democracy and Fair Elections Lab at the University of Southern California.
But whether it’s after the 2030 Census or sooner, he added, “I do think there are going to be challenges, even in nonpartisan elections, saying that Section 2 doesn’t need to be enforced anymore.”
Prior to the decision, plaintiffs could prove a claim under Section 2 by showing evidence of a disparate impact on minority voters, regardless of whether the mapmakers intended it. Now, they must be able to show a “strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred,” the high court’s conservative majority declared.
With the court having previously authorized maps to be drawn for partisan aims, dissenting Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the new standard under Louisiana v. Callais gives plaintiffs virtually no recourse under Section 2, as long as a mapmaker declares a partisan motive and leaves “no smoking-gun evidence of a race-based motive.”
FARMERS BRANCH, TX - NOVEMBER 13: Elizabeth Villafranca (L) speaks to a crowd of protesters outside the city hall November 13, 2006 in Farmers Branch, Texas. Later in the evening, council members unanimously voted to pass the legislation that would make English the official language of the city and approving fines for landlords and businesses who do business with illegal immigrants. (Photo by Brian Harkin/Getty Images) (Getty Images)
Going back in time
The decision could quickly become a factor in ongoing litigation.
Though most local elections in Texas are nonpartisan, county commissioners courts are an exception, and last week’s opinion will likely give a boost to counties that are already citing partisan motives in defending their maps. Last year, for example, the Republican-majority commissioners court in Tarrant County redrew its district lines, prompting a challenge from a group of voters who alleged the new map illegally diluted the power of Black and Latino voters by packing them into a single precinct. But Republican commissioners argued they’d drawn the lines for partisan gain, and earlier this year, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the maps.
But Bill Brewer, the Dallas lawyer whose firm handled Ramos’ case in Farmers Branch, said he believes the ruling could actually help advocates win some challenges involving nonpartisan races.
Brewer, whose firm has filed at least 18 lawsuits against school districts and city councils in Texas under the Voting Rights Act, is representing a parent who sued the Keller Independent School District under Section 2, claiming the school district’s at-large system dilutes the votes of Latinos. The lawsuit was dismissed earlier this year and Brewer filed an appeal hours after the ruling to renew his push for a switch to cumulative voting. Brewer said the Callais ruling’s emphasis on intentional discrimination strengthens his claim for access to emails, meeting recordings and other evidence that could show intent.
“If they’re refusing to change because they intend to dilute opportunities for Hispanics or Blacks or Asians at the voting box, well, then you still have a claim under Section 2,” he said.
Keller ISD did not respond to a request for comment.
Ramos’ suit against the school board wasn’t the only Section 2 case brought in Farmers Branch. Its city council, too, was forced to switch from at-large to single-member districts in 2012, and the first Latino council member was elected in 2013. Council Member Elizabeth Villafranca, who was first elected last year, eventually became one of many Latino candidates to win a seat. The impact of the Voting Rights Act in the city has been “immeasurable,” she said.
But after the decision from last week, “I’m just horrified at the thought of having to go back in time,” Villafranca said. Still, she believes the community has come too far to revert to its old system. “You can see the incredible pride that there is when our residents see someone that looks like them, that speaks like them, that can represent them, and ultimately, that benefits everyone.”
The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Decision Could Reshape Local Government Across Texas was originally published by VoteBeat Texas and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

person in blue denim jeans and white sneakers standing on gray concrete floor
Photo by Phil Scroggs on Unsplash
The Paradox of Young Voters: Disillusioned and Divided
May 14, 2026
In 2024, young Americans were expected to be the stabilizing force in U.S. politics. But instead, they emerged as one of its most paradoxical constituencies: increasingly disillusioned, economically anxious, and sharply divided. Millennials and Gen Z are rapidly becoming the demographic center of political power: by 2028, they may account for nearly half of the electorate. Yet, according to the Spring 2025 Harvard Youth Poll conducted by the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, only 19% of young Americans trust the federal government to do the right thing most or all of the time. Just 13% believe the country is headed in the right direction. The question arises: will this generation accelerate democratic fragmentation, or help rebuild a more resilient civic culture?
This growing pessimism is not confined to one party. Young Americans rate both major political parties poorly, displaying chronically low approval of national leadership, and increasingly question whether democratic institutions are responsive to their needs. The result is not apathy–it is polarization.
For voters aged 18-29, the economy (not abortion, nor foreign involvement) has consistently ranked as the dominant concern in 2024 and 2025 polling. Inflation has driven prices up by nearly 20% since 2020. Rent and mortgage costs have also surged significantly. Entry-level job markets remain unstable, and the looming fear of artificial intelligence has only amplified concerns for future employment.
Young adults have been particularly vulnerable to inflation and labor market instability. Many came of age during the COVID-19 pandemic, experiencing interrupted schooling and
early-career disruptions. Home ownership, which has long been considered a cornerstone of the American Dream, feels increasingly out of reach.
This economic pressure has led to political consequences. Some young voters supported Donald Trump in 2024 based on their perception of economic opportunities under his leadership, despite reservations about his other policies, such as tariffs. Others remain aligned with Democrats and express frustration that both past and current leadership have not adequately addressed housing costs, wage stagnation, or student debt.
Importantly, distrust is bipartisan. Democrats face sharper internal criticism, while Republicans show somewhat stronger in-group loyalty. But across ideological lines, a large majority of young voters view the two-party system itself as dysfunctional.
Yet economic anxiety alone cannot, and does not, explain polarization. The digital environment has intensified it. Research from institutions such as the Brookings Institution and New York University has shown that social media algorithms amplify emotionally charged and partisan content. Platforms curate feeds based on engagement, often reinforcing existing beliefs and creating ideological echo chambers. Over time, this dynamic can erode trust in opposing viewpoints and even in shared facts.
Polarization has been linked to declining trust in fellow citizens, skepticism toward major institutions, and diminished respect for democratic norms. The events of the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol demonstrated how digital mobilization can translate into real-world instability. More recently, the death of Charlie Kirk demonstrated how the simple act of sharing and discussing political beliefs can turn violent.
Trust among young Americans themselves is declining. A significant portion report assuming that those with opposing political views have malicious intent. Political conversations
increasingly feel risky or socially costly, leading many to avoid them altogether. This avoidance, ironically, deepens division by reducing opportunities for diverse perspectives to engage in cross-ideological dialogue.
But what can be done?
If polarization among young voters is driven by economic insecurity and the spread of misinformation through digital and local echo chambers, then rebuilding civil culture is just as important as voting.
We must learn to have difficult political conversations rather than avoid them. Read news sources across the ideological spectrum by consulting outlets that lean left and those that lean right. Why? Not to confirm existing views, but to understand how different communities interpret the same events.
None of these steps eliminates structural economic pressure nor reforms political institutions overnight. But as Millennials and Gen Z move toward becoming half of the electorate, their political power will only continue to grow. Whether that power leads to further fragmentation or a once-resilient democratic culture depends on how this generation chooses to navigate disagreement.
Young Americans may be increasingly polarized. Whether that polarization leads to democratic erosion or democratic renewal depends on the decisions of the current generation.
Prisha Tiwari is a 17-year-old student at Princeton Day School and a graduate of The School for Ethics and Global Leadership in Washington, D.C. She is deeply interested in politics, public policy, and the current global environment. This opinion piece reflects her perspective on the evolving attitudes of young voters.
Keep ReadingShow less

As debate over universal health care intensifies in the United States, rising medical costs, insurance complexity, and international comparisons are fueling renewed calls for a transparent, accountable system that guarantees basic care for all Americans.
Getty Images, aaaaimages
The United States May Be the Best Place to Build Universal Health Care
May 14, 2026
The debate over health insurance in the United States has returned to the forefront as the Affordable Care Act faces political pressure, insurance premiums continue to climb, and physicians experience increasing restrictions from insurance companies. A recent poll shows that roughly 62 to 68 percent of Americans believe the government has a responsibility to ensure health care coverage for all. Yet after more than a century of debate, the federal government has taken only small steps toward universal coverage. Today, the United States spends a relatively high amount per person on health care, but Americans die younger and are less healthy than residents in other high-income countries.
Having experienced different health care systems firsthand, I am deeply aware of how universal health care can impact life. Surprisingly, I have also realized that the United States may actually have one of the systems best suited to making it work.
During my doctoral training in Japan, I enrolled in the national health insurance program. At one point, I needed a root canal, and the dentist asked which type of crown I wanted. One option was a basic, reliable material fully covered by insurance. Another was of higher quality but not covered. I chose the basic option, and the total cost for the entire treatment was about $50 after reimbursement. Later, when living in the U.S., I was told that another tooth might require the same procedure—and that even with insurance, a basic crown would cost around $1,000.
This experience gave me a front-row view of a primary benefit of universal health care: it protects access to a reasonable care option. By contrast, in the current American system, even the basic choice is expensive.
Of course, universal health care is not perfect. Most failures are due to rigid bureaucracies and weak transparency, which can lead to inefficiencies and increased cost while reforms lag behind. This is where the United States has a unique advantage.
American institutions are built around transparency, public oversight, and decentralized authority, all of which help to expose inefficiencies and promote improvements. That ability to self-correct is one of the country’s defining institutional strengths.
Ironically, the current American health system is an outlier; it is often less transparent than many other public systems in the U.S. Patients frequently do not know the price of medical services until weeks after treatment. The complexity of multiple insurers, billing codes, and administrative layers makes the system difficult for both patients and physicians to navigate.
A universal system would remove unnecessary intermediaries and simplify payment structures. This, in turn, would improve transparency while lowering administrative costs and allowing doctors to spend more time caring for patients instead of negotiating with insurance companies. With strong oversight and reduced bureaucracy, the United States would be well-positioned to identify problems quickly and adjust policies when needed.
Some skeptics argue that universal health care represents a form of socialized medicine, government control of the market, or even a dangerous step toward collectivism. These concerns resonate in a country whose economic success has long been tied to free markets and private innovation.
But universal health care does not eliminate markets. It establishes a foundation. By guaranteeing access to essential care, it allows individuals to remain healthy enough to work, create, and pursue opportunities and improved well-being.
The government does not control every medical decision in a universal health care system; rather, it guarantees a basic level of coverage while markets continue to operate above that baseline. And markets function better when they rest on a stable foundation. When essential needs are reliably met, private providers and insurers can focus on offering higher-quality services, innovative treatments, and specialized care.
Another common concern is that broader access will lead to excessive use of medical services and overwhelm the system. In reality, when care becomes accessible, utilization often increases in ways that add value rather than waste.
Today, roughly one-third of American adults report skipping or postponing needed medical care because of cost. When illnesses are left untreated in early stages, they often progress into more serious conditions that require far more complex and expensive interventions. Preventive visits, early diagnosis, and regular treatment reduce the need for expensive emergency care later. Again, this is something I know first-hand: I chose to delay my own treatment, even though I was warned that if my tooth decay worsened, the fix would be even more expensive.
Universal health care is not a symbol of socialism; it is a guard of basic human dignity. In the United States, it could become something distinctly American: a practical system grounded in transparency, flexibility, and accountability. The country that pioneered so many innovations could also build a health care model that protects its people while preserving the strengths of its market economy.
Wei Zhang is a postdoctoral researcher of Cardiovascular Medicine at Yale University and a Public Voices fellow with The OpEd Project, specializing in vascular surgery and public health. A physician-scientist trained and licensed in surgery in China, Wei completed doctoral training through joint research programs in China and Japan and now conducts cardiovascular research at Yale.Keep ReadingShow less
Cassidy’s Latest Chance To Boost The Small Businesses He Has Long Championed
May 14, 2026
When election season rolls around, voters are accustomed to hearing politicians proclaim their support for small businesses–institutions that routinely top Gallup’s list of America’s most trusted by a country mile.
It’s easy to talk the talk during campaign season. It’s much harder to do the work when the cameras are off, and the spotlight fades.
In Louisiana, entrepreneurs have no firmer ally than our senior senator, Bill Cassidy. For those of us in the franchise community, Senator Cassidy has been a consistent and steadfast advocate—and that matters, especially as our state continues to face economic headwinds. In 2025, Louisiana ranked near the bottom of CNBC’s “Top States for Business.” We cannot afford policies that make it harder to grow.
As a franchisee operating two family-run Chicken Salad Chick locations in the New Orleans area and soon to open a third, I’ve seen firsthand how federal policy decisions ripple through local businesses like mine. Senator Cassidy has stood up not just for me, but for the more than 12,000 franchise establishments across Louisiana that provide jobs and opportunity in communities large and small.
Like many entrepreneurs, I chose the franchise model because it offers the best of both worlds: the independence to run my day-to-day operations while benefiting from the strength of a proven brand. It’s a uniquely American system with roots tracing back to Benjamin Franklin’s printing press.
Yet the foundation of franchising depends on a clear line between franchisor and franchisee—a line defined in federal policy by what’s known as the “joint employer standard.”
This rule determines whether franchise owners remain truly independent operators or become little more than middle managers under distant corporate control. When that line blurs, the consequences are significant. Expanded joint employer standards expose entire brands to increased litigation, higher insurance costs, compliance burdens, and legal fees. Those pressures inevitably trickle down to local operators, our employees, and ultimately the customers we serve.
Franchising works because of appropriate independence between franchisor and franchisee. Undermine that balance, and you undermine a system responsible for nearly nine million American jobs.
In 2023, when the Biden Administration sought to expand the joint employer standard through the National Labor Relations Board, Senator Cassidy led a bipartisan effort to overturn the rule under the Congressional Review Act. The measure passed both chambers of Congress before ultimately being vetoed. In 2024, a federal court vacated the rule—a decision Senator Cassidy rightly celebrated as a win for workers and small businesses alike.
But small businesses should not have to rely on court decisions or shifting political winds to preserve our operating model. Regulatory ping-pong creates uncertainty that makes it harder to invest, hire, and grow.
That’s why now is the moment for Congress to act. The American Franchise Act offers a bipartisan, straightforward legislative solution. With more than 100 co-sponsors in the House and growing support in the Senate, the bill would permanently codify a clear and appropriate federal joint employer standard—removing it from partisan swings and judicial uncertainty.
Unlike many bills weighed down by unrelated provisions, the American Franchise Act is focused and practical. It provides clarity. And clarity is what small businesses need most.
Family-run operations like mine are still navigating the aftershocks of the pandemic, persistent supply and labor challenges, and new uncertainties tied to tariffs and shifting economic policy. In the restaurant business, margins are thin on our best days. Added regulatory instability only makes it harder to keep prices reasonable, retain employees, and reinvest in our communities.
Senator Cassidy has consistently stood with Louisiana’s franchise owners. By championing the American Franchise Act, he can once again provide the certainty and stability that local businesses depend on.
Small businesses are counting on him.
With more than 30 years in the restaurant and hospitality industry, Bill DiPaola is the CEO and Founder/Owner of Nibbles Hospitality Group, and owns and operates the Chicken Salad Chick location in Metairie
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t