With low voter turnout and a wide partisan divide, are there better ways to pick candidates?
The primary election season in this midterm election year is now over in most states. Turnout was often very low—less than 20% of registered voters showed up in many places—while the partisan divide was as wide as ever.
When the bells of St. Peter's Basilica tolled on Easter Monday, announcing Pope Francis's death at 88, they rang for the world's 1.3 billion Catholics and all of humanity. During the moment of transition for the Catholic Church, we witnessed the conclave, a ritual of power transfer that predates modern democracy yet might offer surprising lessons for our contemporary political moment.
The death of a pope represents more than a religious milestone. It is a moment that transcends theological boundaries, offering insights into how institutions navigate succession, how power transfers in an age of global uncertainty, and how ancient traditions might illuminate modern challenges.
The word "catholic" means universal, and there is something universally compelling about this moment. Even for those of us who don't genuflect or make the sign of the cross, who have never whispered a prayer in a confessional, or who have never received communion, Pope Francis's passing and the selection of his successor resonate with deep questions about leadership, legacy, and legitimate power.
A profound understanding of this universality marked Francis's papacy. He spoke not just to Catholics but to the human family, addressing climate change, economic inequality, and the dignity of migrants. He understood that in our interconnected world, the moral authority of his office extended far beyond the Vatican's walls. His death, therefore, creates a vacuum that transcends religious boundaries—a moment of reflection for anyone concerned with how we organize ourselves as a global community.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The conclave—that peculiar mixture of spiritual discernment and political maneuvering—offered particularly relevant lessons for democratic movements worldwide. Here is a system designed to select a supreme leader that somehow manages to be both deeply hierarchical and surprisingly egalitarian. Once the doors closed in the Sistine Chapel, a cardinal from the Global South's vote carries the same weight as his European counterpart's. The requirement for a two-thirds majority forces consensus-building across ideological lines, starkly contrasting the winner-take-all mentality that plagues many modern democracies.
The most striking aspect of papal succession is its ability to maintain across centuries. In a historically unprecedented period of democratic questioning regarding election results, legitimacy, and peaceful power transfers no longer trusted, the papal transition process maintains remarkable stability. This stability doesn't stem from the absence of conflict—the Catholic Church has weathered its share of schisms and antipopes—but from a shared commitment to the process.
The prophetic tradition, which speaks truth to power while remaining engaged with institutions, finds a curious echo in this moment. I recognize the death of a pope creates a space for both mourning and possibility—a liminal moment when institutions live up to their highest ideals. The conclave's tradition of radical silence and separation from the outside world models a kind of deliberative democracy that seems almost foreign in our age of constant connectivity and instantaneous reactions.
Caution to all: Do not romanticize the Catholic Church or its processes. The institution, like all, faces profound challenges. Yet its ability to maintain cohesion while facilitating transition offers valuable lessons for secular institutions grappling with similar challenges of succession and legitimacy. As the cardinals gathered in Rome, how could other institutions benefit from this succession-planning model? What if political parties invested as much in developing future leaders? What if corporations thought about succession not just in terms of the next quarter but the next quarter-century? What if social movements built structures that could outlast their charismatic founders?
The death of Pope Francis and the conclave remind us that succession is not just about selecting new leadership—it's about renewing institutional purpose and legitimacy. In an age when democratic institutions face unprecedented challenges and the idea of peaceful power transfer seems increasingly fragile, the Catholic Church's ability to maintain continuity through change offers both challenge and inspiration.
For those working in democratic movements, the lesson is not to copy the conclave's specific mechanisms but to understand its essential principles: the importance of established procedures, the value of deliberative decision-making, and the need for transitions that honor tradition and transformation. Thus, bells that tolled for Francis remind us that no leader is permanent, but institutions, at their best, can carry forward the work of justice and human dignity across generations. In this universal moment of transition, we are all called to consider how we build and sustain the institutions that will outlast us—and how we ensure that the power we hold today serves the common good tomorrow.
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.
Walking up and down the metro escalators was the only way David Jackson could stay warm during the winter nights of 2021.
While Jackson knew he could call District officials to come pick him up in a van and drive him to a hypothermia shelter, he kept hearing negative experiences from others. According to the 2024 annual Point in Time study, which reports homelessness in the Washington metropolitan area, there are 3,960 people experiencing homelessness. However, findings show 1,778 beds available for homeless people looking for hypothermia shelters, which only offer overnight emergency housing without additional support.
“My motivation to keep warm was stronger than how tired I felt,” Jackson said.
Between Nov. 1 and March 31, or hypothermia season, the District opens 17 hypothermia shelters to the homeless. District officials open these shelters to the public during hypothermia alerts, when the temperature is lower than 32 degrees Fahrenheit, and cold weather emergencies, when the temperature is lower than 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
The District government did not respond to comments for this story.
District officials run this program to prevent homeless people from contracting hypothermia. Hypothermia is a condition in which the body’s core temperature decreases to below 95 degrees Fahrenheit. Although it can occur year-round, it is most often contracted in the winter due to exposure to cold weather conditions.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
While homeless, Jackson lived in a tent with his brother outside the CVS in Dupont Circle. One time in the summer, despite warm weather, Jackson said he contracted hypothermia. After a rainy night, he woke up two hours before sunrise, soaking wet and freezing, even though the outside temperature was 70 degrees Fahrenheit.
“My whole body was cramped,” Jackson said. “I could barely walk.”
Jackson made it to Miriam’s Kitchen to warm up, a food distribution center for the homeless in Foggy Bottom, about a 20-minute walk from his tent.
During another winter, Jackson’s hands turned white and then blue due to the cold. He was able to warm them up again under hot water.
Besides walking up and down escalators like Jackson, other people who are homeless turn to alcohol or drugs. Jackson said he never did drugs while homeless, but he did drink, which gave him the illusion of being warm.
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, an estimated 38 percent of people who are homeless abuse alcohol, with an additional 26 percent abusing drugs.
Even though Jackson did not seek hypothermia shelters, he got himself out of homelessness after his brother, who is permanently disabled, qualified for housing through disability benefits. Jackson moved into an apartment with his brother but now lives independently while working as an ironworker.
Kate Coventry is the Deputy Director of Legislative Strategy at the DC Fiscal Policy Institute (DCFPI), where homelessness is a policy focus. Coventry said the shelters the District provides during hypothermia season are “low barrier,” or shelters that minimize the requirements for entry, meaning homeless people.
“The people needing shelter just grows and grows and grows and you can’t keep up with it,” Coventry said, referencing low barrier shelters.
Coventry said low-barrier shelters in the District include those run by Catholic Charities and N Street Village. Catholic Charities and N Street Village did not respond to comment for this story.
But Coventry added that these low-barrier shelters are often not designed to be shelters; rather, they are large areas with beds. In low-barrier shelters, she said, people who are homeless come in with a variety of goals, from finding housing to securing their GED and everything else in between. Rather, she said these shelters should be designed with services, like access to case managers.
Coventry said there are shelters providing these services, but they tend to be “high barrier,” or to take advantage of the services, one needs to follow a set of rules. One of the organizations Coventry mentioned has a “high barrier”: The Father McKenna Center.
Although the Center has other programs, such as clothing distribution, a computer lab, and a food pantry, its main project is the hypothermia program headed by Executive Director Dennis Dee. The program serves as an alternative to those provided by the District government.
“While DC has a Hypothermia Hotline, many of our guests do not feel safe in emergency shelter environments, and there is no support for their transition through homelessness, only maintenance of their status quo,” the Center’s website states.
Dee has been the executive director of the Center since the beginning of 2024, but his history with the Center goes back to August 2017.
Due to his alcoholism, Dee lost his career as an investment banker, split with his wife, and lost contact with his friends and family. After using the resources provided by the Center from August to October 2017, Dee was invited at the beginning of the 2017-2018 hypothermia season to take part in the programming.
Dee only used the hypothermia program for six weeks because he found a sober home group.
For the past 20 years, Dee said the program has offered 10 men consistent overnight housing during the District’s hypothermia season from Nov. 1 to March 31. According to the Center’s website, they have this programming as an alternative to what the District government offers.
Compared to other hypothermia programs in the District, Dee said the “distinguishing characteristic” is that the Center offers 150 consistent nights compared to other programs, which are only open in the evenings and do not guarantee an individual a bed.
He also said the hypothermia shelters, which tend to be run by Catholic Charities, are run “very lean. " He estimates the District government only gives public hypothermia shelters two dollars to serve each homeless person per night. Dee said Catholic Charities does rely on funding from its donors for its hypothermia programs as well.
“The D.C. government grinds them down,” Dee said about Catholic Charities.
Dee said the Center provides more than government-funded hypothermia shelters. During the programming, besides being given nightly housing, participants are offered a nightly shower, storage for their personal belongings, and nightly meals by volunteers.
These volunteers cook a meal for the program participants and then eat with them. Dee said the program relies on volunteers for 150 nights straight to serve the participants.
“The differentiating factor here, more than anything, is the significant volunteer presence here,” Dee said.
According to the Center’s website, 75 percent of the participants in the program meet their goals, including sobriety, housing, employment, and family reunification, among others. Dee said that if a spot opens up because one of the men meets their goals, it is given to another participant.
“We have a graduation and maybe a celebratory meal,” Dee said if one of the men finds housing.
He also said some participants stop coming somewhere through the program, which is because these men most likely have a combination of addiction and mental health issues.
In total, Dee estimates there are over 1,000 unique volunteers every year since the Center has a close relationship with the students and families of Gonzaga and serves around 600 people. Between the “encouragement and support” the men are getting from these volunteers, Dee said he knows the hypothermia program at the Center is an exception to other hypothermia shelters in the District.
“I smile when I talk about it,” Dee said in reference to the Center’s hypothermia programming. “Because it’s definitely neat.”
Maggie Rhoadsis a student journalist attending George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. At The Fulcrum, she covers how legislation and policy are impacting communities.
The Fulcrumstrives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present 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 news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
What is Habeas corpus?
Habeas corpus is a fundamental legal principle that protects individuals from unlawful detention. The term, derived from Latin, means "you shall have the body" and refers to a writ that requires authorities to bring a detained person before a court to justify their imprisonment. It ensures that no one is held without legal cause and is a cornerstone of due process in many legal systems.
In the U.S., habeas corpus is enshrined in the Constitution and can only be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion. Historically, it has been used to challenge unlawful imprisonment, including in cases involving criminal defendants, immigration detainees, and military prisoners.
What has the Trump Administration recently done related to Habeas Corpus?
The Trump administration is actively considering suspending habeas corpus—the legal right that allows individuals to challenge their detention in court. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Millerstated that the administration is exploring this option, arguing that the Constitution permits suspension in cases of rebellion or invasion.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This move is primarily tied to immigration enforcement, as the administration seeks to expedite deportations by limiting judicial review. Some federal judges have already ruled against certain deportations based on habeas corpus claims, ordering the release of detained individuals. However, other judges have sided with the administration.
Legal experts have questioned the validity of Miller’s interpretation, emphasizing that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus. Historically, habeas corpus has only been suspended in extreme circumstances, such as the Civil War and World War II.
What arguments might be legally challenging the administration's use of Habeas Corpus?
The legal challenges ahead will likely focus on whether immigration qualifies as an "invasion" under constitutional law and whether the executive branch can bypass Congress in suspending habeas corpus. Some judges have ordered the release of detainees based on habeas corpus petitions, while others have upheld the administration's actions.
What are some specific court rulings or historical precedents?
When have there been historical suspensions of Habeas corpus?
Have any members of Congress commented on the proposed suspension of Habeas corpus by the Trump administration?
Several legal experts and commentators have weighed in on the Trump administration's consideration of suspending habeas corpus. The general consensus is that only Congress has the authority to suspend habeas corpus, not the president. The Constitution places this power in Article I, which governs legislative authority, meaning the executive branch cannot unilaterally make this decision.
Many legal scholars and judges have challenged this interpretation, and some courts have ruled against the administration's efforts to bypass habeas corpus protections.
David Nevins is co-publisher of the Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Lance and Rodney team up to navigate the rapids of the Nantahala River in western North Carolina
It's no secret that most of us in America find ourselves in a wildly different place these days.
It's a place that some of us might say we barely recognize. I wish I could describe it as being a happier place, but instead, it's a place that seems to have more anxiety, fear, anger, intolerance, and even hatred. It's a place where dialogue is often avoided for fear of igniting a firestorm of controversy. And it's a place where many of us would say that joyfulness is becoming harder and harder to find. It's not surprising, then, that we find ourselves immersed in this unprecedented "epidemic of loneliness."
Off and on, for more than a few years now, I've been tempted to feel like a victim of these challenging forces. And as much as I want to help make America a happier, healthier place for all of us, sometimes I've been deeply worried, depressed, even overwhelmed by the immense amount of hard work it seems to take just to keep my own head on straight, let alone the other 340 million of us.
But then I saw a miracle.
Not a miracle in the theological sense. But every bit as powerful in terms of reshaping my thinking on the polarization challenge that we're all facing.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Last summer, I had the good fortune of being in western North Carolina for one of Team Democracy's R.A.F.T. (Reuniting America by Fostering Trust) events. What caught my eye were two ordinary Americans, one from the far left, and one from the far right, who were paired up in a raft for an excursion down the Nantahala River where they - and other pairs like them - would play together and work together to tackle the challenges in front of them.
CBS and other film crews were on hand to see what would happen. As CBS correspondent Major Garrett later confided, "I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself."
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
What he and I both saw were two of the most diametrically opposite people imaginable: Rodney Sadler, a black, progressive, southern minister, who was paired up with Lance Moseley, a white, conservative Trump supporter.
This couldn't possibly end well.
Before the trip, Lance and Rodney sat side by side for an interview with Major Garrett. It was awkward. They agreed on nothing. And they leaned about as far away from each other as they could.
Five hours later, they were back in those same two chairs, this time leaning toward each other, laughing, joking, and ending the interview with a heartfelt embrace and a shared "Love ya, brother!"
Lance and Rodney's differences were still there—all of them. But in the few playful hours they shared on the river, they discovered genuine joy in connecting with each other's humanity and in being open enough to hear and respect each other's experiences, personal stories, and ideas.
All of us on that trip were inspired by what we saw.
It reminded me of when Becca Kearl, Executive Director of one of the country's leading practitioners promoting the importance of cross-partisan dialogue - (Living Room Conversations) - described how, in the right circumstances (open mind, open heart and genuine curiosity about others' perspectives) reaching out across our differences doesn't need to be difficult or intimidating, but can actually be joyful, liberating, and fulfilling.
It reminded me of when Karissa Raskin, Executive Director of a project that helps align the work of more than 500 nonprofit organizations that are bringing Americans together across divides (Listen First Project) described "shared play experiences" as being a joyful and powerful pathway to deeper connections.
And it reminded me of my own experience with the Unify Challenge, an extraordinary platform offered by Unify America, where anyone can start to dabble with the idea of connecting, in a safe way and in a safe place, with someone outside their bubble. In my case, I was paired up with a college student who was 50 years my junior, and my political opposite, for a 90-minute conversation about 14 of the thorniest topics Americans are struggling with. At the end, we couldn't pull ourselves away from the call because we were finding so much enjoyment in sharing and understanding our differences.
Lance and Rodney have modeled for us something that is at the same time miraculous and universal - something that lives in each of us already; something that doesn't fade away, but has lasting power and impact.
Now, half a year later, Lance and Rodney are the best of friends. They talk. They collaborate. They will soon help launch Team Democracy's Reuniting America Podcast - a safe place where wildly different points of view can be aired in a healthy atmosphere that's filled with intellectual curiosity.
Lance and Rodney showcase something that each of us is capable of emulating. We would all do well to lean in, learn from them, and follow their inspiring example.
For more information about their journey, or to participate in, partner with, or sponsor a RAFT for America event this year, or to submit a request to be a guest on the soon-to-launch Reuniting America Podcast, contact ken.powley@teamdemocracy.org
Ken Powley is CEO and co-founder of Team Democracy. Powley lives in Mountain Top, PA. He retired from a 46-year career at the helm of his whitewater rafting company, to found Team Democracy with his brother-in-law Chris.
