What if we could reinvent the public square in the context of our elections so candidates can genuinely earn the attention to compete? At Pluribus we believe a more meritocratic and modern public square would: 1. Increase participation and informed decision-making by the electorate. 2. Lower the barrier to entry so there is greater competition and more diversity of candidates. 3. Increase prioritization of broad public interests.
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
people holding flag of U.S.A miniature
Photo by Frank Kastle on Unsplash
A New Standard for Ethical Immigration Reporting
Aug 13, 2026
Seven months ago, I attended the first day of my Reporting on Race class at USC. Taught by journalist and immigration reporting expert Jean Guerrero, the course offered growth I hadn’t yet imagined, showing me how much I could evolve as a journalist in just one semester.
For the next five months, I researched and reported on an immigration story of my choosing. I wrote about how educators in Los Angeles protect and advocate for students and communities living in fear of ICE deportations. These educators organized community street patrols to keep their neighborhoods safe. Finding sources and producing the final draft took months, but it was one of the most rewarding experiences of my journalism studies so far.
This project taught me the technicalities of immigration reporting, but more importantly, it taught me to treat these stories with the care and attention they deserve. I learned how to ensure that my sources’ perspectives were shared in the most ethical way possible.
Ethical, personal immigration reporting highlights immigrants’ experiences for the public, helping individuals feel more seen and protected.
Long before I started my piece, journalists across the country had reported on thousands of immigration stories, particularly after President Trump began his second term in office.
With the rise in ICE activity in neighborhoods across the U.S., journalists and media outlets have taken various approaches to sharing immigrant stories.
Journalism has played a vital role in documenting ICE sightings, arrests, and deportations, placing an immense responsibility on the media to inform the public about these events accurately.
Understanding how to tell these stories ethically is essential to avoid perpetuating stereotypes or spreading misinformation.
Despite prevalent misconceptions, ethical and accurate reporting on immigrant communities can counteract negative impacts and foster empathy.
Reporting that fails to account for the personal experiences of immigrants can have serious repercussions on a source’s mental and physical health, as well as their ability to live a normal life.
Widespread reporting that relies on tropes or fails to consider authentic perspectives can lead to lasting harm.
The American Civil Liberties Union reported three ways the media can introduce bias into immigration reporting, often depicting a harmful and untrue image of immigrants. Examples include paid political ads that fearmonger about the border, the over-publicization of violent border imagery, and a hyper-focus on border crossings at the expense of stories about immigrants already living across the country.
The Lenfest Institute for Journalism noted that newsrooms themselves are navigating these challenges. They offer a list of strategies to help journalists avoid the pitfalls identified by the ACLU and better serve immigrant communities.
Ultimately, bias and discrimination have long influenced immigration reporting, often sidelining the individual stories of those living in constant fear.
Immigration reporting is neither easy nor simple. It involves complex layers and risks that many readers may not realize. A primary concern for journalists is the potential danger these stories pose to vulnerable sources.
Journalists must grapple with difficult questions: when to provide anonymity, how to protect a source’s workplace, and how to safeguard their identity.
Despite these risks, potential threats can be minimized if the reporting process is handled correctly. By prioritizing accuracy and care, it is possible to protect a source while ensuring their story is heard.
Immigration reporting involves real lives and families. When approached correctly, a journalist can bring awareness to these issues without putting their sources at risk.
Despite the surge in reporting over the last few years, there are always opportunities to improve how news organizations share these sensitive stories with the public.
5 ways to make immigration reporting more ethical:
- Provide sources with the information they need to give informed consent. Many immigrants have no experience speaking to the media; it is a journalist’s responsibility to explain the implications of having their name associated with a story.
- Offer anonymity to especially vulnerable sources. In consultation with editors, journalists should allow sources to speak on the record anonymously when appropriate. This protects a source’s identity while still allowing their story to reach the public.
- Hold news outlets and journalists accountable. Reporters and media organizations should be held to high standards of sensitivity and accuracy, ensuring they do not endanger sources.
- Seek out stories overlooked by mainstream media. Local stories in neighborhoods, schools, and businesses often reflect major topics like immigration. Localizing these issues brings more personal perspectives to the forefront.
- Diversify storytelling platforms. Beyond print and television, social media is a powerful tool for keeping both the public and immigrant communities informed about ICE activity. For example, L.A. Taco’s Daily Memo shares ICE sightings on Instagram and YouTube.
Ethical immigration reporting is essential for helping audiences understand the immigrant experience and making these communities feel heard. However, there is always room for improvement for both journalists and audiences.
There must be a collective effort from news publications to implement ethical strategies and pressure from the public to demand meaningful stories about the communities they care about.
I still draw on the lessons from my Reporting on Race class. What stayed with me most is that the most powerful stories often belong to those who haven’t yet shared their perspectives with the media—their voices are the ones that can truly shift the conversation about immigration in the United States.
Daniela Mattson is a Fulcrum Fellow, a bilingual multimedia journalist who prioritizes diverse storytelling in my reporting.
Beyond the Border: A New Standard for Ethical Immigration Reporting was first published by the Latino News Network and republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
A factory with smoke coming out of it
Photo by Anthony Maw on Unsplash
How Utah’s H.B. 222 Set the Stage for State-level Climate Liability Shields
Aug 13, 2026
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Background
Natural resource extraction and processing comprise a significant portion of economic activity in the state of Utah. There are five oil refineries in the state, and as of 2023, it is ranked 9th in the U.S. for crude oil production. Utah’s energy sector contributes $12.1 billion to the state’s gross domestic product (GDP), which represents 6.3% of the state’s total economy and 74,200 jobs as of 2019. Meanwhile, the mining sector contributes $7.7 billion to the state GDP, 4% of Utah’s total economy and 56,700 jobs.
Energy production has raised concern in Utah due to its impact on the environment and contribution to climate change. 44 percent of Utah’s carbon emissions are produced by the electric power sector. These emissions are likely high because of the relatively high presence of coal and natural gas in the state. There have been recent court cases in Utah against the gas and oil industry, mostly stemming from youth climate groups concerned with emission levels. In December of 2025, Our Children’s Trust filed a suit against the Board of Oil, Gas, and Mining claiming that fossil fuel emissions were putting children’s futures at risk. It follows a previous lawsuit, Natalie R. v. State of Utah, which was brought to Utah’s Supreme Court by young activists as well, but was later dismissed in March of 2025.
Introduction to House Bill 222
Passed in 2026, Utah House Bill 222 establishes a climate liability shield that protects individuals and organizations from civil or criminal liability related to greenhouse gas emissions. Utah’s climate liability shield legislation protects entities from climate-related legal challenges, but does not apply to emission restrictions and permits, which are still valid under the bill. Thus, if an individual or organization violates the legal limit on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions or pollution permitted under Utah law, they are still at risk of legal pushback from governing bodies. The shield, however, provides a level of legal protection that has not existed before.
Why Do Advocates Support H.B. 222?
Liability cases limit power generation
Arguments for the protections provided by H.B. 222 stress the necessity of the energy sector and its ability to produce power for the state. Representative Carl Albrecht, the chief sponsor of the bill, argues that shields of this kind would “prevent plants from being shut down,” and would evade lawsuits which “limit power generation.” Historically, Utah has been an energy exporter, but heightened demand has led to the state consuming more energy than produced. However, it is still able to meet its baseline energy needs. Utah recorded an annual net generation of 35 million megawatt-hours of energy and a consumption of 34 million megawatt-hours in 2024, suggesting that the state is still meeting its baseline electricity needs despite the growing demand.
A climate liability shield may allow businesses in Utah to increase energy production. It has been shown that legal challenges to energy infrastructure reduce investment and create costs for consumers, another argument made by Representative Albrecht. Another argument shows that cumulative climate liability may not actually reduce emissions, but instead move production. In other words, climate liability cases against energy producers could lead them out of Utah, reducing energy production in the state.
Government regulation is too overbearing
Proponents also justify the legislation though claims that the state is encroaching too heavily on the actions of individuals and organizations. Emission regulations are set at the federal level, while climate cases attempt to regulate greenhouse gas at a state level. This has led oil industries in Utah to argue that the regulation of emissions via state-level climate liability cases is an example of state powers overstepping. The American Petroleum Institute, a trade association representing oil and natural gas companies in the United States, is adamant about limiting state overreach. They have even included it in their 2026 Agenda, arguing that it would increase the affordability and security of American energy.
Who Do Opponents Critique H.B. 222?
Lack of accountability for polluters
A major argument from opponents of H.B. 222 concerns accountability. Without the ability to try individuals or organizations for their emissions, there would be few ways to hold them accountable for their impacts on the environment. Environmental groups and scientists argue that Utah residents would not be able to adequately hold polluters responsible under the protections established by H.B. 222, and large oil and gas companies will not face consequences for the harm that their emissions cause. Without access to legal pushback, residents affected by emissions will have no ground to hold energy companies responsible.
Public health and environmental costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions
There are significant risks tied to greenhouse gas emissions. In Utah, high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are caused by oil and gas emissions. These toxic chemicals have serious negative health outcomes for those who are exposed to them, including general irritation, damage to internal organs, and increased cancer risk. Additionally, opponents of the bill argue that Utah is already facing the effects of climate change, and a lack of accountability would allow polluters to continue contributing to the climate crisis. Serious concerns about the future of the state’s natural areas and habitats have been raised in response to the passage of H.B. 222 and the negative environmental outcomes that would come from unchecked energy production. Opponents of the bill claim that the liability shield would not be needed if these industries were not actively causing harm for Utah residents. The costs tied to increased health and environmental protections are argued to outweigh those associated with limited power generation.
National Significance
While Utah was the first state to sign a climate liability shield, four other states have since moved to enact their own climate liability protections, and there have also been federal attempts to shield polluters from legal damages. Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Louisiana’s state-level climate liability shields are similar to Utah’s in that they would limit the extent to which energy industries would be held responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. On the federal level, Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz introduced a bill in April that would shield any individual involved in the energy market, from extraction to marketing, from civil damages related to their impact on the planet. This bill would not explicitly impact federal emissions caps, but would protect the energy sector from civil actions.
How Utah’s H.B. 222 Set the Stage for State-level Climate Liability Shields was first published by ACE and republished with permission.
Sophia Wind is an undergraduate student at Oregon State University, where she is pursuing a major in Public Policy with minors in Statistics and Economics.
Keep ReadingShow less
State Rep. James Talarico accused his U.S. Senate opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, of voter fraud after a ProPublica-Texas Tribune report. Last week, Paxton hit back with similar accusations.
Aiden Gonzalez/The Texas Tribune
James Talarico Accused Ken Paxton of Voter Fraud. His Own Voter Registration Is Raising Questions.
Aug 13, 2026
Texas state Rep. James Talarico voted in five elections using his parents’ address after purchasing a home for himself nearby, a practice that may have violated state voting laws, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune found.
This comes weeks after Talarico accused Attorney General Ken Paxton, his opponent in the race for U.S. Senate, of voter fraud for similar actions. The news organizations reported in July that Paxton voted using an address where his estranged wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, said he hasn’t lived for two years.
Paxton has made eradicating voter fraud a cornerstone of his time in office by advocating strict enforcement of the law, including in cases against voters who allegedly used false addresses when casting ballots. Paxton’s campaign has said he is a “lawful, registered Texas voter” but has repeatedly declined to answer detailed questions about his residency and voting history.
Piecing together Talarico’s voting history is more difficult than it is for Paxton. Talarico, unlike the attorney general, redacts his address on the Travis County voter rolls under a state law that allows some public officials to shield personal information for safety reasons. But unredacted records Talarico’s campaign provided the newsrooms show that he listed his parents’ address on his voter registration in November 2021.
He purchased a home in June 2022 but did not change his voter registration address until September 2024, the news organizations’ review of Travis County records shows. The new address is redacted, but Talarico’s campaign previously told the newsrooms that he currently lives and is registered to vote at the north Austin home he owns.
Talarico’s campaign declined to answer questions about his residency and voting history, including when he began living at the home he owns. Campaign spokesperson JT Ennis said “right-wing actors” had made “credible threats” about trying to locate Talarico and his family.
Texas law requires that residents register to vote where they live. This ensures they are voting for those who actually represent them. The provisions of the law, however, are “broad and vague,” said Andrew Cates, a Texas ethics attorney.
Courts have previously ruled that there is no single way to determine a voter’s residence, and prosecuting such cases requires proof that a voter “knowingly” or “intentionally” broke the law.
Given this, Cates said he doubts that either Talarico or Paxton committed voter fraud, but he said Paxton should be held to a higher standard. As the state’s top lawyer, Paxton is responsible for enforcing election laws and has aggressively pursued alleged violators.
“When the top officials go looking for people to skewer for it, and then do it themselves, it really smacks of hypocrisy,” Cates said.
In 2024, Paxton helped oust judges on Texas’ highest criminal court who prevented him from unilaterally prosecuting election crimes. And, two weeks before this year’s primary election, Paxton announced the creation of an election fraud tip line. His office warned Texans that “it is illegal to misrepresent your residence on election records or to establish a residence for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election.”
Paxton’s unyielding stance on election crimes fueled charges from Talarico and other critics that he considers himself above the law.
“Our Republican secretary of state here in Texas has already said that our elections are safe and secure,” Talarico said at a Houston campaign event last month. “But as our state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton has gone on a voter fraud witch hunt. Turns out, he was committing voter fraud the whole time.”
Last week, Paxton hit back.
In a news release and on social media, Paxton said Talarico broke state law, citing reports from conservative news outlets suggesting the Democrat had not lived in the district for at least a year when he was elected to the Texas House in 2022. Talarico, Paxton said, “blatantly committed election fraud showing a complete disregard for Texas residency requirements.”
Records provided by Talarico’s campaign appear to show that he did comply with residency requirements during the period scrutinized by the conservative outlets.
In October 2021, Talarico announced he would move to the area where he grew up after Republicans redrew his Texas House district to favor their party.
Talarico updated his address to his parents’ home in the new House district on his voter registration, on his driver’s license and with the U.S. Postal Service on Nov. 5, 2021, according to records his campaign provided. Those include a photo of his voter registration application and screenshots of receipts from the Texas Department of Public Safety and USPS. Talarico also rented a 10-foot U-Haul moving truck for six hours that day, according to a screenshot of a receipt.
The changes happened three days before the one-year cutoff, making him eligible to run for that seat.
The records also contradict a claim by one of the conservative outlets that there was no evidence Talarico moved to his parents’ house when he registered to vote there. Paxton seized on that report to accuse Talarico of voter fraud during the 2022 election.
The newsrooms’ findings about Talarico are different because they analyzed the period after the lawmaker purchased a home and found that he continued to vote using his parents’ address. Talarico’s house is in the same county as his parents’ home, which is about 6 miles away. It is in the state House district he represents but in different jurisdictions for some local elections.
Asked about the apparent discrepancy in Talarico’s voter registration and residency, his campaign shifted blame onto the attorney general.
“This is a lame attempt by Ken Paxton to deflect from his own hypocrisy and career of corruption,” Ennis said in a statement, nodding to Paxton’s legal troubles.
Paxton was impeached by the Texas House in 2023 and investigated by the Department of Justice over corruption charges. The state Senate acquitted him, and the federal government dropped its case. Paxton also spent nearly nine years under indictment for felony securities fraud charges that were dropped in 2024.
For his part, Paxton and his campaign on Monday again did not answer questions about the news organizations’ finding that he voted six times over a two-year period while registered at a Collin County home where he appeared to no longer live. It is unclear where Paxton lived during that time, but the publications’ reporting has linked him, and a woman believed to be his girlfriend, to a home in neighboring Denton County since February. As the home is in a different county, voters there select an entirely different slate of local officials than in Collin County.
Paxton spokesperson Madison Cercy doubled down on accusations that Talarico was ineligible to be elected to his seat and also committed voter fraud.
“The only person who has committed voter fraud in the Texas Senate race is James Talarico,” she said. She did not provide evidence of Talarico’s alleged lawbreaking beyond the reports from the conservative outlets.
Matthew Wilson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, argued Paxton’s and Talarico’s cases highlight how easy it can be to “run afoul of the letter of the law,” even as Republican lawmakers push for more stringent enforcement of voting restrictions.
“I think it could be reasonably used as a charge of hypocrisy against either of them because both of them have condemned the other for an action quite similar to what they themselves appear to have done,” Wilson said.
James Talarico Accused Ken Paxton of Voter Fraud. His Own Voter Registration Is Raising Questions. was originally published by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Trump dominates the election, but Democrats can win by offering voters a positive vision, addressing cultural issues, rebuilding trust with workers, and returning to founding principles.
Getty Images, Cavan Images
URGENT: What Democrats Must Do to Win the Midterm Elections
Aug 12, 2026
This election so far is all about Trump: the news revolves around him; voters are either in thrall to him, disappointed, or disgusted by him; MAGA Republicans appeal to the Republican base through their unflinching loyalty to Trump.
That the election is all about Trump sounds like good news for Democrats. Trump's approval rating is in the pits. He has taken so many actions that have hurt his base and people in general, especially economically.
For the last 18 months, Trump has flouted almost every standard that has been set by previous Presidents and the Constitution. Trump has repeatedly taken actions, such as his tariffs and the Iran war, that have increased prices and impacted every American. He even said that he doesn't think about the financial plight of Americans, "not even a little bit," when thinking about the war.
But that doesn't translate to a diminished Trump at the polls. How can that be? It's partly due to his Republican base being in thrall to him and partly because the Democratic Party has not made the case for what they stand for and how they would help the people.
The path to a Democratic victory at the polls lies not in dissing Trump, but in creating a Democratic counter-presence that gives the people a positive reason to vote Democratic.
1. Reaching the Republican base - Despite the economic suffering he has caused his base, they remain true to him. His approval ratings may be low, but that 37% approval will not go lower because that is his core base. Even when farmers were devastated by the effects of his tariffs, they didn't back away from supporting him.
Why? The reason so many people vote for Trump despite that being against their economic interests is that cultural issues are more important to them. That's why Democrats' focusing on how voters' finances and health care have deteriorated under Trump will not have the desired impact. Nor will focusing on Trump's actions that are destructive of our democracy.
The Democratic Party cannot win Republican votes, whether in urban or rural areas, without clarifying—not changing—its position on the cultural issues that are so important to them. They must not allow themselves to be labelled radical leftists by the Republicans.
What are these cultural issues? They are guns, abortion, religion, LGBT rights, American identity. Here is what they must clarify: Democrats are not against people owning guns; they are not pro-abortion; they are not God-less; and they do not promote LGBT life, but just as they defend freedom of speech, they believe that everyone has the right to be who he or she is—that's the American way.
In my article, "Winning the Rural Vote: A New Approach for the Democratic PartyTalking about Guns, Abortion, American Identity, and Religion," I explain how each of these topics can be approached by Democrats in a way that connects with Conservatives and bridges the gap that Republicans have deftly manufactured and Democrats have fallen into.
2. What do Democrats bring to the table? - Besides showing Conservatives they are not radical on cultural issues, Democrats must give Independents and other swing voters—as well as Conservatives—a positive reason to vote Democratic. Even though Independents and some youth and workers who swung to Trump in 2020 are now disappointed or disgusted by his actions, that doesn't mean they will vote Democratic because they feel Democrats are not speaking to them, they haven't heard a message that resonates.
The message I propose would insure not just victory but a sweeping mandate from the people to bring America back to its founding principles and restore government to what the Constitution prescribes—not just as a matter of principle, but as the way to improve people's lives by giving each American the opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. See my articles, "People Are Hurting:The U.S.Must Return to Our Founding Principles" and "Defining the Democrat v Republican Battle."
Central to this effort is defining what drives Democrats in all their policy positions by referring to a Mission statement such as I have proposed, based on the Declaration of Independence:
“To build a country of greater opportunity where:
- each and every American has a real chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence: 'that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' ;
- government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration—‘to secure these rights’; and
- all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure these rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.”
This should be the litmus test. All policies of the Party should flow from this mission statement and any policy that does not further the mission statement should be dropped. Government should support industry and commerce, insofar as they support this mission. But if industry interests do not further this mission, if they seek power and riches for themselves without benefit to the people, the Party should not support those interests.
Too often, when proposing measures to protect the people in the areas of finance or industry regulation, Democrats have held back somewhat because of the interests of industry. And in some areas, like free trade agreements, they have capitulated to the interests of industry. The result: people have lost faith in the Party.
And they must offer a mea culpa for their neglecting the plight of the blue collar worker. Explaining that after working hard for most of the 20th century to improve the life of workers and strengthen unions, Democrats thought workers' middle-class status was safe. When workers were impacted by globalization they didn't realize the extent of the problem.
This must all be part of the Party's becoming a presence in people's lives—relevant—not just a voice in far-away Washington. It must speak to the people with regularity. See my article, "Can the Democratic Party Still Lead?"
Then there is the attitude of Democratic centrists towards Democratic Socialists. What is their problem? Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani aren't Socialists—they don't believe in government ownership of the means of production—they are socialists only in the sense that they believe that government should be more concerned with the wellbeing of the people. Isn't that what the Declaration is about? That is why they're having success. See my article, "Just What Is a Socialist?"
What we are seeing in the Democratic Party is not a "leftward shift" as claimed by Republican Senate leader Thune and Democratic centrists, but a return by many Democrats to the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence—it's about the people.
The upcoming election— it's less than 100 days away—is the Democrats to loose. And to date, I have not seen the Party do anything to insure a resounding victory at the polls. If they cannot move the American people to vote them back into power and send Trump and MAGA Republicans packing, there is little hope for the Party.
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
Load More