Healthcare comprises almost 20% of the United States gross national product. In our effort to keep our readers informed about the topics that most impact on their lives we presented a writing last week by Dr. Robert Pearl entitled, “ In healthcare’s game of Monopoly, one player will control the board, ” in which Dr. Robert Pearl presented a private solutions to inefficiencies and problems that exist in America’s health care industry. Today we present a video from IssueOne examining the healthcare industry. Right now, healthcare lobbyists are legally allowed to buy our elected officials’ votes. As long as that’s the case, our representatives will continue to choose campaign donations over Americans’ lives. The healthcare industry spends more than anyone else lobbying politicians to rig the system on their behalf. That should be illegal, but it’s not.
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
Texas City, Galveston County, industrial skyline. While still battling legal challenges over a map in 2021 that voting rights advocates said diluted the voting power of Black and Latino voters, Galveston County has now redrawn its precinct lines again, just months before the 2026 general election.
Getty Images
What We Know About Galveston County’s Redistricting and What It Means for Voters
Sep 07, 2026
Galveston County’s decision to redraw local precinct lines this year between the primary and general elections means some voters could cast general election ballots in contests where they had no say in the primary, unless the courts intervene.
Election experts say they’re not aware of any prior instance where this has happened. Galveston County’s latest round of changes is adding new complications to a long-running lawsuit over the maps the county had adopted in 2021, and voting rights advocates say the new maps could further dilute Black and Latino voting power in the county.
When the county redistricted in 2021, county leaders openly said their goal was to draw lines that would be friendly to electing a commissioners court with a Republican majority. Voting rights groups and the U.S. Department of Justice subsequently filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Galveston County voters, claiming the map was unconstitutional and violated the Voting Rights Act because it eliminated the only majority-minority commissioners court precinct. The challenge before the court now alleges the county intentionally dismantled that precinct because of race. That case is still pending.
Then, this past June, commissioners voted to redraw precinct boundaries throughout the county for commissioners, constables, and justices of the peace — once again citing partisan aims behind the change. Voting rights advocates again sued, this time on behalf of three county residents in Texas state courts, saying the move to redistrict between a primary and a general election violates state and federal laws. That case is now pending before the Texas Supreme Court.
Here’s what we know:
Why are Galveston County commissioners redrawing lines now?
Galveston County Judge Mark Henry in June told the Houston Chronicle that the latest map accomplishes his goal of turning Galveston County Republican. Henry did not respond to a request for comment from Votebeat.
But the unusually timed change could serve another purpose for the county too, coming as it continues to argue against legal challenges to the 2021 map. A day after Galveston County commissioners approved the newest map, the county told the federal judge overseeing the federal case over the 2021 map that the changes rendered the lawsuit over that map moot, according to court documents.
“This Court no longer has jurisdiction to consider declaratory or injunctive relief relating to implementation of the 2021 Map,” Galveston County lawyers said in their court filing.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Brown of the Southern District of Texas rejected that argument. In an order that effectively kept the 2021 challenge alive, he described the timing of the new maps as “highly suspicious.” Brown noted that the county could have redrawn lines to accomplish their partisan aims at any time since the 2021 map was issued, but chose to do so between the 2026 primary and general elections even though the change was unlikely to shift partisan outcomes until the 2028 election.
“If the defendants really cared about improving Republican partisan performance, they would have changed the 2021 map before the primary election to encourage a Republican to run for Justice of the Peace in that now-Republican-leaning precinct in 2026,” he wrote.
Is the commissioners’ move to redraw precinct lines after a primary election and about 70 days ahead of the November midterm election legal?
That question is now before the Texas Supreme Court. The plaintiffs say that it isn’t legal, but Galveston County officials argue that it is.
What do the Galveston County residents suing the county argue?
Plaintiffs argue that the county cannot hold the March primary under one set of precinct boundaries and then conduct the November midterm election under another.
The plaintiffs say the county should be required to hold a new primary because otherwise, some voters who can vote for an office in November would never have had the chance to vote for that same office in the primary election. In addition, they argue some candidates would not have had the chance to run for office because they weren’t in the correct precinct at the time of the primary. Plaintiffs say moving forward with the new map violates state and federal laws requiring all voters to be treated equally and fairly.
“This is a matter of federal equal protection. You have to run your elections in a manner that allows equal access to them,” said Mark Gaber, Campaign Legal Center’s senior director of redistricting litigation. “Galveston County is just dispensing with that part of the process and just deciding who the candidates are.”
What do Galveston County leaders say?
Galveston County officials did not respond to a request for comment.
But in an Aug. 10 filing with the Texas Supreme Court, the county argued that state law does give them the authority to redraw precinct lines between a primary and a general election. They also argue that redrawing the lines doesn’t mean that the county must conduct a new primary in order for voters to cast ballots in November. County attorneys in the filings said that state law does not “freeze precinct boundaries in place once a primary occurs.”
What’s the status of the lawsuit?
The latest case filed in state court has followed a convoluted legal route, but is now pending a decision in the Texas Supreme Court. The court could request additional information, or rule based on the existing record.
What are the implications for voters?
The shifting boundaries have confused voters who aren’t sure who their candidates are or which district they’ll belong to come November, said Sarah Chen, senior supervising attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project. And depending on how the court rules, they could shift again.
“I think people are still even trying to understand what the impact is because it happened so quickly and so just like out of the blue,” Chen said.
Which Galveston County communities are most affected?
Under the 2021 redistricting, county commissioners redrew Precinct 3, historically a predominantly Black and Latino district that was the county’s only majority-minority district, significantly but did not change the justice of the peace and constable boundary lines within it. The 2026 map does, and likely eliminates the only remaining majority-minority justice of the peace and constable districts that remained.
Brown, the federal judge overseeing the 2021 case, in his order described that as “the primary partisan change under the new map,” but said it likely wouldn’t kick in until the 2028 election.
“People in our community are enraged. It doesn’t make any sense why they keep doing this to Precinct 3,” Lucille McGaskey, a resident of the precinct who isn’t one of the plaintiffs in either lawsuit, told Votebeat in an interview. “For years we’ve built a coalition of Black and Latino voters to have a seat at the table, and now it feels like we can’t even have that. We only have this precinct, Precinct 3.”
Administratively, is redrawing precinct lines now doable for election officials?
Galveston County Clerk Dwight Sullivan, who oversees the county’s elections, did not respond to a request for comment. But other Texas election officials have told Votebeat that redistricting is a time-consuming task that requires a lot of attention to detail to make sure that voters’ addresses are aligned with the correct boundaries. Redistricting now, in the midst of ongoing legal challenges and on a tight timeline, could create more opportunities for errors — a concern Texas election officials are already familiar with, as the state’s mid-cycle congressional redistricting and ensuing legal challenges left them scrambling.
The first deadline election officials are up against ahead of the November election is coming up on Sept. 19, when ballots must be mailed to military and overseas voters who have already requested them. By then, election officials must know which precincts voters will be assigned to.
Has this been done before?
Gaber and Chen said they had never heard of something like this happening anywhere else, and if allowed to go ahead, it could set a new precedent.
“I think it’s such a dangerous precedent for something far worse than just gerrymandering. It’s like changing the rules in the middle of the election to discard the votes of the voters and to prevent candidates from running,” Gaber said.
Could other places also decide to redraw lines before the November election?
Yes, it’s a possibility, if the courts don’t step in.
Chen pointed to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 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, a much higher bar.
Earlier this year when the ruling came out, experts warned that it could undo decades of progress that expanded the voting power of Black and Latino voters in Texas and elsewhere.
“We all knew there was going to be this wave of local redistricting,” following Louisiana v. Callais, Chen said. “And we’re preparing for that. We just didn’t expect it to happen so soon. It is like, mindfully disruptive and illogical according to the norms of our democracy to try to redistrict in June and after a primary election.”
What We Know About Galveston County’s Redistricting and What It Means for Voters was originally published by Votebeat Texas and is republished with permission.
Natalia Contreras covers election administration and voting access for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Natalia is based in Corpus Christi. Contact her at ncontreras@votebeat.org.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Smoke billows after overnight airstrikes on oil depots in Tehran, Iran.
(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
The Iran War Tests ASEAN’s Energy Resilience
Sep 06, 2026
Six months into the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, Southeast Asia’s exposure to a conflict thousands of miles away has proven durable rather than transient — and it is beginning to function as a genuine stress test of the region’s institutions, not just its energy bills.
For ASEAN, the question is no longer simply how much the war is costing, but whether a shared vulnerability can produce a more collective response. So far, the crisis is exposing both the limits of regional integration and the pressures pushing it forward.
A Regional Shock, Unevenly Felt
The war’s immediate costs are well documented: soaring import bills, curtailed industrial activity, a scramble for alternative suppliers. Less examined is what the shock is revealing about ASEAN itself — a bloc whose members have mostly responded as 11 separate countries rather than one coordinated group. Now under real pressure, ASEAN is testing two long-stalled integration projects, a shared strategic oil reserve and a regional power grid. Neither is a new idea. In fact, both have circulated in ASEAN working groups for years without producing concrete infrastructure.
Regional institutions rarely emerge because governments suddenly embrace integration for its own sake; more often they emerge because repeated crises raise the costs of acting alone above the political costs of acting together. Whether the Iran war has pushed Southeast Asia past that threshold rather than simply generating another round of proposals that quietly lapse once prices ease is the real question here not simply whether the war has been costly.
The numbers describe a region absorbing a shock disproportionate to its role in the conflict. The International Energy Agency projects that Southeast Asia’s energy import bill will roughly double this year to about $160 billion, a record, and warns the figure could climb to $400 billion by midcentury if current policies hold. The Asian Development Bank has cut its 2026 growth forecast for developing Asia and the Pacific to 4.9 percent, down from an April projection of 5.1 percent.
What makes the shock harder to manage is how unevenly it lands within the bloc. Before the war, around 60 percent of Southeast Asia’s crude oil imports and a third of its natural gas imports originated from the Middle East, and the region’s capacity to absorb a supply disruption varies enormously by country. The bloc spans net energy exporters, mid-sized crude importers with partial refining capacity, and entirely import-dependent economies with no meaningful buffer at all. That spread has turned a regional shock into an intensely local one.
Cambodia is absorbing the sharp end of it, with industrial construction halted, offices rationing lighting, and malls and restaurants required to close early. A roughly 300-megawatt electricity shortfall falls hardest on villages, where outages can stretch for hours a day. The contrast with more resilient ASEAN economies is instructive. Vulnerability reflects more than import dependence. It also depends on the flexibility of a country’s domestic energy system, including its refining capacity, reserve depth, and access to alternative suppliers on short notice.
Adaptation Is Not Resilience
The scramble for alternatives has pushed several U.S. partners in Southeast Asia toward Washington’s rivals — an outcome likely to outlast the war itself. Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. discussed energy security with Vladimir Putin at a summit in Kazan in June, while Indonesia and Thailand have sought deeper energy ties with Moscow as their governments diversify away from a chokepoint they no longer trust to remain open. Cambodia has broken ground on a nearly $1 billion Chinese-backed hydropower project, while Laos is expanding electricity links with Beijing. The common thread is not a wholesale pivot away from Washington, but a widening effort to hedge against dependence on a single chokepoint — and, by extension, on any one external security provider.
It is worth pausing on what these hedges accomplish, because adaptation and resilience are not the same thing. Buying Russian crude, courting Chinese hydropower financing, and cutting LNG imports are all adaptive in that they get governments through the current shock. But some of these swaps trade one dependency for another rather than reducing dependency itself. Indonesia and Thailand deepening energy ties with Moscow substitutes a sanctioned, geopolitically fraught supplier for a chokepoint-vulnerable one. Cambodia’s hydropower buildout and Laos’s grid links with Beijing substitute a transit-dependent fuel for domestically generated electricity, offering a genuine, if partial, reduction in vulnerability rather than a lateral move. The useful question for each decision, then, is whether it leaves the country better or merely differently exposed the next time a chokepoint closes.
The Kazan summit provides a useful test of that distinction. ASEAN and Russia adopted a joint statement on energy cooperation spanning LNG, natural gas, renewables, nuclear power, and broader energy-transition initiatives, while Laos separately signed an agreement to explore a Russian-designed nuclear plant, mirroring an earlier deal Moscow struck with Vietnam. No ASEAN state publicly pledged to increase Russian oil imports at Kazan, and the bloc’s post-summit language carefully avoided terms that would turn hedging into alignment. But the summit was the first ASEAN-Russia meeting since 2021, and its timing — six months into a war none of these countries had a hand in starting — was not incidental. Energy hedging was already beginning to generate wider diplomatic consequences.
From National Fixes to Regional Institutions
The more consequential test is whether the crisis produces durable regional institutions rather than a patchwork of national fixes. For most of the war, ASEAN defaulted to national action, with members pursuing separate energy deals even as they managed the diplomatic fallout with Washington. That pattern reflects a longstanding weakness: regional mechanisms tend to advance only when national responses prove insufficient.
That may now be beginning to change. At the bloc’s May summit in Cebu, Indonesia’s energy minister, Bahlil Lahadalia, proposed hosting a shared ASEAN strategic oil reserve in Sumatra and said Indonesia would build the facility regardless of whether it secured the regional designation. ASEAN economic ministers have also agreed to accelerate ratification of the ASEAN Petroleum Security Agreement (APSA), a 2009 pact allowing members facing shortages to draw fuel assistance equivalent to at least 10 percent of domestic demand but which has never been enforced. ASEAN Secretary-General Kao Kim Hourn has said ratification should be completed before the bloc’s 49th summit later this year.
Whether these initiatives amount to institutionalization is the real test. A reserve that is built and stocked, clear rules for drawing it down, and a functioning APSA would mark a meaningful shift from voluntary cooperation toward collective energy security. But the trust deficit within ASEAN remains a constraint. If the Sumatra hub and APSA ratification both materialize, they would represent an important beginning — but not yet proof that ASEAN can turn crisis-driven cooperation into durable regional capacity.
“Momentum” is the word that recurs in nearly every account of this moment, including this one, and it is worth being skeptical of it. Momentum describes an observed direction of travel; it does not explain what sustains that direction once the conditions that produced it change. The Sumatra hub and APSA ratification are advancing because oil prices are elevated, the shock remains politically salient, and Indonesia has a minister willing to spend political capital championing the idea. Each condition is reversible. Prices could ease if the ceasefire holds; political attention could shift, as it reliably does, to the next crisis; and financing a shared reserve is a multiyear commitment that a change of government could unwind. None of this makes the current progress meaningless. Indeed, it is more institutional movement than the bloc has produced in years. But the real measure of success is not whether Cebu produced a proposal; it is whether that proposal survives a return to normalcy.
The ASEAN Power Grid presents a similar test. The cross-border electricity interconnection scheme has been discussed for more than a decade without being fully realized, but officials are now pushing it toward operationalization, describing it as one of the bloc’s most consequential cooperative projects. A more integrated grid could help ASEAN balance supply across borders, absorb more renewable generation, and reduce the kind of import dependence the war has exposed. Yet the underlying obstacles—financing, infrastructure, national interests, and political coordination—have not disappeared simply because Hormuz has become unreliable. As with the oil reserve, the question is whether the crisis converts long-standing ambition into durable integration or merely gives another stalled initiative a temporary push.
The bloc is not building this from nothing. ASEAN and the Gulf Cooperation Council share a multiyear energy cooperation framework that has helped deepen Gulf-ASEAN energy ties. But the contrast is revealing: external cooperation has advanced more easily than internal coordination because the former does not require ASEAN members to pool scarce resources or surrender control over them. The Sumatra hub and APSA ratification face precisely that harder problem. A shared reserve requires governments to accept common rules on financing and drawdown and, ultimately, to trust that a neighbor will share fuel during a crisis rather than keep it for itself. That helps explain why ASEAN has found it easier to institutionalize energy ties with outsiders than mutual energy security among its own members.
Conclusion
The honest summary of where ASEAN stands is this. The war has exposed, with unusual clarity, how little buffer much of Southeast Asia carries against a shock generated thousands of miles away, while also producing the strongest push toward pooled energy security the bloc has seen in years. But proposals are not reserves, and momentum is not institutional capacity. If the ceasefire holds and prices ease, the urgency behind the Sumatra hub and APSA ratification may fade, leaving ASEAN to repeat the pattern of adapting individually rather than collectively. If the conflict reignites, the region will discover whether the institutions now being advanced can absorb the next shock.
That is the larger test. Regional organizations are easy to judge by their declarations in calm periods; their real value becomes visible when a crisis forces governments to choose between acting alone and accepting the constraints of acting together. The Iran war has given ASEAN precisely that test. Whether ASEAN can turn crisis-driven momentum into lasting capacity will determine whether the Iran war was merely a shock the region endured or a catalyst that changed how it prepares for the next one.
John Calabrese is an Assistant Professor at American University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Utah Governor Spencer Cox
Getty Images
Spencer Cox’s Off Ramp and Utah’s Tradition of Bipartisan Leadership
Sep 06, 2026
Utah has long impressed me as a place where governors take bipartisan leadership seriously, and my own experience confirms it. I first saw this more than a decade ago when I met former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman through No Labels. In January 2013, Huntsman, then a Republican, joined Democrat Joe Manchin as national co‑chairs of the organization, a partnership built on the belief that durable solutions require leaders willing to cross the aisle. Working with both of them during that period left a lasting impression on me. Their partnership embodied a simple but powerful truth: when leaders choose cooperation over contempt, they expand what’s possible for the country. Huntsman and Manchin worked deliberately to model cross‑partisan problem‑solving—demonstrating that principled disagreement can coexist with shared purpose.
That experience left a lasting impression on me, and it’s one reason Governor Spencer Cox’s new book Off Ramp: How to Be a Peacemaker in an Age of Contempt resonates so strongly with me today.
Governor Spencer Cox’s book arrives at a moment when Americans across the political spectrum are exhausted by polarization and hungry for a path out of the political death spiral. Drawing on research, lived experience, and his nationally recognized Disagree Better initiative, Cox argues that the country’s greatest threat is not ideological difference but the culture of contempt that has grown around it.
The book delivers a practical, hopeful blueprint for rebuilding civic trust: rejecting the “conflict entrepreneurs” who profit from division, re-humanizing political opponents, and restoring norms of restraint, curiosity, and good-faith disagreement. Among the actionable steps Cox recommends are setting ground rules for discussions that prioritize listening over debating, and practicing what he calls the "three questions" approach—pausing in moments of disagreement to ask oneself what the other person is feeling, what values might be driving their perspective, and how to respond in a way that invites continued conversation.
Next time you find yourself at odds with a friend, family member, or colleague, you might use the three questions and, as you do so, consider whether your colleague is feeling unheard, and respond in a way that acknowledges the other’s concerns and seeks common ground. Cox’s strategies offer readers concrete ways to lower the temperature in their own interactions and foster more productive, respectful dialogue in both personal, professional, and community settings.
Cox grounds his message in the belief, supported by data and echoed by individuals such as Arthur Brooks and Ken Burns, that most Americans want a healthier civic life and are ready to step off the highway of outrage.
One memorable story from Off Ramp recounts how two Utah community leaders, initially at odds over a contentious policy issue, agreed to sit down together despite their differences. Through a simple conversation at a local diner, focused more on listening than debating, they uncovered shared values and agreed to co-host a forum that invited broader input and civil engagement. This kind of example shows how the book weaves personal narrative, social science, and effective guidance to reveal how individuals, communities, and leaders can help reverse the incentives that reward polarization.
It is a timely and patriotic call to strengthen the democratic structure in this year of America’s 250th anniversary.
As chairman of the Board of the Bridge Alliance, I am struck by how closely the book aligns with our devotion to cross-partisan collaboration, civic courage, and institutional renewal. In fact, Off Ramp complements a range of civic renewal initiatives across the country, including grassroots town hall movements, deliberative democracy forums, and efforts by organizations such as the National Institute for Civil Discourse and Braver Angels. Inspired by Cox’s recommendations, Alliance members could take immediate steps such as co-hosting community listening sessions that utilize the "three questions" approach outlined in the book or forming small working groups to pilot respectful dialogue guidelines in ongoing projects. Cox’s insistence that democracy prospers when citizens engage with one another with dignity aligns with the Alliance’s belief that closing gaps is a necessity for a functioning republic. His critique of zero-sum politics warns us all that contempt erodes democratic guardrails faster than policy disagreements ever could.
Most importantly, Off Ramp advances a philosophy of:
- Respect amidst differences as a democratic discipline
- Shared problem‑solving being the antidote to factionalism
- A devotion to pluralism as the foundation of our nation.
In this sense, Cox’s book is not simply a reflection of the moment but rather a lasting contribution to the wider movement for democratic renewal that our country so badly needs. It is a practical and patriotic guide that draws on his experience at the highest levels of civic leadership and cutting-edge depolarization research to encourage Americans to disagree better and restore the respect we once had, even for our political rivals. As America marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it’s time to remember what makes America strong and leave behind the behaviors and rhetoric that threaten to destroy us.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
white and red heart sticker
Photo by Dan Dennis on Unsplash
California’s Ballot Access Battles: What Latino Communities Need to Know for 2026
Sep 06, 2026
California voters heading into the November election face two different questions about ballot access.
One is immediate. How can voters make sure the ballot they cast is actually counted?
The other could reshape future elections. Proposition 39, which will appear on the November 3 ballot, would add new identification requirements for voting in California if approved.
Both questions have gained urgency after California rejected nearly 150,000 mail ballots during the June primary, the highest rejection rate in more than a decade. For Latino communities, voting rights advocates say the combination of proposed changes, complicated mail ballot rules and uneven access to election information makes understanding the system especially important.
Kim Alexander, president and founder of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said in an interview with California Latino News that voters can significantly reduce the risk of rejection by changing when and how they return their ballots.
“Every election, some ballots get rejected,” Alexander said, pointing to late ballots and signature problems as the main causes.
Her strongest advice is simple. Do not wait until Election Day to put a ballot in the mail.
California requires mailed ballots to be postmarked by November 3 and received by county election officials no later than November 10. State election officials are urging voters who use the mail to send their ballots at least a week before Election Day.
Alexander told CALN that voters who want to eliminate the possibility of a late postmark can avoid the mail entirely and return their ballots to an official drop box, voting location or county election office.
There is a particular risk for people who wait until November 3.
A ballot dropped into a mailbox after the final collection can receive a November 4 postmark, making it too late even if the voter deposited it on Election Day. California election officials advise anyone who must mail a ballot that day to take it inside a post office and request a manual postmark from a postal employee.
Alexander is encouraging voters to act even earlier this year. Halloween falls on Saturday, October 31, three days before the election.
“We’re encouraging voters to celebrate both Halloween and Election Day by turning in your ballot to a drop box or voting site that day,” she said.
Returning a ballot early can have another benefit. It gives county officials more time to process it, increasing the chance that the vote will be reflected in the first results released on election night.
For people voting by mail, Alexander said the next major risk after timing is the signature on the return envelope.
County officials compare that signature with signatures already in the voter’s record, often one associated with a California driver’s license or state identification card.
If the signatures do not compare closely enough, the ballot can be set aside. The same can happen if a voter forgets to sign the envelope.
Alexander advises voters to make the signature on the ballot envelope resemble the signature they normally use on their driver’s license or identification record.
A signature problem does not automatically mean the vote is lost.
California law requires counties to notify voters when an envelope is unsigned or the signature is determined not to compare with the one on file. The voter then has an opportunity to correct, or cure, the problem.
Alexander said voters should respond as soon as they receive such a notice rather than waiting for the deadline. Some counties allow voters to cure a signature electronically using a phone or tablet, an option the California Voter Foundation would like to see expanded statewide.
Voters in some counties also have another option.
A process often called “Sign, Scan and Go” allows voters to bring a completed mail ballot to a participating voting location, check in and cast it as an in person ballot. The California Voter Foundation says the option can bypass the mail ballot signature verification process and allow the ballot to be scanned at the voting site. The organization found that 31 of California’s 58 counties offered some form of the practice during the June primary.
Voters should check with their county election office before relying on the option because it is not available everywhere.
Alexander also urged Californians to use the state’s ballot tracking system.
“The single best thing a voter can do is sign up for BallotTrax before Election Day,” she told Latino News Network.
California’s Where’s My Ballot service allows voters to receive text, email or phone notifications showing when their ballot was mailed, received and counted. It can also notify voters if there is a problem requiring action. The service is available in every California county.
Alexander said only about 5.4 million of California’s roughly 23 million registered voters are currently enrolled in the tracking system.
Before any of that, however, voters need to make sure their registration is accurate.
The regular registration deadline for the November election is October 19. Voters can confirm their registration and mailing information through the California Secretary of State.
Missing the October 19 deadline does not necessarily prevent someone from voting. California offers same day conditional registration from October 20 through Election Day.
While Californians navigate the current system, they will also decide whether some of its fundamental rules should change.
Hector Villagra, vice president of policy advocacy and community education at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, explained in an interview with Latino News Network that confusion surrounding Proposition 39 is one of the issues Latino voters should pay particular attention to before November.
“Proposition 39 is worth highlighting because it is not the law,” Villagra said.
That distinction matters.
Proposition 39 is on the November ballot, but its proposed identification requirements do not apply to the November 3 election.
If approved, the constitutional amendment would require voters to present government issued identification when voting in person. People voting by mail would have to provide the last four digits of a selected government issued identification number on their ballot envelope.
A yes vote would establish the additional identification requirements. A no vote would leave the current signature based system in place.
Villagra said MALDEF believes the additional requirements could place greater burdens on naturalized citizens, lower income voters, older voters, people with disabilities, students and people whose names or addresses differ among government records.
For November, however, the current rules remain in effect.
That means voters should not assume campaign messages about Proposition 39 describe what identification they need to cast a ballot this year.
For Villagra, the challenge goes beyond identification requirements.
“The largest problem is that California often treats language access as the translation of a ballot rather than as an end to end voting service,” Villagra told California Latino News.
A voter may interact with signature correction notices, envelope instructions, ballot tracking alerts, election websites and provisional ballot information before the process is complete.
Villagra said those materials are not always translated as completely or clearly as the ballot itself. Bilingual staffing and telephone assistance can also be inconsistent, particularly at smaller, rural or temporary voting locations.
Federal law requires translated election materials in jurisdictions that meet certain population and literacy thresholds. California law extends some language requirements to additional precincts.
But Villagra argued that a translated reference ballot is not the same as making the entire voting process accessible in a voter’s preferred language.
Official information can also arrive after misinformation has already circulated through social media and community networks, he said.
Villagra wants election officials to provide information earlier and publish more detailed data about ballot rejection and curing rates, including information broken down by language preference, age, geography and race or ethnicity.
Alexander said language and access barriers can make an already complicated process more difficult.
She pointed Latino voters to NALEO Educational Fund’s bilingual voter assistance hotline at 1 888 VE Y VOTA, or 1 888 839 8682. The Election Protection Hotline is available at 1 866 OUR VOTE, or 1 866 687 8683. The California Secretary of State also provides Spanish language voter assistance at 800 232 VOTA, or 800 232 8682.
Voters who encounter problems at a voting location have additional protections.
Someone whose name does not appear on the voter list can ask to cast a provisional ballot. Voters who are already in line when polls close at 8 p.m. have the right to remain in line and vote. People who need assistance because of a disability or language barrier can also ask for help.
Taken together, Alexander and Villagra’s advice comes down to preparation.
Check your registration before October 19. Understand that Proposition 39 is a proposal voters will decide in November, not a requirement for voting in the November election. If voting by mail, return the ballot early and carefully sign the envelope. Track it after returning it. If election officials flag a problem, respond immediately.
California’s debate over identification, ballot access and election administration will continue beyond November.
For individual voters, however, knowing the rules already in place can determine something much more immediate. Whether their vote makes it into the final count.
California’s Ballot Access Battles: What Latino Communities Need to Know for 2026 is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.Alex Segura is Managing Editor for Latino News Network West, overseeing California Latino News and Washington Latino News. He is a journalist based in California with more than a decade of experience covering U.S. politics, immigration and Latino communities.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More