Vote16USA is a national campaign, organized by Generation Citizen, that aims to support efforts to lower the voting age on the local level, help start new local campaigns, and elevate the issue's prominence on a national level.
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
Your Vote Counts postid
Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties
Mar 02, 2026
New polling and expert analysis reveal a shifting and increasingly complex political landscape among Hispanic and Latino voters in the United States. While recent surveys show that economic pressures continue to dominate voter concerns, they also highlight a broader fragmentation of political identity that is reshaping long‑standing assumptions about Latino electoral behavior. A Pew Research Center poll indicates that President Donald Trump has lost support among Hispanic voters, with 70% disapproving of his performance, even though 42% of Latinos voted for him in 2024, a ten‑point increase from 2020. Among those who supported him, approval remains relatively high at 81%, though this marks a decline from earlier polling.
At the same time, Democrats are confronting their own challenges. Data comparing the 2024 American Electorate Voter Poll with the 2020 American Election Eve Poll show that Democratic margins dropped by 23 points among Latino men, raising concerns among party strategists about weakening support heading into the 2026 midterms. Analysts argue that despite these declines, sustained investment in Latino voter engagement remains essential, particularly as turnout efforts have historically influenced electoral outcomes.
Underlying both parties’ shifting fortunes is a broader trend: the Latino electorate is becoming more politically diverse and less predictable. Polling consistently shows that affordability, jobs, and housing are the top priorities for Latino voters, far outpacing issues like immigration. This focus on economic pressures cuts across ideological lines and contributes to what some experts describe as a fragmentation of the Latino vote, with voters increasingly aligning based on personal circumstances, generational differences, and varied cultural identities rather than a unified political bloc.
Together, these findings point to a dynamic and evolving electorate whose political behavior is shaped less by traditional party loyalties and more by economic realities and diverse lived experiences—making Hispanic and Latino voters one of the most closely watched groups ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties was first published on the Latino News Network and was republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The U.S. Capitol is shown on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
The Disconsent of the Governed
Mar 01, 2026
President Trump’s administration and Congress have not paid much attention to what legislators call “the normal order” in matters related to codifying laws and implementing programs and policies that are supposed to help mind the public’s business or satisfy petitioners looking for attention and relief. This has been partly by design and partly not.
A serious consequence of our leaders not following “normal order” has been to encourage many of us who aren’t in government to use more polarizing rhetoric and to act out more than usual. While there may be little we would consider “normal” about how our national government has been working recently or how people have risen to support or challenge it, we would be mistaken and doing ourselves a great disservice if we were to dismiss or condemn the agitated steps everyday Americans are taking as unhinged or “the work of domestic terrorists.” Their words and actions may be on the other side of normal, but there’s nothing crazy about them.
It’s what being on that other side of normal means in a democracy and how it has changed that concerns us here.
On any given day, there is bound to be someplace in a country as large and diverse as the United States where people aren’t happy with the condition of their lives, each other, or how they are being governed. In the last dozen years, however, we have been treated to more moments when some of us have made our upset with our leaders clearer than we have since the 1960s and 1970s.
Public fights and momentary disruptions of “normal” public order, I have argued elsewhere, are best understood as acts of “disconsent.” People make loud, disruptive displays of their dissatisfaction with the way they are being governed. Distressing and frightening as such acts may be, the show and the mess they make do no lasting damage to how our government works or to how we manage to get along in most other ways.
Our cage-rattling today isn’t identical to the public troublemaking Americans were making three hundred years ago. But then, too, neither are we. What hasn’t changed is the success this kind of behavior has had over the lifetime of our republic to serve as a combination safety valve, warning shot, and heads-up for our leaders and each other. Its contribution to our collective wellbeing comes through the dialogue we are effectively condemned to have about the state of our nation and our accountability to each other.
If occasional shows of popular unrest are best understood as a stabilizing force in how we conduct our public business rather than a mindless display of pique or pent-up rage, it’s important to remind ourselves of five historical facts.
First, the principled good we accomplish through intermittent displays of public disorder applies to the trouble made by people we disagree with every bit as much as it does the trouble made by people we think are right.
We shouldn’t need to be reminded that in a democracy, no one has a monopoly on the right and obligation to make their opinions on important matters known. But big, rowdy, and disruptive demonstrations of disconsent drive that point home better than anything else we’ve managed to come up with in the last 250 years.
Second, discontent may be endemic in a country as diverse and historically rambunctious as the United States. Acts of disconsent, especially violent ones, are not. Such demonstrations may have become more frequent in the last couple of decades, but they also have become less destructive and deadly than they were not too long ago.
Third, there has been an unprecedented convergence in the timing and use of both more reactionary and progressive displays of disconsent in the United States.
Others might disagree, but I’m inclined to think this is a good thing, if only because no one can claim “the other side” is monopolizing the public’s right to show how upset they are.
Fourth, the people who use unrest today to make more progressive-sounding noises and demands were inspired to learn how to act out in public from people who first used unrest in more reactionary ways, that is, to keep the world as they knew it rather than to change it.
Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, public acts of disconsent are perfect inversions of the conventional ways that legislators and the courts use the rules they make to keep the rest of us in line.
Geoffrey Miller pointed out two decades ago that the law can be used to renew our commitment to how we conduct our affairs, try to restore practices we once held dear, or reform our current practices so we can catch up with social and cultural changes that are happening all around us.
Those are the very ways that acts of political disconsent serve the common good, alerting us to the unfinished business we have and that we need to pay more and better attention to the consequences of our public behavior.
Political disconsent, even in its more violent and destructive moments, turns out to be a great deal better for how we mind the public’s business than we knew or ever dared to imagine.
Daniel J. Monti (danieljmonti.com) is Professor of Sociology at Saint Louis University and the author of American Democracy and Disconsent: Liberalism and Illiberalism in Ferguson, Charlottesville, Black Lives Matter, and the Capitol Insurrection.
Keep ReadingShow less
Changing Conversations Around Immigration
Leif Christoph Gottwald on Unsplash
Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy
Mar 01, 2026
I am writing this not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as an American who believes that compassion and common sense must coexist. I understand why many people feel sympathy for those who come to the United States seeking safety or opportunity. That compassion is part of who we are as a nation. But compassion alone cannot guide national policy, especially when the consequences affect every citizen, every community, and every generation that follows.
For more than two centuries, people from around the world have entered this country through a legal process—sometimes long, sometimes difficult, but always rooted in the idea that a nation has the right and responsibility to know who is entering its borders. That principle is not new, and it is not partisan. It is simply how a functioning country protects its people and maintains order.
My concern today is not immigration itself, but the growing push to allow undocumented individuals to remain in the United States without going through the same due process that millions before them have respected. Before supporting such a drastic shift, we should consider the broader implications.
First, there is the matter of national security.
We do not need to look far back in history to understand the risks of ignoring who enters our country. The attacks on September 11th were a painful reminder that there are individuals who wish to harm the United States. Borders, regulations, and verification processes exist not to punish innocent people, but to prevent dangerous actors from exploiting gaps in our system. Have we forgotten how quickly one oversight failure can lead to tragedy—and whose family might bear that loss?
Second, there is the economic reality—especially when it comes to illegal employment.
Millions of undocumented individuals currently work without Social Security numbers, without W‑4 forms, and without being placed on official payrolls. Many are paid under the table at wages far below legal standards. This arrangement does not just harm American workers—it also creates a shadow labor market that rewards employers who cut corners and penalizes those who follow the law.
If the United States were to grant legal status to everyone already within our borders, we must ask a difficult but necessary question: How many of these workers would actually keep their jobs once employers are required to put them on the payroll?
Legal employment means employers must now pay:
• payroll taxes
• Social Security and Medicare contributions
• unemployment insurance
• workers’ compensation
• payroll processing fees
• and, in many cases, benefits
These are real costs—costs many employers have been avoiding for years. Once those costs become unavoidable, will these employers absorb them? Or will they quietly replace newly legalized workers with the next group willing to work off the books?
And what happens then?
We would suddenly have millions of people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, now eligible for federal assistance programs they previously could not access. That would create a surge in demand for housing aid, food assistance, healthcare subsidies, and unemployment benefits—programs already stretched thin.
Is it fair to the homeless who cannot access consistent support?
Is it fair to families working multiple jobs who still cannot cover medical bills?
Is it fair to parents who are told there is no funding available for their children’s needs?
These are not abstract concerns. They are predictable outcomes.
Third, we must ask why this issue has suddenly become a political emergency.
Where was this urgency during previous administrations—Democratic or Republican?
Why is this the moment when leaders are demanding sweeping changes to long‑standing immigration processes?
What has changed, and who truly benefits from this shift?
It is not the average American family.
It is not the workers already struggling with rising costs.
It is not the communities trying to stretch limited resources even further.
Before supporting policies that remove accountability and open the door to uncontrolled migration, we must step back from the noise of social media, the slogans, and the rhetoric. We need to look at the bigger picture and consider the long‑term consequences—not just the emotional appeal of the moment.
Compassion matters. But so do security, fairness, and sustainability. A nation cannot function without all four.
I am not asking anyone to abandon empathy. I am asking for balance, for honesty, and for a willingness to acknowledge that policies have real‑world effects. If we truly care about the future of this country—and about the people who call it home—we must approach this issue with clarity, not just emotion.
Scott Woodson is from Breinigsville, Pennsylvania.
Keep ReadingShow less
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure
SCOTUS Tariffs Case: Representative Government vs Authoritarianism.
Mar 01, 2026
The Supreme Court Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs) and consolidated related cases relate to the following issues:
(1) Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump; and
(2) If IEEPA authorizes the tariffs, whether the statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the president.
Aside from the aforementioned issues, a favorable SCOTUS ruling for the Trump administration would be a ruling for authoritarian policymaking over policymaking by representative government. Without elected legislators representing citizens' ideas and concerns, deliberating and debating policies.
The United States is a representative democracy. This means that citizens elect our government. These officials represent the citizens' ideas and concerns in government.
Former SCOTUS associate justice Antonin Scalia believed the structure of government, particularly the separation of powers, is the most important feature for preserving liberty, arguing that a Bill of Rights alone is insufficient without a system of checks and balances to prevent government overreach. He saw the Constitution's structural provisions as the "real constitution," essential for preventing tyranny and protecting individual liberties by dividing power horizontally among the branches.
In May of 2025, one of America’s greatest minds expressed one such concern: Warren Buffett criticized President Donald Trump’s hardline trade policy, without naming him directly, saying it’s a big mistake to slap punitive tariffs on the rest of the world.
“Trade should not be a weapon,” Buffett said, “I do think that the more prosperous the rest of the world becomes, it won’t be at our expense, the more prosperous we’ll become, and the safer we’ll feel, and your children will feel someday.”
Trade and tariffs “can be an act of war,” and I think it’s led to bad things. Just the attitudes it’s brought out. In the United States, I mean, we should be looking to trade with the rest of the world, and we should do what we do best, and they should do what they do best.”
Even if our elected representatives determine that United States industries warrant protection, tariffs are not the sole option; affordability varies significantly by the option chosen, whether it should be a revenue raiser or revenue neutral.
Tariffs are taxes imposed by governments on imported goods. The tax is paid by the company importing the product, and the cost can be passed on to domestic consumers through higher prices, thereby affecting affordability. This passing on of costs to consumers may eventually be only part of the cause of higher prices.
Businesses survive by making a profit margin on the costs they incur. Unless tariff costs are marked up, a business’s profit margin will shrink, to the dismay of its shareholders. Not marking up tariffs may gain the company market share; however, if its earnings are less appealing than competitors', its stock price may suffer. If profit maximization does not become outdated, the adverse effect of tariffs on affordability will outweigh the revenue raised.
In both form and substance, tariffs and a sales tax on imported goods are vastly different. Unlike tariffs, a sales tax is transparent to consumers, is not a cost of doing business for businesses, and cannot be marked up; therefore, its ultimate effect on affordability is less punitive than tariffs. An administration focused on affordability could consider a cash register sales dividend. Ideally, the sales dividend would be on domestically produced items purchased.
A revenue neutral sales tax on imported goods, with a sales dividend on domestically produced items purchased, could work as follows: If the sales tax rates on imported goods and sales dividend on domestically produced purchases were 24% and 6 %, respectively and the consumer purchased $100 of imported goods and $400 of domestically produced, the imported goods sales tax would be $24 and the domestic sales dividend would be $ 24, as well ($100 times 24% and $ 400 times 6%, respectively. The revenue-neutral sales tax on imported goods, with a sales dividend on domestically produced goods, will be transparent to American consumers.
The Trump administration has its own agenda on tariffs, much of which is not transparent. This tariff regime allows Trump to wreak havoc with our international relations, "End run around the legislative branch", as well as promises to end or significantly reduce Federal income taxes and promises $2,000 tariff dividend checks, with the inability to deliver on both promises.
Hugh J Campbell, Jr, CPA, is a Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) professional and a student of W. Edwards Deming, the American Statistician, often credited as the catalyst for the Japanese Economic miracle after WWII.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift