VoteRunLead trains women to run for office. And win. With more than 33,000 women trained to run for office, VoteRunLead is the largest and most diverse campaign and leadership program in the country. We work to equip women with the right know-how, trainings and how-to's to help them enter politics with a purpose. We believe that by empowering women to run as they are, they will build a campaign based on their own passion, their own ideas and their own values.
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

LaTosha Brown co-founded Black Voters Matter in 2016 to help Black Americans recognize their power to have a voice on all kinds of choices that directly affect them.
Sarah Porter for The 19th
Her Grandparents Fought To Join American Democracy. She’s Fighting To Complete It.
Jul 08, 2026
Joseph and Nellie Gamble were born in 1905 and 1910 in Jim Crow Alabama – which meant that for much of their adult lives, they were unable to vote alongside their fellow citizens on Election Day.
Across the South for nearly a century after Reconstruction, Black Americans like the Gambles were legally blocked from the ballot box by a system of racist laws that made them second-class citizens denied their full rights as promised by our founding documents.
When the Gambles finally were able to cast their ballots, neither of them took it lightly. Joseph kept in his wallet his poll tax receipt to prove that he had paid the additional fee imposed on Black voters before they were allowed to vote — often a cost-prohibitive barrier and an insult to citizenship for those who could afford to pay. He and his wife captured the significance of the moment by dressing in their Sunday best; Nellie made sure to carry her best pocketbook.
She would take her granddaughter, LaTosha Brown, to the polls and let her pull the lever. Brown did not know why, but she learned early that voting was important and special.
Brown registered to vote as soon as she turned 18, moved by a passion that extended beyond her ability to vote. Brown was also obsessed with power: who has it, who doesn’t and how those who have it use it. Because she recognized early that voting is a means of wielding power in our democracy, she became a voting rights activist.
LaTosha Brown’s grandparents, Joseph and Nellie Gamble (left), taught her the value of voting by bringing her with them to the polls to cast their vote. (Courtesy LaTosha Brown)
In 2016, Brown co-founded Black Voters Matter as a means of formalizing her life’s mission to show Black Americans their power to have a voice on all kinds of choices that directly affect them. In the decade since, she has helped Black voters win elections across the South, orchestrating successful on-the-ground get-out-the-vote campaigns across Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana. As President Donald Trump has accused Black voters of fraud, she has carried on, her headquarters a 45-foot-long bus emblazoned with bold phrases like “WE GOT POWER!” and “WE WON’T BLACK DOWN!”.
Black women have fought to expand and protect democracy, even when they were excluded from it at our nation’s founding. Brown has understood that since her early days in the modern-day movement, registering Black voters and making sure they cast their ballots. Her work is centered on strengthening this connection between intention and action. She knows that’s one of the paths for change.
“We’ve reduced voting as just this action, or this thing of being participatory,” she said. “The evidence that I am human is based on the power of choice.”
Equality and freedom for all are founding premises of the United States. As the country marks its 250th anniversary, access to either of these beliefs is still grounded in exclusion. LaTosha Brown is among the Black women pushing for change, part of a lineage of revolutionaries waging a fight for full citizenship as some in our country continue to try to exclude them from the promises and privileges of our democracy.
For Brown, voting is more than a right. It is sacred, the physical manifestation of human agency. It is a declaration of victory in a hard-fought battle. Her own grandparents weren’t political or activists, but they knew they should have a say in who makes the laws they abide by — and in who represents them.
“There’s still an ongoing fundamental attack on our right to vote, because America has always fundamentally attacked our humanity. The right to vote and our right as a human being are intricately tied together. They’re not separate and apart.”
Much of America’s journey since 1776 has been one from exclusion to belonging, and Black women have been among those leading the charge to perfect our union as one that is inclusive and more truly representative.
The rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness declared in our nation’s founding document are, in many ways, unlocked by one’s right and ability to vote. The authors of the Declaration of Independence wrote about a government “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The right to vote was not initially extended to those who were not white male landowners; that had to be written into our Constitution more than a century later — for Black men at first and then for white women. Black women were among the others who would fight for another half-century for their access to the ballot. For them, the fight to ensure America honors the ideals articulated in the Declaration of Independence, an aspirational roadmap to a just society, is not over.
Their access to the ballot box came with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, after Black Americans and others bled and died across the South in yearslong battles waged against legal and civil efforts at subjugation. The law stood for years as the crown jewel of the Civil Rights Movement. In its wake, millions of Black Americans registered to vote and exercised their power at the ballot box, helping to elect a record number of Black politicians at the local, state and federal levels.
Today, we face a new contradiction: Many Americans are celebrating our democracy — some as a finished product — yet the right to vote, perhaps the most tangible expression of our citizenship, remains unequal for all.
Decades of progress came undone in April, when the Supreme Court dealt a final blow to the Voting Rights Act in a landmark case that cleared the way for politically driven racial gerrymandering. Within hours of the ruling, states moved to redraw their maps to consolidate Republican power and eliminate districts represented by Black elected officials. By redrawing the lines of congressional districts, Republican-led legislatures in Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee and other Southern states have diluted or altogether undone majority-Black districts, weakening — if not entirely eliminating — the ability of Black voters in the region to choose who speaks for them in Washington.
To have a vote is to have a voice in American politics. The question at this milestone for democracy is whose voice will still matter headed into our next 250 years.
Brown was at the nail salon with her aunt Ella Gamble Wilmer when news of the Supreme Court ruling broke — and it broke the 92-year-old Orville, Alabama, native, who told her niece as she wept: “I never thought we’d be back here.”
Brown was initially in shock at the decision. Then she felt betrayal. Then, something else entirely set in.
“All they did is put more gas in my tank,” Brown said.
Less than a month later, Brown was back in Selma, leading a coalition of civil rights groups, faith leaders and activists across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in the spirit of the 600 foot soldiers who risked their lives attempting to march across it for voting rights on March 7, 1965. The march was the catalyst for the passage of the act in August of that year.
The coalition Brown led in Selma has launched Freedom Summer, a nod to the 1964 campaign of the same name to register Black voters in Mississippi. Over the next few months, organizers will be holding events in at least a dozen cities, registering and mobilizing voters ahead of the midterm elections.
Now is the time for Black voters to think differently and plant the seeds for the next 250 years of American democracy, Brown said.
“We have to shift from seeing ourselves just as citizens of this nation and start seeing ourselves as founders,” she said. “It is clear that what we have in place right now is woefully insufficient. In this moment, where everything is being torn down, we should be spending a lot of time and energy around organizing ourselves and our visions around what will we build next.”
There will never be true democracy without choice, and a country that excludes its citizens cannot fully claim – or celebrate – our founding ideals.
In America, to vote is to belong. May we continue our journey towards belonging, away from exclusion, so that the promise of liberty and equality becomes real across our United States.
Her Grandparents Fought To Join American Democracy. She’s Fighting To Complete It. was originally published by the 19th and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

Trump's education policies are reshaping public schools. Learn how Department of Education cuts, school boards, and local elections could shape children's futures.
Maskot / Getty Images
When It Comes to Our Children’s Education, Trump Gets An ‘F’
Jul 07, 2026
When grading a government, there should be no metric more telling than how the kids are doing. It may come as no surprise that they are not doing well–but if the kids are failing, it is because Trump has failed them. The United States has the highest child poverty rate of any wealthy nation, yet the president continues to systematically abandon children: stripping away vital affordability protections, dismantling public education infrastructure, and cutting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Plus, there’s the ongoing threat of gun violence in schools, the cruel realities facing migrant kids in detention centers, and now new threats to digital safety and youth mental health–an intersectional crisis that desperately requires federal attention while Trump is actively trying to prevent states from stepping up in the meantime. Each of these issues deserves its own op-ed, but today let’s talk about the silver bullet for addressing inequality and building a resilient, inclusive society: public education. Its days may be numbered, but you can help.
In a move characteristically devoid of compassion, President Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), mandated that federal funding would be conditional on cutting all diversity, equity, or inclusion programs, and urged Congress to abolish the DOE outright. Following suit, Congress proposed and enacted budget cuts to reduce essential funding for programs supporting low-income students, students with disabilities, and otherwise vulnerable populations. The Supreme Court decision to allow mass layoffs at the Department of Education only worsens this crisis, reducing the department’s ability to assist schools during these challenging times. These combined federal actions will have far-reaching consequences for children and communities across the country. School’s out for summer? School might be out forever.
The impact is evident. Nationwide, schools are facing funding shortages, program cancellations, and staffing crises, and things keep getting worse. While federal funding accounts for only about 14% of school budgets, it plays a crucial role in leveling the playing field—ensuring fairness, opportunity, and support for our most vulnerable students. Trump’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027 calls for major cuts to education and safety-net programming, less than a year after his deep eligibility and benefit cuts under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including new restrictions on SNAP and Medicaid, as well as major cuts to student financial aid that left millions scrambling. Clearly, at a national level, education is on the chopping block. Even if some Congress members manage to delay the damage, it is a precarious time to be a student or educator while so much is in flux.
Local school boards may be a line of defense. These elected leaders work to ensure that our children receive an equitable, high-quality education and that schools are safe places where students can thrive. School boards make critical decisions about budgets, resources, and policies, and work to ensure teachers have the tools, resources, and support they need to create effective, nurturing learning environments. Local school boards can provide in-touch leadership, and attempt to clean up the mess left by national policies that threaten our public schools. Unfortunately, many school districts suffer from low engagement and limited competition in school board races. Between 24% and 40% of these races go uncontested each year, with incumbents winning around 80% of the time. This lack of diversity and competition leaves community voices muted and allows special interests to influence education policies that may not truly reflect the community’s needs. On that note, this is prime time for you to consider running.
While there are dozens of deep, systemic failures plaguing America’s youth today, education is one of the few arenas where accessible, institutional mechanisms still exist for us to infiltrate and reclaim immediately. If you want to force federal attention back onto these critical priorities, you can step into the arena yourself by running for Congress to champion child safety and family safety nets. But you don’t have to go to Washington to make an impact. Running for your local school board is an accessible, impactful way to defend public education, support teachers, and help shape policies that prioritize students’ well-being and learning. There are over 80,000 school board seats nationwide, with about a quarter up for election each year. By stepping into these roles, everyday citizens can ensure that their communities’ schools remain safe, inclusive, and well-resourced.
You don’t need to be a parent or teacher to run. If you care about the well-being of young people or the integrity of local schools or even just the future economic vitality of your neighborhood, then you should think about it. We all have the power to help make our schools safe, equitable, and capable of preparing students for the challenges ahead. That being said, if you are a parent or a teacher, what are you waiting for? Run for a seat, or if you aren't ready to take that step, change how you engage with local elections: pay attention to the candidates on your ballot, and actively recruit or encourage a trusted, compassionate neighbor to run. Congress must do what it can to defend against the daunting onslaught our president is deploying against our youth, but we can all help ensure that children at least have access to the education they deserve.
This call to action isn't just for adults. If you are a young person with notes on your schooling, you should run. Most school board seats only require candidates to be 18 years old, and a growing number of states have even enacted laws permitting or sometimes requiring local school boards to feature designated student positions, with some of these younger representatives carrying full voting rights. Trump ended programs that surveyed the experiences of high schoolers, but voices from the classroom are vital. No one is too young to invest in how the next generation learns and grows. Raise your hand.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System
Jul 07, 2026
During my junior year of high school, I was prescribed my first benzodiazepine, called lorazepam, at 16 years of age. At the time, my parents and I did not understand the potential consequences of long-term use of benzos. Like so many other patients out there, we trusted that the healthcare system would not only provide treatment and correct guidance to move forward with my prescriptions, but I never realized they would be the force that would ruin my future and so many dreams I had for my young adulthood.
What followed was a years-long struggle with severe medication dependence and withdrawal that fundamentally changed my life for the worse.
Unfortunately, my story is not all that unique. Millions of Americans have been prescribed benzodiazepines such as lorazepam, alprazolam, and clonazepam. These medications can provide important short-term relief for anxiety, panic disorders, and other conditions. But for some patients, being over-prescribed, such as being constantly prescribed for 9 months straight, can cause severe mental and physical dependence due to sensitivity to benzos – everybody is different, and experiences can be drastically different. Some people can take benzos for months or even years on and off and feel okay, but many others can become hooked very badly.
The big question here isn’t whether benzos should exist in the first place - they have legitimate medical uses and help many people. The question is whether our healthcare system provides patients with sufficient education, monitoring, and support when these medications are prescribed for extended periods.
Trust is one of the foundations of healthcare. Patients trust physicians to explain risks honestly. Families trust healthcare institutions to keep pace with emerging evidence. The public trusts regulators to ensure that treatment guidelines reflect the best available science. When patients feel uninformed about dependency risks or unable to access consistent withdrawal support, that trust can fade away.
Although benzos have been on the market for many decades, they are still being studied about how they impact patients long-term. Patients often encounter conflicting advice from different providers about how long they should be prescribed (1-2 months should be the max) or otherwise, patients will build a dependency on benzos, and the severity of the withdrawals while coming off of them will vary from person to person. Some patients will receive detailed guidance as to exactly how long they are supposed to be prescribed and are told about the dangers of coming off of them and how to be cautious while about the pace of withdrawing from these medications. Unfortunately, many other patients are left to navigate complex withdrawal experiences largely on their own, no matter if they have been prescribed benzos for one month or one year, physicians might not truly understand how long to exactly prescribe them, how much and how carefully to withdrawal from them. The variation in care can leave patients confused and frustrated at a time when they are already vulnerable.
This is not primarily a story about individual doctors making bad decisions. Rather, it is a story about systems struggling to keep pace with a complicated public health issue. Physicians operate within larger structures that include medical education, professional guidelines, regulatory agencies, insurance policies, and healthcare institutions. When those systems fail to provide consistent information and evidence-based protocols, patients bear the consequences.
Improving this situation does not require assigning blame. It requires reform, and that reform will be the responsibility of patients to make their voices heard about their experiences with being prescribed benzos, we cannot be afraid of expressing the facts of what we go through – and then physicians will be responsible for following through with the new information they will receive about how to better prescribe, for how long, and how carefully to withdrawal patients from their benzo.
Medical schools and continuing education programs should ensure that healthcare professionals receive comprehensive training on dependency-forming medications and safe discontinuation practices. Patients should receive clear, standardized information about potential risks before beginning long-term treatment. Healthcare systems should develop better pathways for monitoring patients who remain on benzodiazepines for extended periods and provide access to evidence-based tapering support when needed – such as the Ashton Protocol, which is a withdrawal process that tapers off 5-10%. For example, I used to be on 30 mg of valium, came down 1.5 mg-2mg over two weeks to a month, so my body did not notice my body reducing valium in my system.
Policymakers and regulators can also play a role by supporting research into long-term outcomes, encouraging best-practice guidelines, and promoting transparency in patient education. Better data collection and reporting would help healthcare leaders identify care gaps and improve patient safety. For instance, giving patients a proper prognosis, such as an expectation of tapering by 5-10% every couple of weeks, would help temper expectations, as patients who eventually get impatient want results quickly and to know exactly when their withdrawal process will end.
My experience ultimately led me to write a book, Poisonous Band-Aid, to share my story and raise awareness about challenges some patients face with benzodiazepines. But the purpose of telling that story is not to revisit the past; it is to contribute to a larger conversation about accountability, patient safety, and public trust. I want physicians to be better informed and able to talk to their patients in a straightforward manner, so the facts are explained clearly. There needs to be a lot less uncertainty going on about how to properly get diagnosed and withdrawn from benzos in a timely manner.
Healthcare works best when patients and institutions work together. That partnership depends on trust, transparency, and a willingness to learn from difficult experiences. By strengthening patient education, improving professional training, and developing more consistent standards of care, we can help ensure that future patients are better informed and better supported than many have been in the past.
Eamon Janfada is a San Angelo, Texas, resident and the author of the book Poisonous Band-Aid.
Keep ReadingShow less

The Framers designed a republic with the intention to manage factionalism through deliberate compromise and institutional guardrails, whereas 21st-century polarization often treats compromise as a moral failing.
Douglas Sacha, Getty Images
Our Framers on 21st Century Primaries and Polarization
Jul 07, 2026
The Framers would view 21st-century closed primaries and political polarization as the exact manifestation of "factionalism" they spent the 1787 Constitutional Convention trying to prevent. They would argue these systems force candidates to appeal to ideological extremes rather than the broad, moderate consensus required for stable governance.
The Danger of Factionalism: In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a "faction" as a group of citizens united by a passion or interest adverse to the rights of others. He argued that while factions are inevitable, their effects must be controlled. The Framers would recognize 21st-century hyper-polarization as the dominance of unyielding factions that prioritize absolute ideological purity over democratic compromise.
The "Vicious Arts" of Elections: Madison warned against "unworthy candidates" who use partisan polarization to win office. He would likely see closed primaries as a breeding ground for these tactics, as they force candidates to cater exclusively to ideological extremes.
Countering Faction with Scale: Madison believed the best way to control factions was to expand the voting pool so that no single extreme group could easily dominate. He would argue that an open primary system—which merges all voters into a single pool—dilutes the power of party bosses and forces politicians to seek "broad consent" rather than narrow partisan approval.
George Washington: Extinguishing the "Fire" of Party Spirit: In his famous 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington issued a stark warning against the "baneful effects of the spirit of party".
Preventing Alternate Domination: Washington warned that the alternate domination of one faction over another leads to “frightful despotism".
The Open Primary as a Safety Valve: Washington would likely view closed primaries as an artificial wind fueling this partisan fire. He would write in favor of open primaries as a cooling mechanism, allowing independent and moderate voters to function as an electoral buffer. By taking away a party's total control over candidate selection, open primaries directly combat what Washington feared most: politicians who owe their primary loyalty to a party rather than to the nation.
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: John Adams was characteristically blunt, once writing that a "division of the republic into two great parties... is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution".
The Threat to Checks and Balances: the Framers relied on the separation of powers to protect liberty. However, modern hyper-partisanship means legislators often protect their fellow party members in the executive branch rather than holding them accountable.
Restoring Independent Judgement: Adams would likely write that closed primaries enforce an unconstitutional level of partisan discipline. He would support open primaries because they allow the roughly 50% of Americans who identify as independent to vote, effectively breaking the duopoly's gatekeeping power over who can run for office.
The Flaw of Closed Primaries: the Founders originally designed a system without formalized political parties. As parties inevitably formed, early processes allowed for broader coalitions. Today’s closed primaries—which restrict voting to registered party members—would deeply concern the Framers because:
The Extremist Incentive: they would note that when only the most resolute partisans vote in low-turnout primary elections, candidates are incentivized to adopt extreme rhetoric to win.
Disenfranchisement: barring independent or unaffiliated voters from primary participation contradicts the principle of broad, representative governance.
Checks, Balances, and Compromise: the entire Constitutional architecture, including the separation of powers and staggered terms, was built to force deliberation, negotiation, and compromise. The Framers would criticize modern polarization for breaking this system, replacing legislative debate with party-line obstructionism. They would likely view the resulting gridlock as a failure of elected officials to act as independent representatives of the whole public, rather than mere delegates of a polarized party base.
Prescribed Remedies: to address these structural issues, the Framers would likely champion reforms that broaden the electorate, such as open primaries, nonpartisan redistricting, or ranked-choice voting. They would view these mechanisms as modern equivalents to their constitutional checks and balances—tools to dilute the power of extreme factions and force candidates to build wider coalitions of support across the political spectrum.
The Framers' Likely Critique of Open Primaries: While the Framers would despise closed party primaries, they would not view open primaries as a perfect cure-all.
Fear of "Mob Rule": the Framers were profoundly skeptical of pure direct democracy and preferred filtered representative systems.
Strategic Sabotage: They would quickly identify the flaw of "crossover voting" or strategic raiding—where voters of one party cross over to vote for the weakest candidate in the opposing party's open primary to sabotage them in the general election.
For this reason, the Framers would likely bypass standard open primaries and advocate for nonpartisan top two or top four primaries (like those used in Alaska and California). In those systems, all candidates appear on a single ballot, completely removing party gatekeeping and aligning perfectly with the Framers' original vision of a nonpartisan republic.
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
















