Politics

Contributor: Mexico’s elections are a role model for the U.S.

Published

4 days ago

February 11, 2026

Contributor: Mexico’s elections are a role model for the U.S.

Voting is fundamental to democracy, but here in the U.S. people don’t vote very much. In December, Miami held a runoff election for mayor, and all of 37,000 voters turned out. This was 2,000 fewer people than voted in comparable off-cycle elections in Apizaco, a small city in the mountains of central Mexico. It was no blip: The median turnout in U.S. city elections is 26% of the voting age population. In Mexico, by contrast, turnout rarely dips below 50%, and unglamorous small-town elections attract higher numbers, often more than 70% of the citizenry.

Nevertheless, the United States disdains Mexico as a pale shadow of its own democracy. Mexican elections are written off as corrupt, violent and unrepresentative. This was part-true for much of the last century, when versions of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional ruled without interruption for 71 years. Mexicans were “oriented” to vote by party managers, fined if they didn’t, violently dissuaded from voting for dissidents, disenfranchised with stuffed ballot boxes. Impressive turnouts were coerced. Even today, decades after the arrival of a competitive democracy, the violence persists. Thirty-four candidates were murdered in the 2024 elections.

Yet Mexicans also vote in impressive numbers because they have always cared profoundly about representative politics, and particularly at a local level. Many of those large turnouts in authoritarian Mexico were crowds of everyday people struggling to elect legitimate authorities in the teeth of a rigged system. Those struggles meant that sometimes they won.

Historical outcomes are revealing. More than 200 years of elections in Mexico have given results significantly more diverse and representative than those of the United States. In 2024 Mexicans elected the first female president in North American history, climate scientist Claudia Sheinbaum. In 1829 Mexicans elected the first Black president in North American history, mule driver Vicente Guerrero. In 1856 they elected lawyer Benito Juárez as the only Indigenous president in North American history.

The United States was born committed to rule by freely elected representatives. “We the people” is a good start to a piece of political writing and a good start to a country. When the French sociologist Aléxis de Tocqueville visited New England in the 1820s he was struck by how the citizens of small towns argued out their differences and came up with solutions together. The federal republic was a scaling up of those habits. The sum of those people’s beliefs, institutions and bloody-mindedness, Tocqueville wrote, was democracy in America.

The peoples of the United Mexican States, founded in 1824 after gaining independence from Spain, shared those ambitions. Mexico was likewise a federal republic, its rulers elected, its powers divided among executive, legislature and judiciary. As in the U.S., the female half of the population was excluded. But Mexico’s founders were ahead of ours in one sine qua non of genuine democracy: racial equality. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton claimed that “to all general purposes we have uniformly been one people; each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection.” That was a self-evident untruth, because Black and Indigenous peoples were not included.

In Mexico, people of color had some standing from the founding onward. Mexican history has its own wrenching tragedies of race: the slavery of West Africans, the ethnocides of the North, the systematic impoverishment of peoples like the Maya of Chiapas, a eugenic hunger for white migration. But from the colonial outset Black people were acknowledged to be fully human, their enslavers’ abuses punished, their lynching unknown. Many Indigenous peoples preserved their language, lands and governments over centuries. Asians joined them; the first Japanese ambassador arrived in 1614. Mexico was the world’s first great melting pot.

So the founders of the United Mexican States made no formal distinction among the multitudes they contained. Their leaders in the War of Independence abolished slavery. Their post-independence congress mandated “the equality of civil rights to all free inhabitants of the empire, whatever their origin.” The 1824 Constitution extended the vote to every adult male. All would be free, all equal under law and all voters with a stake in the outcome.

In 1917 Mexicans passed the most progressive constitution in the world following their own revolution. It mandated an eight-hour working day, a minimum wage, equal salaries for men and women, and paid maternity leave. While women didn’t get the vote until the 1950s, they exercised notable power behind the scenes; even the most conservative parties had female organizers and supporters. Progressive social policies inspired leaders across the hemisphere, including Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Three core beliefs inspire Mexicans to vote. They believe that face-to-face freedom, embedded in the power and autonomy of the municipio libre, the free county, is sacrosanct. And they believe that to preserve communal freedom, whether from federal abuse or oligarchs, requires two things, sufragio efectivo y no reelección; in historian John Womack’s translation, “a real vote and no boss rule.”

Historically enough Mexicans — of all political stripes, from conservatives to anarchists — cared about those three beliefs to fight in elections tooth and nail.

Alongside the belief that voting is a duty comes clear-eyed rejection of boss rule. While Mexican Mayor Daleys are historically ubiquitous — they sparked the Mexican Revolution — there are none of the national dynasties that beset U.S. politics. The great dictator Porfirio Díaz left his ambitious nephew struggling to make army captain for eighteen years. Dynastic power befits monarchies, not democracies, and Mexicans know it.

Neither do Mexican politicians enjoy the unfettered power of their American counterparts to buy elections. Parties are publicly funded, under a system designed to promote fairness. Each party gets a certain amount from the state: 30% of that amount is the same for all, the remaining 70% proportional to their success in the previous elections. Private donations are transparent, regulated and capped at a very low level, on paper at least. The system unduly favors incumbents, and illegal, off-books funding is rife. Yet the need for sizable contributions to be covert keeps election results out of the hands of the likes of Elon Musk. A national watchdog and a diverse and competent press ensure it.

Sheinbaum spent $18 million winning her presidential election. In losing New York City’s mayoral election, Andrew Cuomo spent three times as much. A single oligarch, Michael Bloomberg, chipped in $13 million. Mexican elections are sometimes bought and sold, but never with the obscene unconcern prevalent in the U.S. since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

Republics that endure rely on egalitarian beliefs, hard-nosed pragmatism, unwritten rules of decency and written rules of institutions — and unrelenting struggle against all who break those rules. Democracy relies on people of all races being recognized as fully human and guaranteed access to the ballot. It then relies on those people turning up to vote whenever given the chance. Mexicans have repeatedly demonstrated how deeply they know that across their history, against sometimes heavy odds. Their government documents come stamped with the revolutionary slogan sufragio efectivo y no reelección, a real vote and no boss rule, as a reminder. We could use one ourselves.

Paul Gillingham, a professor of history at Northwestern University, is the author of “Mexico: A 500-Year History.”

Politics

Fetterman slams Democrats’ ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ voter ID rhetoric as party unity fractures

Published

8 hours ago

February 14, 2026

Press Room

$Fetterman slams Democrats’ ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ voter ID rhetoric as party unity fractures$

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., is continuing his streak of breaking with his party — this time on voter ID legislation gaining momentum in the Senate.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Democrats have near-unanimously rejected the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, election integrity legislation that made its way through the House earlier this week.

Schumer has dubbed the legislation “Jim Crow 2.0,” arguing it would suppress voters rather than encourage more secure elections.

COLLINS BOOSTS REPUBLICAN VOTER ID EFFORT, BUT WON’T SCRAP FILIBUSTER

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., speaks to a reporter as he arrives in the U.S. Capitol for a vote Dec. 3, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

But Fetterman, who has repeatedly rejected his party’s messaging and positions, pushed back on Schumer’s framing of the bill.

“I would never refer to the SAVE Act as like Jim Crow 2.0 or some kind of mass conspiracy,” Fetterman told Fox News’ Kayleigh McEnany on “Saturday in America.”

“But that’s part of the debate that we were having here in the Senate right now,” he continued. “And I don’t call people names or imply that it’s something gross about the terrible history of Jim Crow.”

The bill would require voters to present photo identification before casting ballots, require proof of citizenship in person when registering to vote and mandate states remove non-citizens from voter rolls.

MURKOWSKI BREAKS WITH GOP ON VOTER ID, SAYS PUSH ‘IS NOT HOW WE BUILD TRUST’

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, announced her support for the SAVE America Act but won’t go as far as to nuke the Senate filibuster. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Momentum is building among Republicans. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, became the 50th member of the conference to back the legislation. But Senate Democrats have all but guaranteed its demise in the upper chamber, via the filibuster.

Fetterman would not say whether he supports the bill outright. However, he noted that “84% of Americans have no problem with presenting IDs to vote.”

“So it’s not like a radical idea,” Fetterman said. “It’s not something — and there already are many states that show basic IDs. So that’s where we are in the Senate.”

HARDLINE CONSERVATIVES DOUBLE DOWN TO SAVE THE SAVE ACT

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Democrats are ready to buck the SAVE Act. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty)

Even if Fetterman were to support the bill on the floor, it is unlikely to pass without more significant procedural changes.

There are currently not enough votes to overcome the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold.

Fetterman is also not keen on eliminating the filibuster — a position shared by most Senate Republicans.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

He noted that Senate Democrats once favored scrapping the filibuster but now want to preserve it while in the minority in a Republican-controlled government.

“I campaigned on it, too,” Fetterman said. “I mean we were very wrong about that to nuke the filibuster. And we should really humble ourselves and remind people that we wanted to eliminate it — and now we love it.”

Alex Miller is a writer for Fox News Digital covering the U.S. Senate.

Politics

Who pays for Newsom’s travel? Hint: It’s not always taxpayers

Published

9 hours ago

February 14, 2026

Press Room

Who pays for Newsom’s travel? Hint: It’s not always taxpayers

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom sat onstage at the Munich Security Conference in Germany on Friday and described one of the primary ways he is responding as the Trump administration shifts federal climate priorities.

“I’m showing up,” he said.

In recent months, that has meant trips to Brazil, Switzerland and now Germany, where he has repeatedly positioned California as a global climate partner. The travel has also revived a recurring question from critics and watchdog groups: Who pays for those trips?

In many cases, the costs are not borne by taxpayers. The governor’s office said his international travel is paid for by the California State Protocol Foundation, a nonprofit that is funded primarily by corporate donations and run by a board Newsom appoints.

For decades, California governors have relied on nonprofits to pick up the tab for official travel, diplomatic events and other costs that would otherwise be paid with taxpayer funds.

“The Foundation’s mission is to lessen the burden on California taxpayers by reimbursing appropriate expenses associated with advancing the state’s economic and diplomatic interests,” said Jason Elliott, a former high-ranking advisor to Newsom whom the governor added to the foundation’s board.

While the arrangement helps the state’s pocketbook, critics say it is another avenue for corporate interests to gain influence. Among the donors to the foundation are healthcare giants like Centene and CVS Pharmacy, while the bulk of revenue stems from separate nonprofits affiliated with the governor made up of power players with business before the state.

“The problem with the protocol foundation and others like it is that donors to these foundations receive access to the politicians whose travel they fund,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog.

When did nonprofits start paying for gubernatorial travel?

The protocol foundation was created as a tax-exempt charity during Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration in 2004.

Similar nonprofits have existed since Gov. George Deukmejian created one in the 1980s. In the early 2000s, Gov. Gray Davis dramatically increased the use of nonprofits to cover travel, housing and political events.

When Schwarzenegger left office, his supporters turned the protocol foundation over to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown’s backers, who in turn handed it over to Newsom’s camp. The foundation describes its mission in federal tax filings as “relieving the State of California of its obligations to fund certain expenditures of the Governor’s Office.”

Newsom appoints members to the foundation board, which then is responsible for determining what expenses to cover in the governor’s office. In its most recent tax filing covering 2024, the foundation lists its board chair as Steve Kawa, who served as Newsom’s chief of staff when he was mayor of San Francisco. The foundation’s secretary in those filings is Jim DeBoo, who was Newsom’s chief of staff in the governor’s office until 2022.

The foundation reported total revenue of $1.3 million in 2024 and, after expenses, had a balance of less than $8,000.

What is the foundation paying for?

The foundation covers the cost of Newsom’s international travel and certain domestic trips, including Climate Week in New York, when he is acting in his role as governor. His staff’s travel is also covered by the foundation. The governor’s office declined to say whether the foundation also pays for Newsom’s security detail.

Publicly available records are vague, but Newsom’s annual financial disclosure forms show the foundation paid more than $13,000 for the governor’s 2024 trip to Italy, where he delivered a speech on climate change at the Vatican.

That same year, the foundation paid nearly $4,000 for his trip to Mexico City to attend the inauguration of Mexico’s first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum. The cost of both trips included flights, hotel and meals for his “official travel,” according to the disclosure records, which are filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission and known as Form 700s.

Newsom has reported receiving $72,000 in travel, staff picnics and holiday events from the protocol foundation since he took office in 2019, according to the disclosures.

The foundation paid $15,200 for the governor’s 2023 trip to China, where he visited five cities in seven days during an agenda packed with meetings, sightseeing and celebrations, including a private tour of the Forbidden City.

In 2020, the foundation paid $8,800 for Newsom to travel to Miami for Super Bowl LIV — where he said he was representing the state as the San Francisco 49ers faced the Kansas City Chiefs.

The governor’s office said it did not yet have the amount picked up by the foundation for Newsom’s travel to Brazil to attend the United Nations climate summit known as COP30 or to Switzerland for the World Economic Summit.

Who are the donors behind the foundation?

In some cases, the well-heeled funders behind the foundation’s cash flow are easy to identify on state websites.

Donations to the foundation that are solicited directly or indirectly by Newsom are recorded with the Fair Political Practices Commission as behested payments. A behested payment occurs when an elected official solicits or suggests that a person or organization give to another person or organization for a legislative, governmental or charitable purpose.

The environmental grantmaker Resources Legacy Fund contributed $100,000 to the protocol foundation last year, a donation which records show came shortly after the organization announced that it had hired Newsom’s former mayoral chief of staff Phil Ginsburg.

Last year, the clean-energy nonprofit U.S. Energy Foundation donated $150,000 for the California delegation to attend COP30 in Belém, Brazil. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation donated $300,000 in a 2023 behested payment earmarked for the California delegation traveling to China for the meetings on climate change. UC Berkeley gave $220,000 for the governor’s office’s trip to the Vatican in 2024.

Most donations simply indicate that they are directed for “general operating support” of the foundation. That includes two donations from the Amazon-owned autonomous vehicle company Zoox Inc. cumulatively worth $80,000.

Two charities set up to pay for Newsom’s inaugurations in 2019 and 2023 moved more than $5 million to the protocol foundation since 2019. The financial backers behind those inaugural charities include powerful unions, corporations, tribal casino interests, trade associations and healthcare giants — organizations with significant financial stakes in state policy decisions.

Past spending by the foundation has been criticized

During Schwarzenegger’s administration, his office avoided fully disclosing $1.7 million in travel costs paid for by the foundation, instead relying on vague internal memos and, in some cases, oral accounting, according to a 2007 Los Angeles Times investigation.

Schwarzenegger’s expenses picked up by the foundation included leased Gulfstream jets costing up to $10,000 per hour and suites going for thousands of dollars a night. The Times’ investigation found among the costs was $353,000 for a single round trip to China on a private jet in 2005.

The foundation also paid for Schwarzenegger’s travels to Japan, Europe, Canada and Mexico.

At the time, Schwarzenegger’s representatives told The Times the governor did not have to report the travel costs on his annual disclosure forms because the payments for the jets and suites were gifts to his office, not to him.

Newsom’s office said the governor travels commercially, not on private jets.

Politics

Here’s how the DHS shutdown could impact the lives of everyday Americans

Published

20 hours ago

February 14, 2026

Press Room

Here’s how the DHS shutdown could impact the lives of everyday Americans

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The federal government has entered its third partial shutdown of the last half-year after Congress failed to reach an agreement on all 12 of its annual spending bills.

Unlike past shutdowns, however, this one just affects the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It comes after Democrats walked away from a bipartisan deal to fund the department amid uproar over President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.

And while some 97% of the federal government has been funded at this point, a DHS shutdown will still have effects on everyday Americans — effects that will become more apparent the longer the standoff continues.

DHS SHUTDOWN EXPLAINED: WHO WORKS WITHOUT PAY, WHAT HAPPENS TO AIRPORTS AND DISASTER RESPONSE

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem delivers a press conference on Jan. 24, 2026. (Al Drago/Getty Images)

Air travel delays

Disruptions to the TSA, whose agents are responsible for security checks at nearly 440 airports across the country, could perhaps be the most impactful part of the partial shutdown to Americans’ everyday lives.

Acting Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill told lawmakers at a hearing on Wednesday that around 95% of TSA employees — roughly 61,000 people — are deemed essential and will be forced to work without pay in the event of a shutdown.

“We heard reports of officers sleeping in their cars at airports to save money on gas, selling their blood and plasma, and taking on second jobs to make ends meet,” she said of the last shutdown.

But it would take some time before TSA funding could translate to delays. TSA agents, like other essential federal workers, received back pay once the shutdown was over. Those who did not miss shifts also got a $10,000 bonus for added relief.

FETTERMAN BUCKS DEMOCRATS, SAYS PARTY PUT POLITICS OVER COUNTRY IN DHS SHUTDOWN STANDOFF

TSA paychecks due to be issued on March 3 could see agents getting reduced pay depending on the length of the shutdown. Agents would not be at risk of missing a full paycheck until March 17.

If that happens, however, Americans could see delays or even cancellations at the country’s busiest airports as TSA agents are forced to call out of work and get second jobs to make ends meet.

Passengers wait in line to use automated passport control kiosks set up for international travelers arriving at Miami International Airport. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Natural disaster reimbursement

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is one of the largest and most critical recipients of federal funding under DHS.

Associate Administrator of the Office of Response and Recovery Gregg Phillips told lawmakers on Wednesday that FEMA has enough funds to continue disaster response through a shutdown in the immediate future, but that its budget would be strained in the event of an unforeseen “catastrophic disaster.”

That means Americans hit by an unexpected natural disaster during the shutdown could see delayed federal reimbursement for their homes and small businesses.

Others who have already lived through a natural disaster in the last year but still have not received their checks — FEMA is currently working through a backlog worth billions of dollars — could see that relief delayed even further during the shutdown.

“In the 45 days I’ve been here … we have spent $3 billion in 45 days on 5,000 projects,” Phillips said. “We’re going as fast as we can. We’re committed to reducing the backlog. I can’t go any faster than we actually are. And if this lapses, that’s going to stop.”

People are seen outside a wildfire shelter at the Pasadena Convention Center on Jan. 21, 2025. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

Worker visa processing

American business owners who rely on certain types of worker visas could see processing times extended during a DHS shutdown.

That’s because United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) programs are run under DHS and are responsible for processing most immigration applications as well as temporary visas.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The majority of those programs are funded by fees and are largely untouched. However, areas like e-Verify, the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center Program, Conrad 30 J-1 doctors, and non-minister religious workers all rely on funding appropriated by Congress, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

USCIS could allow employers to use alternate processes if e-Verify is disrupted during a shutdown, but it’s not clear how much time it would add to business owners’ day-to-day responsibilities to learn a new route for that paperwork.

Elizabeth Elkind is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital leading coverage of the House of Representatives. Previous digital bylines seen at Daily Mail and CBS News.

Follow on Twitter at @liz_elkind and send tips to elizabeth.elkind@fox.com