A House Divided by Silence: Will LULAC Have Fair Elections in 2026?
By David Contreras
For nearly a century, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) has served as the conscience of our community. We have stood on the front lines, demanding that the institutions of this country operate with fairness, transparency, and accountability. We have spent decades teaching our neighbors that the right to vote is sacred and that the rules of democracy must be applied equally to everyone.
But as we look toward our 2026 District, State, and National elections, we must face a sobering reality: Our moral authority in the public square is only as strong as our willingness to abide by our own governing documents.
The 2026 Charter Agreement clearly affirms that all new and existing councils in good standing are recognized as tax-exempt organizations and must file an annual return with the Internal Revenue Service. Filing Form 990-N requires a valid Employer Identification Number (EIN).
A council without an EIN cannot fulfill this requirement and, therefore, cannot demonstrate regulatory compliance.
In August 2025—now over six months ago—I formally advised LULAC National leadership of a significant governance deficiency. Internal assessments suggested that as many as 60% of LULAC’s 400+ councils may not have been EIN compliant. If that assessment is accurate, the issue is not isolated; it is systemic.
Yet, the guidance provided thus far has been nebulous at best. The frequent use of conditional language—suggesting that councils “may” be required to file or “may” face consequences—creates a dangerous perception of selective enforcement. In the realm of governance, "may" is the enemy of "integrity." It implies that rules are optional or, worse, that they are applied only when convenient for those in power.
This leads to a fundamental question: Will we have fair elections in accordance with our governing documents and what we profess for voting rights and voting integrity?
This matter touches our core responsibilities: compliance with federal tax law, the definition of “good standing,” and the fiduciary duties of national officers. When the requirements for standing are left vague, we undermine the democratic legitimacy we fight for every day. Selective enforcement creates an uneven playing field, leaving the General Assembly to wonder if we are picking and choosing which voices are allowed to be heard.
As we approach the 2026 convention season, we must reconcile our internal actions with our external message:
• How can we champion voting integrity if we do not ensure the absolute integrity of our own credentialing process?
• Is it fair to the councils that have done the hard work of remaining compliant to seat them alongside those who have been given a "pass" through nebulous language?
• If we do not hold ourselves to the letter of our own governing documents, do we truly have the right to demand voting integrity from others?
As a former National Historian, I know that LULAC’s legacy is written in our actions. Leadership was informed of this gap half a year ago; the time for quiet, isolated corrections has passed. We owe it to every member to provide a clear, public, and uniform pathway to compliance that replaces the word "may" with the certainty of "must."
Doing what is right is rarely the easiest path, but it is the only one that protects the organization. Let us lead by example. Let us prove that the fairness and voting integrity we demand for our people are the same principles we practice within our own halls.
David Contreras is the Chair of the Harris County Hispanic Culture Heritage Commission and served as the Past LULAC National Historian. He is a founding member of ALMAAHH.
No comments:
Post a Comment