Congressional pages carry electoral votes into a joint session of Congress in January 2017.
Think you know all there is to know about the Electoral College? Test your smarts with this quiz.
This quiz is powered by CredSpark.
Missouri’s food economy runs on undocumented labor. Turning a blind eye won’t work anymore.
In meatpacking plants across Missouri, hundreds of workers clock in before dawn, keeping one of the state’s most essential industries up and running. Many of them are Latino immigrants, some undocumented, who have become the invisible backbone of Missouri’s $93.7 billion agriculture economy. They’re the ones who process the pork and clean the poultry that end up on our dinner tables.
This reality isn’t unique to Missouri. It’s mirrored in agricultural communities across the country, where immigrant workers form the foundation of our food system.
Meatpacking is grueling, dangerous work. With injury rates three times the national average, hazards like amputations, high-speed production lines, and constant repetitive motions that can cause musculoskeletal issues are daily realities while on the floor. Workers must face long hours in cold, loud environments, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with little break time and limited, if any, access to personal protective equipment (PPE). These working conditions declined during the COVID pandemic and remain demanding today.
And in spite of the risks, undocumented laborers continue to make up a substantial portion of the workforce; about 23% of workers are undocumented, and 42% are foreign-born in this sector.
The U.S. is criminalizing the very people keeping it fed. Immigration crackdowns don’t just break up families; they break supply chains. That means meatpacking plants losing essential workers, farms going understaffed, and local economies potentially being pushed to the brink.
The meatpacking industry has a long history of worker exploitation, though.
Meatpacking plants were first built in large cities where workers had better access to unions and collective bargaining. However, new companies began relocating to rural areas, where union presence was weaker and labor costs were lower, effectively moving the industry away from its unionized roots.
With the move to rural areas, plants recruited Latin American immigrants to fulfill the low-wage, demanding jobs that native-born workers were less willing to do.
Even though undocumented workers pay taxes and significantly contribute to the nation’s economy, they still lack labor protection in U.S. labor laws. They live every day among escalated anti-immigrant rhetoric and threats of deportations and family separations hanging over their heads.
These workers are not transient, but rather embedded in the communities they help sustain. In fact, most undocumented immigrants in America have lived here for more than a decade.
Relying on a workforce without legal protections is an unsustainable and flawed model for employers and workers.
Mass deportations would weaken the economy, and the consequences would ripple across our food system. Unharvested crops, higher food prices for consumers, and reduced domestic food production can follow major labor shortages.
“You would see farms go out of business, and we could see interruption in our food supply,” testified American Farm Bureau Federation president Zippy Duvall before the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee earlier this year.
This country and its people must find both a just and effective path forward for those who have repeatedly contributed to and are so vitally part of our success.
This raises the question: How do we protect those who maintain our food system while they remain increasingly vulnerable?
It is essential to recognize the role of H-2A visas in meeting agricultural labor needs. These visas enable foreign nationals to obtain temporary work permits for agricultural jobs when local workers are unavailable.
This system provides some assistance, but it also has its own financial and administrative barriers: its complex paperwork and high costs limit accessibility, especially for smaller farms. Simplifying the process, reducing expenses, and expanding the program to cover year-round positions would better meet the needs of farmers.
Visas fall far short of addressing the deeper, structural issues behind the agricultural workforce crisis. What’s needed is reform that builds a stable, sustainable, and humane labor system for the future of American agriculture.
Comprehensive immigration and labor reform is a long-term, politically complex process and goal.
In the meantime, we must focus on practical, community-based solutions.
One such approach is to invest in bilingual outreach and support networks that can advocate for workers. Partnerships like these should be expanded and permanently funded, not just in crisis moments throughout states.
In Missouri, the Migrant Farmworkers Assistance Fund (MFAF) provides essential bilingual case management and emergency assistance to migrant farmworkers and their families. The nonprofit’s staff meet with migrant workers upon their arrival at local orchards to help determine eligibility for public benefits, access medical and dental services, and assist with school enrollment for their children.
Monarch Immigrant Services, based in St. Louis, plays a vital role in promoting equity and stability for these groups as well. By providing mental health services, social support, legal assistance, language services, and senior engagement to over 3,000 individuals, they’re effectively working to invest in immigrant and refugee communities through equitable access to transformative services.
Local solutions can – and do – provide immediate relief. These services not only keep workers uplifted, but they also help them remain stable and resilient.
Another potential step is the adoption of fair labor certification programs that hold employers accountable and provide consumers with a means to support ethical practices, according to Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy.
For example, the Equitable Food Initiative (EFI) works with farms to certify that produce is grown under safe, fair, and dignified conditions. Participating operations have the opportunity to integrate worker voice, foster collaboration between managers and workers, and recognize the value of all staff.
It's important to recognize that many migrant workers endure abuse and exploitation out of fear of deportation.
Groups like Centro de los Derechos del Migrante (CDM), a transnational organization aiding Mexico-based migrant workers in the U.S., assist migrant workers in confronting these injustices. Ensuring that labor migration policies reflect workers’ voices and priorities, CDM collaborates with workers to transform the power imbalances that harm people in the H-2A and other temporary work visa programs.
Promoting equitable practices in local agriculture and raising awareness about available resources can help safeguard the well-being of these essential community members. We must realize that protecting them is a shared responsibility.
It’s up to us to speak out for those who are too often silenced, even if, at times, it feels like our messages empty into an abyss. We cannot continue to accept the labor of undocumented workers while treating them as disposable. We cannot have a witch hunt and a workforce at the same time.
As someone whose community was once welcomed and rebuilt after war, I believe in this country’s ability to honor the dignity of all workers, regardless of status. We owe it to the people who feed us every day. They deserve more than fear and invisibility. They deserve protection, recognition, and a seat at the table.
Know your rights during recruitment and at work. Learn how to protect your rights and issues such as discrimination and sexual harassment, expenses and reimbursements, and fair wages.
Workers can also share their experiences and review their recruiters and employers to prevent recruitment workplace abuses at contratados.org.
For help with workplace or recruitment problems, contact Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. (CDM). CDM can assess your situation, recommend the best course of action, and accompany your case throughout the process. CDM never charges workers for services.
U.S.: (667) 217-5738 | Mexico: 55-96-61-6771
Layla Halilbasic is an incoming junior at Webster University in St. Louis and a cohort member with the Fulcrum Fellowship.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.
A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.
Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.
Reducing barriers is part of a broader category of civil discourse motivation. Additional ways to motivate involve showing the attractiveness of engaging across the political spectrum. We think of two broad categories of civil discourse motivation: "positive motivation" (increasing the desire to participate), and "lowering barriers" (reducing what makes participation feel hard). Motivation is vital to getting Americans to engage with each other.
Perception Gap corrections mostly address the latter category of lowering barriers, but both categories are useful to support healthier discourse. In this article, we highlight a couple of other ways to lower barriers, and we briefly explore methods of positive motivation.
Our organization, More Like US, focuses on college campuses, which are especially important places to do this work, particularly given the heightened tensions following the violence in the Middle East that began on October 7, 2023.
The data shows that Americans view members of the other political party overly negatively. As shown below, this includes exaggerated perceptions of ideological extremity, interpersonal hostility, inferiority that can exacerbate stereotypes, and even a willingness to use violence.
If someone sees those on the other side as more extreme, interpersonally hostile, inferior, stereotypical, and/or threatening than they actually are, it is understandable that they would hesitate to engage. These highly negative and exaggerated impressions exacerbate a core psychological barrier to dialogue: intergroup anxiety.
More in Common’s "The Connection Opportunity" report identifies intergroup anxiety as the single most important factor reducing willingness to engage across political lines. Perception Gaps, our tendency to assume the worst about political outgroups, fuel that anxiety.
Intergroup anxiety is likely to be high when people perceive that a person from “the other side” is likely to have extreme and completely different views, act in aggressive ways (e.g., combative, dismissive, unreasonable), and possibly be morally or cognitively inferior. Given these assumptions, simply opting out of conversations can feel like a safe choice.
But when these misperceptions are corrected—when people learn that their peers are more ideologically similar, open and respectful, and generally better people than expected—these barriers begin to lower. The imagined risks shrink, and the sense of permission to engage grows.
Conversations can then seem doable, rather than seeming like daunting tasks requiring deep “bravery” or “courage” (as some groups in this space seem to suggest).
Lowering these barriers does not require deep shifts in worldview. Relatively modest corrections, like learning that others are less extreme or hostile than assumed, can reduce anxiety and make conversations feel more approachable.
To better understand how to encourage political conversations, it helps to distinguish between two types of motivation: the desire to do something and the reduction of obstacles that discourage it.
Using a sports example, a child’s aspiration to emulate their favorite baseball player represents an increased desire to participate, what we call positive motivation. Meanwhile, severe outdoor allergies constitute an obstacle. Providing allergy medication or immunotherapy would thus reduce the obstacle, what we call lowering barriers. Both additional positive motivation and lowered barriers increase the likelihood of participation.
As explained above, correcting Perception Gaps is a clear example of lowering barriers.
Other methods can also lower barriers. For instance, teaching dialogue skills overcomes a major concern about having the capacity to engage well. Opportunities to model good civil discourse can also reduce hesitancy to engage when students see others successfully doing so.
Then there are approaches that can encourage participation by increasing interest—what we call positive motivation.
At least among college students, one strategy is to highlight that students often enjoy these conversations more than they expect. Surveys from Unify America’s Civic Gym suggest that cross-partisan discussions can be energizing and rewarding. Emphasizing these outcomes can spark interest.
Another potential area of positive motivation involves emphasizing broad and long-term benefits (e.g., attractiveness to employers, ability to handle social situations).
Finally, messages encouraging values (e.g., curiosity, open-mindedness) can provide positive motivation to some. From some of the earliest studies in psychology, it has been shown that people generally want to see themselves as “good.” If this “goodness” means being, say, curious and open-minded, then some can change their behaviors to align with this conception of desirable attitudes and behaviors. Some advocates of curiosity in terms of cross-ideological dialogue include Mónica Guzmán and The Viewpoints Project.
Some approaches can both lower barriers and increase positive motivation. For instance, as mentioned above, modeling effective civil discourse can reduce hesitancy. And for some, it can actually inspire and be a source of positive motivation when they want to be like those they see successfully conversing with each other.
Our organization, More Like US, has a focus on college campuses, especially to motivate civil discourse. Our two active projects in fall 2025 can improve motivation to engage:
More Like US is also planning future efforts to shift norms and increase motivation to have civil discourse across politics on college campuses. The National Social Norms Center (NSNC) at Michigan State University and its predecessors have worked for over two decades to correct misperceptions about dangerous health behaviors, such as binge drinking on campus. They have found that students overestimate how much their fellow students drink; once these misperceptions are corrected, students drink less. Now, More Like US and NSNC seek to use the same logic to correct misperceptions and problematic social norms that inhibit dialogue on campus, such as by helping students see that more of their peers across politics are more open to dialogue than expected. When conversations feel both socially supported and personally manageable, more students are likely to take part.
When Americans assume that those who disagree with them are far more extreme or hostile than they really are, dialogue may never even begin. These misperceptions feed intergroup anxiety. Correcting these misperceptions reduces that anxiety, lowering a major barrier to engagement.
Learning dialogue skills and seeing others effectively model discourse can also reduce hesitation to engage.
Still, lowering barriers by reducing anxiety is only part of the equation. Motivation also depends on positive motivation, including highlighting surprising enjoyment, long-term benefits, and values that encourage engaging with one another.
All of these motivational tools can unlock conversations that may not have happened otherwise.
James Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Coan can be contacted at James@morelikeus.org
Imre Huss is a current intern at More Like US.
RFK Jr. has publicly challenged the safety of vaccines, although the evidence he cites is widely disputed by mainstream scientists, medical institutions, and public health experts.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is currently the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services and is responsible for shaping national health policy, managing public health programs, and guiding medical research and regulatory frameworks.
He has publicly challenged the safety of vaccines, including required childhood immunizations and COVID-19 vaccines. However, the evidence he cites is widely disputed by mainstream scientists, medical institutions, and public health experts.
What are the facts?
Most vaccine side effects are short-lived and mild:
However, There Are Rare but Documented Risks, Which Include:
These risks are tracked through systems like VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) and Vaccine Safety Datalink, which monitor and investigate any patterns.
Required vaccines are designed to:
When mandates are weakened, as seen in recent policy shifts in Florida, experts warn of increased risk for outbreaks of preventable diseases like measles and polio.
Are There National Mandates for Child Vaccines or Do Just States Mandate Vaccinations?
While the federal government doesn’t mandate vaccines for schoolchildren, it can:
Is Florida Considering Ending the Mandates for Vaccines?
Florida is actively working to end all childhood vaccine mandates, which would make it the first state in the U.S. to do so. Governor Ron DeSantis and Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo announced plans to phase out vaccine requirements for schoolchildren, including those for:
Ladapo described current mandates as “immoral” and likened them to “slavery,” arguing they infringe on parental rights and bodily autonomy.
Katie Fahey speaks with League of Women Voters of Arkansas President Bonnie Miller on democracy reform across the state and her work in civically educating and engaging residents.
Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for our Opinion section.
Bonnie Miller is known for her activism in democracy reform in Arkansas and is the current president of the League of Women Voters of Arkansas and chair of Save AR Democracy, a campaign to protect ballot initiatives in Arkansas. In 2020, Miller led the Arkansas Voters First campaign, which garnered significant support but was eventually struck down by the Arkansas Supreme Court. She continues to lead the fight for a better democracy in her state while also working in higher education at the University of Arkansas School of Law.
Our conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Fahey: Tell us about your background. What led you to get involved with democracy reform?
Miller: I got involved in democracy reform in 2018 after I attended a local League of Women Voters’ program about gerrymandering and a possible solution—an independent redistricting commission. I was never the same—I was empowered(!!) and ready to get to work. I joined the local LWV chapter, and in 2020, I chaired Arkansas Voters First, a statewide ballot measure campaign to create fair maps through an independent commission. I never looked back!
Fahey: Your state’s ballot initiative process has been under attack from the legislature and the courts. Can you tell us about the history of these attacks, and how are you fighting back?
Miller: Because of recent ballot measures successes (minimum wage, medical cannabis) and near successes (independent redistricting, ranked choice voting), the General Assembly has enacted numerous laws that severely restrict the initiative process to the point where it is nearly impossible to qualify a measure for the ballot. We are fighting back in two ways: First, we have filed two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of most of the onerous laws, and we have drafted and are currently collecting signatures on a constitutional amendment (the nation’s first!) to save and protect the initiative process in Arkansas.
Fahey: Tell us about the changes you are currently fighting for: What ballot initiatives are you currently working on, and what stage are you at in the process?
Miller: Right now, we’re solely focused on protecting direct democracy in Arkansas. Without the process, the people won’t have the ability to pass policies that our legislature refuses to address. After our redistricting measure was disqualified in 2020 due to a statute subsequently declared unconstitutional, we knew we needed to shift from defense to offense. We developed a two-pronged approach to save and protect the process. We spent years working with local and national stakeholders, experts, and legal counsel to not only protect the process moving forward but to challenge those statutes we believed to be unconstitutional. We’re proud to be the first campaign in the country to launch a proactive, direct democracy amendment—a ballot measure for ballot measures, as we call it. We are currently collecting signatures across the state and have until July 3, 2026, to submit 90,704 signatures from registered voters.
Fahey: Who are the main opponents of your effort, and what are their arguments against it?
Miller: The main opponents are politicians who believe the people should not have the right to participate in direct democracy. They argue that the process needs to be shielded from “special interests,” but what they’re doing is ensuring that ONLY special interests can afford to participate under our current laws. This is not unique to Arkansas—this is a nationwide effort to systemically dismantle the initiative and referendum process in the states that have it.
Fahey: What do you think your campaign needs to do to be successful in November 2026?
Miller: Honestly, the support is there. We just need to qualify for the ballot by submitting the requisite number of signatures. We’re confident our measure will pass by an overwhelming majority if it makes the ballot.
And money, of course! :) We’re running an all-volunteer statewide campaign, and printing and circulating petitions is a costly endeavor—one that gets more and more expensive every cycle as our legislature continues to pass burdensome, unconstitutional laws.
Fahey: Are you finding that your campaign is resonating with AR voters?
Absolutely! Perhaps even more so than we anticipated. We know folks understand the basic premise of the problem, but at the end of the day, this is also a constitutional amendment about a process, and it’s pretty technical and in the weeds. We’ve been blown away by the level of engagement from folks around the policy details—they absolutely get it and are even lining up to sign our petition despite the additional hurdles added by our legislature.
Fahey: What are some of the best practices and lessons you have learned from past successes in ballot initiatives?
Miller: Start early!! Haha, but seriously, start as early as you can. And of course, work with a lawyer. Work with multiple lawyers. Money spent on protecting and insulating your measure from guaranteed challenges is never wasted.
Fahey: What do you currently need the most help with, and how can people get involved?
Miller: We need volunteers, and we have a place for everyone. If you want to help, we can use you! For folks outside of Arkansas looking to help with our effort, you can do a lot by helping to spread the word about our campaign. Find us on social media, subscribe to our newsletter, share our content so it gets in front of as many people as possible. And of course, if you can donate, even $5, that is a TREMENDOUS help. Our campaign is fueled by small donor donations and our volunteers. Head to SaveARDemocracy.org for more information. This is an all-hands-on-deck situation. Our future is at stake.
Fahey: If you were speaking with a high school student or a new immigrant to our country, how would you describe what being an American means to you?
Miller: Being an American to me means being part of one of the most historic and profound coalitions to have ever existed. We always talk about the importance of people-powered coalitions to the success of direct democracy, and that’s true when you zoom out as well. America, our country, IS a coalition—a diverse coalition with many competing interests, and at the end of the day, we are bound together through our commitment to democracy and each other. So while we’re navigating unchartered waters, it’s important to remember how successful we’ve been in holding onto this wonderfully messy and complicated coalition—we NEED to remember that we’ve been down before but never out. We’re still doing the work of democracy, and in America, that includes everyone.
