Reform Elections Now is a nonpartisan organization of professionals concerned about the current political dysfunction that prevents government from working to solve the nation's biggest problems. We feel election reform is the key. Our mission is to facilitate election reform through education and engagement, with practical solutions that will enhance informed discourse, increase voter participation and motivate better representation by our elected officials. In addition to preparing 'white papers' on various reform initiatives, we hold monthly sessions open to all on timely relevant topics.
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
Fighting Food Loss Through Education in Florida
Sep 12, 2026
The state of Florida is no stranger to hurricanes. Floridians worry about flooding, property damage, and harsh winds. But another issue often goes forgotten, and it starts in the kitchen.
When hurricane season hits, the power usually goes out, which means refrigerators begin to warm, putting perishable food at risk. According to foodsafety.gov, refrigerators can keep food safe for only four hours during a power outage.
For Florida residents, a power outage during a hurricane can last way longer than 4 hours. A category two hurricane can cause power outages for an estimated several days to two weeks.
Food spoilage is only the surface of the problem. Older adults and low-income families have limited financial resources to replace spoiled food. Throwing away spoiled groceries is a safe option, but during hurricane season or any disaster, households lose a lot of money and face a financial burden.
Replacing groceries is not as simple as it seems, especially when seeking government assistance. According to an article by TC Palm, FEMA does not reimburse for food lost during power outages, and no programs provide vouchers to replace spoiled groceries or food lost in weather-related events.
Also, SNAP benefits assistance is not available to everyone. Vulnerable households that are financially struggling are left with few to no options to ease the burden during a difficult disaster.
A solution could help many families who could fall victim to a problem like this. Improving food safety in Florida communities can reduce financial risk before a hurricane hits.
One organization that is working to provide food safety education is the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, also known as UF/IFAS. Through its Extension program, UF/IFAS provides food safety information and outreach to communities across Florida.
Programs like UF/IFAS help families prepare for power outages during storms before they happen. They teach families how to store food and identify when it is no longer safe to eat, helping residents avoid unnecessary food loss and reduce the risk of foodborne illness.
Dr. Keith Schneider, a food safety and nutrition researcher and professor with UF/IFAS Extension, says the objective is to educate people since the University of Florida is a land-grant institution.
“As a land-grant institution, outreach is part of our mission, so we have teaching, research, and extension effort. There's somebody [regional agents] in every county in Florida that provides outreach and support to the community.”
To provide information on how to prepare food and water before a storm, the organization has many fact sheets online. The fact sheets explain how to safely handle water and food during a disaster.
“There are several fact sheets available online to help consumers handle food during those crisis events,” said Dr. Schneider.
He also mentions the organization does outreach in other ways, like news, radio, social media, and having the university do press releases.
Dr. Schneider advises keeping fresh water, nonperishable food, and ice on hand during hurricane season to prepare for power outages. Also recommending limiting the amount of perishable food stored before a storm.
This information matters for vulnerable households because it can reduce the financial burden of groceries lost during a disaster.
He mentions throwing away food can be difficult for most families, but it is important: “Sometimes it sort of difficult [throwing away perishable food] because it may represent a very significant portion of their food budget. But in those types of situations you don’t want to add a foodborne illness on top of a crisis situation already; that will just overburden our first responders in our healthcare”
The UF/IFAS program outreach helps vulnerable Floridians, but the organization has limitations.
Dr. Schneider mentions that the lack of manpower across Florida makes it difficult to broadcast food safety knowledge on a bigger scale.
“You have a limited number of individuals dealing with a very large population, so we get pulled in a lot of different directions. We don't have the resources to hire more people to reach every individual”.
Another limitation is reaching residents who may not have access to the internet and social media. UF/IFAS food safety resources and fact sheets are online, but many vulnerable people may not know about the information or even the existence of the organization.
“These groups of individuals may not have access to a computer or may not know that we exist. We probably need more people; we want to be as visible as we can,” said Dr. Schneider
Going door to door is counterproductive for the organization, especially with so few specialists. But Dr. Schneider assures the organization tries its best to bring food safety knowledge to as many people as they can.
Other states like Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and California, to name a few, have similar extension programs to promote food safety knowledge and resources. This shows that Florida is not alone in using education and outreach to help vulnerable communities when a disaster strikes.
While food safety education cannot prevent power outages or stop food from spoiling, providing Floridians with information before a hurricane hits could help them make safer decisions about the food they have. It could also reduce food loss and the financial strain of replacing groceries after a disaster.
Kazon Allen is a broadcast journalism student at Florida A&M University and is a member of the summer Fulcrum Fellowship.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Meet the Fall 2026 Fulcrum Fellows: Six New Voices Strengthening Civic Journalism
Sep 12, 2026
The Fulcrum is proud to introduce the six students selected for the Fall 2026 Fulcrum Fellowship, a semester‑long program designed to strengthen the next generation of civic‑minded journalists. Building on the momentum of the summer cohort, this fall class reflects the fellowship’s mission: elevating diverse voices, sharpening democratic storytelling skills, and preparing emerging reporters to cover the systems shaping American civic life.
This cohort reflects the fellowship’s continued expansion and its growing partnership with the Latino News Network (LNN), which brings additional mentorship, newsroom collaboration, and community‑driven reporting opportunities to the fellows.
The Fall 2026 fellows represent universities across the country and bring a wide range of experiences, interests, and journalistic ambitions. Each fellow will participate in newsroom-style training, solutions-focused reporting workshops, and hands-on civic journalism projects that align with The Fulcrum’s commitment to strengthening democracy, nonpartisan public-interest reporting, and community-driven storytelling.
Hugo Balta, Executive Editor of The Fulcrum and Publisher of the LNN, said:
“This partnership allows us to give emerging journalists the kind of hands‑on, community‑centered experience that strengthens both their reporting and our democracy. These fellows bring curiosity, empathy, and a real commitment to public‑service journalism.”
Alejo Cruz
Alejo Cruz — Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY. Cruz draws on his experience growing up in an immigrant household and his reporting with unhoused people and asylum seekers to center human rights and community voices in his journalism, a commitment he hopes to deepen through solutions‑focused reporting with The Fulcrum.
"The Fulcrum's commitment to repairing our democracy through informed and civil dialogue is what drew me to the Fellowship. We are at a pivotal moment in our nation's history where the growing political polarization presents a challenge for the next generation of journalists. I hope to walk away from this Fellowship with a better understanding of how to write for unity rather than division."
Pechuqui Laurata
Pechuqui Laurata — UC Berkeley School of Journalism (Master of Journalism). Guided by early experiences in Cameroon and strengthened at Berkeley, Laurata aims to produce rigorous, compassionate journalism that highlights how communities respond to hardship and where meaningful change is taking root.
"I applied for the Fulcrum Fellowship because I want to strengthen my skills in reporting democracy and civic issues in ways that are thoughtful, inclusive, and grounded in people’s lived experiences. Through the fellowship, I hope to sharpen my opinion and solutions journalism skills, learn from seasoned experts, mentors, as I develop stories that connect communities across diverse cultures, backgrounds and perspectives."
Idris Mohammed
Idris Mohammed — University of Alabama, Ph.D. Student in Journalism & Creative Media. Idris’s work covering terrorism, displacement, and humanitarian crises across northern Nigeria has shaped his commitment to evidence‑based, solutions‑driven reporting that highlights both community resilience and the responses that make a difference.
"Coming from a region where many people have been denied basic rights, I know that telling someone’s story can be an act of recognition and justice. Through We Are One Humanity, I hope to share those stories with a global audience and demonstrate that even in places marked by conflict and hardship, humanity, resilience, and hope continue to endure. This motivated me to join We are One Humanity project!”
Abbey Osborn
Abbey Osborn — CUNY Newmark Graduate School of Journalism. Abbey focuses on local democracy, public institutions, and youth civic engagement. She brings experience in community reporting and a commitment to amplifying voices often overlooked in political coverage.
"I applied for this fellowship after being inspired by The Fulcrum's work highlighting democracy’s influence on everyday life. I want to expand my skills as a journalist by telling stories that elevate diverse backgrounds and viewpoints. Over the course of the fellowship, I hope to deepen my practice in solutions journalism and strengthen my ability to listen to and engage with a wide variety of communities."
Malory Shaw
Malory Shaw — University of Nevada, Reno. Malory's reporting is grounded in building trust with communities — from pesticide‑affected families in rural Costa Rica to Latino neighborhoods in Nevada — and in examining how law enforcement technology impacts democracy.
"The Fulcrum Fellowship gives me the incredible opportunity to learn more about solutions journalism, storytelling skills, and how to write a story with community at the forefront. I hope to broaden my perspectives and dip my toe into unfamiliar beats alongside talented, driven journalists."
Val Amiel Vestil
Val Amiel Vestil — University of Michigan (Graduate Student). Val blends environmental scholarship with nine years of journalism leadership, founding a nonprofit that has trained more than a thousand reporters and championed solutions‑driven climate coverage across the Philippines and Asia‑Pacific.
"Coming from the Philippines, where climate stories are often inseparable from stories of disaster and loss, I’m interested in what journalism can do to make room for responses, agency, and possibility. I hope the Fulcrum Fellowship will help me deepen that practice and bring a Global South perspective into solutions journalism. I also want to bring what I learn here back to the journalists and storytellers I work with in the Philippines."
David Nevins, Publisher of The Fulcrum, added:
“Each new cohort reminds us how much talent and passion exists in the next generation of journalists. Their work will help expand the national conversation about civic health, and we’re proud to support their growth.”
Throughout the fall, fellows will participate in workshops on solutions journalism, democratic systems, media literacy, and public‑interest storytelling. They will produce original reporting for The Fulcrum, engage with civic leaders, and collaborate on projects that explore the health of American democracy at the local and national levels.
The Fulcrum Fellowship continues to grow as part of our mission to support emerging journalists committed to strengthening civic understanding and democratic participation. This fall cohort reflects the energy, curiosity, and commitment needed to meet today's journalism challenges.
Hugo Balta is an accredited Solutions Journalism and Complicating the Narratives trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
The Fulcrum is deeply committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists, investing in emerging reporters who are driven to produce ethical, solutions‑focused storytelling and strengthen civic understanding through their work.
The Latino News Network's mission is to provide greater visibility to Hispanics, Latinos through community‑centered reporting that provides culturally nuanced, solutions‑driven coverage for underserved audiences.
Keep ReadingShow less
Bipartisan Support for Legal Status and Immigration Reform
Sep 12, 2026
While immigration is a highly divisive issue in Washington, DC, new surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 congressional districts across the country reveal substantial bipartisan common ground among the public on proposals to address the millions of undocumented people living in the US.
These results come from surveys conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) to nearly 20,000 adults from May 27th to June 25th, as part of its Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted in the run-up to the November election, as well as in a national survey conducted in February with over 2500 respondents.
One of the largest areas of agreement is that undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of a crime should be deported. A position supported by very large majorities of Democrats (70 to 91%) and Republicans (85 to 98%) across all of the states and districts surveyed. Nationally, a bipartisan majority also favors it (Democrats 79%, Republicans 94%, overall 85%).
But a much bigger question is how to deal with millions of undocumented immigrants without a criminal record who have been here for some years. Do Americans favor deporting them?
Apparently not. The proposal that elicits robust bipartisan support is to offer them a pathway to become legal residents, provided they pay a penalty and any owed taxes (Democrats 75 to 89%, Republicans 55 to 78%, overall 65 to 84%). Nationally, PPC found a bipartisan majority in favor (Democrats 84%, Republicans 69%, overall 77%).
Support for this proposal has also been echoed in other surveys by Gallup, Wall Street Journal, and Reuters/Ipsos.
But don’t many Americans have concerns about giving amnesty?
A 2024 survey by PPC – conducted nationally and in six battleground states – presented arguments for and against offering such a path to legal status, and majorities found arguments that this would amount to amnesty convincing. But larger majorities found convincing arguments that it is simply not feasible to deport more than 10 million immigrants who have been living here for some years and that doing so would be harmful, as it would take away workers who play an important role in the economy.
Even larger bipartisan majorities agreed that people brought to the US illegally as children should be offered a pathway to citizenship (Democrats 80 to 95%, Republicans 60 to 82%, overall 70 to 86%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 89%, Republicans 76%, overall 83%).
At the same time, Americans want to deter illegal immigration going forward.
Since work is the primary motivator for most immigrants coming here illegally, bipartisan majorities across all of the battleground states and districts support a two-part proposal that would steer immigrants seeking work into a legal pathway.
First, it would require employers to verify new employees’ legal status through E-Verify, thereby making it harder for undocumented immigrants to obtain employment. At the same time, it would substantially increase the number of work visas to meet labor demand, opening a legal channel.
This proposal was supported by over two-thirds of Democrats (75 to 90%) and Republicans (67 to 89%) and overall (76 to 85%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority favors it (Democrats 84%, Republicans 82%, overall 83%).
PPC found bipartisan support for this same package in 2024 – nationally and in six swing states – in a survey that included strongly worded arguments for and against the proposal.
The survey also addressed the problem of many immigrants who have applied for asylum and then wait for years to have their cases heard. Bipartisan majorities favor hiring more immigration court judges to speed up asylum cases (Democrats 72 to 87%, Republicans 66 to 83%, overall 71 to 83%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 83%, Republicans 73%, overall 76%).
Overall, it is clear that Americans are uncomfortable with the millions of immigrants living and working in the US in an illegal or ambiguous state. And they do not see mass deportation as a solution, beyond those who have been convicted of crimes, as so many have been effectively assimilated into the American economy.
They primarily support proposals that bring them out of the shadows and integrate them through legal channels, while also strengthening enforcement measures to deter future illegal immigration.
Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?
This survey release is the seventh in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.
You can find results for individual states and districts, as well as national results, here.
Bipartisan Support for Legal Status and Immigration Reform was first published on the Latino News Network and republished with permission.
Dr. Steven Kull is the Director of the Program for Public Consultation.
Evan Charles Lewitus is the Associate Director of the Program for Public Consultation.
Keep ReadingShow less
Bipartisan Support for Legal Status and Immigration Reform
Sep 12, 2026
While immigration is a highly divisive issue in Washington, DC, new surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 congressional districts across the country reveal substantial bipartisan common ground among the public on proposals to address the millions of undocumented people living in the US.
These results come from surveys conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) to nearly 20,000 adults from May 27th to June 25th, as part of its Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted in the run-up to the November election, as well as in a national survey conducted in February with over 2500 respondents.
One of the largest areas of agreement is that undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of a crime should be deported. A position supported by very large majorities of Democrats (70 to 91%) and Republicans (85 to 98%) across all of the states and districts surveyed. Nationally, a bipartisan majority also favors it (Democrats 79%, Republicans 94%, overall 85%).
But a much bigger question is how to deal with millions of undocumented immigrants without a criminal record who have been here for some years. Do Americans favor deporting them?
Apparently not. The proposal that elicits robust bipartisan support is to offer them a pathway to become legal residents, provided they pay a penalty and any owed taxes (Democrats 75 to 89%, Republicans 55 to 78%, overall 65 to 84%). Nationally, PPC found a bipartisan majority in favor (Democrats 84%, Republicans 69%, overall 77%).
Support for this proposal has also been echoed in other surveys by Gallup, Wall Street Journal, and Reuters/Ipsos.
But don’t many Americans have concerns about giving amnesty?
A 2024 survey by PPC – conducted nationally and in six battleground states – presented arguments for and against offering such a path to legal status, and majorities found arguments that this would amount to amnesty convincing. But larger majorities found convincing arguments that it is simply not feasible to deport more than 10 million immigrants who have been living here for some years and that doing so would be harmful, as it would take away workers who play an important role in the economy.
Even larger bipartisan majorities agreed that people brought to the US illegally as children should be offered a pathway to citizenship (Democrats 80 to 95%, Republicans 60 to 82%, overall 70 to 86%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 89%, Republicans 76%, overall 83%).
At the same time, Americans want to deter illegal immigration going forward.
Since work is the primary motivator for most immigrants coming here illegally, bipartisan majorities across all of the battleground states and districts support a two-part proposal that would steer immigrants seeking work into a legal pathway.
First, it would require employers to verify new employees’ legal status through E-Verify, thereby making it harder for undocumented immigrants to obtain employment. At the same time, it would substantially increase the number of work visas to meet labor demand, opening a legal channel.
This proposal was supported by over two-thirds of Democrats (75 to 90%) and Republicans (67 to 89%) and overall (76 to 85%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority favors it (Democrats 84%, Republicans 82%, overall 83%).
PPC found bipartisan support for this same package in 2024 – nationally and in six swing states – in a survey that included strongly worded arguments for and against the proposal.
The survey also addressed the problem of many immigrants who have applied for asylum and then wait for years to have their cases heard. Bipartisan majorities favor hiring more immigration court judges to speed up asylum cases (Democrats 72 to 87%, Republicans 66 to 83%, overall 71 to 83%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 83%, Republicans 73%, overall 76%).
Overall, it is clear that Americans are uncomfortable with the millions of immigrants living and working in the US in an illegal or ambiguous state. And they do not see mass deportation as a solution, beyond those who have been convicted of crimes, as so many have been effectively assimilated into the American economy.
They primarily support proposals that bring them out of the shadows and integrate them through legal channels, while also strengthening enforcement measures to deter future illegal immigration.
Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?
This survey release is the seventh in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.
You can find results for individual states and districts, as well as national results, here.
Dr. Steven Kull is the Director of the Program for Public Consultation.
Evan Charles Lewitus is the Associate Director of the Program for Public Consultation.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More


















