VerifiedVoting.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates for legislation and regulation that promotes accuracy, transparency and verifiability of elections. We believe the integrity and strength of our democracy relies on citizens' trust that each vote be counted as cast. Our primary concern lies in ensuring that the means for verifying election outcomes are in place and used for that purpose. We also focus on the reliability and security of voting systems. We connect those who are making and implementing policy that shapes how we vote to those who understand the particular risks associated with the emerging digital landscape, particularly online and electronic voting.
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
silhouette of child sitting behind tree during sunset
Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash
The Future Of Puerto Rico: Consider Needs of The Children
Oct 09, 2026
When I entered my second-grade classroom in 1982 at Chicago’s Moos Elementary School, in the heart of the Puerto Rican community of Humboldt Park, I was greeted with “Mirelsie, que nombre bello, de donde tu eres?”
“Mirelsie, what a beautiful name, where are you from?”
Even now, decades later, I still remember the smile on the face of Ms. Navarro holding the door open for me, and the joy I felt for the first time when she was able to find my home on a map of Puerto Rico; a home I had left just two years before walking into her classroom.
Unbeknownst to me, Ms. Navarro had also said goodbye to Puerto Rico just a few years before our encounter, and perhaps in me she saw herself. I would never know that feeling again in my K-12 experience.
Decades later, she and I would reconnect, sharing stories of our three years together, our times reflected of shared experiences of displacement, migration, and linguistic erasure.
Perhaps today in a small classroom, tucked in a corner of a community whether in Florida, Georgia, Illinois or Oklahoma, a Puerto Rican teacher and an eight-year-old child are sharing the same experience.
My hope is that child is being greeted by their own kind teacher at a time when environmental injustices, climate change, political discourses and economic violence, is shifting the future for Puerto Rico and its people.
As local communities and schools across the country use the next month to celebrate and highlight Latine Heritage, September 15- October 15, possibly many are thinking of this new generation of migrants sitting in classrooms, carrying the consequences of a history of political and economic instability, and the residual effects of environmental harm in their everyday life.
No amount of music or food finding its way to their classrooms this month, can soften their relationship to this history and continued reality.
Since Hurricane Maria in 2017, there has been a dramatic shift in the populations number across the archipelago, with the number declining to about 3.2 million according to reports from the Pew Research Center.
In 2024, it was reported that over six million Puerto Ricans resided in the United States, with 27% of that population under 18 years of age. Who these Puerto Ricans are matter, as schools in places like Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Florida are seeing an increase of students in districts either struggling to provide services to the population or unsure of what kind of services these children need most.
But there are also recruitment efforts in Puerto Rico to bring teachers to U.S. cities to support the increase of Latina/o students in classrooms in states such as Oklahoma, with very little thought of the unique needs and skills of these educators.
This outmigration of teachers and students does not just reflect an opportunity but a necessity. Between 2017 and 2021, Puerto Rico has seen numerous school closings and schools sold to private organizations.
In communities such as Vega Baja, the hometown of global artist Bad Bunny (whose own mother is a retired schoolteacher), numerous schools sit close, limiting the opportunities for local teachers and students.
And for those schools that remain open, disinvestment in schools and services across the archipelago have made it imperative that families make the decision to leave Puerto Rico to meet the needs of their children.
Puerto Rico’s territorial status leaves in limbo in many areas, with education and educational reform and opportunity often left out of discourses on the future of the archipelago.
For example, although federal policies such as 1965’s Elementary and Secondary School Act and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 provided a framework on serving the needs of students and earmarked federal funds to provide much needed services, it failed to consider localized needs in Puerto Rico.
These gaps in learning outcomes continued to be exasperated by natural disasters, fiscal collapse, and outside oversight over Puerto Rico’s decision making and policies.
Students are arriving in classroom in states like Florida in large number, where the Puerto Rican population was over 1.3 million in 2024 ,with close to a quarter of that number young people under the age of 18.
For those students arriving from Puerto Rico they experienced underfunded schools, including rural schools failing to receive much needed federal resources because of discrepancies in reporting agencies. These young students experience this alongside the consequences of natural disasters and their impact in the very physical infrastructures of schools.
There are so many reasons to be concerned with the consequences of the over 125-year history of United States involvement in Puerto Rico. But one main reason is perhaps now sitting in a corner classroom in a school in Florida—or any state– hoping their own Ms. Navarro is there to greet them. Chances are they will find someone who until very recently couldn’t point to Puerto Rico on a map.
What needs to happen now is for policy makers in the U.S., as well as educational institutions, advocates, educators, community leaders and nonprofits to continue to work to create a future in Puerto Rico that includes children.
Mirelsie Velázquez is Associate Professor of Latina/o Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a Public Voices Fellow through The OpEd Project, and author of Puerto Rican Chicago: Schooling the City, 1940-1977 (University of Illinois Press).
The Future Of Puerto Rico: Consider Needs of The Children was first published by Common Dreams and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
After the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, we must confront postpartum mental illness and ask how to better support mothers before tragedy strikes.
Viktoriya Skorikova/Getty Images
The Questions We Should Be Asking About the Lindsay Clancy Case
Oct 09, 2026
Three children are dead.
Nothing that follows should ever diminish that heartbreaking reality.
Cora, 5. Dawson, 3. Callan, 8 months old.
Their names have become part of a tragic legal case of a Massachusetts mother charged in the death of her three children; one that has captivated the nation and divided public opinion.
For weeks, Americans watched the trial of Lindsay Clancy unfold through testimony, debated evidence, and argued about guilt, innocence, and accountability. Then came the verdict that wasn't a verdict at all. After six weeks of testimony and seven days of deliberations, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision.
Reports indicate that eleven jurors favored finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, while one juror disagreed, resulting in a mistrial. Her defense attorney on Thursday filed a new motion to find her not guilty by “lack of criminal responsibility” The next court hearing is set for Sept. 29.
But the tragedy that unfolded in Massachusetts should not simply become another true-crime headline or political argument. It should serve as a wake-up call.
This trial has ignited a fierce debate. Some see this as a mother who committed the unthinkable and should be held fully accountable. Others see this as a woman who suffered from a severe psychiatric illness postpartum and a severe break from reality. Social media has become a battleground of opinions, accusations, and certainty.
But certainty is exactly what this case lacks. And as a nation, we must start asking some uncomfortable questions.
How many warning signs do families miss because they do not know what to look for? How many women avoid seeking help because they fear losing custody of their children or being stigmatized? How many healthcare systems are unprepared to identify a psychiatric emergency before it becomes a crisis?
As I followed this trial, it reminded me of several years ago when my sister gave birth to twins. Like many new mothers, she experienced the physical exhaustion, emotional stress, and overwhelming responsibility that comes with caring for newborns. I remember watching her navigate sleepless nights, constant feedings, and the pressure many mothers place on themselves to be everything for everyone. It was not easy.
While her experience was nothing like the tragedy that unfolded in the Lindsay Clancy case, it gave me a glimpse into how profoundly childbirth can affect a woman's physical, emotional, and mental well-being. It reminded me that postpartum challenges are often invisible to everyone except the person experiencing them.
Too often, we assume that because a mother looks fine on the outside, she is fine on the inside. We celebrate the arrival of a new baby but rarely ask whether the mother is receiving the support she needs. We admire her strength while overlooking her struggles.
My sister was fortunate to have support from family and loved ones. Not every mother does. And that reality should concern all of us.
No one disputes what happened. Clancy admitted to killing her three children before attempting to take her own life. The central question at trial was whether she was criminally responsible for her actions or whether severe postpartum psychosis rendered her incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of what she was doing. Mental health experts from both sides agreed she suffered from serious mental illness, though they disagreed about whether she understood right from wrong at the time of the killings.
It is possible to grieve for Cora, Dawson, and Callan while also acknowledging that severe mental illness may have played a profound role in their deaths. Those two truths can exist simultaneously. Compassion for one does not require abandoning compassion for the other.
The justice system will ultimately decide what happens next in the Lindsay Clancy case. Judges, attorneys, and perhaps another jury will wrestle with the legal questions. But there is a larger question that belongs to all of us
What kind of society do we want to be when confronted with unimaginable tragedy?
Do we immediately search for someone to hate? Or do we seek to understand how such devastation could occur and what can be done to prevent it from happening again? As a nation, we must confront the difficult questions around postpartum challenges and mental health and find meaningful ways to answer each one of these questions.
The deaths of three innocent children deserve more than public outrage. They deserve reflection. They deserve action. They deserve a renewed commitment to maternal mental health, early intervention, family support systems, and compassionate care.
Because if there is anything more heartbreaking than this tragedy itself, it is the possibility that we learn nothing from it.
And somewhere beneath the headlines, the verdicts, and the arguments are three children whose lives mattered far more than the debate that now surrounds them.
Noor Zoma is a Public Voices Fellow on Public Health with The OpEd Project and Blue Shield of California Foundation.
Keep ReadingShow less
People holding an american flag with 1776-2026
Photo by TROY ALLEN on Unsplash
Americans Stay Committed to Democracy as Confidence Declines
Oct 08, 2026
The Democracy for All Project, a multiyear collaboration between Gallup and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, continues its effort to understand how Americans experience democracy and how those experiences differ across communities, generations, and political identities. Its September 2026 report, Frustration Rises, Commitment Endures, draws on a survey of 23,683 U.S. adults conducted between April 24 and June 10, 2026, with a maximum margin of sampling error of ±1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level. It is the most extensive annual study of how Americans participate in and perceive the democratic system.
A Public Still Committed to Democracy—But Increasingly Disillusioned
The report finds that Americans remain committed to democracy as an ideal even as their confidence in its performance continues to erode. Two‑thirds (66%) still say democracy is the best form of government, essentially unchanged from last year. Yet assessments of how democracy is functioning have worsened: 56% now say democracy is performing poorly, up from 51% in 2025, while the share who say it is performing well has fallen to 19%. Much of this shift comes from Republicans and Republican‑leaning independents, whose views have moved closer to the more critical assessments long held by Democrats and other independents.
“The survey captures the hopes Americans have for the ideal of democracy,” says John Dedrick, executive vice president and chief operating officer at the Kettering Foundation, “but too many are frustrated with their actual experience of democracy.”
Americans See a Weaker Democracy—Past and Future
Most Americans believe democracy has weakened over time. Sixty percent say U.S. democracy was stronger 50 years ago—at the nation’s bicentennial—than it is today, while only 21% say it was weaker. Looking ahead to the tricentennial, more expect democracy to decline (45%) than strengthen (31%).
Optimism, however, is not evenly distributed. Americans who are more politically engaged, more active in their communities, and more satisfied with how democracy works locally are far more hopeful. Among those who trust local leaders, 38% expect democracy to strengthen over the next half‑century.
“As the country marks 250 years, Americans’ perceptions of their democracy are sobering,” says Justin Lall, Gallup principal. “A majority say democracy was stronger 50 years ago, and more expect it to weaken than strengthen over the next 50 years. Yet optimism hasn’t disappeared—it’s common among people who are engaged in their communities and who see democracy working where they live.”
Concerns About the Rule of Law and Executive Power
Americans express deep concern about the rule of law. A majority (56%) say it is weaker than it was a decade ago—four times as many say it is stronger. While 78% believe government officials must always follow the law, only 28% trust that political leaders will actually be held accountable, down from 32% last year. Again, most of this decline is driven by Republicans.
Concerns about concentrated power center on the presidency: 59% say the executive branch has too much power, compared with 38% for the judicial branch and 34% for the legislative branch. Ratings of poor performance have also risen for institutions meant to uphold the rule of law, including equal treatment under the law (60%, up from 55%), the separation of powers (51%, up from 47%), and the criminal justice system (57%, up from 55%). Americans living comfortably on their income are more likely to say the balance of power is working well (26%) than those struggling to get by (10%).
A Tale of Two Democracies: Local Confidence, National Doubt
Americans view democracy far more positively close to home. About one‑third (34%) say democracy is performing well in their own city or town—nearly double the share who say the same about democracy nationally (19%). Only 21% rate their local democracy as doing poorly, compared with 56% who say the same about national democracy.
Local optimism appears rooted in lived experience rather than a belief that local decisions matter more. Only 24% say local decisions affect their daily lives more than national ones. Instead, positive views of local democracy correlate strongly with satisfaction with local services, trust in neighbors, and trust in information from local leaders. Notably, those who view their local democracy positively are also more likely to view national democracy positively—suggesting that strong local institutions may help sustain broader democratic commitment.
How Americans Would Strengthen Democracy
When asked in an open‑ended question what one change would most improve U.S. democracy, Americans most often cite:
- Changing who holds office (17%)
- Election reform to ensure fairness (13%)
- Giving the public more voice (9%)
- Increasing accountability and reducing corruption (9%)
- Strengthening checks and balances to limit executive power (9%)
Americans say they are most likely to get involved when they believe a right or freedom is threatened (27%) or when they believe their participation can make a real difference (26%).
A Democracy Americans Still Believe In—But Want to Repair
Taken together, the findings describe a public that remains committed to democracy in principle but increasingly convinced it is falling short in practice. Americans see more promise in their local communities than in the nation as a whole, and that local confidence may be one of democracy’s most important remaining strengths.
You can download the full report here: Democracy for All Project
This article was adapted from a press release and analysis published by The Charles F. Kettering Foundation
Keep ReadingShow less
empty classroom with desks and chalkboard
Photo by Ivan Aleksic on Unsplash
Who Gets a Seat?: Florida’s New Bans on Undocumented Students in Public Higher Education
Oct 08, 2026
Each year, roughly 8,000 undocumented students graduate from Florida high schools. In 2026, Florida became the newest state to pass a regulation prohibiting this population from enrolling in state public colleges and selective universities. In June 2026, Florida State Board of Education passed Rule 6A-10.0240, which requires all 28 Florida College System institutions to certify admitted students as citizens of the United States or have lawful presence. In September 2026, a separate state board extended a similar ban to Florida’s most selective public universities.
Throughout the United States, there are three states that have historically upheld similar barring policies: Alabama and South Carolina ban undocumented students from all public colleges and universities, while Georgia bars them only from its most selective public universities. Florida’s restrictions are administrative rules and regulations, not state laws passed by the Legislature. Similar bills died in committee during Florida’s 2026 legislative session.
What do Rule 6A-10.0240 and Regulation 6.001 restrict?
Rule 6A is categorized under the enrollment eligibility requirements for the Florida College System Institutions. The policy details that prior to being granted admission to any Florida College System institutions, students must provide proper documentation or proof of United States citizenship or lawful presence in order to successfully enroll in the institution. The rule applies to the 28 public colleges in the state but does not include public universities or private institutions. Some of the institutions under the Florida College System include Broward College, College of Central Florida, and Daytona State College. The rule does not apply to the 12 public universities in the State University System of Florida, which are overseen by a separate body called the Board of Governors.
However, on September 3, 2026, that Board of Governors voted unanimously to adopt a similar restriction for Florida’s selective universities. The board amended Regulation 6.001, its general admissions policy, so that anyone “present in the United States unlawfully” cannot enroll as a new student, beginning in the 2027-28 academic year.
Regulation 6.001 applies only to universities that did not admit all academically qualified applicants in the two most recent academic years. In other words, it covers selective public universities that turn away some qualified students. Currently, all 12 state universities use selective admissions. Students who are lawfully present, including international students on F-1 and J-1 visas, are not affected.
Together, the college rule and the university regulation mean that undocumented students will be barred from most of Florida’s public higher education system starting in 2027.
What Support are the New Rules Receiving?
Those in support of Rule 6A and Regulation 6.001 argue that taxpayer-funded public institutions should be reserved for students who are U.S. citizens or lawfully present in the country. Governor Ron DeSantis has described the June rule as putting Florida students and residents first. “I would rather have that spot go to a Florida resident,” DeSantis told reporters.
Other proponents of the new rules argue that they are simply formalizing expectations for students that already existed. Governor DeSantis has said that colleges never had a policy allowing students to be in the country without documentation, and that the rule simply requires them to verify status.
Supporters also argue that the state should not use public funds to benefit people living in the country without legal permission. After the Board of Governors vote, Lieutenant Governor Jay Collins called the September university rule “common sense.” He argued that Florida taxpayers should not pay for opportunities for people who entered the country illegally.
Supporters see the changes as the next step in a broader set of state policies. In 2025, DeSantis pushed lawmakers to repeal House Bill 851, the 2014 law that gave certain undocumented students in-state tuition rates. After the repeal, DeSantis described the enrollment ban as a natural follow-up, since the state no longer offered undocumented students tuition breaks.
Opposition to the New Rules
Some of the concerns shared by supporters of Rule 6A and Regulation 6.001 come under the assumption that undocumented immigrants are not taxpayers. However, critics point to data that show Florida raised about $1.8 billion in tax revenue from undocumented immigrants in 2022.
Many opponents also contend that the new rules contradict Florida’s state constitution which states that every child should receive adequate provision for education within the state’s borders. The new bans would affect undocumented students who are dual-enrolled in high school and college. The Florida Policy Institute (FPI) theorized that the state’s trend towards passing more restrictive policies will lead to undocumented students abandoning educational pathways, rendering them “locked out of higher education”.
Additionally, critics argue that the restriction on access to higher education will pose an economic burden to college and university systems. FPI stated that the new ban would lead to a loss of tuition and fees revenue, with an estimated loss of $15 million statewide. Opponents highlight that Florida colleges have struggled with declining enrollment rates and that the new rules will contribute to the declining enrollment.
Critics also argue that the State Board of Education overstepped its authority. Under Florida law, agencies may only adopt rules that carry out powers the Legislature has given them, and current law does not require college students to prove lawful presence. Critics add that the Legislature considered and rejected similar restrictions during its 2026 session.
Finally, critics argue the changes are openly discriminatory, prioritizing exclusion over opportunity. A coalition of immigrant advocacy and legal groups called the college rule “cruel” and urged the state to reconsider.
Future Outlook
Rule 6A-10.0240 and Regulation 6.001 are the latest in a series of restrictions on undocumented students in Florida higher education. Both take effect in the 2027-28 academic year. That gives colleges and universities about a year to build systems for checking students’ immigration status.
The changes have raised several questions about implementation. Rule 6A lets each school set its own verification procedures, and the Legislature’s Joint Administrative Procedures Committee, a bipartisan panel that reviews agency rules, warned that this approach gives each school too much discretion and could lead to different results at different colleges. The State Board of Education also has not clarified whether DACA recipients are covered under rule 6A.
The rules’ long-term future may depend on how these questions are answered. The Florida state legislature, which rejected similar bills in 2026, could write the policies into law, limit them, or leave them in place during its 2027 session.
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Camila Rojas is an undergraduate student at Barnard College of Columbia University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home