DENVER - Colorado's airwaves and newspapers are a-chatter with campaign ads for and against Amendment 67 also known as the Personhood Amendment. If approved by voters, the proposal would include unborn human beings under the definition of "person" in the state's criminal code.
If it sounds familiar that's because a similar proposal failed on the ballot in 2008 and 2010. Kenneth Bickers, political science professor with the University of Colorado at Boulder, says unlike other amendments that have to do with things like funding, it's hard to shift personal beliefs.
"With personhood, it's kind of where do you stand on what's essentially a huge philosophical issue, and that's another reason why I don't think it's likely we're going to see a different outcome this time than has been the pattern in the past," says Bickers.
Under Colorado law, there is no limit to the number of times an amendment can be on the ballot, provided it has enough signatures. Bickers says other amendments have had multiple failed attempts on the ballot, and ultimately passed.
Wendy Underhill, program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures, says the fact groups can make repeated attempts at similar proposals is part of the state's system.
"They can, in fact, bring it up, and bring it up again, and bring it up again," Underhill says. "They can change the argument a little bit. They can reach out to different people. Yes, the process is such that more or less the same measure can be brought to voters more than once."
Reproductive-rights groups insist Amendment 67 ultimately would make any abortion in Colorado a crime. Recent polling from Public Policy Polling shows 37 percent of Colorado voters support the Personhood Amendment, and a majority of voters must approve the amendment for it to become part of the constitution. Supporters insist this amendment is different than those in years past, and will not impact abortion.
Colorado's TABOR Amendment, passed in 1992, which prevents state and local governments from raising tax rates without voter approval had two versions on previous ballots. Bickers says over time supporters modified their proposal to be more amenable to a majority of the population and he is skeptical the results will be different than in years past with Amendment 67.
"When there isn't an effort to recraft the proposal based on the prior attempt, proposals don't, they generally don't do better than they did in the past," Bickers says.
Colorado's midterm election is Nov. 4. All active, registered voters should have received a mail ballot by now; it must be returned by mail or dropped off at a Ballot Drop-off station by that date.
get more stories like this via email
By Jimmy Cloutier for OpenSecrets.
Broadcast version by Roz Brown for Texas News Service reporting for the OpenSecrets-Public News Service Collaboration
The American Federation for Children, a leading school choice advocacy group, intends to spend $10 million on state elections in 2024. Its first targets: 15 Texas Republicans who opposed a school voucher program championed by Gov. Greg Abbott.
AFC Victory Fund, the group’s main super PAC, has spent nearly $461,000 on mailers and digital ads ahead of Texas’ March 5 primary elections, attacking GOP state legislators who last year blocked the Republican governor’s plan to allow families to spend taxpayer dollars on their children’s private schooling.
Thus far, AFC Victory Fund appears to be focused entirely on Texas. But the American Federation for Children plans to spend millions on legislative races nationwide in 2024 to support state candidates who prioritize school choice — education policies that give parents the option of enrolling their children in private, religious and other alternatives to public school using state funds.
Texas’ primary elections next week will test the organization’s political clout and messaging. The American Federation for Children said its affiliates and allies spent $9 million on state elections in 2022, winning 277 out of 368 races and defeating 40 incumbents. Forty-four states hold legislative races this year.
According to campaign finance reports covering election spending through Jan. 25, most of the super PAC’s money — about $64,000 — has been levied at Rep. Glenn Rogers (R-Graford), a three-term House Republican representing a district west of Fort Worth, Texas. AFC Victory Fund also spent roughly $42,000 each against Reps. Travis Clardy (R-Nacogdoches) and DeWayne Burns (R-Cleburne).
The super PAC attacked lawmakers over their stance on school vouchers, but also sought to tie them to the crisis at the southern border and paint them as “too liberal for Texas.”
AFC Victory Fund, which officially launched in September, entered 2024 with $4.3 million in cash and reported raising about $4.6 million from half a dozen donors last year, including $3.5 million from billionaire investor Jeff Yass and $1 million from former U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her husband, Dick DeVos. Betsy DeVos, who chaired the American Federation for Children before joining former President Donald Trump's administration in 2017, has been a longtime crusader in the school choice movement.
According to campaign finance reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission on Feb. 5, AFC Victory Fund received an additional $1.5 million in January, including $1 million from Dick Uihlein, the billionaire founder of Uline. Another $250,000 came from Future of Education LLC, a limited-liability company incorporated in 2023, one day before it donated $1 million to Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin's gubernatorial PAC. The LLC has no website or online presence, but the Texas Observer traced it to Mackenzie Price, an education reformer and the founder of a private school.
Texas would have become the latest — and largest — state to embrace universal school vouchers, but Abbott wasn’t able to win over holdouts in his party who preferred a scaled-back program limited to disadvantaged students. According to The Texas Tribune, the governor refused to compromise on a program open to all students. Twenty-one lawmakers eventually voted against the plan.
Notwithstanding the setback in Texas, the movement to unlock public funding for private and religious schools has gained momentum in recent years.
School choice programs come in different forms but typically involve tax credits or taxpayer-subsidized education savings accounts, also known as ESAs, that are available to parents who withdraw their children from public schools.
Similar programs have existed in some states since the 1990s, but were mostly available to certain students, such as those with disabilities or from poor families. Groups like American Federation for Children have been pushing states to embrace so-called "universal school choice" legislation open to all students.
West Virginia became the first state to do so in 2021, when the GOP-led state legislature approved an ESA program eligible to nearly every student, regardless of household income. Arizona followed suit in 2022, eliminating restrictions to its voucher program that limited eligibility to students with disabilities and those in the foster care system, attending low-performing public schools or living on Native American reservations. Five other states approved similarly expansive programs in 2023: North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Iowa and Utah.
Many more states are poised to create their own voucher programs or expand existing schemes.
Last week, the Alabama state House advanced a school voucher program that would be limited to students with disabilities and low-income households until 2027, at which time it would be open to all students. Idaho lawmakers have introduced a "parental choice tax credit" program that would unlock $50 million in state funding for private education. And in Kentucky, there is an effort underway to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to remove barriers blocking the state from enacting school voucher programs. The Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled that taxpayer dollars must be spent on "common schools" and cannot be diverted to private education.
Critics argue that these programs largely subsidize affluent families who already send their children to private school, while siphoning money from public education. Research from around the country also shows that voucher programs have delivered mixed academic results, and recent reports raise concerns about their costs to taxpayers.
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, has called the state's new voucher program, which was expanded under her Republican predecessor, "unsustainable." Last year, her office estimated that the program, initially expected to cost $65 million, could cost the state $943 million in 2024, with over 53% of all new K-12 education spending going towards only 8% of Arizona students. The state could face a $320 million shortfall over the next year.
The Texas Legislative Budget Board projected that the cost of Abbott’s voucher program would have ballooned to more than $2 billion annually by 2028.
Jimmy Cloutier wrote this story for OpenSecrets.
Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.
get more stories like this via email
Public comment has long been a staple of local government meetings. But in North Dakota and other parts of the country, this engagement tool faces a future that's a little less certain.
This month, the Fargo City Commission has come under scrutiny over possible plans to revamp the public comment portion of its meetings.
Some commissioners have proposed breaking up when residents can talk about certain issues.
Another idea being floated is to remove public comment from regular meetings and possibly shift that option to quarterly forums.
Cody Schuler, advocacy manager with the American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, said he feels local leaders are beginning to walk down a dangerous path.
"We are a government by, for, and of the people," said Schuler, "and our elected representatives are an extension doing the work of the citizens - and citizens have every right to fully speak."
Fargo leaders in favor of exploring a format change say they want more productive dialogue and to give residents meaningful answers on the spot.
However, not all city commissioners are on board with kicking around these ideas, echoing concerns raised by free-speech advocates. Similar debates have surfaced in cities such as Spokane, Washington.
In Fargo, Schueler said leaders need to realize that public participation has become a valuable way for BIPOC residents and younger adults to share their concerns with the city.
"We need to make sure that those who are not in power," said Schuler, "those who may be marginalized, those who might be of lower socio-economic status, have a voice."
He added that while this City Commission is pretty accessible, it can't be guaranteed for future elections.
He said fully maintaining public comment can mitigate any future panels that might not be viewed as fully engaged with constituents.
get more stories like this via email
In the thick of Alabama's legislative battles and with election season peaking, a surge of controversial bills is sparking concern among civic groups.
Alabama Values Progress is one of the groups voicing opposition to bills that it says aim to restrict voting assistance and penalize the removal of Confederate monuments. Others would criminalize protests and limit diversity initiatives in the state.
Anneshia Hardy, executive director of Alabama Values Progress, highlighted the impact of disinformation as another key concern.
"That threatens the very fabric of our democracy," she said. "And I often say that one way to keep groups disempowered is to create barriers to information - information about the power that they have, but then. also, information about how these issues really impact them."
As an example, she said, nearly 6,000 Montgomery County voters were given incorrect voting information - mistakenly told they were in the 7th Congressional District instead of the newly formed 2nd District, which was created to provide more fair representation for Black voters as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Allen v. Milligan.
Hardy saod Alabama Values Progress is mobilizing to combat disinformation and restrictive legislation. It has created a "messaging ecosystem" to help people understand how issues affect them and their communities. By working with other groups and micro-influencers statewide to share information, she said they're encouraging inclusive discussions and making information more accessible.
"So my organization, through raising awareness and pulling back the curtains and increasing transparency and accountability in the process," she said, "is becoming an onramp to activate and mobilize citizens to get involved in the change that they want to see in Alabama."
She said the group is also doing interviews, and producing videos and toolkits. Hardy said she believes that as more voters call for "prioritizing people over politics," education, activation and engagement will be crucial in protecting democratic rights.
Disclosure: Alabama Values Progress contributes to our fund for reporting on Civic Engagement, LGBTQIA Issues, Reproductive Health, Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email