RENO, Nev. -- Las Vegas and Reno are two of the fastest-warming cities in the United States, which means many voters in Nevada's caucuses this week want to know what presidential candidates plan to do about the climate crisis.
Six Democratic presidential contenders will debate at the Paris Theater in Las Vegas tonight ahead of Saturday's caucuses.
Andy Maggi, executive director of the Nevada Conservation League, said the group's new Public Policy Polling survey shows the environment is a crucial issue for caucus-goers across all demographics.
"Eighty-six percent of likely caucus-goers think that climate and the environment are very important, if not the most important issue - this a top-two concern for voters, after health care," he said.
Participants in the Nevada debate tonight will include Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. President Donald Trump has scheduled a Nevada rally for the Las Vegas Convention Center on Friday, the day before the state caucuses this Saturday.
According to the poll, Democratic caucus-goers in Nevada say they're more likely to support candidates who prioritize the environment and climate change in their policy plans. Maggi said that's likely because Nevadans already feel the effects of climate change and they want a new president who would tackle the the issue on Day One of their administration.
"You're seeing an incredible increase in the number of heat-related deaths here in southern Nevada -- increases in things like asthma attacks, lost days of school, lost days of work," he said. "And if you're a person of color, those things are impacting you even at higher rates."
Among Latinxs, the poll showed climate ranks first at 28%, followed by achieving universal health care at 21%. Ninety-one percent of respondents also said they want to see the federal government restore rules that stop polluters from putting toxics in the water and air, while just 6% oppose that priority. The poll surveyed 859 likely Democratic caucus voters in Nevada.
The poll results are online at lcv.org.
get more stories like this via email
Today, people across Arizona are voting in the Presidential Preference Election, a chance for registered Democrats and Republicans to choose their respective party's candidate. What's known as Arizona's "PPE" is paid for by taxpayers.
Chuck Coughlin, treasurer with Make Elections Fair Arizona, said the largest portion of the state's electorate is made up of voters who aren't affiliated with a political party. That means almost 1.4 million people can't exercise their voting rights today, and added they might have a chance to vote to change this in November.
"When we were drafting our initiative, we thought we should fix that, and so we have. In the initiative, we require anyone to be able to request a ballot. So, if you're an unaffiliated voter, you can request a Republican or Democratic ballot and participate in the process," Coughlin said.
The PPE is not a primary election, according to the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. And it's important to note that independent voters can vote in the primary election in July.
For today's PPE, polls are open from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m. Coughlin said their initiative has already gathered over 200,000 signatures of the 500,000 they'll need by June to get it onto the November ballot.
Coughlin contends as the weather in Arizona improves, so will signature gathering. He said they've expanded their petition-gathering locations and is confident they can meet their goal. He added Make Elections Fair Arizona is looking to also grow its volunteer network to help get those signatures, and said the goal of the initiative is to increase competition within the political sphere.
"So, what we're doing here is requiring a competitive General Election - so, having an open primary that allows anybody to compete under the same rules promotes competition. So better ideas, better candidates, better outcomes," he explained.
The group is holding an Arizona Democracy Summit in Phoenix on Saturday, March 23, a free event open to all. Coughlin said local and national election experts will be there to not only discuss Arizona's election system problems, but proposed solutions as well.
Disclosure: Make Elections Fair AZ contributes to our fund for reporting on Civic Engagement. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
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