SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- As the California Citizens Redistricting Commission prepares to decide on the final legislative maps, conservation groups are asking communities united by environmental concerns be kept together.

The idea is to give voters more influence over the people who have the power to address problems such as industrial air pollution, marine oil spills, drought or wildfire.

Samuel Sukaton, redistricting coordinator for the California Environmental Voters Educational Fund, noted his organization recently detailed its concerns in a letter to the commission.

"One of the things that we're working on is communities that are dependent on specific environmental features, whether that's public land, major environmental-justice concerns, like oil refineries," Sukaton explained. "They should be kept with those resources so that they can determine, by electing their government representatives, what gets done with that region."

For example, The EnviroVoters Education Fund wants to see North Coast districts keeping Native American reservations intact and including the coastal region. They argued the initial maps, which combine communities in the Sierras with towns in the San Joaquin Valley, create districts with disparate interests and make it harder to draw Latino-majority districts on the valley floor.

Sukaton pointed out the maps drawn by the nonpartisan commission will shape California's direction for the next decade.

"California, with the independent commission, with public testimony, has this unique, powerful opportunity to handle two of the great crises of our time: inequity and the climate crisis," Sukaton contended. "And more democracy is the answer to both."

The commission released draft maps a few weeks ago and is taking public comment online and at a series of meetings taking place almost daily. A final vote is expected to take place Dec. 24.

A wave of new Arizona voters in the 2020 election changed the normally conservative state to one where progressive candidates and ideas have a fighting chance, but some are feeling deserted by a vote Wednesday night from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., against changing the Senate filibuster.

The move blocked an effort by Democrats to pass new voting-rights legislation. Dozens of supporters, including the powerful Emily's List Political Action Committee, said they are reevaluating or outright pulling their support.

Roy Tatem, political director for the group Our Voice Our Vote Arizona, said Sinema has left many of her supporters scratching their heads.

"We feel that she's abandoned those of us who supported her," Tatem stated. "I've had a number of conversations with her directly around some of the specific issues that we were dealing with, and I had no idea that she would just be so distant."

Sinema said while she supports the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, she refuses to modify the filibuster in order to pass them with a simple majority.

Sinema's election to the Senate, along with Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., was hailed as proof conservatives had lost their tight grip on Arizona politics.

Tatem thinks Sinema has alienated many of the people who put her there, including women, and Arizona's Black, Latino and LGBTQ communities.

"In 2018, Kyrsten received over 130,000 African American votes," Tatem recalled. "This is according to the NAACP. And so, we believe that African Americans are completely turned off from her and her position."

Tatem added his group represents a broad spectrum of progressive voters across Arizona, many of whom are now actively searching for a Democratic candidate to run against her in 2024.

"So we don't understand, what is her North Star here?" Tatem questioned. "What is guiding her or advising her to take such a hard position on maintaining the filibuster, when so many of us have articulated the desire to remove it?"

If Iowa wants to create healthier outcomes for its residents, advocates say there are steps policymakers can take right now to make it happen, and an upcoming event highlights what they cite as some of the most glaring needs.

As the legislative session takes shape, there are calls to extend postpartum health coverage for new mothers under Medicaid, which in Iowa ends after 60 days. The federal government is now giving states the option to extend the coverage to 12 months.

Stacy Frelund, government relations director for the American Heart Association of Iowa, said it would make a big preventive-health difference.

"You think about heart disease and stroke, and how many mothers are impacted, mothers and babies," Frelund remarked.

Supporters argued an expansion would also help reduce racial disparities in maternal health. At the same time, groups like the Heart Association worry about proposals to add requirements for people receiving public assistance.

The bill's sponsors asserted they are needed to improve management of the programs and avoid federal fines, but critics countered they will hurt access. Health priorities are the topic in a "Virtual Day of Action" Jan. 26.

Frelund pointed out they also want to see more support for a component of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Double Up Food Bucks program allows SNAP recipients to stretch their dollars when buying fruits and vegetables, but those funds have dried up, forcing dozens of stores to drop the program.

"We know that there's need across the state for healthy foods," Frelund observed. "The more we can make it easier for people to make that healthy choice is the better for all of Iowa."

There are also calls to expand access to early childhood education through Head Start programs, with supporters contending they can improve healthy behaviors in young children. Right now, only 6% of Iowa kids under age three who qualify have access to Early Head Start.

After a defeat on Wednesday, Democrats in the U.S. Senate say they'll keep trying to pass voting-rights legislation, and one Wisconsin group wants any new proposals to exclude a provision in the bill which did not pass.

Barbara Beckert, director of the Milwaukee office of Disability Rights Wisconsin, said the package considered by the Senate this week included a paper-ballot mandate. She pointed out it concerned many voters with disabilities, because the ability to cast a paper ballot, privately and independently, is not an option for some.

"We think it's important to have a carve-out for voters covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), so they would not be required to vote by paper ballot," Beckert explained.

Beckert noted current law does not include such a mandate, and some folks with disabilities already use accessible voting machines or vote absentee without generating a paper ballot.

Last year, a coalition of 20 disability-rights groups voiced their opposition to the mandate, arguing it would disenfranchise voters with disabilities and stifle innovation to develop voting systems better suited to their needs.

Beckert added voting-rights legislation is important to ensure fair access for Wisconsinites. Her group thinks future efforts should include provisions for screen-reader-accessible and ADA-compliant absentee ballots.

"And that would allow equitable access to absentee voting for voters who are blind, or have other disabilities, where they do not have the ability to physically mark the ballot and need assistive technology," Beckert emphasized.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 19 states passed laws restricting voting access in 2021. Some similar bills in Wisconsin were vetoed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

During this week's Senate debate, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., criticized her counterpart, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., for encouraging Wisconsin's Legislature to take control of the state's elections. Baldwin, quoting reporting from the New York Times, alleged Johnson had said the process was legally permissible.

"'An extraordinary legal argument debunked by a 1932 Supreme Court decision and a 1964 ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court,' end quote from the New York Times," Baldwin said.

In a statement, Johnson argued Democrats, in attempting to bypass the filibuster to get the voting-rights legislation passed, were mounting a federal takeover of elections, calling the move a "naked power grab."