The future of the Sundance Film Festival in Utah could depend on whether an anti-Pride bill is signed into law by Gov. Spencer Cox.

The governor has until this Thursday to decide the fate of House Bill 77. The Republican-backed bill would ban LGBTQ+ Pride flags at Utah public schools and government buildings. Backers said it is about promoting political neutrality but the LGBTQ+ community and allies argued it would be an unconstitutional overreach of government.

An anonymous Sundance insider has said if the bill passes, it could affect Utah's ability to keep the film festival for another decade.

Cox aid it would be a mistake for Sundance to leave.

"We've been told by the board, very clearly, that political issues have nothing to do with their decision," Cox explained. "And so, I'm going to take the board at their word."

The Sundance Film Festival has called the Beehive State home since its inception in 1978. Last year, Sundance generated more than $130 million for the state, according to the festival's 2024 economic impact report. While many want to see it continue in Park City, other states are already eyeing the festival for possible relocation.

The contract between Sundance and Park City is set to expire after 2026 and Cox pointed out Utah has put together what he calls "a competitive package" for the festival to remain. Sundance has been known to highlight and give queer, independent and sometimes controversial films a platform despite Utah's conservative values. Even so, the governor noted people have come to associate Sundance with Utah.

"I've talked to people in Hollywood, I've had conversations. They laughed when they found out Sundance was even considering leaving, they couldn't believe it," Cox emphasized. "Sundance will make their decision. It would be an economic hit to the State of Utah if they left but we'll be fine."

Cox added he does not see how taking the festival elsewhere would positively affect the state's LGBTQ+ population and thinks more could be done for the community by keeping the event in Utah.

Voting rights advocates in Texas are speaking out against a proof-of-citizenship bill before lawmakers.

Senate Bill 16 would require new registrants and some existing registered voters to prove they are U.S. citizens.

Amber Mills, issue advocacy director for the Move Texas Civic Fund, said the requirement would be in addition to what the state already does to check someone's eligibility.

"When you're completing a voter form, you do also have to submit either your driver's license number or your Social Security number," Mills pointed out. "That's really important because that is how the state verifies who you are, and that's a key indicator that they use to protect their databases on the back end."

Even if you were born in the U.S., the bill could require you to show proof of citizenship with a passport or birth certificate matching your current name. According to the Secure Democracy Foundation, more than 38% percent of rural and small-town Texans do not have a passport.

Anyone who cannot prove citizenship would be placed on a separate voter roll and could only cast ballots in the U.S. House and Senate races.

Emily French, policy director for the advocacy group Common Cause Texas, said the additional barriers could prevent many residents from casting their votes in local, state and presidential races.

"All the DPS systems, all the immigration systems which say that they are citizens, but there can still be mistakes that mark them as noncitizens and could throw them off the voter rolls until they come in with these documents that they don't have," French explained.

The bill directs the Texas Secretary of State's Office to check all registered voters' status by the end of the year and send the names of registered voters who have not proven their citizenship before September 2025 to county elections offices.

Mills noted if you are flagged, there is no online system to comply with the request and all paperwork must be submitted in person.

"We are not disputing the goal of having only eligible citizens on the voter rolls, but we know that Texas already has strong systems in place," Mills emphasized. "It's ultimately the state's responsibility, the county's responsibility to do these voter roll checks, but what SB 16 would do is not change any of that, not improve any of that. It would just add an additional burden."


get more stories like this via email

Legal groups are weighing an appeal after a court ruling this week that left voters in several states, including North Dakota, at a disadvantage in making use of the Voting Rights Act.

At issue is their ability to sue based on racial discrimination. A three-judge panel with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a pathway under Section Two of the landmark law for voters to bring lawsuits if they feel local and state election policies have violated their civil rights. The decision stems from a recent redistricting victory for a pair of Native American Tribes in North Dakota.

Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting for the Campaign Legal Center, said he was shocked by the latest outcome.

"The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has done what no court in the country has ever done, and there's been 400-plus Voting Rights Act cases filed for decades," Gaber pointed out.

The decision affirmed a ruling from the full 8th Circuit, which said language in this section of the law does not specifically mention private individuals. One judge filed a dissenting opinion. The 8th Circuit covers seven states, and civil rights groups said if the outcome stands, voters in those states would have to lobby the Justice Department to bring a case forward.

Gaber noted the problem with asking the Justice Department is, the agency is not equipped to move quickly on such requests.

"They simply don't have the resources," Gaber pointed out. "The individual voters who are familiar with what is happening in their localities and on the ground are frankly, in many cases, better suited to bring these cases."

The Justice Department is also part of budget-cutting moves by the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the Native American Rights Fund said this week's ruling sets a dangerous precedent for minority voters who do not want to be silenced.


get more stories like this via email

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte has seen the last few bills of the 2025 legislative session cross his desk and as the ink dries, policy experts reminded Montanans some bills will face the courts before they take effect.

Gianforte signed Senate Bill 490, which changes the Election Day cutoff for same-day voter registration from 8 p.m. to noon. It also eliminates early registration the Monday before Election Day, shifting the deadline to 5 p.m. on Saturday.

Zuri Moreno, state legislative director for the advocacy group Forward Montana, said the change especially affects Montanans who drive long distances to vote.

"We've already heard from the courts that you're not supposed to mess around with same-day voter registration," Moreno pointed out. "It just takes away that opportunity for working folks and young folks and rural people across the state."

Montana's Supreme Court ruled last year banning same-day voter registration is unconstitutional. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the decision.

Laws passed this session may still be challenged in court, including those centered on the LGBTQ+ community, which was targeted by at least 23 bills. Moreno noted the "community really showed up this session."

"We saw so many folks sharing personal stories and public testimony, so many folks showing up for lobby days and rallies," Moreno recounted. "Thousands of people engaged in the legislative process, which is essential."

In a win for renters, Gianforte also signed House Bill 311 , which requires rental application fees to be returned to people who do not end up signing a lease.