Tag: Down-Ballot

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 11136 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2026-10-09 15:48:50 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-10-09 15:48:50 [post_content] =>

Why you should pay attention to Indiana's Public Question 1 this election.

For 175 years, bail has been a constitutional right for everyone in Indiana awaiting trial, with the exception of anyone charged with murder or treason. The same system is used in most of the country, allowing defendants to live outside of jail while awaiting trial for a crime. It’s imperfect and favors the wealthy, but at its best, bail is meant to balance a person’s liberty—until and unless proven guilty—with the safety of the broader community.

On the Indiana ballot this November, Public Question 1 asks Hoosiers to amend the state’s constitution to narrow that right. If the amendment passes, anyone charged with any crime in the state could be denied bail if “the proof is evident or the presumption strong and the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety of any other person or the community.”

Proponents of the measure, which first had to pass the state legislature, cite public safety concerns. They claim that people who are released from jail on bail too often go on to commit dangerous crimes.

On the other hand, opponents are concerned about preemptively taking away defendants’ liberty, the vague and broad language of the amendment, and the potential for biases in and out of the courtroom.

A High-Risk Proposal for Rare Offenses

Under the current bail system, even if someone is ultimately released on bail, it can take many days for them to be able to walk out. The new amendment would make it easier to hold people in jail while they wait for hearings and other procedures.

“It is a significant disruption on the life of that person if they're being held in custody,” says Ray Casanova, the chief public defender for Marion County, where Indianapolis is located. “I do think [the measure] is going to have a disproportionate impact on low-income folks.”

People held in jail can lose their jobs, potentially resulting in other losses, including housing and custody rights to their children. In jail, they may also not have access to essential medications. All before they have been found guilty of a crime.

Vicki Becker, a prosecutor in northern Indiana’s Elkhart County, told Indiana Capital Chronicle that the amendment was introduced because “so many individuals…were back out in the community without any accountability whatsoever and continuing to commit offenses against other people,” adding that, “it just did not sit well with prosecutors who are much more focused on protecting public safety.”

Others question whether the amendment is really needed to protect communities, including State Senator Rodney Pol, a Democrat from the northwestern corner of the state. “If you can demonstrate that [the accused] are unsafe, there are already avenues” to mitigate that risk, he says.

For example, in many counties, judges have the latitude to set bail high enough so that a defendant will not be able to pay it. Casanova also points to measures such as GPS monitoring, no-contact orders, and situations when bail can be revoked. “Is this provision really providing additional safety or is it just essentially removing a constitutional right?” asks Casanova.

Data shows it’s rare for people released on bail to commit violent crimes while awaiting trial—1.4% of high risk people released before their trial have done so, according to ACLU analysis of data from the Indiana Office of Court Service. Rates of new crimes were even smaller for those deemed moderate and low risk.

When those violent crimes do happen, “it’s a tragedy,” says Zach Stock, who works for the Indiana Public Defender’s Council as a legislative counsel. “It's just natural human nature to say, ‘Gosh, we had that guy confined. And had he remained confined, that wouldn't have happened.’”

“But that’s assuming that we have more power than we do. It's really hard to predict the future,” Stock says, which is what prosecutors are ultimately attempting to do when they try to prove to a judge that a person poses a risk of harm.

Unless you detain everyone, some people who are released ahead of their trial are going to commit a crime. Making those numbers as small as possible “does come down to improving our ability to predict the future,” says Stock.

A Precursor to Losing More Rights

For State Senator Pol, the amendment lays the ground for the abuse of other rights, like the right to protest or to unionize. Someone could be accused of being a violent protester, for example, and be held without bail, only to end up with a lesser charge of disorderly conduct. “Now I lost a year of my life for disorderly conduct, you know, because I was out at a protest,” Pol says.

Levi Gonzalez, a policy associate at The Bail Project, an advocacy and bail assistance nonprofit, echoed those concerns. He says such proposals are also not just limited to Indiana. In other states across the country, more laws are “looking to ultimately deprive people of their liberty at a moment where there's also a lot of political tension and upheaval,” he says. Given what he refers to as a “creeping authoritarianism” in the country, there could be political pressure “to make an example out of people“ arrested at a protest or demonstration.

The broad nature of Indiana’s ballot measure makes those concerns possible. It's different from the “tough on crime” eras in the 1980s and 1990s when change in the criminal justice system was incremental. “Now it's like, let's just go for everything,” says Gonzalez. This worries him.

Other states, like Tennessee and Alabama, are also broadening the scope of crimes for which people can be held without bail. But other states usually list specific new offenses that will be ineligible for bail. They don’t usually make it as broad as Indiana has, where, “any person who gets arrested for any offense now could potentially be at risk of being detained” without bail, says Gonzalez.

The wide scope of Indiana’s amendment means it doesn't necessarily only affect marginalized communities like the state’s Black and Latino residents, who make up around 18% of the state’s total population, says Gonzalez. “But of course, they're always going to be the ones that are going to face the brunt of this because those communities are ultimately going to be the ones that are going to come in contact with law enforcement more often.“

Protections Vulnerable Under Companion Bill

Should the amendment be approved by voters this November, another related bill passed by the state legislature earlier this year would also take effect.

The companion bill, as it’s called, would provide some protections to people facing charges and pretrial detention. It is “kind of a bright spot in what looks like an otherwise hopelessly contentious political landscape,” says Stock of the collaboration among his agency, prosecutors, judges, and legislators to create the bill.

The bill specifies a 48-hour time limit before a detention hearing and a person’s right to appeal a decision. It asks the state to meet a higher burden of proof, “because we are talking about taking away liberty before proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” says Stock. Judges will also have to document why they're making their decisions.

But because these protections aren’t in the amendment itself, they could easily be overturned by another legislative bill. Changes to the amendment, on the other hand, would require it to pass the legislature in two different sessions and then receive another ballot vote approval. “It's good to ultimately have that companion bill to provide that due process, but it's a lot better when it's enshrined in the actual constitutional language,” says Gonzalez.

Senator Pol is one of the legislators who worked on the companion bill and says it makes the amendment a little bit more palatable with the safeguards for the accused that it puts in place. “But I still don't think it goes far enough, and I still think that it is a dangerous precedent that's being set.”

While Senator Pol did vote to pass the amendment on the Senate floor, he says, “I’m still not a fan of it, and I'm still not going to vote for it on the ballot.”

[post_title] => Bail On the Ballot [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Indiana's Public Question 1 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 2026-election-midterms-united-states-indiana-public-question-1-amendment-crime-jail [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-10-09 15:48:52 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-09 15:48:52 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11136 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

October 9, 2026October 9, 2026

Bail On the Ballot

by Elisabeth Gawthrop

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 11126 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2026-10-08 20:19:47 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-10-08 20:19:47 [post_content] =>

Why you should pay attention to Alabama's Statewide Amendment 3 this election.

On the ballot in Alabama this November is a proposed constitutional amendment to policies on prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance in public K–12 schools.

Statewide Amendment 3 would compel local school boards to adopt rules requiring the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each school day and allow student-initiated and student-led prayer. However, the amendment would not require students to participate in either the Pledge or prayer. If passed, students would have the right to opt out based on their beliefs and would be allowed to leave the classroom during either.

On February 5, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education issued updated Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, replacing previous guidelines from 2023. The update states that students, teachers, and school employees retain their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression, which includes engaging in personal, visible prayer. Although the United States Supreme Court previously determined that public schools and their employees (including teachers, coaches, and principals) cannot lead, organize, prescribe, or endorse prayer or religious exercises during school activities, Alabama has leaned into the Department of Education’s newest recommendations, which have created a voluntary religious expression loophole.

Back in May, the Alabama legislature approved the proposed amendment by attempting to explicitly enshrine student-led prayer into their state constitution to shield it from future legal challenges. Since April, Alabama law has required public K-12 schools to conduct the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each school day. Additionally, students are permitted to “pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during, and after the school day.”

The bill was introduced by Republican State Representative Reed Ingram, who says the United States was founded on Christian principles. He also says that today, there are families who don’t have time to implement faith-based activities, like prayer at home, because they are too busy working. (Though he notes he doesn’t personally know a family struggling with this.)

Both Republicans and Democrats in the Alabama House of Representatives and Senate have expressed support for the proposal.

“This is an opportunity, not mandatory; it's a voluntary basis, student-led only,” Ingram explains. “Nothing is going over the PA, and it’s nothing that’s going to be led by a teacher or principal. The student only prays if they stand up and tell the teacher they want to pray this morning, and the class will have that option.”

Ingham adds that student-led prayer can be led by students of all religions and faiths, not limited to just Christianity, but that’s not clearly written into the bill.

Following the 2024 presidential election, Baptist News Global reported that the conservative thinktank, the Heritage Foundation, does not propose a mandatory federal school prayer program. However, its conservative framework aligns with efforts like this one to expand and protect individual religious expression in public schools. (The Heritage Foundation wrote the infamous Project 2025, a conservative blueprint to transform the federal government and social structures of the country at large.)

Other people of fath, including Christians, are against implementing this type of bill into state law, like Rev. Julie Conrady, Minister at Unitarian Universalist Church of Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. She says that this kind of amendment imposes or forces a religion onto individuals who may not believe in the faith being practiced during student-led prayer.

“Alabama has plenty of churches. If folks are not getting what they need on Sunday morning, Wednesday night, and all the other opportunities they have for religious freedom and expression during the week, then they need to choose a different school for their children,” Conrady says. “Because Alabama public schools should remain available for every student to be themselves, without being coerced to subjective practices, including this bill.”

About 25% of Alabamians do not identify with Christianity, according to a Pew Research report from 2025. Conrady says this amendment dismisses that figure.

“The Universalist Church is included in the fourth of [Alabamians of other faiths], which also includes Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, nones, and the atheist, and the humanist,” she says.

The minister adds she’s been talking with other religious leaders who oppose this type of bill in other red states, and they are planning to take action up to the Supreme Court if the bill passes in November.

“There will never be a separation between church and state,” says Zareen Dodwad-Khan, 46, who lives in Leeds, Alabama. Khan is Muslim and has three kids in public schools. “If the majority of people want prayer in school, I’m not gonna fight it and say I'm totally against it, because I’m a minority. And I teach my kids about their religion and identity at home.”

However, Khan also says she will likely vote “no” for the amendment in November.

Christy Johnson, 43, a mother of three kids who also lives in Leeds, says the amendment is all part of the growing Christian nationalist movement and MAGA.

“I’m a Christian, who believes in Jesus Christ. We pray every night before dinner. It’s like church, politics, and school have all been mashed together and rolled into one. Instead of the way it was intended to be, which is all separate things and separate parts of our lives, they’re trying to make it all part of the same,” she says. “As a parent and a Chrisitian, I think that’s very concerning, and even for people who don’t believe the same way I do.”

Alabama voters will decide if they agree on November 3, 2026.

[post_title] => "There Will Never Be a Separation of Church and State" [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Alabama's Statewide Amendment 3 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 2026-election-united-states-midterms-down-ballot-alabama-statewide-amendment-3-pledge-of-allegiance-student-led-prayer-church-religion [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-10-09 22:25:12 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-09 22:25:12 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11126 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

October 8, 2026October 9, 2026

“There Will Never Be a Separation of Church and State”

by Cody D. Short

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 11119 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2026-10-07 22:16:20 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-10-07 22:16:20 [post_content] =>

Why you should pay attention to Virginia's Question 1 this election.

This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2026 United States election.

Sara Sanatkar learned firsthand how important it is to have the freedom to make decisions over her own body when she faced an unexpected pregnancy at 19 years old.

This was in 2019. Sanatkar was in an unhealthy relationship, and knew she wasn’t ready to be a mother. But, unfamiliar with the laws regarding reproductive care in her home state of Virginia, Sanatkar wasn’t sure if she could have an abortion, so she Googled it and learned about Roe v. Wade. Back then, she felt immense relief. “I can have access to care. I can have access to legal care. I can have access to safe care,” she remembers her 19-year-old self saying.

Sanatkar says she was “geographically lucky” to have gotten pregnant in Virginia. Born and raised in Tehran, Iran, Sanatkar grew up in a country where, even though her family and the general population supported the right to abortion, the government did not. Leaving Tehran at age 15 wasn’t easy; despite some of the drawbacks women face, such as the threat of death penalty for illegal abortions, it was the only home she’d known. The year before she moved, she remembers sitting in the back of a taxi with her mother, whose words altered her perspective of home and family. While holding her hand, Sanatkar’s mother told her, “I'm so happy that you get to live in a country where you get to make decisions about your own body.”

In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade—the ruling that had provided Sanatkar relief just three years before—ending the federal constitutional right to abortion, once again leaving the authority with individual states. Since then, 20 states have either severely restricted abortions or established total bans, including West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

As the Field & Canvass Manager at REPRO Rising, a grassroots political organization working to guarantee comprehensive reproductive healthcare information and services to all Virginians, Sanatkar now works alongside the Virginians for Reproductive Freedom coalition, which includes ACLU of Virginia, Virginia League for Planned Parenthood, and the National Women's Political Caucus of Virginia, to protect the right to reproductive freedom within their state constitution. Since August 2024, REPRO Rising has been organizing awareness around Virginia Question 1—one of three proposed amendments to the state constitution on the ballot this November.

In her organizing work so far, she has seen an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards the amendment. According to Sanatkar, many people view it as “very reasonable,” which has resulted in “a sense of pride for me as a Virginia voter,” she says.

“Across Virginia, we’ve heard a consistent message from voters,” she adds. “Regardless of their personal beliefs or experiences with reproductive healthcare, Virginians believe these deeply personal decisions should remain between a patient, their family, and their doctor, not politicians.”

For Virginians, the outcome of Question 1 will determine whether the state establishes a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, following a complicated, multi-year process to add the amendment to the state constitution.

The constitutional amendment was first introduced in January 2023. The General Assembly subsequently passed the amendment in January 2025. The state process requires an intervening election, and a House of Delegates election was held in November 2025. Then, the General Assembly passed the amendment for the second time in January 2026.

Now it is up to voters to vote yes or no. A “yes” vote means Virginians will have a constitutional right to make their own decisions on reproductive care, including abortion. (However, not without some potential restrictions: The proposed amendment would still allow the Virginian government to pass laws regulating abortion care in the third trimester though with decreased barriers.) A “no” vote will mean the status quo is maintained, including the same restrictions to abortion care in the third semester that require approval from three physicians. What’s more, abortion rights in the future could eventually be restricted with a change in office.

The issue has been a key part of Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger’s platform since her electoral victory over Glenn Youngkin last November. In June, half a year after taking office, Gov. Spanberger joined the Reproductive Freedom Alliance (RFA), a nonpartisan coalition of governors dedicated to protecting reproductive freedom across the nation.

“Virginia is the only state in the South where a woman has the same freedom to make her own healthcare decisions as she did before the fall of Roe v. Wade. Today, we are taking a step to reaffirm those freedoms,” Gov. Spanberger said in an RFA press release last June.

In effect, a “yes” vote means Virginia law won’t change, says Executive Director of Virginia ACLU Mary Bauer. “Our goal is not to change Virginia law. Our goal is to enshrine reproductive freedom into our constitution because we know that these rights can be taken away with a flick of a politician’s pen,” she says. “We want to make sure that our rights don’t depend on who happens to be in office at any given moment.”

Prior to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, roughly 3% of patients accessing abortion care in Virginia came from out of state. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and more Southern states limited access to abortions, the percentage of out-of-state patients jumped to 30%, according to the Virginia Independent. This means the results of Amendment 1 will affect more than just Virginians. Arguably, the state is the last stronghold for abortion care in the South.

“To see Virginia as a leader in this space is really a beautiful thing,” Bauer says.

If the amendment fails to pass, there is a risk that Virginia will transform into a state banning abortion, says Dr. Kimberly Chernoby, a physician and reproductive rights lawyer. “Virginia is a state that is not very clearly Democratic or Republican,” she says. “Our legislature has gone both ways, and so there is a real risk that in the future, and it could be near future, that we could lose access to reproductive healthcare.”

Amendment 1 also holds implications for practicing physicians. “It means that when my patient is miscarrying and I have to offer them an abortion to treat their miscarriage, that I'm not worried. ‘Am I going to go to jail? Am I going to lose my medical license? Am I going to be fined $10,000?’ The idea that any physician is asked to weigh those things at the bedside is really incredible,” Dr. Chernoby says. “Abortion is routine healthcare, and you cannot affect all other aspects of reproductive healthcare. When you limit abortion care, you are by definition going to limit all other aspects of reproductive healthcare, and you can't have one without the other.”

It’s exactly this full span of reproductive healthcare that Sanatkar is advocating for, and that she’s encountered broad support for through her organizing. “It's a very simple question: Do you want to have access to bodily autonomy, and do you want to be able to make decisions independently with your doctor without being scared that the state is going to punish you or your provider? And I think [the] majority of Virginians are going to say ‘yes’ to that,” she says.

[post_title] => When the Future of Bodily Autonomy Is in Question [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Virginia's Question 1 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 2026-election-down-ballot-virginia-question-1-abortion-bodily-autonomy-healthcare-womens-rights-voting [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-10-07 22:16:23 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-07 22:16:23 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11119 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

October 7, 2026October 7, 2026

When the Future of Bodily Autonomy Is in Question

by Hojung Lee

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 11096 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2026-10-06 21:39:27 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-10-06 21:39:27 [post_content] =>

Why you should pay attention to Colorado's Proposition 134 this election.

This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2026 United States election.

In February 2025, just 16 days after President Trump took office for the second time, he signed an executive order banning trans girls and women from competing in girls’ and women’s sports in schools receiving federal funding. That directive, part of the administration’s broader assault on trans rights, goes against multiple studies showing that transgender students benefit from participating in athletics, including earning higher grades and a reduction in self-harm.

This November, Colorado voters will decide where they stand on this issue by voting on Proposition 134, a ballot initiative regarding the right of trans students to play on K-12 and college sports teams that align with their gender identity.

“We talk about the importance of sports being this place for community, particularly for youth, but this is a few people assuming for the rest of people what their values are around sports and inclusion,” says Ash Neufeldt of Rocky Mountain Equality about the measure. Rocky Mountain Equality is a Colorado-based LGBTQ+ non-profit organization that advocates for, educates, and supports LGBTQ+ individuals and families.

While supporters of the proposition describe it as an effort to protect girls' sports, opponents like Neufeldt are concerned about its ambiguity and the process for determining which students would face restrictions. “When it comes to things like this for people who are trying to keep particular gender roles, a lot of times, it's related to genitalia,” Neufeldt says. “It could have the most invasive implications for kindergarteners all the way through college athletes.”

Hannah*, a parent of a trans youth who requested anonymity due to safety concerns, agrees. “I think the thing is really poorly written and very vague. Anybody could be accused, and then what happens? The coach has to verify. How does that happen?” Hannah questions in what other setting would another parent be okay with a school meeting that is essentially about their child’s genitalia. “But somehow with our girls, it’s on the table because they're trans?” she asks.

While similar laws have been enacted in other states, including Idaho and Mississippi in 2020 and 2021, respectively, 2026 will be the first time U.S. voters decide on the issue at the ballot box. (Three other states—Washington, Arizona, and Nebraska—have similar ballot measures this November.) If passed, the initiative would require school- and association-sponsored athletic teams to be classified into one of three categories: males, females, or mixed. Teams designated for males would remain open to females, so long as no corresponding female team exists. The reverse, however, would not apply, meaning if no male team exists, anyone who is not a cisgender woman or girl would be barred from joining female teams. Neufeldt says this asymmetry points to a fixation and disdain for trans women and trans girls in particular. From her viewpoint, proponents of the measure are suggesting that a six-year-old transgender girl is somehow dangerous to cisgender girls of the same age.

The organization leading the campaign in support of the initiative, Protect Kids Colorado, says on its website, "Bigger, stronger biological males are invading girls' sports in Colorado, taking away our girls' dignity, safety, and opportunity.” Parents like Hannah push back against such arguments. “What do we need protection from? Show us one time when this has really, truly been a problem,” she says, referring to transgender athletes participating in K-12 sports. Beyond this, the "bigger, stronger" argument hinges on testosterone-driven puberty, a stage many trans kids never experience. While not every trans child uses puberty blockers, those who do must monitor hormone levels with regular blood checks. Hannah says these checks have shown her that her daughter’s testosterone levels are two-thirds lower than the average cisgender girl.

Another parent of a trans child who also asked for anonymity says they “are manufacturing an outrage that just doesn’t exist,” noting that Colorado already has guidelines from the Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA). Under CHSAA's existing policy, a transgender student's home school conducts a confidential evaluation to determine eligibility—meaning coaches, athletic directors, and principals already have a formal process for making the call on what team(s) a student is allowed to play on, with CHSAA reviewing decisions on appeal rather than deciding unilaterally.

"The reality is Proposition 134 is so unclear. There's no accountability, there's no enforcement structure," says Nadine Bridges, Executive Director of One Colorado, an advocacy organization dedicated to advancing equality, freedom, and opportunity for LGBTQIA+ Coloradans and their families. "We have 179 school districts in the state of Colorado, and each one can interpret it any way they want. I don't believe they're setting up a structure to protect girls. I think they're setting up a situation that makes it even more gray. This is allowing government to get involved in decisions that families, experts, coaches, and schools should be allowed to make."

If the ballot measure passes in November, Neufeldt says sports will no longer be a place of fun, friendly competition and community building. It will become a place of interrogations. And that loss would fall on kids who are already struggling. Nearly 60 percent of transgender and nonbinary youth experience depression, and almost half have considered suicide in the past year. Laws that restrict sports participation worsen psychological stress for transgender youth, and the Bell Policy Center’s website highlights that Prop 134 would cut off transgender students from the benefits organized sports provide. It also notes there is no sound evidence that transgender participation in youth sports negatively impacts the well-being of cisgender youth.

For parents like Hannah, whose daughter has always been athletic and loves to be active, it’s heartbreaking to even consider. “Every body is different. There’s different athletic abilities, talents. Different heights, some kids are fast, some are clumsy. But learning how to win, how to lose, how to compete… It’s the one time for her that, for just a little while, she just gets to be like everybody else,” she says. “It’s this tiny moment in her life that she’s allotted to just be a kid.”

* Hannah is an alias. The family requested anonymity due to increasing safety concerns.

[post_title] => When a Kid Just Wants To Play Sports [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Colorado's Proposition 134 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 2026-election-united-states-colorado-proposition-134-down-ballot-transphobia-sports-voting [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-10-07 22:19:19 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-07 22:19:19 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11096 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

October 6, 2026October 7, 2026

When a Kid Just Wants To Play Sports

by Tiffany Nieslanik

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 11088 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2026-10-05 17:35:35 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-10-05 17:35:35 [post_content] =>

Why you should pay attention to North Carolina's Require Voter Identification Amendment this election.

This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2026 United States election.

Since 2018, North Carolina law has required photo identification for in-person voting, as do 24 other states. This November 3, however, state residents will vote on the North Carolina Require Voter Identification Amendment measure, a “legislatively referred constitutional amendment,” or referendum, which would alter the state’s constitution. It would require all voters—including absentee and mail-in voters—to provide a photo ID in order to participate in elections.

Whether voters reject or pass the amendment, the current voting requirements in the state of North Carolina would remain the same.

You’re not alone if you’re wondering why it’s even on the ballot. But North Carolina policy experts are concerned about it, warning that a ‘Yes’ vote would likely have lasting implications.

Recent changes to North Carolina voting laws

The last time that language about voter IDs appeared on North Carolina’s ballot was in 2024. Since then, a photocopy of a voter’s photo identification has been required for mail-in voting. Currently, there are still exceptions for lost or stolen IDs, or a voter’s disability status, allowing voters to use an alternative method of identification, like sharing the last four digits of their Social Security number.

According to Brooks Fuller, Policy Director with Common Cause NC, a non-partisan network of grassroots state policy experts, the original reason for the proposed measure was to ensure that voters are indeed who they say they are.

This year’s proposed amendment, however, does not include any language on exceptions, and Fuller says this could affect many US voters, muddying its true end goal.

“The only logical conclusion is that the legislators passing these laws want to make it more difficult for people to vote,” he says. “I imagine they can see who tends to vote by mail, and it's voters who they would prefer not to [be able to] vote.”

Data from 2022 analyzed by the non–partisan nonprofit Secure Democracy shows that nearly half of rural voters across the country vote by mail. In North Carolina, while most mail-in voters are white, Asian and Pacific Islander voters are the most likely to request an absentee ballot, while Black voters increased their mail-in participation five-fold in 2020. Black voters are also more likely to have their mail-in ballots rejected, generally for minor errors like a missing signature or address.

Democracy for all, not just a few

President of The League of Women Voters of North Carolina Jennifer McMillian Rubin says the proposed amendment is “troubling.” If passed, it would pose a barrier to North Carolina residents who are serving in the military or overseas, and Rubin argues being forced to mail in a photocopy of their IDs would likely keep them from voting.

The Voter Identification Amendment is just one of three referendums that The League is opposing this year. The other two, the Property Tax Levy Limit Amendment and the Reduce Constitutional Income Tax Cap amendments, would reduce the maximum personal income tax rate from 7% to 3.5% and require limits on property tax increases by local governments, respectively. The League is at odds with such changes because they would shift local funding decisions to the state, cement policy decisions into the constitution, and potentially reduce funding for future services, like education or disaster relief.

Altogether, the three propositions ”place policy decisions into the Constitution that are better addressed through legislation, where elected officials can respond to changing needs and voters can hold them accountable,” says Rubin. “It seems like overkill to put additional verbiage that would make this more permanent, more stringent, and less flexible to adapt to changing times and changing requirements.”

Common Cause NC, a nonprofit that works to protect voting rights, is concerned that historically marginalized populations will be most impacted by the proposal. Besides Black voters, Hispanic/Latine residents, disabled or elderly voters, people who work multiple jobs with varied shifts, and residents who simply do not drive could also be affected if the amendment passes.

In 2013, the US Supreme Court removed critical components of the Voting Rights Act, including requiring that certain districts obtain federal clearance before changing voting laws or practice due to previous racial discrimination. North Carolina’s legislature responded by decreasing accessibility to voting through tactics like closing down polling locations predominantly used by Black residents and limiting early voting. Four years later, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit blocked components of a North Carolina voting law that singled out Black voters in the state, stating that it “target[ed] African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”

Legal proceedings about racially motivated barriers in voting have been ongoing since, including arguments about redistricting. In 2025, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais rendered gerrymandering legal. This led two North Carolinian residents to drop their appeal to the Supreme Court after years of pushing the courts to reconsider district lines in favor of the Voting Rights Act. After the latest ruling, Rep. Rodney Pierce told Daily Tar Heels that the decision “left no path open to protect the voting rights of Black citizens in the state.”

Fuller is concerned that the latest proposed amendment is yet another attempt at creating additional barriers for historically marginalized populations.

“[It would] cement a part of our law that tends to suppress voter turnout and votes, particularly in vulnerable communities, and would do so even more egregiously than it already does,” Fuller says.

Resources for eligible voters

According to 2024 research led by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland, almost 21 million US citizens of voting age lack a valid driver’s license. The Center’s research also reveals that almost 29 million voting-aged US citizens have a valid license that does not match their current address or name, which means they couldn’t use it to verify their ballots. These findings support Fuller’s concerns surrounding racial inequities, as both Black and Hispanic voters are more likely to be without a valid license than their counterparts.

“That's the point,” Fuller says. “This is just doubling down, making it harder for those folks when they have already, by registering, proven that they are who they say they are.”

For those eligible to vote but without valid photo identification, Fuller encourages them to visit their County Board of Elections, a seldom used resource that is less cumbersome than securing a DMV appointment. He also suggests using VoteRiders for voters who need extra support procuring their IDs and transportation to their polling place.

Low on supporting data

Myths surrounding voter fraud fuel proposed amendments like this one, bolstering the idea that additional requirements would ensure voting accuracy. Yet Rubin says voting fraud in North Carolina is almost non-existent, and a 2024 social media campaign dedicated to busting voting myths, led by the North Carolina Board of Elections, confirms it.

“There is not an ‘election integrity’ reason to require a photo ID, especially not through a constitutional amendment,” argues Fuller. Instead, what is needed is voter education across party lines.

“It is cliche, and I hear it a lot, especially from my elders,” says Fuller. “But it is true: They would not be trying so hard to take away your vote if it didn't threaten their power. They just wouldn't.”

[post_title] => Why Ask Voters to Provide ID If It's Already Required? [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to North Carolina's Require Voter Identification Amendment this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => 2026-election-down-ballot-north-carolina-require-voter-identification-amendment-united-states-voting-rights [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-10-06 19:10:33 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-10-06 19:10:33 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=11088 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

October 5, 2026October 6, 2026

Why Ask Voters to Provide ID If It’s Already Required?

by Zuri White-Gibson

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7357 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-10-25 17:34:53 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-10-25 17:34:53 [post_content] =>

Why you should pay attention to Arizona's Proposition 314 this election.

This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2024 United States election.

Matilde* knows firsthand the ramifications of letting local police departments enforce federal immigration laws.

She was seven years old when her father was supposed to pick her up from school one day but never arrived. Later, she discovered he’d been taken into custody by local law enforcement after a traffic stop. Her father spent almost five months separated from his family before they were eventually reunited.

“It’s a really hard thing to understand as a child that, because your parents don't have proper documentation, that they’re gone,” says Matilde, who grew up in Prescott, Arizona, about an hour and a half north of Phoenix. “It’s something that’s really hard and traumatic for children and because of that, I grew up in fear of law enforcement.”

Matilde's parents are immigrants from Mexico, and her father had been arrested after the 2010 passage of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070—colloquially known as the “show me your papers” law—which allowed local and state law enforcement agencies to ask for proof of citizenship if they suspected someone was in the country without authorized documentation. It was one of the strictest anti-immigration laws in the country, and its passage led to both national and international outcry, including marches and boycotts.

Matilde, 20, now attends Arizona State University, and is one of many activists throughout the state speaking out against a new measure—Proposition 314—that will ask voters to once again let the state enforce federal immigration laws. She is currently an Arizona’s Future Fellow with Aliento, a youth-led organization that advocates for undocumented immigrants, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and families with mixed immigration statuses within their household. Through this leadership development program, she’s been working to educate voters on the potential effects of the proposition, hosting voter registration drives, and conducting outreach campaigns within her community and on college campuses.

If passed, Proposition 314 would make it a state crime for migrants to enter the country at any location that’s not a port of entry, allow state and local police to arrest noncitizens who have entered the country illegally, and allow state judges to order deportations. The proposition would also criminalize migrants who knowingly submit false documentation when applying for federal, state, or local public benefits, as well as those who submit false information or documents to an employer to avoid detection of employment eligibility under the E-Verify program. (E-Verify is an online system that allows employers to confirm whether their employees can work in the United States.) If passed, the law would also enact certain penalties, such as an additional five years added to any prison sentence for anyone who knowingly sells fentanyl that was smuggled into the United States and causes the death of another person.

The Republican-controlled Arizona State Legislature passed a similar law in March during the legislative session, but Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed the measure. At the time, Hobbs said the bill would hurt businesses and communities around the state while overburdening law enforcement and potentially attracting lawsuits.

The state legislature referred the measure to the November ballot in June, and in August, the Arizona Supreme Court helped the proposition clear a final hurdle after it rejected a legal challenge from Latino advocacy groups who questioned the constitutionality of the law, allowing it to remain on the ballot.

In the leadup to the election, Proposition 314 has drawn the ire of activists, civic groups, religious leaders, and even some law enforcement personnel, who view the measure as an unfunded mandate that could pack the state’s prisons, overwhelm police and sheriff’s departments, promote racial profiling, and instill fear into immigrant communities throughout the state.

“It’s a huge overreach in regard to law enforcement overstepping boundaries, leading up to potential racial profiling,” says Alicia Contreras, executive director of Corazón Arizona, an interfaith grassroots organization that has spoken out against the proposition. “It really puts extreme risk and harm in our community, and when we talk about our communities, that’s our Black, brown, [and] indigenous people of color in [our] community.”

Corazón Arizona has worked with a coalition of other groups to conduct voter registration drives, host a press conference, engage the community through town halls and roundtable conversations, and work with faith leaders to help educate their congregations, Contreras says. She believes the work will continue beyond election day.

“Nov. 5 is not the end,” she said. “We’re going to continue to fight with our communities, organize with our communities, and stand up to unjust laws.”

Contreras referred to the proposition as “SB 1070 on steroids,” saying it could cause further division within communities across the state and harm Arizona’s most vulnerable populations.

“It is not going to support us, and, to be clear, it does nothing to improve our immigration system,” says Contreras, who organized and protested against SB 1070 14 years ago.

Arizona recently ranked as the state with the highest number of migrant crossings, although the number of crossings along the Mexico border have plummeted after President Joe Biden enacted asylum restrictions this summer. Biden implemented the restrictions at a time when more Americans, including Democrats, have become more resistant to immigration.

In Arizona, a poll released in September by Noble Predictive Insights showed that Arizona voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 314, with 63% saying they would support it and 16% saying they would vote in opposition to the measure. However, if passed by voters, Proposition 314 wouldn’t become law unless a similar measure in Texas, Senate Bill 4, is deemed constitutional. The Texas law, which was passed by its state legislature in 2023, has been blocked due to legal challenges.

The state’s Republicans have continually described the arrival of migrants as an “invasion,” with Republican State Sen. John Kavanagh saying during a televised debate last month that the proposition would attempt to address problems caused by the “tsunami of illegal immigrants.”

According to Kavanagh, Proposition 314 is supposed to target the “worst of the worst” such as drug smugglers, human smugglers, those on the terrorist watchlist, and others who wouldn’t qualify for asylum.

Kavanagh, who supported SB 1070 and defended the controversial law during the debate, said this measure is supposedly different because of its “laser beam” focus on stopping criminals and smugglers, instead of authorizing law enforcement to conduct roundups of migrants.

Democratic State Rep. Analise Ortiz called the proposition “unconstitutional” and a “waste of your tax dollars” during the debate with Kavanaugh. She also argued that it wouldn't “secure the border” and invoked its similarities to New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy, turning law enforcement and civil servants into immigration agents without the financial backing.

Matilde, meanwhile, only remembers the trauma of not seeing her dad for months, and has expressed fear that children and their families could experience the same hardships if this proposition is approved by voters.

“No matter your immigration status, it’s going to impact so many different families within the state of Arizona,” she says. “Our biggest thing is we don’t want children to grow up in fear.”

*Due to increased safety concerns, Matilde requested anonymity for this piece.

[post_title] => When Local Police Enforce Federal Immigration [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Arizona's Proposition 314 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => arizona-proposition-314-immigration-border-control-patrol-law-enforcement-deportation-law-united-states-election-2024 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-03 23:49:21 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-03 23:49:21 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7357 [menu_order] => 38 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

October 25, 2024August 3, 2026

When Local Police Enforce Federal Immigration

by Jamar Younger

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7341 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-10-24 07:12:28 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-10-24 07:12:28 [post_content] =>

Why you should pay attention to Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund Amendment this election.

This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2024 United States election.

While wind energy production in the Gulf of Mexico is still a nascent industry, Louisiana voters will soon decide whether potential royalties from offshore renewables should be spent on protecting and restoring the state’s sinking coastline.

Louisiana has lost more than 2,000 square miles of land since the 1930s, in large part because of the construction of levees along the Mississippi River meant to prevent flooding, which have blocked sand and mud carried by the river from replenishing the coast. Canals dredged through the marsh by oil and gas exploration companies and sea level rise have also contributed to the state’s land loss. As the coast has eroded, communities have retreated inland, landmarks have been wiped off the map, and the threat of hurricane storm surge has increased. Native American communities once driven to the coast by white settlers are now among the most vulnerable to storms and sea level rise. Indigenous fishing villages like Grand Bayou, Isle de Jean Charles and Pointe-au-Chien have also been left outside of the federal levee system. Their populations have dwindled as frequent hurricanes have destroyed their homes and saltwater intrusion has made it difficult to grow crops.

“We’re talking about part of the country not being here anymore because of man made environmental change,” says Charles Sutcliffe, a resilience, climate, and coastal policy specialist for the National Wildlife Federation. And energy production in the Gulf of Mexico depends on the people and ports along Louisiana’s coast, he explains.

As one potential solution, a November 5 ballot measure asks voters, “Do you support an amendment to require that federal revenues received by the state generated from Outer Continental Shelf alternative or renewable energy production be deposited into the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund?” The Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund at the center of the measure is a trust fund that the state’s constitution says must be spent on projects in line with Louisiana’s Coastal Master Plan, a roadmap of projects aimed at protecting residents from flooding and restoring the state’s wetlands. The plan includes a $2.9 billion project to unleash the Mississippi River into degrading wetlands downriver of New Orleans and a $1.9 billion project to elevate thousands of flood-prone homes. Currently, a portion of the royalties from offshore oil and gas production is already directed to the state’s $50 billion Coastal Master Plan. If passed, the measure would also direct royalties from alternative energy production towards the same efforts.

State Rep. Joseph Orgeron introduced the Constitutional amendment in the legislature this spring. He said he’s been asked whether the measure is putting the cart before the horse, since there isn’t a federal law yet that directs the Department of the Treasury to share offshore renewable royalties with states like there is for offshore oil and gas.

“Louisiana is moving from only oil and gas to any energy,” Orgeron says. “If there are federal revenues to be received from them we would like those to also be dedicated to the Coastal Restoration Fund.”

The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) allocates a portion of the revenue from oil and gas pulled from federal waters of the Gulf to Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Before former Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) pushed to get GOMESA passed in 2006, Louisiana lawmakers created state legislation to dedicate revenue from offshore oil and gas to coastal protection and restoration, Orgeron noted.

“It would have been difficult for her to pass that legislation if it was not for her state legislature the year before making this legislation,” he says. “Mary Landrieu used that to go to Congress and say that we’re not going to use it on splash parks and butterfly museums.”

According to Oregron, U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) is following Landriue’s footsteps with his efforts to get a slice of the royalties from offshore renewables sent to states. Sen. Cassidy introduced legislation last year that would send 37.5% of offshore wind revenue to states adjacent to offshore wind farms. The bill has bipartisan support and is expected to pass out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee next month, says Molly Block, Senator Bill Cassidy’s Communications Director. As written, the bill would also lift a cap on the amount of revenue states receive through GOMESA.

So far, Louisiana has secured about $21 billion of the $50 billion needed to construct all of the projects in its Coastal Master Plan. Gulf states have received more than $2 billion from offshore oil and gas royalties under GOMESA since 2009. But the $8 billion Louisiana received in legal settlements and fines resulting from BP’s 2010 oil spill in the Gulf has made up the lion’s share of funding for Louisiana’s flood protection and coastal restoration projects. Oil spill settlement payments to the state will end in 2031, leaving Louisiana’s delegation in search of more funds.

Royalties from offshore wind in the Gulf are unlikely to shore up the state’s funding shortfall for coastal projects. There are currently two offshore wind projects planned in Louisiana waters, and a third project further out in federal waters off the coast of Lake Charles, Louisiana. The offshore wind industry is expected to create thousands of jobs in Louisiana over the next decade. Proceeds from wind lease sales in federal waters go to the U.S. Treasury General Fund. Wind farm companies also pay the federal government annual rental fees during construction and operating fees once the projects start generating electricity, says John Filostrat, Director Of Public Affairs at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

But those fees are smaller than the severance fees collected on oil and gas production in the Gulf, Orgeron notes. “There is no severance. It’s not like you’re extracting oil and gas and you’re taking something from the ground. Wind works differently because you're returning the molecules of air on the other side of the blade,” he says. “You’re not severing anything.”

Last year, two million barrels of oil per day were produced from the federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, generating $6 billion in federal revenue. At most, wind energy in the Gulf could produce about a tenth of the royalties that Louisiana gets from oil and gas production, Orgeron says.
Still, Sutcliffe says the state could use every penny it gets to put towards its coast, where nearly two million people call home. “I think it’s too early to know how much it’s going to produce, but right now it’s zero,” he says. “This amendment is just trying to say however that works out those dollars are dedicated to the coast.”

[post_title] => Paying the Bill for Lousiana's Crumbling Coast [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund Amendment this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => louisiana-outer-continental-shelf-revenues-for-coastal-protection-and-restoration-fund-amendment-down-ballot-climate-change-united-states-election-2024 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-03 23:51:13 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-03 23:51:13 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7341 [menu_order] => 39 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

October 24, 2024August 3, 2026

Paying the Bill for Lousiana’s Crumbling Coast

by Sara Sneath

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7331 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-10-23 04:23:19 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-10-23 04:23:19 [post_content] =>

Why you should pay attention to the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment this election.

This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2024 United States election.

As voters around the United States prepare for a tight presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, they will also have to make pivotal decisions on ballot referendums in their respective states. In Wisconsin, one of the questions this year revolves around noncitizen voting.

Noncitizen voting is illegal at the state and federal level in the U.S. On voter registration forms, people must sign under the penalty of perjury that they are a citizen, facing punishment of fines, imprisonment, or deportation if they are not. But on a local scale, noncitizen voting is allowed in some cities and towns in Vermont, California, and Maryland, allowing residents to cast a vote in school board and city council elections.

At this time, there are no elections in Wisconsin that allow for noncitizen voting. Wisconsin previously allowed noncitizen voting in 1848, but that was disallowed by 1912. In a ballot initiative on deck for Nov. 5, however, a coalition of Wisconsin Republicans are seeking to change language in the state’s constitution around citizen voting, making it as explicit as possible that noncitizens cannot vote in any election in Wisconsin.

Currently, the state’s constitution reads “every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district who may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum.” The referendum, however, would change the language to “only a United States citizen age 18 or older who resides in an election district may vote in an election for national, state, or local office or at a statewide or local referendum.”

A yes vote for the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment would allow the language change and a no vote would prevent any changes to the constitution.

Behind the bill

There are 14 Wisconsin state senators and 41 state representatives behind the push to pass this referendum, an effort which began in September of 2023.

While several members of the Wisconsin Legislature did not reply to requests for interviews, Sen. Julian Bradley, a Republican among the coalition that introduced the ballot measure, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that their goal is to make it extremely difficult for noncitizens to ever have an opportunity to vote in Wisconsin. He also said he wants less room for interpretation around the law.

"If you want to vote in elections, then you have to declare your citizenship, and you have to go through the process," he told the Sentinel.

However, Debra Cronmiller, the executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, says the initiative is unnecessary and could foster misinformation. The league was one of 30 organizations that has endorsed a no-vote on the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment and also released a toolkit with information about the ballot.

“It creates an opportunity to suggest, imply, whatever word you want to insert there, that this is a problem. This is not a problem. That's been documented time and time again,” she says. “It makes me wonder, is the real motivation here not to change the constitution to prohibit noncitizens from voting in municipal races, but is it to fuel a conversation that is more about us and them, who should have the rights and who shouldn't have the rights.”

Cronmiller compared the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment to a 2011 push by Republicans in Wisconsin to require voter IDs during elections. She said that on its surface, both sound good: ensuring that only citizens of Wisconsin are voting in elections. But she also pointed out the unintended consequences of these policies. In the case of voter IDs, not everyone has a driver's license or works for the state or is a member of a tribal community. And in 2017, the Associated Press reported that the law ultimately turned eligible voters away as a result.

“There's too many people who were unnecessarily disenfranchised because of what sounded like a good idea,” she says. “We suspect [the same] in this instance, where only a citizen should vote sounds good, but the constitution actually already guarantees that.”

The Wisconsin Elections Commission, a six-member board created in 2015 to oversee election processes, reported 30 potential cases of fraud from July 1, 2023 through September 12, 2024. However, none of the cases were related to citizenship, and most were related to people voting twice or involved people with felonies.

In October of 2023, a woman in Wisconsin was charged with election fraud for voting in an April school board election, despite not being a citizen. But she admitted to the act, saying that it was a misunderstanding and that her daughter-in-law completed the paperwork due to an English language barrier, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. She has since entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and the charges will be dismissed.

Anti-immigrant concerns

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, a Wisconsin organization that works with the civil rights of immigrants, says the drive behind the ballot initiative is anti-immigration sentiment and disinformation.

“My greatest concern is that this is being used to create a narrative that is intended to motivate part of Trump’s MAGA base to turn out on election day and based on how people look, and if they’re not English dominant, they will try to intimidate and harass U.S. citizen voters to try to steal the elections,” she says.

Neumann-Ortiz is also concerned that the ballot initiative is part of a longer-term strategy of voter suppression.

“It’s been a very calculated agenda by the right wing,” she says. “There’s been a relentless attack on eroding voting rights.”

She pointed to a lawsuit, Cerny v Wisconsin Elections Commission, filed by a citizen in Wisconsin in August. In the case, Ardis Cerny, a resident of Pewaukee, sued the commission and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to challenge how the state verifies the citizenship status of voters with drivers licenses. Cerny alleges that the commission does not check the registration of applicants with the Department of Motor Vehicles list of driver’s licenses and identification cards to ensure they have citizenship. The lawsuit is still ongoing.

Neumann-Ortiz believes that the amendment would “disenfranchise so many people,” because when residents become naturalized U.S. citizens, they don’t have to go to the DMV to update immigration status, meaning the documentation isn’t always aligned. When they register to vote, however, they have to show evidence of citizenship, she says.

Immigrants who are working to gain citizenship are not interested in registering to vote illegally and jeopardizing their future, Neumann-Ortiz added.

“It’s more anti-immigration rhetoric, it’s more disinformation, and it’s voter suppression for all voters,” she says. “It’s an attack on democracy.”

The Wisconsin constitution has been amended 148 times, with the most recent change in April of 2023. In regards to voting, previous amendments have been made to expand rights based on race, gender, and age. It will also not be the only state where noncitizen voting is on the ballot in November: Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Carolina also have ballot measures regarding noncitizen voting this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislature, a coalition of members of state legislatures around the U.S.

“This question on the ballot sounds pretty good, but what you have to do as a conscientious voter is look behind the question. Why is it being asked? What could be the unintended consequences?” Cronmiller says. “Our elections are fair, they're safe, they're accountable, only the people who should be getting ballots are getting ballots. There's no problem to fix here and I think we're actually potentially creating a future problem by enacting this particular constitutional change.”

[post_title] => Is Noncitizen Voting Actually a Non-Issue? [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to the Wisconsin Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => noncitizen-voting-wisconsin-citizenship-voting-requirement-immigration-local-state-federal-united-states-election-2024 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-03 23:55:04 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-03 23:55:04 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7331 [menu_order] => 40 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

October 23, 2024August 3, 2026

Is Noncitizen Voting Actually a Non-Issue?

by Cassie McGrath

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7313 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-10-22 19:07:12 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-10-22 19:07:12 [post_content] =>

Why you should pay attention to Massachusetts's Question 5 this election.

This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2024 United States election.

A contentious ballot question has Massachusetts wait and bar staff fearing a dramatic change in their hourly take home pay following this November. For Corri DePatra, a bartender and server since 2001, the potential industry change is maddening.

“They’re trying to pull on heartstrings,” DePatra says. “I just think it is very emotionally manipulative.”

Question 5 on the Massachusetts ballot this election year is an initiative proposed by One Fair Wage, a national nonprofit and NGO. If the measure passes in the state, it would lead to a gradual rise in the minimum wage base pay for tipped workers from its current $6.75 to $15 an hour in the next five years. Eventually, the change would also allow for a shared tip pool between the front and back of the house to be managed by restaurant owners. But many restaurant workers have come out in opposition to its passing, arguing it would likely actually decrease their take home pay.

“We were all at city hall and I went in to listen to the hearing,” DePatra says, noting that she was particularly outraged by One Fair Wage’s closing arguments, which pointed to discrimination against women as a driving factor for the initiative. As a waitress standing with others at the hearing, DePatra felt they were invalidating her experiences as a woman working as a tipped restaurant worker, and misrepresenting the amount of hard work that goes into being a part of the restaurant industry.

DePatra works at The Kenmore, a Boston pub specializing in fresh pregame eats and draft beers, where signs to “vote no” adorn the walls in hopes of informing customers of how their restaurant workers feel. To learn more, all signs point to a website for a coalition of small and large restaurants known as the Committee to Protect Tips.

The Committee is spearheaded by two of the largest groupings of restaurant leaders in the state: Massachusetts Restaurants United (MRU), a coalition of industry leaders from various sized restaurants and cafes that began after the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association (MRA), a not-for-profit lobbyist group. Their joint mission against Question 5 has so far been endorsed by eight local mayors, the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, and hundreds of Massachusetts restaurant workers.

“A lot of people are going to lose their jobs if this passes,” says Ryan Lotz, president of MRU and leader at Traveler Street Hospitality. “We’re going to see secondary and incurred costs go up for the restaurant operators and owners.”

Earlier this year, an MRU poll about industry crises noted that 85% of restaurant leaders said they are one surprise expense away from having to close. According to Lotz, restaurants are going to see an increase of over $18,000 per year per employee if the initiative is fully deployed, something most simply can’t afford. Restaurants will be forced to shift to models with fewer servers but quicker service, he argues, implementing functions like QR code menus or counters. And for guests, it will also mean higher menu prices and more fees on their checks when it comes to processing service.

“I think that people don't really understand the restaurant industry, and don't really understand how slim the margins are,” Lotz says.

These profit margins typically fall in the 0-15% range, with the bulk of restaurants falling around the 3-5% mark, according to national restaurant system Toast. Most of those restaurants are only able to stay open, Lotz argues, because of tips.

Currently, Massachusetts, like the majority of the United States, operates on a tip credit across the restaurant industry. This translates to every server or bartender making a base pay and tips filling in the rest of the minimum wage and more. Server Adam Dougherty has been in the industry for seven years and currently works at Fenway sports bar Cask ‘N Flagon. Even on a slow day, he says he already surpasses the $15 bar.

“People will probably tip less,” says Dougherty. “I’m going to be voting no.”

Advocates for the ballot question, meanwhile, argue that tipped wages need to become a thing of the past, and allege that the tip credit model is particularly harmful for women and people of color across the industry. This is because it can allow restaurants to get away with paying staff less than a livable wage without consequence, while putting the burden on customers to make up the difference.

One Fair Wage, which is headquartered in California, champions the initiative across the country via satellite organizing heads which advocate for tipped worker payment changes state-by-state. According to Grace McGovern, one of two Massachusetts full-time state organizers working for One Fair Wage, who has been a tipped worker herself, combating misinformation has been difficult.

“So many people are just so surprised that a subminimum wage is still in place,” says McGovern.

She adds opposition from the Committee to Protect Tips has also weaponized their research.

“Even if 90% of the 300 people that they had completed their survey answered that they want things to stay the same, there are still 124,700 tipped workers in Massachusetts—at least—without their voices heard,” McGovern says.

Massachusetts is one of six active campaign efforts targeted at raising the minimum wage this year, with other states including Rhode Island, Arizona, and Missouri. But in total, One Fair Wage has initiated 16 total targeted campaigns in states or territories, according to their website.

One place where the campaign has been successful is Washington, D.C., where according to McGovern, there has been a positive increase in the earnings of workers. Lotz, on the other hand, sees it as a tragedy.

“This passed recently, and when it did, we saw approximately 6,000 jobs lost and restaurants closing,” Lotz says.

Another hotly debated aspect of the Massachusetts ballot question is the change to the shared tip pool. Currently, Massachusetts does not have comprehensive shared tips legislation. According to McGovern, the initiative would eventually allow for tip sharing with front and back of house, but it is not immediately required. Its ultimate purpose, however, is to move us away from tipping culture as a whole, and instead make a higher minimum wage the norm.

Jay Zagorsky, professor of public policy and law at the Questrom School of Business, agrees that tips should be eliminated, but thinks Question 5 is not the answer.

“Question 5 is poorly written and poorly thought out,” he says.

According to Zagorsky, one of the biggest indicators of Question 5’s failure comes in the form of the legislative committee’s comments in the ballot guide, which states in all capital letters that it "OUGHT NOT TO BE ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE AT THIS TIME."

So if Question 5 is not the answer, what is? Those voting no are not quite sure.

“Eliminating the sub-minimum wage for tipped workers on a state-by-state basis is not the right way to go,” says Zagorsky, pointing out how rising labor costs will directly lead to fewer jobs and those that remain will be “worse off.”

For Lotz, fighting the current initiative remains his first priority. He can’t quite think of anything else before that’s resolved.

“I would be more than happy to start working on that if this doesn’t pass,” Lotz says. “What keeps me awake at night is that people are going into the voting booth in November with a lack of knowledge. We need to get as many people to understand the gravity of this question before November.”

[post_title] => The Tipping Point [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to Massachusetts's Question 5 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => massachusetts-question-5-minimum-wage-tips-restaurant-workers-initiative-one-fair-wage-state-election-2024 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-04 16:44:26 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-04 16:44:26 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7313 [menu_order] => 41 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

October 22, 2024August 4, 2026

The Tipping Point

by Maya Shavit

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 7316 [post_author] => 15 [post_date] => 2024-10-21 11:04:00 [post_date_gmt] => 2024-10-21 11:04:00 [post_content] =>

Why you should pay attention to California's Proposition 6 this election.

This article is a part of Down-Ballot, a weeklong series highlighting state measures worth watching in the 2024 United States election.

When you’re incarcerated in California and the prison system says you have to work, you can’t say no. It’s the law.

Some prison jobs are basic, like cleaning the showers or the mess hall. Other assignments are more dangerous, such as in 2020, when women at a Chino prison in San Bernardino County said they spent as many as 12 hours a day during the COVID-19 outbreak stitching masks they were forbidden from wearing. Injuries are common, with everything from cuts and bruises and carpal tunnel syndrome all the way up to amputations of fingers and hands. Sometimes, the risks are even higher. When she was incarcerated, Leesa Nomura of Koreatown, Los Angeles, remembers other women crying in fear when ordered to join the prison crews fighting the state’s wildfires, a dangerous and occasionally deadly assignment with pay topping out at $10.24 a day. That’s on the high end. Some prison assignments pay as low as eight cents an hour.

“How do you want your neighbor to come home from prison? You want them to come home beaten down and broken by a system that doesn’t care about them?” asks Nomura, a membership organizer for the nonprofit California Coalition for Women Prisoners. “Something that is breaking down their bodies, that is breaking down their internal resolve over time? Involuntary servitude to a system that is totally, 100% benefiting off of them at cents on the dollar?”

The fundamental power of every worker against dangerous or unfair working conditions is the right and the ability to quit. But on the inside, work stoppages are “serious rule violations” on par with trying to escape. To advocates, that’s why prison work has a likeness to an older practice, especially given that a vastly disproportionate share of prisoners are Black.

“Slavery is slavery, whether you are on the plantation picking cotton, or doing work at the CCWF [Central California Women's Facility] or at San Quentin,” says Katie Dixon, Policy & Campaign Coordinator for the California Coalition for Women Prisoners.

On November 5, Golden State voters could complete the unfinished business of 1865, when states like California followed the lead of the U.S. government in banning chattel slavery but not forced prison work under the 13th Amendment after the Civil War. Approval of Proposition 6 would remove the “involuntary servitude” exemption in California’s state constitution and trigger a companion law, AB 628, that requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to develop a voluntary system where prison work can be rewarded, but not punished.

Currently, nearly 60,000 of the roughly 90,000 people incarcerated in California state prisons have work assignments, and “when assigning an individual to work, academic, therapeutic or other institutional programs, the individual’s expressed desires and needs are among the factors that are considered,” Terry Hardy, press secretary for the state prisons, said in an email, declining to comment on the ballot measure. But this doesn’t mean these considerations are without consequences: Saying no to work can mean punishments, such as less time out of your cell, and fewer privileges, including losing out on an early release.

Still, many people who are incarcerated want to work for reasons of their own, and some studies have suggested participation in the California Prison Industry Authority, which runs prison manufacturing and training programs, is associated with lower recidivism. “The alternative to not being out of your cell is being in your cell 24 hours a day,” Donald Hooker, who prefers to be called “C-Note,” says in a phone interview from the Los Angeles County state prison in Lancaster. “You’re in the cell, how far can my thoughts really go? My body, I’m freer. That’s the incentive. Not being cooped up in what is in essence 9 by 15 inches [feet] of cell space, and you’re sharing this with another person. That alone, being in that environment, is incentive enough for many people.”

But when he recently received an assignment for kitchen duty, he refused. “This is intense, intense manual labor, and I’m turning 59 in December,” C-Note says. “I would have been exhausting the remainder of my life force in the service of Gavin Newsom or whoever the governor is. And I can’t see the rest of my limited days on planet Earth exhausting my life force for the state.”

C-Note received corrective action but didn’t realize until later that the notation in his personnel file could have an even bigger impact. “If you have to go to the parole board, as I do, they’ll see that,” he says. “And those could make you stay in prison longer.”

Banning forced prison work altogether has also been a major objective of California’s advocates for reparations to Black Americans. While it would not make prison work illegal, including for pennies an hour, Proposition 6 would allow inmates the option to say no and to have a choice in participating in work.

“People talk about California being a free state [before the Civil War], but we had a law on the books: If someone had slaves when they moved to California, they could continue to own slaves,” says Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson, the Democratic chair of the legislature’s Black Caucus, who sponsored the legislation creating the ballot measure. “We, as Californians, have done historic harm.”

It’s a criminal justice issue where often-progressive California is a follower, not a leader. The state is one of 16 with an involuntary servitude provision on the books even as seven have issued repeals since 2018. An initial effort by California lawmakers stalled in 2022 after a provision to mandate minimum wage for prison work was estimated to cost $1.5 billion annually. The wage demand was dropped for the version on this November’s ballot, which has bipartisan support and little official opposition apart from a couple of newspaper editorials.

“Inmates should not be legally empowered to dictate what chores they’re willing to do while behind bars,” the Mercury News and East Bay Times wrote. “The fundamental question here is whether inmates should be required to provide work that contributes toward their room and board. We believe they should, just as the rest of us on the outside who have not committed crimes must also do.” (The cost of incarcerating each person in California is now $132,860, having skyrocketed in recent years.)

Voters are also skeptical. Fifty percent of likely voters said they oppose Proposition 6, while 46% said they would vote yes, according to a recent Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll. Supporters chalk up some voters’ caution to the ballot measure’s adjacency to another, far more hotly contested criminal justice ballot measure, Proposition 36, which would increase penalties for drug and theft crimes.

“Our polling was very similar to PPIC’s,” says Esteban Núñez of the consulting firm Actum, one of the lead campaign consultants on the Anti-Recidivism Coalition’s ballot push. “We knew this from the gate, but nobody knows what the fuck ‘involuntary servitude’ was. It’s a legal term.”

Proposition 6 supporters are still optimistic they can pull out a victory on Nov. 5 by putting in campaign work in the coming weeks. And a win in the nation’s most populous state could add momentum to the national movement to repeal similar policies at the state and federal levels.

“It’s about making the case between now and then. People are getting their ballots,” says Wilson. “I just don’t want to wake up the day after election day and find out California voters said it was okay to have slavery on the books.”

[post_title] => California Voters Can End Forced Prison Labor [post_excerpt] => Why you should pay attention to California's Proposition 6 this election. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => california-proposition-prop-6-indentured-servitude-prison-slave-labor-incarcerated-peoples-rights-state-election-2024 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-08-04 16:45:18 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-08-04 16:45:18 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=7316 [menu_order] => 42 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )

October 21, 2024August 4, 2026

California Voters Can End Forced Prison Labor

by Matt Pearce

Sign up for our newsletter