Another hearing is expected in the next couple of weeks on a controversial election policy bill in North Dakota. The plans call for requiring proof of citizenship for residents to vote. The bill's sponsor said there are situations in which people feel they are qualified to vote despite not holding citizenship. But opponents say there have been instances where people's status has been questioned at the polls and they were not offered a chance to correct it through options such as provisional ballots.

Collette Brown, Spirit Lake Nation member, said a proposal like this only adds to the burdens Native American voters already face often.

"Native voters often have to overcome geographical, remote, isolation [and] poverty," Brown said.

Brown offered that testimony during a hearing last week, and said those are some of the many factors that leave Native voters feeling disenfranchised. The bill is now headed to the Senate State and Local Government Committee. The committee chair said another hearing is likely later this month or early in February.

Bill sponsors said the plan would maintain voter protections such as the provisional ballots. Secretary of State Michael Howe testified in support of the proposal's intent, but warned there could be unintended consequences.

"Birth certificates and passports often will not line up with women or others who have had name changes, thus potentially creating issues for individuals who have successfully voted in past elections, " Howe said.

He called on lawmakers to keep talking and attempt to strike a balance between accessibility and accountability. The League of Women Voters also weighed in, saying the bill creates a chilling effect on diverse populations and may deter eligible voters from casting a ballot even if they are U-S citizens.

North Dakota does not have voter registration, instead requiring an ID. Last fall, the state attorney general issued an opinion saying poll workers were not allowed to demand proof of citizenship.

New polling found an overwhelming majority, 85% of Americans believe abortion access should be allowed in some situations.

Two years ago in the weeks following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, West Virginia passed a near-total ban on abortion with exceptions in certain cases for rape or incest, or medical emergencies.

Emily Womeldorff, constituency engagement specialist for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic in Morgantown, said it is now nearly impossible for people in West Virginia to access abortion care. Most are now forced to travel to neighboring states.

"That can look like a lot of things," Womeldorff pointed out. "It can look like having to take additional time off of work, finding child care, assuming that you have transportation, paying for that."

More people are traveling farther and across multiple state lines to access abortion, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute. The group's U.S. Abortion Provision Dashboard said since the Roe v. Wade decision, more than 800 West Virginians have traveled to Maryland for abortion care, more than 600 to Pennsylvania, and more than 200 to Ohio.

Womeldorff noted while she believes the people of West Virginia would make the decision to protect abortion rights, the state is among more than two dozen to have banned citizen-led initiatives or amendments on a statewide ballot, despite calls for a petition allowing voters to decide whether full abortion access should be legal. Womeldorff explained under current law, the legislature would have to pass a ballot measure.

"Unfortunately, we have a very hostile anti-abortion legislature at the moment, who would I highly doubt be willing to vote to put it on the ballot and let people decide," Womeldorff asserted. "Because they have a vested interest in not letting people make those decisions for themselves."

Voters in a handful of states, including neighboring Kentucky and Ohio, have chosen to protect the right to an abortion through ballot measures.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

Former president Donald Trump is vowing to eliminate or alter thousands of government jobs if he wins this November, which could have a big effect on Virginia.

One major change would be gutting civil service protections, which aim to keep millions of federal employees performing day-to-day jobs away from political influence.

Donald Sherman, chief council for the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said it is important for the government to function for all people.

"You can understand why you want to have government food inspectors or government highway technicians who have, not just years, but decades of expertise," Sherman pointed out. "And, you know, have loyalty to their craft as opposed to loyalty to a particular politician."

A plan for the Trump Administration put together by a right-wing think tank, called Project 2025, calls to reclassify tens of thousands of employees as political appointees. Labor groups are worried it could dismantle nonpartisan bureaucracy by cutting jobs, taking away union rights, lowering pay and privatizing some federal departments. Trump said it is exactly what he has to do to "drain the swamp" and restore America's trust in government.

Virginia has more than 140,000 federal employees. Only California has a higher number. Sherman emphasized civil service protections also protect Americans from corruption.

"You want to make sure that if you are a person in need of assistance from the Department of Justice or the Department of Housing and Urban Development that you know there's not someone on the line asking you, 'Well, before I offer you assistance, what's your political party?'" Sherman noted.

Vice President Kamala Harris has advocated for unions in the public sector. She has also looked to improve hiring practices, salaries and health care benefits for government workers.


get more stories like this via email

Election Day is a little more than two months away and North Dakotans turned off by the political environment are urged to consider their long-term health as possible motivation to re-engage with the voting process.

Over the past few years, organizations such as the American Medical Association have emphasized voting is a social determinant of health.

Craig Burns, clinical assistant professor of social work at the University of North Dakota, specializes in social work and said it is especially true for marginalized populations. For example, he said a candidate's stance on local zoning laws and key services might resonate with a person's need to establish a better quality of life.

"Whether people have access to an affordable grocery store that sells healthy produce or whether they have access to safe transportation," Burns outlined.

Combined with more commonly discussed issues such as jobs, Burns pointed out all the factors play a role in shaping health outcomes. He added if people feel like their voice doesn't matter, they should know local races, including legislative seats, are sometimes decided by just a few votes.

For those who need guidance in researching candidate platforms, Burns noted websites such as Vote411.org often provide a comprehensive, nonpartisan breakdown of where a politician stands on key issues. He added reaching out to the campaign staff for answers is another option.

"Always let the candidate know you're a voter in their district," Burns recommended. "That'll, kind of, perk up their ears a little bit."

Burns, who has helped lead regional civic engagement efforts in past elections, argued how a candidate views environmental regulations is another topic worth exploring. He pointed to the tainted water scandal in Flint, Michigan, from a decade ago as an example. Researchers said the crisis stemmed from state and federal policy failures.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email