As North Dakota's legislative session moves forward, additional debate is expected on a controversial voting bill, which calls for proof of citizenship to cast a ballot.

At issue is whether someone who recently became a naturalized citizen, but whose identification has yet to reflect their status, should be required to provide additional documentation.

Barbara Headrick, president of the League of Women Voters of North Dakota, worries it would disenfranchise New Americans from going back to the polls in future elections.

"This is a bill trying to correct a problem that doesn't exist," Headrick argued. "There aren't people trying to vote by pretending to be citizens. And the unintended consequences can be turning away people who have every right to vote."

The Heritage Foundation has documented only three cases of election fraud in North Dakota over the past decade, and none involved a noncitizen trying to vote. Citizenship bills have surfaced in both the House and Senate this session. One has cleared the House. The Senate bill's co-sponsor argues North Dakota should not wait for cases to pop up in the future, while pointing to precautionary steps such as temporary ballots pending additional documentation.

Some voters of color were turned away during last year's primary after not having additional documentation with them. It prompted an opinion from the state attorney general stating North Dakota law does not allow poll workers to demand proof.

Headrick noted it is a reminder of the dilemma such voters face.

"Some people become citizens just within weeks of the first chance to vote," Headrick stressed. "With North Dakota not having voter registration, we don't want to block their efforts to do so. "

The League of Women Voters, along with the group North Dakota Native Vote, say the proposals serve as a reminder of the barriers created for Indigenous voters when the state's 2017 Voter ID law was approved.

As for the proposed citizenship bill, North Dakota's Secretary of State warned about unintended consequences, but still testified in support of the measure.

The 2024 presidential election has raised complex emotions for incarcerated Ohioans, many of whom are unable to vote but remain deeply engaged in political discussions.

As a group often left out of political discourse, their views on the election reflect a broader desire for involvement in decisions that directly affect their lives.

Nicole Lewis, engagement editor for The Marshall Project, talked about the findings of its new survey of Ohio's incarcerated population.

"Many of the people who oversee the system are elected officials, sheriffs, judges, district attorneys," Lewis observed. "and so incarcerated people have a really unique perspective on how well the people in those roles are executing their jobs."

The presidential election held particular significance this year, with concerns about criminal justice reform, sentencing policies and who can participate in elections. Despite limited news access, many voiced strong opinions about candidates, especially former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor.

Lewis noted the broader implications of the political divide, especially in how those inside view figures like Trump and Harris.

"Many, many people told us, 'How can I move forward?'" Lewis reported. "'How can I believe that society would want me back if they're so willing to cast Donald Trump aside and make his felony convictions a complete disqualification for public office?'"

While people in prison in Ohio may not have had the opportunity to vote in the 2024 election, advocates said their voices and perspectives are crucial to understanding the political landscape. Their insights, shaped by years behind bars, are particularly relevant as more individuals regain the right to vote upon release and the effects of their views could shape the future of both criminal justice reform and electoral engagement nationwide.


get more stories like this via email

Wisconsinites overwhelmingly voted 'yes' on a record number of school funding measures, according to a new Wisconsin Policy Forum study. The appeals essentially asked voters to increase their own property taxes to fund school operations across the state. Voters favored a record number 169 referendums, authorizing a record total of $4.4 billion in new funding for 145 school districts.

Denise Gaumer Hutchison, Northwest regional organizer with the Wisconsin Public Education Network, said districts are being forced to take their needs to the ballot box to fund gaps between prioritizing students and overdue bills.

"The first responsibility of our public schools across the state is to educate children and to take care of the kids and the families they serve, every single day," she said. "So, that means any available funds that public schools have they put toward educating children. And so, if that means a boiler has to be patched rather than replaced, that's what they're going to do."

Almost half of the state's 421 school districts passed a referendum in April or November. Hutchison blames the state for not adequately funding school priorities, from building maintenance, to student mental-health services. The state superintendent announced last week the proposed 2025-27 budget would include $4 billion more in spending for public schools.

Despite 78% of the ballot measures passing, Hutchson said the districts where voters turned them down are in dire need of support to keep their doors open. Regardless of whether taxpayers have children in public schools, she says, the focus should be on providing every Wisconsin student with a quality education.

"I want their experience in public schools to be as awesome as my 25 and 26-year-old's were. I want them to get to be able to participate in sports, in theater, in drama and DECA, and learn about the history of our state and our country, and think about what our state and our country can be," she continued.

The study found factors like inflation outpacing the state allocated per-student revenue limits, the loss of pandemic aid and staff competition in a tight labor market are all factors that contributed to the record number of referendums.


get more stories like this via email

The presidential vote was close in Nevada and with the results in, local organizations leaning more progressive believe the re-election of Donald Trump could put much of the progress made in the Silver State in jeopardy.

Shelbie Swartz, executive director of Battle Born Progress, said Nevadans should take Trump's campaign promises seriously. She called on leaders in Carson City and in Congress to "stand up for their constituents," whom she argued a Trump administration could target, from immigrants to people who identify as transgender.

"If your values change based on polling, if your willingness to fight for the dignity of all Nevadans does not extend to our transgender siblings, then those are not values," Swartz contended. "They're talking points drafted in pencil."

Swartz stressed she has faith in the Nevada Legislature to pass bills to uphold and protect the rights of Nevadans but added the biggest challenge will be seeing what can make it across Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo's desk. Last year, Lombardo, who endorsed Donald Trump, vetoed a record 75 bills passed by the Legislature's Democratic majority.

Trump campaigned on the idea of mass deportations and has doubled down on the threat since his win.

Leo Murrieta, executive director of the group Make the Road Action Nevada, said it is time for leaders who are ready to move beyond what he calls "fear-based policies," to advocate instead for immigration reform, including clearer, earned pathways to citizenship.

"It is time for leaders to see our community as an integral part of this country's fabric, not just a political talking point," Murrieta argued. "We are standing united with many other groups ready to resist any of the policies and any of the other threats that we're certainly going to face."

A new report from the American Immigration Council found a one-time mass deportation operation would cost the United States at least $315 billion to remove more than 13 million people.