Native voting-rights advocates contend two Arizona laws have made it more difficult for Native American voters to be civically engaged, despite already existing structural barriers.

Patty Ferguson-Bohnee, director of the Indian Legal Clinic at Arizona State University, said House Bill 2492 and House Bill 2243 will unfairly impact native voters.

House Bill 2492 said voters must present evidence of a physical mailing address, which Ferguson-Bohnee pointed out will present problems for many native people who simply do not have one. House Bill 2243 requires county recorders to terminate a voter's registration if they suspect someone is not a U.S. citizen. The pieces of legislation are being challenged in court but Ferguson-Bohnee argued education and outreach are also key.

"Trying to translate to tribal people in their own terms, in their own communities, why it's important to participate in voting can already be a challenge when you're dealing with a legal infrastructure that has tried to deny your existence," Ferguson-Bohnee asserted.

Just last month the U.S. House of Representatives released a report examining barriers and providing policy solutions, including the Native American Voting Rights Act, which would establish "consistent standards" for voting throughout Indian Country.

Ferguson-Bohnee encouraged all voters to participate in elections. For native people experiencing difficulties registering to vote or having problems on Election Day, she urged them to call the Election Protection Hotline at 866-687-8683.

Ferguson-Bohnee emphasized when it comes to Native American voting, there have been steps forward and then backward. Despite President Joe Biden having selected Deb Haaland to serve as the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, many still feel voiceless and lack confidence in Washington D.C. leaders.

"There is some feeling within Indian Country and among some Native people is, 'Why should I be participating in this process?'" Ferguson-Bohnee observed. "But when you recognize that people who are elected actually have touch pointed in your everyday life, even if you're in a remote location, because of this federal trust relationship."

Ferguson-Bohnee added realities on reservations are often very different from off the reservation and contended it should be taken into account by elected officials when creating policy affecting the entire state of Arizona.


get more stories like this via email

The arrival of social media some 20 years ago has created a challenge when it comes to finding nonpartisan political information.

The League of Women Voters, founded in 1920, does its best to offer voters a more neutral option. Last year, New Mexico implemented a law to better fund elections, in part meant to stem recent high turnover among election officials.

Kathy Brook, co-president of the League of Women Voters of New Mexico, believes voters can trust their county clerks to do a good job.

"Pretty much throughout the country there have been improvements in the operations of elections," Brook pointed out. "During the last election we got quite a few county clerks in the state to do very short videos describing the security of the election process."

The Election Performance Index ranks New Mexico best in the nation based on the 2022 midterm elections in terms of voter registration rates, postelection audits, security protocols, ballot rejection rates, wait times and more. The Index is a product of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Before the internet, many voters in both political parties relied on the League's hard copy nonpartisan Voter Guide, still available at most public libraries prior to an election. There are more options now but Brook acknowledged some voters still want the tactile experience.

"We have a fairly decent electronic tool, but those people who've gotten their information from printed guides for 30, 40 years like to see the printed guide," Brook observed.

The League lobbies legislation at the national, state, and local levels, based on positions crafted at national conventions. Members of state and local leagues determine their leagues' positions on state and local issues, consistent with the national positions.

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

Voters across Minnesota will be participating in today's primary.

At the same time, community-level organizers are starting to engage with Latino voters, making sure they're energized and ready to take part in the November election.

Communities Organizing Latino Power and Action - COPAL - just re-launched its Minnesota Latino Vote program, one of the largest election outreach efforts among Spanish-speaking populations within the state.

Organizing director Ryan Perez said they hope to make roughly 100,000 connections through their phone banks, along with 10,000 door knocks.

He predicted the Latino vote will play a big role in deciding races in certain districts, especially the bottom half of the state.

"Southern Minnesota in the last 20 years has been basically the major growth of the Latino community in Minnesota," said Perez. "Places like Austin, Worthington - these are places where Latino voters can and do make a difference in outcomes."

Organizers are still trying to overcome registration gaps among eligible Latino voters, but they do see opportunity in getting younger generations to cast their ballots.

Census data show there are 345,000 Latinos in Minnesota - 6% of the state's population. Despite some of the gaps, there was a significant increase in the Latino turnout between the 2016 election and 2020.

In the 2022 midterms, Perez said Latinos in Minnesota were concerned about issues like healthcare and driver's licenses for all - a plan eventually adopted at the state level.

He said this year, the presidential election - and the inclusion of Gov. Tim Walz on the Democratic ticket - has many Spanish-speaking voters aware of what lies ahead.

But he said candidates and political analysts shouldn't make assumptions this voting bloc thinks the same way about everything.

"Especially when we're talking about a group like Latinos," said Perez, "we're talking about people from different countries, different preferred languages."

That means priorities might differ among Latino voters, based on their family's origins.

As for COPAL's outreach program, Perez said it goes beyond gathering feedback on the top concerns. Latinos are provided information about how and where to vote, and what their voting rights are.

By Lydia Larsen for Inside Climate News.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Wisconsin News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

Environmental groups in Wisconsin are urging voters to reject two proposed amendments to the state constitution in the upcoming Aug. 13 primary. The measures, if approved, would remove the governor from the process of allocating certain federal funds and instead place control in the hands of the legislature. Members of Wisconsin's Republican-controlled legislature proposed the amendments in an attempt to rein in what they see as a series of oversteps by the state's Democratic governor, Tony Evers.

In addition to the environmental groups, voters rights groups, the Wisconsin Democratic Party and other concerned citizens say the changes would introduce delays into federal disaster relief funding and generate uncertainties in the process through which the state allocates federal funding. The proposed changes come at a time when the state is poised to receive millions from the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for clean energy projects.

"These amendments disallow the governor from doing the things necessary to protect human health and the environment in an expeditious way," said Meleesa Johnson, executive director of Wisconsin's Green Fire, a non-partisan conservation organization.

Representative Robert Wittke, a Republican who wrote and sponsored the amendments, said the changes are a non-partisan move that would lead to better governance of federal funds within the state. The ballot measure stems from a disagreement between Republican state legislators and Evers regarding the state's allotment from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Evers vetoed a bill that would give the legislature oversight on ARPA spending, saying that any disagreements or delays would prevent Wisconsinites from getting the aid they need. He ultimately ended up spending the money on assistance for small businesses, infrastructure upgrades, pandemic response and the tourism industry.

The amendments are intended to apply to a small number of federal funds that do not have a specifically designated use, such as the $5 billion in ARPA funds. According to the state constitution, the governor can allocate those federal funds without the legislature's approval. These dollars ultimately make up a small portion of the total federal money that enters the state each year.

After Evers vetoed the legislature's attempts to exert more control over the ARPA funding in March of 2021, Republicans introduced these amendments to prevent a similar situation from occurring again.

Johnson sees these amendments as part of a sustained movement that undermines the checks and balances in the state's constitution. In the past 15 years, a series of laws and court cases have slowly moved power to the legislative branch, thus limiting the executive branch's ability to protect natural resources. Johnson believes these amendments on the August ballot are another step in this movement.

To Jennifer Giegerich, the government affairs director for the Wisconsin Conservation Voters, the amendments are a dramatic change for a problem that doesn't really exist. After all, most federal funds enter the state with a designated purpose. Those are line items in the state budget that's approved by both houses of the legislature and the governor. Instead, what the amendments will do is create confusion among voters and, if approved, among the courts, administrative offices and officials that will have to negotiate how to interpret the broad language, she said.

"There's a whole lot of concern about what [the changes] would actually mean," Giegerich said. "It's very confusing language and we just don't have any idea of what that could open the door to."

According to an analysis from the University of Wisconsin Law School, it's unclear if the passed amendments could impact the allocation of federal funds on a wider scale. It's common for issues relating to new constitutional amendments to end up in the courts and it's very possible the same could happen in this case. The courts could ultimately decide the exact limits of what federal funding is covered under these amendments.

Disaster Relief Funding

One of the main concerns for environmental groups is that the amendments, if approved, would tie up federal funding for disaster relief. The governor is responsible for declaring a state of emergency. This declaration begins a process of applying for and subsequently bringing funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency into the state and allocating them appropriately.

This change is especially relevant as Wisconsin continues to see more flooding and extreme weather due to climate change. June was the state's sixth wettest month on record, and heavy rains led to flooding and storm damage. This summer is a big flip from last year, which was the fifth driest June in Wisconsin's history.

Tony Wilkin Gibart, the executive director for the Midwest Environmental Advocates, said that even if the legislature doesn't aim to be an obstacle in this process, their involvement would ultimately slow down the process. It's possible that in the event of a natural disaster, such as a flood, tornado or drought, the legislature would need to be in session to allocate the money if the new amendments go into effect.

"That's antithetical to the whole purpose of disaster relief," Gibart said. "Emergency assistance is the last type of funding we would want to be delayed for political reasons."

Wittke said he and his colleagues considered this issue and, given the agencies through which the emergency relief funds move, it shouldn't impact that kind of funding.

But the Wisconsin Policy Forum, a non-partisan policy research group, said in a report that the changes could affect the deployment of emergency funds and, in the case of delays or extreme situations, cause the state to lose out on funding.

Inflation Reduction Act Grants

Grants from the IRA, including $3 million for the state's Office of Sustainability and Clean Energy and $62 million for solar development, help the state work on climate projects without specific money from the legislature. Although Evers proposed money in the state budget for clean energy and other environmental projects, the Republican-controlled legislature historically has not approved money for climate related projects, making federal grants, especially the IRA, one of the only avenues for supporting these programs.

At the moment, it's difficult to predict how the amendments would impact the state's ability to spend other types of federal funds. Given the vague language in the amendments, it's possible Wisconsin would become less competitive for federal grants, including those under the Inflation Reduction Act, according to Wilkin Gibart.

Tribes, municipalities and nonprofits within the state would not be affected by the amendments, as the constitutional changes only apply for money entering the state government.

Nearby states, including Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, are doing their best to take advantage of IRA funding, according to Courtney Bourgoin, senior policy and advocacy manager at Evergreen Action, an environmental advocacy group. These states have passed laws that help align their policies to IRA funding opportunities.

"It's unfortunate to be in such a historic, opportune moment that you'd see [Wisconsin] Republicans racing to prevent investment in their own state," Bourgoin said.

Wittke said that if the federal government specifies the purpose of the funding, he doesn't believe it would affect how that money is allocated in the state

In applications for these highly competitive federal grants, state agencies need to explain how they will use the federal dollars. The amendments could complicate the arguments these agencies can make in grant applications, Wilkin Gibart said. Additionally, delays in allocating the money could mean that the state could lose it.

If the amendments are approved by voters, it's up to the legislature to determine how the new rules will work, and so far, it's not clear what that would look like, Hillary Vedvig, the director of government relations at the Nature Conservancy in Wisconsin, said.

Because of this, it's almost impossible to know the exact effect the amendments will have on the state's ability to accept IRA funding or other federal funding for conservation projects in the state.

"It's just really hard to pinpoint exactly what's on the line," Vedvig said. "So we're taking the position that everything is on the line, because it all could be."


Lydia Larsen wrote this article for Inside Climate News.


get more stories like this via email