WICHITA, Kan. (KAKE) — Trash littered the Jackie Robinson Pavilion Sunday morning; a plaque with the words ‘FRIENDS OF JACKIE’ had the name ‘Jackie’ crossed out in pink marker — ‘Mark Goston’ written underneath.
“This kind of stuff is always upsetting, no matter where it happens, but it’s particularly annoying when it affects League 42,” the league wrote in a Facebook post. “We have worked hard to improve these facilities from when we started 13 years ago. And there is no comparison.”
This isn’t the first time a League 42 baseball facility has been vandalized. In 2024, Wichita police arrested 45-year-old Ricky Alderete in connection with the theft and burning of a statue of Jackie Robinson in McAdams Park.
The statue was donated to the non-profit baseball group League 42 in 2021. Soon after the theft, the founder and executive director of League 42, Bob Lutz, launched a GoFundMe campaign to raise funds to replace the statue.
The youth baseball league said it received a $100,000 gift from Major League Baseball to replace a statue of Jackie Robinson. The GoFundMe raised a total of $194,780.
After six months without the statue, a new Jackie Robinson statue was unveiled in August 2024.
Now, in light of the recent vandalism at the pavilion, the league is working with the City of Wichita and District 1 councilman Joseph Shepard, according to a Facebook post.
“… we will be discussing ways to combat this nonsense,” League 42 wrote. “I don’t understand why people can’t just leave things alone. We want to share our facilities, and we believe the Jackie Robinson Pavilion is a destination spot for Wichitans and for visitors to our city. But when our citizens do this kind of damage, what are we really showing off?”
KAKE crews have confirmed the trash has been cleaned.
Donald Trump is attempting to select his own citizenry and control who can vote by gathering the personal details of all Americans, Arizona’s top election official has warned.
Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state, fears that the Trump administration’s active efforts to forcibly extract voter files from 30 states including Fontes’s own are part of a bigger plan to gather vital information on all US citizens into a centralised database. “Trump is trying to amass a master list that will allow him to declare someone an enemy of the state,” he said.
In his 19th-floor office in Phoenix, Fontes said that in his view Trump wants to create the equivalent of “apartheid in the United States” and likened his actions to those of his counterpart in North Korea. With personal information on all Americans at his disposal, the president could regulate key aspects of the lives of his opponents, including “shutting off their bank accounts, or keeping them from getting healthcare”.
“This is Donald Trump trying to pick his own voters,” he said.
Fontes won a major victory in his running battle with the Trump administration on Tuesday when a federal judge threw out a lawsuit from the US justice department against Arizona over its refusal to hand over its voter roll. The judge, Susan Brnovich, a Trump appointee, ruled that the Department of Justice was not entitled to the document under federal law.
The suit was part of a push by the DoJ to obtain voter roll information from all 50 states, suing 30 including Arizona that have refused to co-operate. At least 13 states have voluntarily complied with the DoJ’s demands, but many others are resisting.
In those cases where courts have ruled on the dispute – California, Oregon, Michigan, Massachusetts and Rhode Island – all judges have found against the administration. Fontes – who was himself sued after he declined to hand over the data, pointing out that it would be illegal under state law to divulge sensitive personal information about almost 5 million Arizonan voters – has joined that list of vindicated parties.
“This is now the sixth federal court to reach the same conclusion. Arizona acted correctly in refusing this request, and today’s ruling vindicates that decision,” he said.
Fontes was elected secretary of state four years ago as part of a sweep by Democrats of top statewide positions. Katie Hobbs was elected governor and Kris Mayes as attorney general.
All three are now in re-election battles facing Republican challengers who have in varying degrees embraced the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
Arizona has for years been pivotal to Trump’s efforts to stoke election denial conspiracy theories. Maricopa county, which covers Phoenix, is one of the largest and most electorally consequential swing counties in the country.
In 2020, it was the focus of a fierce battle in which Trump loyalists attempted to declare victory in the face of his defeat to Democratic rival Joe Biden. The Republican-controlled state senate contracted Cyber Ninjas, a private security firm that had no background in election administration, to conduct an audit into Maricopa county’s results.
The audit, which was widely debunked, concluded that Biden had won the election.
Arizona is now back in the crosshairs as the November midterm elections approach. The state has been the subject of at least three federal investigations into its election procedures, with the Trump administration continuing to press unfounded claims that electoral fraud is rife.
The DoJ claims that its data demands aim to root out rampant fraud and voting by noncitizens. Fontes rejects that argument .
“This doesn’t have anything to do with non-citizens, because non-citizens don’t vote. Every study shows that,” he said. “So what you have here is an unprecedented invasion into the privacy of Americans, sold under a false narrative of illegal voting.”
In March the FBI seized a vast stash of digital data that had been compiled by the Cyber Ninjas’ audit of Maricopa county in 2020. Though it is unclear what exactly was in the trove, it is possible that it included details of votes cast and images of actual ballots.
The material was handed over to FBI agents under a federal grand jury subpoena by the Republican president of the state senate, Warren Petersen. Fontes was scathing about Petersen’s decision to cooperate with the subpoena, suggesting it may have broken state data-protection laws.
“He was so quick to turn over the material as a political favor to Donald Trump,” Fontes said. “Clearly he had no intention of protecting Arizona voters or legal processes.”
Petersen’s compliance with the FBI subpoena is likely to be a factor in the mid-term election for Arizona attorney general. He is currently the frontrunner to become the Republican candidate challenging Mayes, the incumbent Democrat.
The third federal investigation into Arizona elections is being conducted by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the investigative arm of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It is also taking a renewed look at the 2020 presidential election result in a further bizarre move to relitigate a contest that was settled more than five years ago.
“It’s like herpes,” Fontes said, referring to the perpetual resurfacing of the election denial conspiracy in Arizona. “It just keeps coming back. And I just don’t think the state, or the nation, deserves that.”
Trump’s latest ploy to wrestle control over elections from the states is his executive order last month that tries to limit mail-in voting by creating a national voter file to which the US postal service would have to defer before delivering mail ballots. The order, which is being challenged as unconstitutional, is especially sensitive in Arizona, where 80% of votes are cast by mail in a system devised decades ago, ironically, by the Republican party.
“This is a bald-faced attempt at completely controlling American democracy according to the whims of one political actor, and that’s not just un-American, it’s absolutely anti-American,” Fontes said.
Fontes is gearing up for his own potentially bruising re-election battle in November, in which he is likely to be competing against an election denialist. The two Republicans vying for their party’s candidacy in the secretary of state’s race both have election-denial track records.
Alexander Kolodin, a lawyer, was placed on probation by the state bar association after he filed lawsuits challenging Biden’s 2020 victory that a judge slammed as being full of “gossip and innuendo”.
The other candidate, the former chair of the Arizona Republican party, Gina Swoboda, was the Trump campaign’s director of operations on election day in 2020. She claimed in a lawsuit that was dismissed for lack of evidence that more than 1 million ineligible voters may have been on the rolls.
Fontes said he was “cautiously optimistic” that he and his Democratic peers would sweep the state again in November. But he conceded that “we have to be extra vigilant”.
“We have to spend every single day from now until November focused on communicating as clearly as we can with every Arizona voter,” he said.
Two factors were in play this midterm cycle that would make re-election more difficult, he said: unlike in 2022, there is no US senate race in Arizona this year, so there is less of a draw to attract Democratic voters to the polls.
The other factor he pointed to was that since 2022, the rightwing activist group Turning Point USA has grown in influence. Turning Point, whose leader Charlie Kirk was killed by a gunman in September, is headquartered in Arizona and in Fontes’s view has largely surplanted the old Republican party in the state.
“We’ve got to be cautious because we’re going to be running against the conspiracy theories, lies and misrepresentations,” he said. “The stakes of this election are enormous, and every voter will be impacted by the outcome.”
LOCAL: Palm Beach County reverses course, approving $302K for Compass LGBTQ Center repairs after backlash over an anti-DEI-related denial.tinyurl.com/ywnjvs26
(Gift Article) BAD: Appeals court limits abortion pill access nationwideA federal appeals court issued a ruling that would temporarily block people from accessing abortion pills through telehealth providers and via mail.wapo.st/3Rfmdxb
Trump lies: "We won the popular vote the first time too by a lot. By millions. They'd already introduce me, 'Donald Trump who lost the popular vote.' That's why I said, I got to win the popular vote. They cheat like hell."
Trump: "Somalia, it's got no anything. It's got one thing that's really strong — crime. All they do is run around shooting each other. It's filthy dirty, disgusting. It's a horrible place. They come here, and Ilhan Omar, she heads it. She married her brother. I would imagine they're looking at her"
Trump speaking in The Villages: "I don't happen to be a senior. I'm much younger than you. I'm a much younger man than you. Look at you old guys. Wouldn't you like to by my age? Young, vital, vibrant."
🚨 UPDATE: Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) has called a special session — setting the stage for Republicans to gerrymander and eliminate the state’s last Democratic seat in Memphis at the expense of Black voters.
BREAKING: Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) called a special session to redraw the state's congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterms.The move, which comes after SCOTUS' gutting of the Voting Rights Act, will likely throw the state's primaries and hand the GOP two more House seats.
FLORIDA MAN: Jury Convicts Florida Ex-Congressman of Secretly Lobbying for VenezuelaThe nation’s state-run oil company hired David Rivera’s consulting firm for $50 million to influence members of Congress and the White House.
EXCLUSIVE: Trump told Congress that the Iran war has “terminated” — an effort to justify not seeking authorization after the conflict reached a 60-day threshold.
HEGSETH: On Iran, we are in a ceasefire right now, which I understand means the 60 day clock pauses or stopsKAINE: I do not believe the statute would support that
The War Powers Resolution says the President has 60 calendar days to get approval from Congress or end the fighting.The U.S. Navy is blockading Iranian ports right now. You cannot claim the fighting is “paused” while American warships are stopping Iranian ships by force. Both things can't be true.
In the decades since this law was written, no president of either party has ever tried this argument. Not Reagan, either Bush, Clinton, Obama, Biden, or even Trump in his first term. Hegseth made it up because the deadline is tomorrow and he’s looking for an easy way out.
The 60-day window will expire Friday, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said during a hearing Thursday, “We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means, the 60-day clock pauses or stops.”abcnews.com/US/wireStory…
Meta is raising the prospect of shutting down social media services in New Mexico in response to a push by state prosecutors for fundamental changes to platforms, including Instagram, to protect the mental health and safety of children.
In a 6-3 decision on Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district, ruling it an unconstitutional gerrymander. Immediately, Louisiana conservatives started redrawing the state’s congressional districts, without any of them being majority Black. Now, election maps from local school districts to state legislatures to Congress will be redrawn to undermine minority representation.
Louisiana is now planning to postpone the state’s May 16 primary, in which many people have already voted, so it can redraw the congressional maps. And just announced early this evening, Alabama and Tennessee will also be redrawing their congressional maps before the midterms. They won’t be the last.
Don’t be surprised if Republicans don’t create a red sweep of congressional districts across the South on Election Day.
The Voting Rights Act was created to prohibit discrimination in American voting and was signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. The act ended things like literacy tests for minorities before they could be allowed to vote. It increased voter turnout among black Americans. According to the National Archives, around 250,000 new Black voters registered to vote by the end of 1965. Nine out of 13 Southern states had more than 50 percent of African Americans registered to vote by the end of 1966. What the Supreme Court did on Wednesday was to encourage discrimination in American voting.
The conservative Supreme Court has been chipping away at the Voting Rights Act for years. The court issued a ruling in 2013 that killed federal oversight of voting rules in nine states, and led to over 1,000 closings of voting precincts, mostly in Black districts. Studies years later show that it increased the racial turnout gap, translating to hundreds of thousands of uncast ballots by voters of color in the 2022 election. Remember the 2013 ruling the next time you hear a MAGAt brag about Trump sweeping all of the swing states in 2024.
In 2021, the court ruled that fears of election fraud could justify new election rules without evidence that any fraud had occurred in the past, or that new rules created by Republicans in the aftermath of Donald Trump losing the 2020 election would make elections safer.
Now the court has ruled that the majority-minority congressional districts created with the intent of ensuring minority voters could elect candidates of their choice were unconstitutional. This will lead to states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Carolina, etc, having congressional delegations without any Black members.
Samuel Alito wrote the conservative court’s majority decision and said that the gerrymandered district that gave the state its second Black congressional representative was unconstitutional. The six conservatives say that this congressional district was discriminating.
The Civil Rights Act required Southern states with a history of voter discrimination to obtain federal approval before making changes to their voting laws. Now, that’s gone. Yeehaw states will now be free to discriminate in their elections without the burden of the federal government stopping them.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act outlaws any voting practice that creates hurdles to voters “on account of race or color.” Technically, that provision has not been eliminated, but as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, it leaves the provision “all but a dead letter.” She said the bar to show intentional discrimination is “an almost insurmountable barrier for challenges to any voting rights issues to prove discrimination.”
The Rev. Al Sharpton called the high court’s decision a “bullet in the heart of the voting rights movement, and said in a statement, “The Supreme Court has not just weakened a law, it has humiliated and dismantled the life’s work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, and every man and woman who marched, bled, and died for Black Americans to have an equal voice at the ballot box.” It’s like the Roberts Court has just burned down the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
Cliff Albright, a co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter, said Wednesday’s ruling “means that you have entire communities that can go without having representation. It is literally throwing us back to the Jim Crow era unapologetically, and that’s not exaggeration.”
Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Washington office, said the court’s steady work to erode the Voting Rights Act, culminating in Wednesday’s decision, amounted to “burying it without the funeral.”
Maria Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino, said the decision will allow more aggressive “cracking and packing” of populations to dilute their votes, “not just in congressional districts but also in state legislatures, county commissions, school boards, and city councils.”
Marc Morial, National Urban League president and CEO, said, “This decision is a continuation of a frontal assault on the gains of the Civil Rights Movement that began in 1954 with the Brown versus Board of Education decision.
Sophia Lin Lakin, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project pointedout that a loss of representation, especially in state legislatures and Congress, will translate into minority communities losing a voice on issues that matter to them, such as healthcare, education and needed public works upgrades, and said, “States can now point to partisan objectives to justify maps that strip voters of color of representation, and federal courts will have little basis to intervene.”
Shalela Dowdy, an Alabama resident who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit that resulted in the creation of a new Alabama district in 2023, said, “Putting it in the hands of the states on this level is dangerous. There’s just been a history of the states not doing the right thing based off their state population.”
Stupid and racist, conservatives, like Gary McCoyandMargolis & Cox, love to claim that rules and laws that create black congressional districts, and the Civil Rights Act itself, are racist. But what they are doing is eliminating black representation while creating more for whites.
The Supreme Court has once again taken our nation backward. And again, this is the fault of Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, who broke every rule and norm they could to pack the court with their troglodytes, even by stealing appointments from Democratic presidents. This court has actually taken away rights from Americans, like the guarantee of a woman’s right to choose.
And again, the court is doing everything it can to make it much more difficult to defeat Republicans.
Republicans love to claim that they’re the party that passed the Voting Rights Act. While not technically true, it could not have passed without Republican support. But now, the Republican Party is the one to kill the Voting Rights Act.
Donald Trump’s legacy will not be ballrooms, arches, his face on coins, passports, and his name on federal structures; it will be creating the court that killed democracy.
Crows: My Neighbourhood is full of crows. While you do find them in cornfields, they are also an urban bird. They also have the ability to mimic, like a parrot or a mynah. They are extremely intelligent. I like them. My friend and cartooning colleague Chris Britt creates paintings of crows. I texted him once to tell him that I just saw a murder outside my house. On some days, I have very large and loud murders. (snip-MORE)
Some entertaining; some, things about which to think. The first bit is somber; exceedingly somber. It is easy to just click through on the title to read the entire post; I subscribe for free, so I don’t want to just take the whole thing. Beneath, more stuff! Enjoy your May Day. 🌺
When the Supreme Court dealt the final blow to the Voting Rights Act, it completed its mission to erase the tangible results of the Civil Rights Movement.
The dictum,”once a free man, always a free man,” though founded about as deeply in law, history and reason as, that “all men are born free and equal,” … [is] unimportant and ineffectual to protect the rights of citizens of slave States.
— Judge Hamilton Gamble
On March 22, 1852, America made a slave.
America’s race-based, constitutionally enforced system that legally extracted labor and intellectual property through violence or the threat of violence existed long before the 13 English colonies staged an insurrection against their British master. Colonial law made the condition intergenerational and perpetual. The founders wrote the fugitive slave clause to ensure that people who had already been reduced to human chattel couldn’t free themselves. But the Constitution didn’t make someone a slave. (snip-MORE, and so worth the click!)
(Click the headline right up there for more info, or scroll down for yet more links and info)
The next National Day of Action is right around the corner, May Day, Friday, May 1st.
The national call is for no business as usual. This will look different in different places. In some locations, it will mean no work, no school, and no shopping. (snip)
This May Day, we’re flexing our economic power as workers, students, and everyday people to send a clear message to the Trump regime: we will not do business as usual while they trample our rights, terrorize our communities, and drag us into a senseless war in Iran.
Note: A core principle behind all May Day events is a commitment to nonviolent action. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events. No weapons are permitted under any circumstances. (snip)
It’s time for the conditions and standard of living that the working class deserves. We’re beginning a year of action on May 1st with a series of protests, strikes, and other direct action opportunities.
MAY 1 NATIONAL DAY OF ACTIONS:
THRIVING WAGES The working class people have been taken advantage of for far too long! Join us as we mobilize to create worldwide plans of action for THRIVING WAGES. We are demanding at least $20/hr as well as better union laws, the ease of information for organizing co-ops, and better working conditions. But wait, there’s more! We are also demanding mandatory PTO, paternal leave, and good benefits.
Why do we want these demands? Inflation over the last year has risen over 7% and continues to climb. Rents and housing costs have skyrocketed. The costs of consumer goods as greatly increased. Yet corporations and billionaires have doubled their wealth in 2 years as the working class has struggled during a pandemic that has killed over 850,000 Americans and counting. (snip-MORE)
May 1, 1886 May Day was called Emancipation Day in 1886 when 340,000 went on strike (though it was Saturday it was a regular day of work) in Chicago for the 8-hour workday.
May 1, 1890 May Day labor demonstrations spread to thirteen other countries; 30,000 marched in Chicago as the newly prominent American Federation of Labor threw its weight behind the 8-hour day campaign.
May 1, 1933 Dorothy Day The Catholic Worker newspaper was founded by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin. Dorothy Day said, “God meant things to be much easier than we have made them,” and Peter Maurin wanted to build a society “where it is easier for people to be good.” Peter Maurin
May 1, 1948 Senator Glen Hearst Taylor (D-Idaho) was arrested in Birmingham, Alabama, for trying to enter a meeting through a door marked for “Negroes” rather than using the “whites only” door, and convicted of disorderly conduct. Taylor was the Progressive Party candidate for Vice President, running mate of Henry Wallace. He was in Birmingham to address the Southern Negro Youth Congress.
May 1, 1965 Second Factory for Peace opened in Onllwyn, Dulais Valley, in south Wales, employing disabled miners. Tom McAlpine, active in the Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, and a supporter of cooperatives and industrial democracy, established Rowen Engineering in both Wales and Glasgow, Scotland.
May 1, 1967 Soviet youths openly defied police and danced the twist in Moscow’s Red Square during May Day celebrations. In the early ‘60s the Twist had been banned in Buffalo, New York, and Tampa, Florida. The religious right claimed the Twist was actually a pagan fertility dance. Are you old enough to remember Chubby Checker? — May 1, 1971 Five days of anti-war May Day protests began in Washington, D.C., resulting in over 14,000 arrests—the largest mass civil disobedience in U.S. history. — May 1, 1986
One million South Africans demonstrated their opposition to apartheid in a strike organized by the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)
So, some of us don’t get around much anymore. Some of us may be somehow constrained to go to work. Some of us have waited all week to buy a few needed groceries. Maybe we wanted to participate, but just forgot and now it’s tomorrow, and there doesn’t seem to be a way to do it. How can we participate? Well, click onto any or all of these links to find out. There is no fault or fail in not being able to do the primary actions, but there are other ways to participate, and even if we don’t find a way, we can certainly work toward being able to observe a personal May Day now and then on our own. We can simplify, and always work to keep our spending where it will be most useful to community. And maybe we can watch someone else’s kids or pets while they go and do.Benefitting our communities while not feeding the already-wealthy with our commerce, labor, and dollars will benefit people, and is the objective. Above this graf are resources. May Day is tomorrow. Let’s do all we can!
Leave it to Donald Trump to have to be taught about checks and balances by a king.
Donald Trump is enamored of King Charles and the British monarchy, even while disliking the British government. Donald Trump is envious because he wants to be a king. For most people, being president would be enough. (snip-MORE)
You might remember last year the documentary I’m involved in, Democracy Under Siege, was having trouble finding a U.S. distributor although it was received enthusiastically overseas. Well, we’re going rogue and here’s your opportunity to watch it for free from May 1-4. Sign up here.
* Also, Laura Nix and I will be speaking with the satirist and free speech defender Andy Borowitz on his podcast May 3rd. Don’t miss it!
The Secret Service has been praised endlessly for the job they did Saturday night, protecting Donald Trump. They did everything they could to make the ballroom at the Washington Hilton a safe space for Trump, and you must admit, they succeeded. Not one comedian got into the room.
What? Did you think I was talking about a shooter? (snip-MORE)
On Monday, the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee passed HB26-1322, a bill that creates a private civil right of action allowing survivors of conversion therapy to sue the practitioners who subjected them to it. The bill, which has no statute of limitations for such claims, would likely make the practice of conversion therapy financially prohibitive in the state. It comes in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision last month in Chiles v. Salazar, which found that Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy unconstitutional—effectively legalizing the discredited practice nationwide. The new bill has one final legislative hurdle to clear—the full Colorado Senate—before heading to Governor Jared Polis’s desk, though the governor has so far offered only lukewarm signals about whether he will sign it, saying he is “hopeful there is still time to construct a framework he could support.”
The bill targets what it calls “sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts”—defined as “any practice by a licensed mental health professional that seeks to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity outcome, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of a particular sex or gender, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity the patient is directed toward.” The inclusion of “eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions” is notable—conversion therapists have long used this framework to argue disingenuously that they are not trying to change a person’s sexual orientation, merely helping them manage unwanted feelings. The bill explicitly carves out any counseling or therapy that “provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a patient” or “facilitates a patient’s coping, social support, and identity exploration and development”—meaning therapists who support a patient’s own process of self-discovery, without steering them toward a predetermined outcome, would face no liability.
The bill uses a novel legal mechanism to target conversion therapy—a private right of action. Rather than the government banning conversion therapy outright, which is what the Supreme Court struck down in Chiles, the bill instead allows survivors to sue their practitioners directly, stating that “a person who suffered an injury as a result of sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts may bring a civil action for damages” against their conversion therapist. It also states that a lawsuit to recover damages can be commenced “at any time without limitation,” making its statute of limitations effectively endless. The mechanism may be insulated from the constitutional problem the Supreme Court identified in Chiles because the government is not restricting speech—instead, private citizens are seeking civil remedies for harm they suffered, the same way a patient can sue a doctor for malpractice. As Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School, told Erin in the Morning after the Chiles ruling, “While the Supreme Court decision limits the abilities of states to regulate conversion therapy through professional standards, they did not limit the ability for states to protect LGBTQ youth from these abusive practices through tort or malpractice law.”
If the mechanism sounds familiar, it is because Republicans pioneered it to get around Supreme Court rulings they didn’t like—most famously in Texas’s SB 8, the 2021 abortion “bounty hunter” law. That law banned abortion after six weeks not through government enforcement but by allowing any private citizen to sue anyone who performed or aided an abortion for $10,000 in damages. The legal trick was simple: when abortion providers tried to challenge SB 8 in court, they couldn’t get an injunction because there was no government official to enjoin. Courts found that you can’t sue “the state” to block a law that only private citizens enforce. The Supreme Court effectively let SB 8 stand, and the strategy worked—abortion access in Texas collapsed virtually overnight even while Roe v. Wade was still the law of the land. Kansas used the same model in SB 244, which allows anyone to sue a transgender person for using a restroom that doesn’t match their assigned sex at birth. Now, Colorado Democrats are exploiting the same constitutional loophole in the opposite direction—using private civil enforcement to deter a harmful practice that the Supreme Court says the government cannot directly ban.
It is important to note that some have raised concerns the bill could be weaponized against gender-affirming therapists—with anti-trans groups arguing that helping a trans youth transition constitutes its own form of “conversion therapy.” But the bill contains multiple layers of protection against such misuse. Its carveouts explicitly shield counseling that provides “acceptance, support, and understanding of a patient.” The bill also has protections in its causation standard. To establish that conversion therapy caused harm, a court must weigh “the nature, duration, and intensity” of the efforts, “the age and vulnerability of the plaintiff at the time,” “the relationship between the plaintiff and the mental health professional,” and “expert testimony regarding the general psychological effects of sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts.” It is unlikely that judges will consider anti-trans activists to be considered medical “experts” on this topic.
LGBTQ+ organizations, activists, and Democratic lawmakers in the state have supported the bill’s passage. “This decision only reinforces the urgent need for state-level protections,” said One Colorado, the state’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy organization. “[HB 1322] provides a pathway for accountability, allowing survivors to seek justice against those who administer this harmful practice. We remain committed to ensuring that those responsible for such profound damage are held accountable.” Rep. Karen McCormick, a Democrat from Longmont, was blunt about the bill’s intent: “The purpose of this bill is seriously to send a chilling effect to any licensed professional therapist who may think about bringing that practice back.”
Conversion therapy is a discredited practice broadly decried by every major American medical organization. The APA concluded in a 2009 systematic review that the practice is “unlikely to be successful and involves risk of harm, including depression, suicidality, and anxiety,” and called for its total elimination. The United Nations has deemed conversion therapy a form of torture. A 2020 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that LGBTQ+ youth subjected to conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to report attempting suicide. For transgender people specifically, conversion therapy often takes the form of so-called “gender exploratory therapy,” a rebranded approach that seeks to convince trans youth they are not actually transgender, keeping transition just out of reach by tricking trans youth that it might be offered if they jump through endless hoops while intending to deny it the entire way.
The bill now heads to the full Colorado Senate for a floor vote, where Democrats hold a 23-12 majority and passage is expected. Coloradans who support the bill can contact their state senator through the Colorado General Assembly’s legislator lookup tool. If the Senate passes the bill, it will go to Governor Polis, whose signature remains the final and most uncertain step. Polis, the first openly gay governor elected in the United States, signed the original 2019 conversion therapy ban and has called the practice “a scam and a waste of people’s hard-earned money”—but his office has stopped short of committing to sign this bill, saying only that he is “hopeful there is still time to construct a framework he could support.” What changes, if any, the governor is seeking remain unclear. The bill includes a safety clause that would make it take effect on July 1, 2026, and would exempt it from voter referendum. If signed, Colorado would become the first state in the country to use a private right of action to combat conversion therapy in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Political violence is on the rise — making the job more dangerous for state lawmakers and posing new challenges for state law enforcement officials.
Every high-profile act of violence sets off new waves of threats and fears of more — the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September sent chills down the spines of elected officials throughout the country. But Utah, where he was killed, was already ahead of the curve on addressing threats to lawmakers and high-profile public officials.
Nine years earlier, it had set up a new unit to track and prevent violence against public officials.
The unit follows a four-step process, said Taylor Keys, a spokesperson for the state Department of Public Safety: It receives and identifies reports of threats and concerning behaviors, gathers the facts, assesses the individual’s risk of posing a real physical threat, and then manages the risk with intervention and case management.
But many states aren’t as proactive and prepared as Utah. Most state legislatures are in session only part-time, and many of the state enforcement agencies charged with protecting them are stretched thin and lack standardized procedures for reporting threats, collecting data and conducting regular training.
A spate of high-profile violent attacks over the past year threw this reality into stark relief.
And for some lawmakers, the environment is becoming untenable: Two recent reports show that harassment, abuse and violence are leading factors driving women and younger legislators, especially, to exit office.
State legislatures shape consequential policy and serve as a critical pipeline for higher office. But serving in office and entering the pipeline to power poses increasingly high risks to personal safety, especially for groups already underrepresented in the halls of power. While being a state lawmaker is a part-time job with a part-time salary in most states, lawmakers can’t opt out of being a full-time public figure.
“Elected and appointed officials live in a risk environment by nature of their job and their outward, public-facing positions,” said former Lt. Col. Tim Cameron of the Wyoming Highway Patrol, who spoke to The 19th in 2025 before he retired from the agency after more than 46 years in law enforcement. “Within the last year and a half to two years, that’s moved into a threat environment.”
The 19th spoke with experts and reached out to state-level law enforcement agencies in all 50 states to capture a comprehensive picture of the scope of political violence against state lawmakers and how law enforcement is responding. Officials in a dozen states told The 19th how they identify and respond to threats, what data they collect, and how they’re adapting their responses and procedures to an ever-evolving landscape.
As political violence is on the rise, many states are scrambling to keep pace. Political violence, Cameron said, was a major topic of discussion at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference he attended in 2025.
“Anyone charged with executive protection is really looking closely at what they’re doing, how they’re doing it, and looking to utilize technology to leverage that in every way they can,” he said. “So it is going to be a challenge moving forward. And nobody has enough people.”
A February report from the nonprofit organization Future Caucus, based on interviews and surveys with 89 young lawmakers in 31 states, found that threats of violence “have become a serious deterrent to both candidate recruitment and retention,” especially for women, lawmakers of color and LGBTQ+ lawmakers.
“This is a four-alarm fire,” said Layla Zaidane, the president and CEO of Future Caucus, which supports young state lawmakers in bridging divides and working on policy across the political aisle.
“They can stomach the low pay. They can stomach no staff. They can handle even trying to figure out the toxic polarization and transcending that,” Zaidane said of young lawmakers. “But political violence was the thing that, when you add it all together, was the decider of: ‘I don’t know if I’m going to run again, I don’t know if this is worth it.’”
The rise in violent incidents is having an outsized impact on women, who make up half of the United States population but account for only a third of state lawmakers; even fewer women of color are represented in the political arena.
And when it comes to hyperpolarization and the increasingly toxic and hostile climate in state capitols, “women bear the brunt of this, multi-fold, compared to their male peers,” said Aparna Ghosh, the founder and executive director of the Ghosh Innovation Lab, a nonpartisan organization that conducts research and builds tools to support diverse and representative state legislatures.
A report the Ghosh Innovation Lab published last summer, based on 60 interviews and a nationally representative survey of over 300 women legislators, concluded that the assassination of Hortman “exposed a crisis that has been building for years.” Women lawmakers, the report found, “face systematic harassment, threats, and violence that compromise their safety, well-being, and democratic participation.”
The report found that 93 percent of women lawmakers said they experienced some form of harm or abuse in office, 59 percent said it disrupted their legislative duties and 32 percent said it impacted their desire to stay in office.
“It’s not just about an incident, but it’s about the everyday things that add up that push them out of office,” Ghosh said. “This is a huge problem for democracy, because this constant harm that women are facing is eroding the intent to run for office, so it’s eroding democracy in some way.”
(Emily Scherer for The 19th)
In the wake of Hortman’s assassination, several states have weighed legislation that would allow lawmakers to have their home addresses and other identifying information removed from public records. And as federal campaign spending on security expenses has continued to climb into the millions, 25 states now officially or informally authorize state candidates to use campaign funds for personal security, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Vote Mama Foundation.
The role of law enforcement has also come under scrutiny, with the Ghosh Innovation Lab report concluding that state capitols and law enforcement “systematically fail to protect women legislators.”
The top safety shortcomings identified by women legislators surveyed for the report were a lack of training in handling threats (53 percent), the absence of a panic button for reporting incidents (46 percent) and unclear reporting procedures (42 percent). They also cited inadequate technological solutions, insufficient legal support, buildings feeling overly exposed, too few security officers and poor coordination with law enforcement.
“Whatever training they’re getting is their own responsibility, and that’s part of where the system breaks down,” said Ghosh. “It’s two things: One is that we’re not a proactive system, we react to incidents, that is one huge thing. And the second is it feels like safety and security is a legislator problem, not an institutional problem.”
At the federal level, the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) protects members of Congress, often in coordination with local law enforcement, and issues regular public assessments indicating that threats against federal lawmakers are on the rise.
But far less is known about the risk environment and security landscape for state lawmakers.
States have widely varying levels of security for their state capitol complexes and different open carry rules. A 2024 review from the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau found that 39 states use metal detectors in their capitol buildings, 31 use X-ray machines to scan packages and belongings and 10 require visitors to have photo identification.
Many states have dedicated capitol police forces, specialized units within state police or highway patrols responsible for protecting lawmakers and executive officials, or both. Local sheriff’s offices and police departments also respond to reports of threats from state lawmakers.
“The big problem is that there’s no standardization in the protocols and processes, and this is the gray zone where the system breaks down,” Ghosh said.
To get a clearer picture of the protection landscape, The 19th asked these questions to state agencies responsible for protecting state lawmakers in all 50 states:
What steps should a lawmaker take if they receive a threat?
What are the agency’s processes for identifying and responding to threats?
Does the agency collect data or produce threat assessments on threats to public officials, including state lawmakers? If not, are there plans to start collecting that data and/or to make it public, as the U.S. Capitol Police does?
Has the agency implemented or plans to implement any additional security measures, safety plans or training for state lawmakers/capitol protectees in the wake of the Hortman and Kirk shootings?
Representatives of law enforcement agencies in 27 states responded to The 19th’s inquiries. Representatives of agencies in four states declined to comment, and 19 did not respond to requests for comment. Of the agencies that responded, many declined to share specific security plans or details but said they were committed to ensuring the security of state elected officials and those working at and visiting state capitol complexes.
The basics are the same: All agencies said lawmakers should immediately report a threat to a state, capitol or local law enforcement agency. But where lawmakers report threats can vary depending on whether the legislature is in session and the nature of the threat: a lawmaker might report a threat to the state capitol police or the highway patrol if the legislature is in session, or to their local police or sheriff’s department if they’re in their home county.
All the law enforcement officials emphasized that keeping evidence of threats is important.
Chris Loftis, a spokesperson for the Washington State Patrol, also said lawmakers should preserve “all evidence, including emails, voicemails, and social media posts” and are “advised not to engage directly with the individual making the threat.”
States use different methods to identify and trace threats. Many said they work with other agencies to monitor, identify and respond to threats. New York State Police spokesman Beau Duffy said the agency has a team of social media analysts who identify threats. Sgt. Ricardo Breceda of the New Mexico State Police said they use a variety of sources, including law enforcement databases.
“Our response depends on the nature and severity of the threat and can range from routine follow-up investigations to the activation of specialized tactical teams if necessary,” Breceda said.
Some officials and courts have found that some harassing and abrasive rhetoric directed at public officials falls under the First Amendment’s free speech protections, a finding that has at times frustrated lawmakers. Zaidane pointed to a 2021 case in which a man charged with making a threat to a Michigan state legislator’s office was acquitted after his lawyer said he was “just blowing off steam.”
“I think, at a minimum, better enforcement of laws and coordination with law enforcement would make lawmakers feel like the system has their back,” Zaidane said. “Like there are still bright lines that we should not cross in America and that we are committed to upholding those.”
Another thing lawmakers want more of, Ghosh said, is data.
For over 20 years, the U.S. Capitol Police has published annual public threat assessments detailing the number of threats they investigate. In new data released in January, the USCP’s Threat Assessment Section reported investigating nearly 15,000 “concerning statements, behaviors, and communications” against lawmakers, their families, staff and the U.S. Capitol complex in 2025, marking the third consecutive year the USCP has investigated more threats.
But most state law enforcement and state capitol security agencies either don’t collect or don’t publish such statistics. Utah is one of just a few states in the country that collects statewide data on threats to state lawmakers and produces assessments. The lack of comprehensive data from official sources makes it difficult to know the scope and scale of political violence against state lawmakers.
“They want that kind of tracking and monitoring system,” Ghosh said of women lawmakers. “They want security briefings annually.”
Some state agencies told The 19th they don’t have a full picture of how threats are reported and investigated across their states because jurisdictions respond differently to threat reports. Several others said they do centrally collect that data but don’t release it for security reasons.
“We collect data, but sometimes we’re not aware of the other complaints that potentially could be made to the sheriff of whatever respective county,” said Cameron of the Wyoming Highway Patrol.
Some state agencies share data with other law enforcement authorities, including through fusion centers.
Ghosh said women lawmakers also want more official safety training from law enforcement — many told her that they spend thousands of dollars out of pocket for self-defense and security training.
“They want systems to back them up and say, ‘We’re going to prepare you for what’s coming,’ even if it doesn’t happen,” Ghosh said.
Many states are working to expand security as well as training for lawmakers in the wake of the Minnesota shooting, though most declined to share specifics.
Cameron said that in Wyoming, the conversation about improving protective operations “never stops.” The state Highway Patrol has a trooper focused on protective intelligence who attended a threat intelligence course at the U.S. Marshals Service headquarters in Crystal City, Virginia, and investigates threats against lawmakers, he said.
“We’re constantly training our people. We recently instituted a special response team, more or less a SWAT unit, but they’re cross-trained to do executive protection,” he added. “Sometimes we’ll activate some of those members, so our [executive protection division] has additional personnel, either for advanced work or on site work or escort work.”
He said he’d like to see more adoption of drones and drone technology, an area where law enforcement in the United States is “behind,” to protect the state capitol and lawmakers.
Ghosh said the women lawmakers she’s spoken to need three things to carry out their work: to feel prepared, protected and nurtured.
“It’s simple things, right?” she said. “Their safety needs to feel well supported and ready to do the work that they’re meant to do. They want these three things, and when it breaks down is when they’re unable to do this work.”
Scottie's Playtime 