State Democratic officials are preparing for chaos at the polls this November, as President Donald Trump casts doubt on election security and pushes for more federal involvement in local voting. 

“We’re no longer talking about hypothetical situations,” said Nick Brown, Washington state’s Democratic attorney general, noting the president’s push to nationalize election administration and to question the integrity of upcoming elections.

Brown is among the many Democratic state officials raising alarms over how Trump may seek to interfere with or challenge the results of November’s midterms. At stake is not only whether Republicans will maintain their grip on Congress, but also the control of state legislatures across the country. Democratic gains at either the state or national levels could provide a new check on Trump, who has sought to significantly expand executive power in his second term.

State lawmakers have introduced new legislation this year with the aim of protecting polling places this November. And behind closed doors, Democratic attorneys general and local election officials have sought to anticipate and prepare for ways the federal government could interject itself into local elections.

In recent months, Democratic attorneys general have been meeting to prepare for worst-case scenarios — including the possibility of federal immigration officers patrolling polling locations or the FBI visiting county election offices. Those AGs are gearing up to immediately fight potential intimidation or interference efforts in court, Brown said, and are working to educate local election administrators on basics of election law.

“Absent some very unusual circumstances, you can’t send the military to polling locations just to hang out. You can’t do those sorts of things,” he said.

The White House did not respond to Stateline’s questions. Republican state officials told Stateline they will respect voting laws and the outcomes of local races — no matter how the president reacts. Some Republicans have opposed Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting and resisted requests for private voter data.

Brown said he’s less worried about a White House effort to cancel or attack the legitimacy of elections across the country. Rather, he fears a more targeted effort to interfere with or challenge results in a few states that could determine the balance of federal power.

The president still refuses to acknowledge his 2020 electoral defeat, and Brown noted some fellow election deniers now hold power in state and local governments. At least 25 county election officials who align with the broader election-denier movement have taken office across the country since the last federal election in 2024, according to a recent New York Times analysis.

“That is what worries me, is a half a dozen local elected officials saying I have doubts about the election because the president said there was something shady, and I’m not going to certify it,” Brown said. “And we’re just in a chaos moment. And I think that’s a very real possibility.”

He added: “The struggle I have often in this job, and particularly on this issue, is raising the alarm for people about these possibilities, while not sounding like an alarmist, but I think we really need to in this circumstance.”

Utah Republican Gov. Spencer Cox said elections have always had “some issues,” but he said there’s no evidence of anything coming close to major voter violations of election laws in the recent past. He said he expected Republican and Democratic secretaries of state to continue their long tradition of conducting elections with integrity.

“I feel confident in the election system in this country, and I hope that politicians will be responsible,” he told Stateline, “that you’ll win the right way, and there’s a right way to lose, too, and I hope we’ll see more of that.” 

Election officials preparing

Midterms generally favor the party that doesn’t control the White House, but this cycle looks particularly competitive for Democrats as the president’s popularity sinks and consumer angst grows over high prices. 

In New Hampshire, both Republican-controlled legislative chambers are considered competitive this November, along with key U.S. House and Senate races. 

New Hampshire Republican Secretary of State David Scanlan said voters in his state generally trust local election officials to administer and count ballots. And he said the Trump administration would have to “have facts” to refute any unfavorable results.

“The results are going to speak for themselves,” Scanlan told Stateline. “And the results are factual.”

Scanlan has heard concerns about the prospects of federal agents showing up at the polls, but said he has no indication that will actually occur. While federal officials could arrive unannounced, he said he’d expect some kind of communication from Washington.

“At this point, if something were to happen, we would be prepared for it. I won’t say what that preparation is at the moment, but when you conduct an election you have to be ready for whatever gets thrown at you, whether it’s a fire in the polling place, or really bad weather, or some type of natural disaster. We prepare for those things.”

Katy Owens Hubler, director of elections and redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said local election officials have spent months running through tabletop exercises about all manner of potential disruptions, including the potential for federal involvement. 

“There is more rhetoric coming from the federal government than we have typically seen,” she said. 

While federal law prohibits ordering armed forces to polling places in most circumstances, lawmakers in multiple states this year introduced and passed legislation to prevent the presence of immigration officers or troops at voting locations, according to NCSL tracking.

Democratic governors in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Virginia signed new laws this year to limit law enforcement and military presence at voting sites and ensure more protections against voter intimidation.  

Last month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said they were not planning an aggressive campaign at voting sites. In a statement to States Newsroom, the agency said it conducts “intelligence-driven targeted enforcement” that could bring officers to polling places if they were endangered by a public safety threat.

“ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations,” the statement said. 

Broad election concerns

Many Republican lawmakers have embraced the president’s push to purge noncitizens from voting rolls. Experts say noncitizen registration and voting, already illegal under federal law, are rare. But since 2018, 15 states have adopted constitutional amendments to verify citizenship status, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. And several states have passed similar laws this year.

Those include a Mississippi law signed in April that requires election officials to verify proof of citizenship with documents such as birth certificates and passports when registering voters — which raised major concerns from voting rights advocates about restricting voting access for citizens without the proper documentation. 

Republican state Sen. Jeremy England, who sponsored that measure, said he sought to balance election security against voting access. He said media attention of even one case of a noncitizen voting in an election can cast doubt on the entire election system.

“At least the last couple of presidential elections have really led to a lot more questions,” he said, “and a lot of I would say probably a lot less confidence by the people.” 

Still, England rejected Trump’s call for the federal government to take over elections. The U.S. Constitution grants states primary responsibility for election administration.

“This idea of federalizing the election system, I don’t think the people of Mississippi would support that,” England said. “And we’re a red state with a Republican president.”

In July, Trump raised the alarm over election security in a primetime address from the White House. The president said Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and some other groups could compromise the country’s election infrastructure. Without evidence, Trump cast doubt on the integrity of the Los Angeles mayoral race and the state’s recent gubernatorial race. 

And in an interview with a conservative commentator this week, the president did not rule out declaring a national security emergency and federalizing control over November’s elections. 

England was among a bipartisan group of state leaders who discussed election preparations at last month’s National Conference of State Legislatures summit in Chicago. Joining him on a panel discussion was Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat.

Fontes urged state leaders to exercise more self-discipline when talking about and regulating elections.

“This should not be a partisan issue. That’s the hill that I’m willing to die on,” he said during that panel.

If states want to beef up election integrity, Fontes said lawmakers should provide local election officials with more funding to improve security — rather than making it more difficult to vote. And he held up the right to vote as among the most sacrosanct in society, giving ordinary people their constitutional right to check government power.

“That’s the real issue here,” he said. “The one chance citizens get, the one chance the governed get to keep us in our place, is being the most heavily regulated.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Democratic lawmakers proposed nearly 250 bills in state capitols this year seeking to limit federal immigration efforts as they sought to push back against what they view as federal government overreach. 

In a new report tallying 2026 action, State Futures, a nonprofit coordinating hundreds of Democratic lawmakers across the states, tracked 242 pieces of such legislation introduced across 32 states. About a fifth of them passed. Most of the measures address the ramped up immigration enforcement efforts that have defined President Donald Trump’s second term. 

Some of those bills have faced Republican opposition and White House challenges. But Democratic governors have also raised concerns and even vetoed some measures, saying they supported their aims, but worried they could have unintended consequences and invite litigation.

The bills sought to ban the masking of immigration officers, protect against immigration enforcement in sensitive places such as schools and hospitals and enact new zoning regulations on private detention facilities, among other issues.

State Futures said 53 bills passed in 17 states this year, though several were vetoed or still await action from governors. Many of those bills face legal review as courts weigh the limits of state authority to regulate federal action.

But lawmakers say those numbers underscore the left’s growing embrace of federalism — the division of power between federal and state governments — that has gained traction during the second Trump presidency.

Rhode Island state Sen. Tiara Mack said many Democrats, including herself, have been wary of championing states’ rights, an ideology that evokes odious memories of slavery and segregation. But she said constituents are demanding action from state leaders to oppose the White House’s hardline immigration arrest and deportation efforts.

“This new landscape requires legislators to really own the narrative and own the reality that federalism is something that we can use as a tool to strengthen protections for our state,” she said, “and we have to work with states across the country.”

Mack is a co-chair of State Futures’ federal response working group that shares legislative ideas with state lawmakers across the country. This year, she was among those sponsoring Rhode Island legislation that seeks to protect people from immigration arrests while attending court proceedings. Signed into law in June, that law says violators of the protections can be held in contempt of court and can face a lawsuit from those arrested without a judicial order or warrant. 

Virginia Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger vetoed a similar bill that would have prohibited immigration enforcement in courthouses, schools and hospitals. In her veto message, the governor said she appreciated the intention of the bill but worried it would put security guards and law enforcement in the “untenable position” of choosing whether to break federal or state law. 

Another Delaware measure is currently awaiting action from Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer.  

Mack said lawmakers are increasingly coordinating across state lines, learning from legislative wins and failures in other capitols. As an example, she pointed to a California law aimed at banning federal and state agents from wearing masks.

A judge blocked that law earlier this year because it exempted state law enforcement, saying it therefore discriminated against federal agents. A similar proposal in Rhode Island, which was held in committee this session, seeks to stop all law enforcement officers from concealing their identity.

Oregon governor signs slew of bills protecting immigrants amid federal crackdown

Oregon Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek signed eight laws this April seeking to defend immigrant rights. Those laws protect against enforcement efforts in schools and hospitals, ensure individuals’ data remains confidential from the feds and allow people to sue the federal government for violating the law.

In Colorado, lawmakers this year expanded the health department’s authority to inspect immigration detention facilities and required compliance with state health and safety standards and reporting rules. That law is currently being challenged by a private prison operator as state officials demand more access and information regarding at least one tuberculosis case among detainees.

Colorado state Sen. Mike Weissman, one of the sponsors of that measure, said he’s worked with Democratic colleagues across conservative and liberal states more than ever before to oppose federal government efforts.

“We all talk because we all have the same concerns,” he said, “and that is to protect the basic freedoms of our people from an absolutely out of control federal regime.”

This story was updated with the number of bills that passed as of Aug. 13. Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

OKLAHOMA CITY —  State leaders of both parties say the federal government — including the president — wields too much power, and they want to see more authority returned to the states.

Bipartisan groups of governors and state lawmakers held major gatherings in recent days where issues of state authority became a major focus. They agreed the federal government had grown too powerful and pushed for states to maintain control over elections, energy, education and other issues. 

During President Donald Trump’s second term, state leaders have heightened focus on federalism, the uniquely American system created by the framers of the Constitution to share power between Washington, D.C., and the states.

But governors and lawmakers said it requires bipartisan cooperation across the states to reset the balance of power.

Utah Republican Gov. Spencer Cox said it’s easy for state leaders to champion states’ rights when the opposing political party controls the levers of federal power. But a truer test of federalism likely lies in how states approach it when their own party controls Washington.  

“And that’s why I’m proud to have Republicans who still believe it even when the president is doing things that they want,” Cox told Stateline.

Cox, who was in Oklahoma City this weekend for the National Governors Association summer meeting, has long championed a rebalancing of state and federal powers. He and other leaders argue that a renewed focus on federalism could help lower the national political temperature. By shifting more political decisions to the states, some officials envision a nation less subject to blue-red swings that change the entire course of federal law enforcement, environmental policy and business regulation. 

In Utah, state officials are looking to lead a national movement to bring more authority back to the states. Cox said too many political issues have become nationalized, driving vitriol and polarization as a sharply-divided Congress acts on few policy issues. 

“That means that the president becomes even more important than they were ever meant to be,” Cox said, “and then these big elections every four years feel kind of life or death.”

Cox said recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have empowered states. But he said liberal and conservative states alike must push to take more authority from the federal government. 

“We have to demand it,” he said. “We have to talk to our members of Congress about it, let them know that we don’t want the feds playing such a major role.”

The bipartisan association of governors is in the process of updating its internal policies on federalism. Last revised years ago, NGA’s current policies speak about challenges such as unfunded mandates, in which the federal government requires states to meet new rules without providing money to achieve them.

The updated policy will address pressing issues such as artificial intelligence regulation — an ongoing state-federal conflict over jurisdiction — and the primacy of each state to control its own National Guard — an issue that sparked major concerns about state sovereignty last year.

The revised policy will remind governors of the inherent authority of states in pushing back against the federal government, said John Dinan, a professor and chair of the department of politics & international affairs at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. Dinan, a federalism scholar, is consulting with NGA on its federalism work. 

Dinan said both political parties have leaned on federalism principles opportunistically over the years — depending on which party enjoyed national power. But now, he sees strong agreement between Republicans and Democrats to strengthen the role of states.

“It’s attracting interest from people across the ideological spectrum,” he said.

States say they should lead

In Oklahoma City, governors sought to showcase a bipartisanship that has nearly vanished in national politics. 

Governors said their states could compete with each other, experiment with programs and adopt wildly distinct policies — without being divisive or disrespectful. 

In particular, Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt and Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore emphasized their close friendship. Moore wore cowboy boots as he assumed leadership of the national association from Stitt at the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum.

In opening the meeting, Stitt recalled President Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address, given near the end of the Civil War. The 16th president famously pushed for national unity by calling for “malice toward none” and “charity for all.”

“Think about that,” Stitt said. “After years of war, Lincoln didn’t focus on settling scores or getting revenge. He focused on putting our country back together. His commitment to unity saved our country.”

Like Lincoln, Stitt said the nation’s governors don’t shy away from fractures and disagreements. They debate and share ideas, while also embracing the role of diverse policies across the states. 

“When states lead, America succeeds,” Stitt said. “There’s not a one-size-fits-all for a country as diverse as America.”

As one example, several governors pointed to the recent dramatic climb in Mississippi’s student reading and language scores.

“Mississippi really turned the entire country around when it comes to the science of reading,” said North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat. “And that was because one state went out there and figured something else out and we’re now all aggressively copying it.”

Stein, along with Vermont Republican Gov. Phil Scott, have been working on revising the association’s federalism policies. Both of those states were among a coalition that recently sued the federal government over attempts to withhold federal disaster aid. Trump officials sought to condition more than $1 billion in funding on states moving away from electronic ballot counting ahead of November’s midterms. 

“Which has nothing to do with disaster recovery and also offends federalism because elections administration is to be left to the states,” Stein said in Oklahoma City. “The federal government shouldn’t be dictating how states conduct their elections.”

‘We don’t want a king’

Just days before the governors met, thousands of state lawmakers assembled in Chicago for the National Conference of State Legislatures annual summit.

At that meeting, lawmakers of both parties also emphasized the important role of states in reining in a federal government they say has grown too powerful. 

Michelle Woods, vice president of the state-federal affairs division at NCSL, characterized the current moment as one of the most consequential ever for state and federal relationships. She cited executive orders coming from the White House and upheaval in federal spending and policy. 

“Federalism is no longer simply a constitutional principle that we’re going to debate,” she said during a panel discussion on the topic. “It’s the reality that state legislators are navigating every day.”

Maryland state Del. David Moon, the Democratic majority leader, kicked off his remarks on the panel noting how his state had to pivot to “basic debt collection” from the federal government at a time when it has sought to punish blue states and withhold previously approved federal funds. 

Moon pushed for legislation in Annapolis this year, which Moore signed into law in April, that allows the state to place liens on federal property or withhold revenue payments to Washington if officials determine the feds are withholding funds in defiance of court decisions.

Despite current high-profile clashes with the feds, Moon said he was optimistic that the nation could return to more traditional state-federal relationships after Trump leaves office. 

“I think we are witnessing an outlier moment with respect to federalism and some of these interesting expansions of federal power, “ he said. “…But the truth of the matter is, whether we get there is really determined by all of us.”

Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory, a Republican, said state leaders nationwide must start by educating themselves of the constitutional limits of federal power. He said orientation for newly elected lawmakers often teaches how to navigate their capitols or enroll in state insurance — rather than emphasizing the legal fundamentals.

“If we’re going to restore federalism, we have to know very clearly what state jurisdiction is versus the limits of federal power,” he said. “We have to know our powers to do that — to push back.”

Ivory leads Utah’s Federalism Commission, which lawmakers hope will connect state officials and agency staff from across the country to bring more authority back to the states. He said state Republicans and Democrats must stand together on states’ rights — even when they strongly disagree on individual state policies.

“We felt very strongly that if federalism is purely a partisan exercise, it’s not federalism, and it’s just seeking advantage, gaining advantage, and it actually undermines the concept,” he said. “And so, we kind of have a saying that we don’t want a red king or a blue king. We don’t want a king.” 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

OKLAHOMA CITY — U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin this weekend implored states and cities to cooperate with federal immigration officials, which he said would lead to safer and lower-profile arrests and deportations.

Speaking to a group of Democratic and Republican governors gathered for the National Governors Association summer meeting, Mullin called on local governments to help focus on removing the “worst of the worst” offenders, particularly targeting people without legal citizenship status who have criminal court convictions.

The Republican, who previously represented Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, took the stage with Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, the outgoing chair of the national association. Mullin took over the agency after President Donald Trump fired former Secretary Krsti Noem, who defended the high-profile killings of American citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. 

In his remarks on Saturday, Mullin asked states to cooperate with immigration detainers, in which the feds ask local governments to hold people in the country without legal authorization after they have served their time in prison or jail. 

“That shouldn’t be controversial,” he said. “We’re not doing job-site raids. We’re not going to Home Depot and raiding the parking lot. These are individuals that have already been convicted of a crime.”

The secretary said the alternative for so-called sanctuary cities or states that don’t cooperate with ICE is a much more dangerous prospect: ICE agents pursuing arrests of people after they are released.

“We’re going to arrest them, and then we’re going to arrest them in a public space, which could cause more problems and put our officers at risk, the public at risk, and the person we’re serving the detainer at risk.”  

Mullin highlighted the department’s recent success during the World Cup in cooperating with law enforcement, which he said not only ensured the safety of locals and visitors, but provided meaningful human trafficking prevention and the confiscation of counterfeit goods.

“We can’t do it without you guys,” he said. “I’m saying we can work together.”

He focused on cooperation in Oklahoma, where 76 of the state’s 77 counties are working with the federal government to remove immigrants before they are released from jails and prisons. 

“It’s not on the news,” he said. “You don’t see us around because the state is doing most of the work.”

Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, who took over leadership of the bipartisan governors group this week from Stitt, thanked the secretary for opening up lines of communication with states since taking over.

“There is an absolute difference in what we have seen from the start of the administration to now,” he said.

Moore questioned Mullin about the status of federal security grants, which can aid state anti-terrorism work, provide federal training and boost cybersecurity efforts. 

Mullin said the first thing the agency looked at was whether the local government was cooperating with federal law enforcement. 

“The whole point of the grants is so we can have partnerships,” he said. “…This has nothing to do with picking winners and losers or saying I choose Oklahoma over California — this has to do with it is designed by nature to build a partnership.”

At least 15 states, including Maryland, are identified as sanctuary states by the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for lower levels of immigration. 

Mullin’s comments over the weekend sparked backlash from some Republicans, including prominent Trump ally Steve Bannon. Some of those pundits said Mullin was too lax on deportations after he acknowledged the legal steps migrants could take to gain legal status.

Mullin said naturalization ceremonies occur constantly with nearly 900,000 people becoming U.S. citizens in the past year.

But he said federal officials will have no tolerance for migrants with criminal convictions or those who have not taken the legal steps to remain in the country.

Under Mullin’s watch, ICE has made a record number of immigration arrests.

Immigration arrests reached 1,593 per day in early July in a new push to detain and deport immigrants. In June, there were more than 43,000 arrests, the highest recorded by the Trump administration, according to statistics from ICE.

“There’s a legal system to go through,” he said. “But if you choose not to even begin or not to change your status, if you’ve been here 25 years, I can’t help you.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

CHICAGO — The escalating feud between states and online prediction markets was on full display at a summit of state lawmakers this week as legislators publicly scolded Kalshi and Polymarket, the two most prominent platforms.

Prediction market platforms say they are like commodity markets that offer contracts to speculate on the future price of corn or oil — not sportsbooks that allow gamblers to place bets. But many states reject those justifications, arguing the platforms are a backdoor to skirt state gambling regulations, particularly on sports.

The issue has sparked action from state regulators, new legislation, and a flurry of lawsuits from states, prediction markets, and the Trump administration, which has sought to sideline state oversight.

During a sometimes-heated panel discussion at the annual gathering of the National Conference of State Legislatures in Chicago, Iowa Republican state Sen. Dan Dawson told the audience that a group of students at his son’s high school recently enrolled in Kalshi to bet on World Cup matches. In Iowa, people must be at least 21 to participate in legal online sports betting.

“States are the ones that pick up the pieces,” Dawson said as a Kalshi executive looked on.

Dawson has previously raised concerns about the public health consequences of prediction markets. While an industry representative pledged to work with states, Dawson said a legislative subcommittee that recently studied the issue could not get even basic information from the prediction markets about their reach in Iowa.

“We couldn’t get one answer,” he said.

In March, Kalshi preemptively sued to block Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, a Republican, from taking civil or criminal enforcement action against it. In its suit, Kalshi claimed there was “a substantial risk that the attorney general of Iowa will bring an enforcement action.”

Regulation of prediction markets

Sara Slane, Head of Corporate Development at Kalshi, told lawmakers in Chicago that the company was committed to building relationships with the states. But she said the prediction markets are not subject to state oversight, as they are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates derivatives such as futures contracts on stocks.

She said prediction markets require a national standard rather than a “state-by-state regulatory patchwork.”

“This was exactly what the commodity exchange was set up for,” she said.

The five-member, presidentially appointed CFTC currently has four vacancies. But it has aggressively sought to exclude states from overseeing prediction markets, suing red and blue states alike to maintain its jurisdiction over the markets.

Earlier this week, a coalition of 44 state attorneys general wrote to the agency, arguing it does not have the power to regulate sports-related event contracts, which they say are subject to state gambling regulations.

In addition to encroaching on state-regulated and state-taxed sports gambling, states argue that prediction markets are subject to potential insider trading, lack consumer oversight and can fuel problem gambling.

Slane said her firm works to prevent money laundering and allows people who have problems with gaming to block themselves from the site. She said Kalshi also works with major sports leagues to prevent athletes and referees from trading on sports events.

“We take this very seriously,” she said. “We want to promote integrity around our exchange.”

But prediction markets continue to gain national attention for allowing people to unfairly bet on the outcome of events by leveraging nonpublic information.

This week, the White House announced the president’s teleprompter operator was no longer on staff after he was accused of using inside knowledge to make bets about presidential speeches on Kalshi.

Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz on Tuesday signed an executive order prohibiting state employees from using inside information to bet on prediction markets. At least eight states, including Arizona, California, Maryland and Wisconsin, have implemented similar restrictions.

Mick Mulvaney, executive director of the Gambling is Not Investing Coalition, said he was sympathetic to the argument that prediction markets want to avoid a regulatory patchwork across the states.

“That being said, there’ve been two areas where the states have almost always been entirely sovereign: That’s on booze and gambling,” he said.

Mulvaney, a Republican, represented South Carolina in the U.S. House and served as acting White House chief of staff during President Donald Trump’s first term. His organization argues that prediction markets should be subject to the same state and tribal regulations as other forms of gambling.

With litigation flying, he said there’s no question the debate is heading toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Mulvaney said it’s unclear how the conservative court will rule, given its recent decisions. Some of those rulings have allowed the expansion of federal executive power, while others have tilted toward the states.

“So that will be fascinating to see how it shakes out at the Supreme Court,” he told Stateline. “But I have every expectation that this is going all the way up.”

Threat to tribal casinos 

Casino gambling has been the sole economic engine for many Native American tribes for years, said Michael Hoenig, vice president and associate general counsel for gaming at the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation in Southern California.

He said tribes have built up the gambling industry over the last 40 years — sometimes in cooperation with states, other times “in friction with the states.”

“This is just a profound affront to tribal sovereignty, tribal self-government,” he said. “Tribes are supposed to have the sovereign right to decide who gets to operate gaming on their lands and who doesn’t.”

Aside from regulatory concerns, state leaders worry about how the rise of prediction markets may impact the financial and mental health of their residents. Since a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling opened the door for states to legalize sports gambling, 39 states and the District of Columbia have done so.

Advocates, researchers and lawmakers are already raising alarms about how the burgeoning market could fuel gambling addiction and hurt household finances. 

Aside from regulation, there is little difference between the potential impacts of prediction markets and online sports betting, said Rachel Volberg, a professor emerita of epidemiology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Volberg, who has studied gambling addiction for 40 years, told lawmakers in a separate presentation that the research is clear about how over involvement in gambling can hurt individuals and families. However, she told Stateline that legal sports gambling is too new for researchers to fully measure how much the high-speed and accessible world of online gaming has changed the dynamics.

In North Carolina, a new poll found that most people generally approve of sports betting, but a majority wants the state to ban prediction markets.

In the Meredith College poll released Tuesday, 51% of registered voters said they were satisfied with state regulation of sports gambling. Only 11% said they were dissatisfied, while 38% said they didn’t know.

In that poll, two-thirds of registered voters said they would support state legislation banning prediction markets, while 24% said they should be legal.

Though sports fans, policymakers and the researchers continue to grapple with the quickly evolving landscape, experts gathered in Chicago were clear that this industry is here to stay.

“It’s not going anywhere,” said Anthony D’Angelo, who leads responsible gaming efforts at Fanatics Betting & Gaming.

D’Angelo said his company’s sportsbook invests heavily in providing assistance for problem gamblers, flags potentially problematic transactions and incentivizes customers to set and stick to betting limits.

He said lawmakers can help keep people away from illegal and offshore betting platforms that have no oversight or consumer protections.

“We all want the same things to happen,” he said. “I think we want a sustainable, long-term industry where customers are protected.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

CHICAGO — A bipartisan group of state lawmakers is calling for an overhaul of the nation’s childcare system, which they say is failing children, parents and providers. 

The group of 13 Republican and Democratic lawmakers, who have spent the last year studying childcare access and affordability problems, offered an array of policy recommendations during the National Conference of State Legislatures annual summit in Chicago this week.

During a panel discussion Monday, lawmakers underscored the persisting challenge with childcare that costs families too much and pays providers too little. That has led to vast access gaps in many parts of the country as demand for childcare far outstrips supply.  

“Every state is experiencing a childcare crisis,” said Jenna Bannon, associate director in the Children and Families Program of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In its 33-page report laying out causes and potential solutions to childcare shortages, the lawmakers’ policy group  called for more private sector employer participation, higher pay for childcare providers and a reconsideration of childcare regulations that may be outdated.

“The childcare system is at a crossroads,” the report says, “and decisions made now will shape how well systems meet the needs of families and economies in the years ahead.”

Many of the policy prescriptions inherently cost money. But Maryland state Del. Aletheia McCaskill said states can’t go it alone. McCaskill, a Democrat and a childcare provider, said the issue requires investment from outside sources, including philanthropic organizations and businesses. 

“It’s going to take more than just taxes,” she told Stateline. “It’s going to take real investment by other folks. We have to do this with everybody playing their part. The government, absolutely, but we can’t do it all.”

During the presentation, McCaskill urged other lawmakers to reframe childcare discussions in economic terms.

“When you talk about childcare, you can’t talk about children. Imagine that,” she said. “You have to talk about the economy, pockets and how all this works together.”

South Dakota state Sen. Tim Reed, a Republican, said businesses are increasingly interested in assuring their employees have access to childcare. 

Reed was previously the mayor of Brookings, the state’s fourth most populous city. Before the pandemic, he said, businesses reported workforce challenges as their biggest constraint. And the lack of workers, they said, was directly linked to a lack of accessible childcare.

Reed pointed to a local bank that provided childcare for the children —- and even grandchildren —- of employees years before it became a prominent issue across the country.

“And you know what? They’re the first place that people want to work because they have childcare,” Reed said during Monday’s panel. “Once you get businesses involved in this — because they do understand the economic realities of it — that’s when you can become successful.”

In 38 states, the costs of childcare outpaces the average cost of in-state college tuition, according to Child Care Aware of America, a nonprofit advocacy group. For 2025, that organization calculated an average annual cost of childcare of about $13,000, with average prices of infant care surpassing $15,000. Those costs vary widely by state, though, with center-based infant care ranging from $6,492 a year in Mississippi to $27,067 a year in Massachusetts. 

Monday’s discussion often turned to New Mexico, where Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham last year announced the nation’s first free universal childcare system, funded by state investment earnings from oil and gas revenues. 

New Mexico state Sen. Linda Trujillo, a Democrat, said during the discussion that the new universal system doesn’t yet guarantee universal access. In her community of Santa Fe, for example, she said the city lacks about 1,200 spaces for infants to 5-year-olds. 

Several lawmakers noted the changing federal environment, which has raised funding questions about many social service programs, including healthcare and food assistance. 

Bannon, of NCSL, said the states are now leading the charge on childcare as Democratic and Republican state lawmakers increasingly explore new legislation to childcare access.

‘“Historically, the federal government played a really big role, and the states really kind of looked to the feds to guide them,” she told Stateline. “And I think now there’s been kind of a role reversal and states are stepping more into the space, and the feds are watching them to see what they do.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Since President Donald Trump has gutted much of the federal government’s consumer protection work, state attorneys general are increasingly left to fight high prices and investigate businesses themselves.

Consumer protection work, long a growing focus of state AGs from both parties, has ramped up considerably more in the past two years, legal experts say. The change follows Trump’s dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created by Congress in the wake of the Great Recession. And persisting concerns about the high prices of housing, groceries and fuel has made affordability a top political concern for many AGs.

After Trump took office last year, the bureau became an early target of billionaire Elon Musk’s short-lived Department of Government Efficiency. Since then, it has dropped dozens of investigations and enforcement cases, moved to slash the agency workforce and made it harder for consumers to submit complaints.

The Trump administration also has sought to limit the authority granted to states to enforce financial services protections under the federal legislation that launched the CFPB. 

Now, Republican and Democratic attorneys general are increasingly teaming up to use state laws and enforce federal laws to go after alleged antitrust violations, deceptive marketing practices and price gouging, as many Americans grow weary of high prices.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, president of the bipartisan National Association of Attorneys General, said states are increasingly working to fill the void left by the federal government.

“We do a ton of work in trying to pick up the pieces,” said Tong, a Democrat.

Last year, Tong launched a national affordability campaign aimed at using state laws to drive down consumer costs. While sometimes prices go up simply because of general inflation, he said, states have the power to tackle affordability by targeting unfair and deceptive business practices.

“It’s probably less complicated than people think,” he said. “If it looks unfair, if it seems unfair, it probably is unfair.”

Experts note that state AGs cannot fully replace the breadth of work once undertaken by the federal government. And the growing interest in large, multistate cases can divert attorneys general office resources from other pressing local consumer matters, they add. 

Still, big businesses have taken note of the changing landscape: Once considered secondary enforcers of consumer protections, states are increasingly defining the rules around pricing transparency, subscription service fees and algorithmic pricing. That decentralization means businesses can face quickly evolving, different or even contradictory rules in different states.

“It means enforcement is moving closer to home,” said Ashley Taylor, a partner at law firm Troutman Pepper Locke. His work includes helping clients with compliance issues, government investigations and enforcement efforts brought by state AGs. Though states are working less with the federal government, he said, companies haven’t seen a drop in regulation — instead, they face the prospect of highly coordinated state investigations and lawsuits. 

Democratic and Republican attorneys general have hired former CFPB employees, expanded their consumer protection staff and budgets for outside counsel,and increasingly specialize in different areas of business law. Indiana and Illinois, for example, have built a reputation for investigating data breaches and privacy issues, Taylor said. 

The consumer work of AGs stands in stark contrast to their splashy partisan work that often garners headlines. Republicans, for example, often sued Democratic President Joe Biden over environmental, labor and gun policies. And Democratic AGs have filed over 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration, challenging federal funding cuts, immigration enforcement efforts and tariffs on foreign goods.  

“That’s a whole different world,” Taylor said. “If you’re in business, if you have a consumer protection concern, an antitrust concern, or privacy concern, it’s nonpartisan, completely nonpartisan.”

Bipartisan state enforcement

Tong said not having a federal partner makes it harder for his office to do all the work it wants, but he said he’s not ignoring any consumer complaints. “You probably don’t get to it as fast as you want or as completely as you want.”

As one example, he pointed to an antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment, which owns hundreds of concert venues, a promotion business and Ticketmaster, the world’s largest ticket-selling platform. The Biden administration started that investigation, but the Trump administration and six Republican-led states dropped the effort, with a surprise $280 million settlement reached in the first days of the trial. 

Still, 33 states and Washington, D.C., continued with the trial, ultimately convincing a federal jury that Ticketmaster operated as a monopoly and harmed consumers. In the second phase of the trial, the court will now weigh financial penalties and potentially force the company to break apart.

States — including Ohio — win monopoly suit against Live Nation, Ticketmaster

“After the federal government abandoned us, Democrats and Republicans hung in there and we got a guilty verdict against Live Nation/Ticketmaster for illegally using their monopoly to rip us all off,” Tong said. 

Following the April verdict, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach was among the Republicans celebrating the decision. A staunch Trump supporter, Kobach said he refused to accept the federal government’s “weak settlement.”

In a similar bipartisan effort, 46 states recently won a $45 million with Block Inc., the owner of peer-to-peer payment service CashApp. States alleged that the company illegally misled consumers about the safety of its app and failed to protect users from fraud, though the firm did not admit to wrongdoing in the settlement.

Tong said states pursued the case because of lax oversight from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which under the Biden administration ordered the firm to pay $175 million for failing to protect users.

“States have a lot of authority. They’re doing what they can to fill the gaps, but the hole left by the gutting of the CFPB is impossible to entirely fill,” said Amanda Fischer, policy director and chief operating officer at Better Markets, a nonprofit consumer and investor watchdog group. 

Since its inception, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helped more than 200 million Americans recoup over $21 billion from financial services companies. That included restitution for improper junk fees, deceptive lending and the highly publicized banking scandal at Wells Fargo revolving around mortgages, auto loans and checking accounts.

Fischer said the agency has now undertaken a “reverse-Robin Hood campaign,” using its might to enrich financial and tech firms instead of consumers. 

State AGs can’t fully focus on replacing CFPB’s actions, since they must also devote resources to criminal and civil state court cases and local business complaints. And Democratic AGs are devoting time and money to ongoing legal battles to keep the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau funded. 

“So they have to spend resources to even have an operational bureau, let alone pick up the work that they’re not doing.”

The CFPB did not respond to Stateline’s request for comment.  

Earlier this month, acting CFPB Director Russell Vought told a U.S. Senate committee that the agency had been “weaponized” under the past administration. He said overregulation had stifled innovation, reduced consumer choice and increased prices. 

Focus on affordability 

While states have worked on consumer issues for years, legal experts have noticed a heightened focus on affordability efforts from state AGs of both parties.

Republican attorneys general in Indiana and Georgia recently warned retailers against pocketing the savings from temporary suspensions of their state gas taxes. 

Neither office responded to requests for comment. In May, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita said complaints to his office resulted in 30 formal price gouging investigations as well as informal inquiries into price fluctuations at another 100 gas stations.

His office created an online dashboard tracking live gas prices across more than 4,600 Indiana gas stations. 

“We know every penny matters right now and are committed to making sure you are treated fairly at the pump during this time,” Rokita said in an April news release. 

In Texas, the Republican AG is cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether meatpackers are driving up beef prices. And Washington state’s Democratic AG is suing a grocery chain over allegedly overcharging customers through deceptive Buy One Get One Free promotions.

Darwin Roberts, a lawyer at the Morgan Lewis firm and a previous deputy attorney general in Washington state, said many of those issues have long been in the wheelhouse of AG offices. They’re just being framed differently in the era of inflation. 

“They’d be doing this work,” he said. “But the fact that it dovetails so closely with this issue that’s becoming really politically important causes them to emphasize it.”

Roberts said state laws banning deceptive or unfair trade practices are purposefully broad, allowing attorneys general to challenge evolving business practices or emerging markets. 

For businesses, the changing regulatory landscape presents new challenges. Companies must navigate a landscape of varying individual state regulations or investigations, the possibility of lawsuits from coalitions of multiple states and potential federal enforcement.

“It can be a difficult environment for businesses,” Roberts said, “because they’re facing a range of regulators looking at them.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

More than 200 American mayors are calling on the federal government to reverse changes that will cost states billions and push millions of people off the food stamp program.

This week, the United States Conference of Mayors asked the U.S. Senate’s agriculture committee to reconsider the deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP,  enacted in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In addition to imposing new eligibility and work requirements for recipients, the law will require states for the first time to fund some SNAP benefits themselves beginning in fall 2027.

The 210 mayors who signed a letter to Senate leaders said they are on the “front lines of a deepening food security crisis” and said the federal government should be expanding access to food, not creating new obstacles.

That letter was signed by Democratic and Republican mayors leading major cities such as Baltimore, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City and St. Louis, as well as smaller communities including Lima, Ohio; Manhattan, Kansas; and Muskegon, Michigan. The U.S. Conference of Mayors is a nonpartisan organization representing the more than 1,400 leaders of cities with populations of 30,000 or more.

“When we’re talking about how to make sure that our residents are fed, that is something that worries Republican mayors, it worries Democratic mayors, it worries independent mayors. It worries everybody,” Matt Tuerk, the Democratic mayor of Allentown, Pennsylvania, said in an interview with Stateline.

Tuerk, who leads the national organization’s Children, Health, and Human Services Standing Committee, said his constituents are already struggling with the high costs of housing, utilities and groceries. 

“Now they’re worrying about their ability to even pay for those needed groceries without those SNAP benefits,” he said. 

Already, more than 4 million Americans have lost SNAP benefits, putting more pressure on food banks and food pantries across the country.

Federal officials have argued that changes were necessary to root out fraud and waste from the food stamp program. 

Tuerk said philanthropic groups don’t have the resources to serve as the national safety net, and city and states are already facing tight budgets that cannot fill the void left from federal cuts. 

“And there’s no adequate replacement for food,” he said. “And I can say that as a kid who had a free lunch card … Without food stamps, I wouldn’t be where I am right now.”

The mayors are also asking Congress to delay implementation of new requirements that some experts expect could cost states more than $9 billion.

The new law will penalize states depending on their payment error rates — a technical calculation by the feds of SNAP overpayments and underpayments, not fraud. States with a payment error rate above 6% will have to fund 5% to 15% of their benefit payments. Previously, the feds provided the aid.

Last month, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a statement new error rate data was “further proof that state accountability is severely lacking” in the SNAP program.

But the mayors group said states need more time to improve their error rates and budget for additional costs.

“Rising costs of living, stagnant wages, and reduced federal support are converging to create conditions that municipal governments are increasingly challenged to address on their own,” the mayors’ letter said.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Following a string of special election victories, Democrats have a path to flip several Republican-held legislative chambers and break GOP supermajorities in states across the country this November.

High prices and overall voter dissatisfaction with Washington have put control of the U.S. House and Senate in play this year — a dynamic that has trickled down, with heightened Democratic enthusiasm in many state contests.

“For the most part the Republicans are kind of playing defense more than offense,” said Katy Owens Hubler, director of elections and redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

Midterm elections generally favor the party that doesn’t control the White House. Still, it’s unlikely Democrats can capture the majority in states: GOP lawmakers currently hold nearly 55% of the nation’s 7,386 state legislative seats. 

That gives Republicans control in 28 state legislatures and Democrats control in 18, while three states have divided control of chambers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. NCSL is eyeing 10 Republican-held chambers, four Democratic-held chambers and the tied state House in Minnesota for potential flips in control in November.

“My feeling generally is that it is going to be a good year for Democrats,” Owens Hubler said, “but it’s not going to be a blowout year.”

Wins in some states could deliver Democrats total control of state government — both legislative chambers and the governor, known as a trifecta — making it much easier to pass progressive legislation. In other states, weakening Republican majorities or breaking veto-proof supermajorities would make it easier for Democrats to object to GOP policies.

Since President Donald Trump’s second term began, Democrats have flipped a dozen seats in special elections in Arkansas, Iowa, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Texas, according to tracking by the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which works to elect Democrats at the state level. They also flipped another 18 seats in last year’s general elections in New Jersey and Virginia. 

Republicans have not flipped a single Democratic legislative seat.

“2026 is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fundamentally transform state legislative power,” said Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. 

The committee is touting record numbers of Democratic candidates running for office in some states and has announced plans to spend a record $50 million on state legislative races this year, with aims of flipping more than 650 legislative seats. And just as in 2024, the state of the economy — and ever-rising prices — are proving a central campaign message. 

In Michigan, defending their state Senate majority and winning control of the state House would give Democrats a trifecta. They would need to flip four Republican-held House seats to do so.

Michigan Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks said she’s confident her party will maintain or even grow its Senate majority. The House will be a “tougher lift,” she said, but the party’s chances look good now.

“I feel very confident that we will be working with a Democratic legislature in both chambers next term,” she said.

Following months of GOP obstruction in the House, Democratic control of both chambers would reverse the current gridlock in Lansing. Brinks, who is term-limited, said she expects a Democratic trifecta will focus on the issues that matter to Michiganders, including regulations on data centers, childcare accessibility and affordability. 

“There are things that we know we could do that make people’s lives easier and more affordable,” she said. “So I think that in general you’ll see us try to tackle those things.”

Nationwide, Republicans have acknowledged growing voter frustrations over affordability while also arguing voters should support them for their work to redraw congressional districts. 

Set off by a White House push to give Republicans more seats in the U.S. House, 10 states have completed middecade redistricting — a phenomenon unseen since the 1800s.

Earlier this month, the Republican State Leadership Committee, which works to elect GOP state legislators, highlighted the party’s redistricting successes and underscored that current races for statehouse control will determine which party draws future maps.

In a statement to Stateline, Committee President Edith Jorge-Tuñón said Democrats can brag all they want about fundraising success, “but no amount of cash changes the fact that their party is being pulled further left by the socialist wing calling the shots.”

“We know Democrats and their national allies will continue to pour millions into state legislative races because they understand what’s at stake: the legislators elected in 2026 will shape redistricting and the balance of power for years to come.”

‘Things are looking really good’

In Iowa, Democrats flipped two state Senate seats in special elections last year to break the GOP supermajority, leaving Republicans with a 33-17 majority in the upper chamber. 

Democrats hope to deprive Republicans of winning back that supermajority and to break the supermajority in the state House in November. It’s especially high stakes this cycle as polling has shown a very competitive race for governor, with Democratic State Auditor Rob Sand ahead of Republican Zach Lahn in some tracking.  

Iowa hasn’t had a Democratic governor since 2011.

“From my perspective right now, assuming we continue to do the work and we raise the money we need to, things are looking really good,” said Democratic state Sen. Janice Weiner, the minority leader. 

Depriving Republicans of a veto-proof supermajority would give a potential Democratic governor much more power, Weiner said. And the more Democrats gain, the more they can challenge  the policies of the GOP, which has enjoyed control of both chambers and the governor’s office for the past decade.

Senate Democrats have already used their newly won power by rejecting gubernatorial appointments, including a high-profile nomination for the leader of the state’s Health and Human Services Department.

Success in November could position Democrats to further contest the state Senate in 2028, when they could conceivably tie with a 25-25 split with Republicans, she said.

“It’s an accountability issue,” Weiner said. “You don’t have to be in the majority to start being a player.”

In a statement, Iowa Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley acknowledged the uphill battle that midterms can present for incumbents. But he said Republicans have faced similar pressures before, particularly in the 2020 election, and have only grown their House majority in Des Moines.

Republicans currently hold 67 of 100 Iowa House seats, all of which are up for election this year. Democrats only need to flip one seat to end the Republican House supermajority. 

“We have a lot of territory to defend, including several districts that historically voted for Democrats. Our success in these areas isn’t a fluke,” Grassley’s statement said. “With our battle-tested incumbents and a dynamic slate of hardworking candidates, we are in a strong position in every corner of the state.”

What’s at stake

In this year’s legislative special elections, Democrats have overperformed general election outcomes by a median of 10.4 points compared with how their districts voted in 2024 elections, according to government relations and lobbying firm MultiState. If Democrats maintain that kind of performance through November, the firm said, it could result in one of the largest wave elections in recent history. 

But special elections are not necessarily predictive of general elections, said Chris Cooper,  a professor of political science and public affairs at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Democrats are aiming to prevent a House Republican supermajority and break the Senate GOP supermajority — which would require flipping just one seat. 

“I think breaking the supermajority does seem very much in reach,” Cooper said. “Getting the majority in the Senate isn’t going to happen unless we have a political earthquake the likes of which we haven’t seen in many decades.”

Increasing their numbers in the legislature would greatly increase the power of Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, who has seen a dozen of his vetoes overridden by the GOP-controlled legislature. Among other issues, those overrides have allowed laws to be enacted punishing so-called sanctuary cities and eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion policies from public education. 

“It’s extremely consequential,” Cooper said. “It doesn’t mean that Democrats are going to be able to do what they want, but it does mean they’re going to be able to stop the Republicans from doing what they want.”

For Democrats, statehouse races provide a critical opportunity to oppose policies enacted by the federal government’s Republican trifecta. 

“I think part of it is that people are waking up to the power that states have always had,” said Andrew Grunwald, vice president of political strategy at The States Project, an organization working to help Democrats gain power in states. 

State lawmakers who win election this year will have a huge impact on future congressional races as states continue to redraw U.S. House maps. But Grunwald said states also have the ability to immediately legislate on affordability issues that are top of mind for voters.

“When you look at who is passing laws that impact your everyday life, it’s your state lawmakers,” he said.

That’s particularly true in states with split partisan governance, including Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin.

He also pointed to Pennsylvania, where Democrats control the state House but Republicans control the Senate. That divide has left hundreds of Democratic bills to die in the upper chamber. Winning a Senate majority there would require flipping three seats but could have a major impact on what legislation ultimately becomes signed by Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro. 

While the national environment looks favorable now, Grunwald acknowledged things can change quickly.

“We need to be doing the work now,” he said. “…If we’re not doing the work, voters will recognize that and if we’re meeting voters where they are and responding to their concerns they will recognize that as well.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Consumers are unlikely to see any relief in gas and electric bills as utilities proposed more than $18 billion in rate hikes across the country over the first half of the year.

The consumer advocacy group PowerLines reported that utilities asked regulators for a record $9.2 billion in cumulative rate increases during the second quarter of this year. Those requested rate increases could affect more than 56 million U.S. customers.

Utilities in Southern states requested the largest increase in rates, totaling $4.5 billion across more than 26 million customers. 

Consumers in the Midwest face $2.7 billion in requested rate hikes across 14 million customers, while nearly the same amount of Western customers face $1.5 billion, PowerLines reported.

Most Americans get their electricity from utilities that must seek state consent for rate changes, with appointed or elected state boards approving price structures. 

The report, released Tuesday, comes as millions of Americans are already struggling to afford rising electricity bills: One in six American households are behind on utility bills, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association. 

Public outcry over rising utility prices has pushed state regulators and lawmakers to consider rate freezes, additional energy assistance funds or new rates targeting large energy users such as data centers. 

Regulators often approve increases at lower rates than requested by utilities, so state officials will determine what additional costs are passed onto consumers. But PowerLines notes regulators rarely outright reject rate requests. Its analysis of 2025 rate requests, for example, found just two of 83 requests were rejected, though half were still pending at the beginning of this year.

Since 2021, electric and gas utilities have accelerated the speed at which they ask regulators for new price increases, the report said. 

PowerLines found that electric company Oncor in Texas requested the largest rate increase of the quarter, with a $1.2 billion request, part of its 5-year investment plan to meet demand from oil and gas companies and data centers. 

Dominion Energy in Virginia sought $1.5 billion across three rate requests, including a $1.1 billion request in unrecovered fuel costs. In Michigan, DTE Energy and Consumers Energy have requested about $500 million each in rate increases. 

“With more than $18 billion in requests already on the table for 2026, regulators face mounting pressure to scrutinize utility spending plans while balancing the infrastructure investments that a modernizing grid genuinely requires,” the report concluded.  

The Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned electric utilities, says its members are focused on keeping energy reliable and affordable. Drew Maloney, president and CEO, pushed for permitting reforms at an energy summit last month, saying as much as a quarter of consumer bills are driven by “regulatory bureaucratic red tape.”

But Maloney acknowledged that energy costs are part of broader affordability concerns facing American consumers. 

“We understand that energy costs are a component of that,” he said, “and every one of our members has programs that help people that need different relief from their electrical bills.” 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Upcoming funding shifts in the federal food stamp program are poised to cost states billions of dollars, heightening fears that more Americans will lose access to the nation’s largest food assistance program.

Last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act made major changes to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP, including new eligibility and work requirements. Already, more than 4 million Americans have lost SNAP benefits, putting more pressure on food banks and food pantries across the country.

But beginning in fall 2027, states for the first time must begin to fund some SNAP benefits themselves. Analyses of newly released data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show states could be on the hook for more than $9 billion. Some states, county officials and advocates fear this will remove more Americans from the safety net program and even push some states to consider dropping out of SNAP altogether.  

The new law will penalize states depending on their payment error rates — a technical calculation by the feds of SNAP overpayments and underpayments, not fraud. States with a payment error rate above 6% will have to fund 5% to 15% of their benefit payments. Previously, the feds provided the aid.

In USDA’s most recent analysis, the error rate slightly improved across the states in fiscal year 2025, but officials said states still made a collective $10.1 billion in improper payments. 

“These payment error rates are further proof that state accountability is severely lacking in SNAP,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a June news release. 

As many as 36 states will face new cost share requirements in the fall of 2027. And nearly half of those are expected to be on the hook for $100 million or more a year, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

For example, in Michigan, the current error rate could cost the state $300 million a year, the center estimates. Texas could be on the hook for an estimated $725 million and New York may need to spend more than $1 billion. 

“States are going to have to make some really painful decisions as they have to balance their budgets about how they are going to cover those costs, and if they can’t fully cover the required cost-sharing requirement, by raising revenue or cutting elsewhere in their budget,” said Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst at the center. 

The change is heightening fears that states will slow down benefit approval, cut access or even choose to drop out of the program altogether, Bergh said. While advocates and some officials have unsuccessfully pushed Congress to reverse its SNAP changes, many are now asking for at least a delay in implementation to give states time to improve their payment error rates.

After USDA released its new data last month, New Jersey Human Services Commissioner Stephen Cha said the error rate measurement is “fundamentally flawed.” Though the state significantly cut its error rate from 14.33% to 6.86%, it could still be on the hook for an estimated $100 million. 

Cha reiterated previous calls for Congress and the Trump administration to eliminate or delay the changes.

“Penalizing states will do nothing to improve payment accuracy or meaningfully address waste, fraud, or abuse,” Cha said in a statement. “Instead, they impose a significant financial and administrative burden on State and county governments, threatening our ability to effectively administer SNAP and meet the critical needs of families across New Jersey.”

In a statement to Stateline, a USDA spokesperson noted states have had decades to improve erroneous payments. “Perhaps now, States will stop spending other people’s money so recklessly,” the statement said. 

Looming budget pressures

In 10 states — California, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin — counties administer the SNAP program. 

The National Association of Counties has said the cost shift will threaten not only food access, but could squeeze the ability of counties to fund public safety, emergency management and infrastructure needs.

“These cost shifts threaten to destabilize county budgets, forcing reductions in staffing and delaying critical nutrition assistance for vulnerable residents,” association CEO Matthew Chase said in a letter last year to congressional leaders. 

The National Conference of State Legislatures, which represents lawmakers and legislative staff, said states are committed to administering SNAP benefits accurately and to being held accountable for their performance. But in a statement, the organization said USDA’s most recent data “make clear that additional time is needed” to implement meaningful improvements. 

State efforts to improve their payment accuracy also have substantial tradeoffs.

This spring, the Urban Institute and the American Public Human Services Association surveyed all SNAP agencies across the country. Thirty-nine states responded to the survey, representing a 78% response rate.

The survey found that SNAP administrators are investing in staffing, technology and automation to respond to the federal law. But many states are turning away from efforts to improve timeliness and may have to reduce staffing and benefits to comply. 

In the survey, 29% of states identified narrowing eligibility policies as a potential risk and 11% saw a wholesale withdrawal from SNAP as a potential risk. 

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, said churches, food banks and other organizations would ensure that people are fed there.

Stitt, the chair of the bipartisan National Governors Association, said he believes federal programs like SNAP are operated with “a lot of fraud and abuse.” He also suggested that the program had become too seamless, with cards that resemble credit cards allowing recipients to easily purchase groceries. 

“Maybe it’s going back to the day where there was a little stigma attached and you had to actually go to a food bank and pick up commodity cheese and commodity groceries, and it had a little stigma so you were a little bit embarrassed,” he told Stateline. “Maybe we should go back to a little bit of that instead of just making it so easy…” 

“Nobody’s going to go hungry in Oklahoma,” he said. “…I can assure you people were eating, getting married, graduating from high school before we even had anything called SNAP benefits.”

The error rate

The federal focus on error rates is incentivizing states to slow down or entirely halt benefits in some cases, said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director at the Food Research & Action Center, a nonprofit working to combat hunger.

That’s because states face no penalty for wrongfully denying benefits, she said, only for paying too much or too little in benefits. The rate, calculated by a random sample of households, adds the number of overpayments and underpayments together. And states can still be penalized for overpayments they later recover from recipients. 

Missouri could be on the hook for $150 million in food benefits due to error rate

“There is no oversight in terms of the people who are eligible and being cut off,” Plata-Nino said. 

In Massachusetts, nearly 175,000 people lost SNAP benefits between July of last year and May of this year. And understaffing at the Department of Transitional Assistance has caused thousands of incoming phone calls from residents to get disconnected, according to the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, a poverty law and policy center.

That organization has pushed for more caseworkers, though a legislative budget proposal last week would cut $26 million from existing operations, said Victoria Negus, senior economic justice advocate at the institute.  

“What is happening is a version of what I’ve been calling ‘can’t see the forest for the payment error rate trees,’” she said. “They have set up this system that forces states to try to meet a number that is almost impossible for them to meet without fully decimated access to SNAP, because it takes time to methodically and carefully reduce payment error rates.”

In Alabama, officials said the state continues to prioritize staff training, automation and other changes to reduce the state’s error rate. The current error rate of 9.52% could cost the state an estimated $170 million.

Tennessee taxpayers could foot bill for some SNAP costs if state’s error rate doesn’t improve

Alabama’s legislature has set aside nearly $150 million for the SNAP program. But state Sen. Greg Albritton, a Republican who leads the budget committee, told the Alabama Reflector in April that those funds won’t be released unless the state can reduce its error rate to 6% or develop another plan to cover costs of the federal cuts. 

Kathryn Shoupe, spokesperson for the Alabama Department of Human Resources, noted that the federal data can be over a year old. She also noted that it isn’t evidence of fraud, but usually unintentional reporting errors from recipients.

LaTrell Clifford Wood, the hunger policy advocate at the anti-poverty nonprofit Alabama Arise, said the state needs hundreds more employees to fully meet the need. She noted that more than 52,000 people have already lost SNAP benefits in Alabama. And with rising grocery prices, she said the focus on the error rate will force difficult budgetary decisions that could affect other parts of the state budget, such as education.

“It is a metric with moral ambiguity,” she said. “We are putting paper pushing over people.” 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Household water costs could nearly double in some American cities, new research suggests, as climate change further stresses municipal water systems. 

Researchers at Stanford University and other institutions studied how a hotter, drier climate is poised to spike water bills for residents of Santa Cruz, California, in a peer-reviewed study published this week in the journal Nature Sustainability. While the study focused on that coastal city, the outlook is similar for many cities that will be forced to make costly upgrades to water systems as climate change intensifies, said lead author Jennifer Skerker, who worked on the research while studying for her doctorate in civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. 

Without significant government funding, the costs of new water transport systems, desalination plants and sewage water reuse systems are likely to be borne by individual water systems, which are expected to pass them onto consumers through water bills.

“So this really pits water affordability against water reliability, when in reality we need both of these to have safe, accessible and affordable water for everyone,” said Skerker, who now works for a local water utility.  

Though low-income residents use significantly less water, they will be hit hard by rising rates, which force them to spend a larger share of their resources, she said. Water rates have increased at three times the rate of inflation over the past two decades, as water providers updated aging infrastructure and addressed deferred maintenance backlogs.

The research comes as many Americans are already struggling with high energy bills: One in six American households are behind on utility bills, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association. While rising electric prices have sparked outrage among ratepayers, regulators and state lawmakers, relatively cheaper water has not always received the same level of attention. 

“I think water affordability definitely needs to be part of the conversation with energy affordability,” Skerker said. “…On the water side, households might be using less water than is healthy, or we can even see households making tradeoffs between paying for water or energy, or paying for groceries or medical bills.”

Like other Western cities, Santa Cruz has implemented many water conservation practices: By 2021, locals had cut water use by nearly two-thirds over two decades. That leaves few low-cost options to increase water supplies in an area entirely reliant on surface water.

The study lays out several potential scenarios for local water bills depending on climate conditions and water investments. In one of the driest scenarios, researchers predict median water bills for the poorest residents could rise from about $60 to $111 per month (in 2026 dollars) by the middle of the century. That means more than one-third of households in Santa Cruz could struggle to afford water. 

The study acknowledges that cities with larger reservoirs, more interconnected systems or access to lower-cost water sources may not experience the same acceleration in water bills. But it does envision “water affordability hotspots” across the country as more areas struggle to source and treat enough drinking water.

“It does seem unsustainable,” Skenker said, “and I think cities really need more help from the state and federal government.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

A quarter millennium after its founding, the United States faces a stark choice that will define its future.

In the years ahead, the country can continue to follow the path blazed by President Donald Trump, who is attempting to bring states under the authority of a more powerful federal government led by him. Or it can move in a different direction, one where states become a heavier counterweight to an aggressive White House and rebalance the relationship between the states and the federal government.

The United States’ foundations are undergoing a significant stress test, experts say, raising questions about whether a radical reconception of the nation lies ahead. The federalism that has helped bind the states — and therefore, the nation — together is fraying, pulled apart by a president who demonstrates little regard for many of the nation’s core principles.

David Adkins, executive director and CEO of the Council of State Governments, a national group that represents all three branches of state government, said state-federal tensions were escalating long before Trump.

“I wonder if we will come to a breaking point in which the institutions of government no longer serve the society in which we live,” said Adkins, a former Kansas Republican state lawmaker.

“And again,” he said, “we will be required to balance personal liberty and freedoms against what powers we want the government to exercise.”

While a long line of modern presidents have expanded the powers of their office, Trump has wielded the executive branch as a weapon to punish states and those state leaders he views as enemies. Federal dollars and resources have become a form of leverage he has tried to use to pursue his political aims and deliver the retribution he promised to, if reelected. He is trying to assert an unprecedented level of White House control over state-run elections.

How states — and the people — respond will forever shape the nation.

As the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding, Stateline has been exploring how the Trump era is transforming the relationship between the states and the federal government. This article is the fourth in an occasional series examining the fraught moment and what evolving — and often deteriorating — state-federal ties mean for the country, now and in the future.

As the Trump administration has been aggressively pursuing its agenda on immigration, election restrictions and other issues, Democratic states have been developing playbooks of resistance that could endure even after Trump’s time in office. They have enacted laws aimed at regulating the behavior of federal agents and preventing any attempts to illegally subvert the November midterm elections, for instance.

At least eight states have adopted laws limiting masking by law enforcement, according to Prosecutors Alliance Action, a nonprofit advocacy group that supports the legislation. The mask restrictions are in response to the widespread use of masks by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Patrol and other federal agents, as well as anger over the deployment of agents in places such as Minneapolis and Los Angeles.

Some states have also taken action to thwart any federal attempt to take over elections, which under the U.S. Constitution are run by the states. Administration officials have refused to rule out sending federal agents or troops to the polls, something already prohibited under federal law except in extremely narrow circumstances.

In late May, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that prohibits election officials from providing federal agents with access to voter lists or technology absent a court order. And New Mexico lawmakers earlier this year passed a bill to prohibit troops at polling places.

More recently, officials in some states threatened legislation to undercut Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Fund by taxing payments at 100%. Critics argued that the fund would be used to pay off the president’s allies. The U.S. Department of Justice has said it is backing off plans for the fund amid bipartisan opposition in Congress, but leaders have refused to confirm that in writing and a federal judge has said a lawsuit against the fund can proceed.

Collectively, these efforts offer a window into how states are testing ways to push back against the White House. While the Trump administration is challenging some of these measures in court, Democratic state lawmakers have demonstrated that state-level resistance to increasingly aggressive exercises of federal power is possible.

“It is incumbent upon state legislators and state governments to protect their people from this incredible overreach and this display of horrors and egregious behaviors we are seeing from the federal government,” said Pennsylvania state Sen. Amanda Cappelletti, a Democrat who has been pushing restrictions on ICE.

In response to Stateline’s questions for this series, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement: “The Trump Administration faithfully upholds our Constitution and the immortalized American principles of federalism, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.”

Rethinking the Constitution

Conservatives have long complained that the federal government has grown too large and too powerful. As Democrats fight Trump, some Republicans see an opportunity to forge a new bipartisan consensus in favor of states’ authority.

Pennsylvania state Sen. Cris Dush, a Republican, said the federal government has been overreaching since at least Woodrow Wilson’s presidency in the early 20th century. He argues that too many powers have been ceded to the executive branch that belong to legislators. 

“And that’s why we have a republic, not a democracy and not a king. It’s not supposed to go with the whims of either the public or whoever the chief executive is, and that’s why you’re now starting to see Democrats get on board with this,” Dush said.

“I’m glad to welcome anybody to this party that wants to come, because it’s all about getting the legislative authority back.”

Dush supports a convention of the states to draft proposed changes to the Constitution that limit federal power. The idea of calling a convention has long percolated in statehouses, especially among Republicans, but support for the idea appears to have grown in recent years.

Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a constitutional convention if two-thirds of state legislatures demand one but sets out few details about how such a gathering would operate. Any amendments proposed by a convention would need to be approved by three-fourths of the states.

Several different campaigns are pushing states to demand a convention, including one focused on a balanced budget amendment and another that seeks term limits. Collectively, 28 state legislatures have called for a convention, according to the good government group Common Cause, which opposes a convention. Thirty-six states must call for a convention to trigger one.

Former Utah Republican Gov. Gary Herbert has pushed for a balanced budget amendment to rein in federal spending and the ballooning national debt for more than 15 years. He said that states must lead the effort because Congress lacks the courage to confront the issue. 

“The burgeoning debt is just the result of not having appropriate balance between the state and federal government,” he said.

While conservatives and liberals fear a so-called runaway convention that could radically reshape the face of American government, Herbert said those same fears were present 250 years ago as the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to reshape the Articles of Confederation into the current Constitution.

“Well, the result was pretty good,” he said. “You know, we got this great Constitution everybody says was really a divinely inspired kind of a thing. … The Founding Fathers were brilliant in putting the Constitution together and said, ‘Here’s a role for the federal government, but here’s a larger role even for the states.’”

Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt said he wants states to have more control of federal spending. Bypassing Washington, D.C.’s bureaucracy would give states more authority and stewardship over federal taxpayer dollars, he said, forcing states to live within their means and end incentives to freely accept federal dollars rather than lose them to another state.

“So we have to change that incentive, and I think that’s a reasonable way to do it,” he said in an interview. “Now, Oklahoma would handle our own roads, bridges, etcetera, and I just think that the incentive would be totally different, and there would truly be 50 laboratories of democracy.”

Stitt is chair of the bipartisan National Governors Association. He’s criticized Trump’s deployment of the National Guard into blue states. But he said presidents of both parties have wielded the growing might of the federal government to influence policies across the country.

He pointed to Trump’s efforts to kill already-approved offshore wind energy projects, and he highlighted the Keystone Pipeline extension, which was thwarted by Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden but embraced by Trump. He called those sorts of turnabouts “un-American.”

“We’re in a terrible situation if this continues to happen in our country,” he said. “This is like what we’ve made fun of in these Third World countries from dictator to dictator.”

Unlike Stitt, critics of a convention of the states fear it could result in a dramatic overhaul of the Constitution that would endanger core liberties and freedoms. And because the Constitution provides few rules for how a convention would work, they worry the process would be susceptible to influence by wealthy interests.

Adkins, the Council of State Governments CEO, said a convention of the states could become more likely as state-federal tensions increase. He said states should begin having dispassionate conversations about how they would respond if a convention is called, what it would look like, and who would be in charge.

“Those are a lot of questions that we just don’t know about,” Adkins said. “But that’s sort of the ultimate nuclear option for the states in a dysfunctional federal system.”

States are ‘better prepared’

Whether a convention of the states ever takes place, the conversation surrounding the idea underscores the depth of frustration with the current state-federal relationship.

Last year a Gallup survey found that 62% of Americans believe the federal government has too much power, the highest percentage recorded since 2002. It was also the first time since 2007 that Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say the federal government is too powerful.

But what happens once Trump leaves office?Will at least some anger at the federal government dissipate?

Trump is a very unpopular president when compared against the past four executives to hold the White House. His disapproval rating stood at 58% on July 2, according to a New York Times daily average of polling on the president. Just 39% of Americans approve of the job he’s doing, down from nearly 50% in the weeks after his inauguration in January 2025.

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, said the way Trump has pushed the envelope could become a new normal “if the wrong people get elected.” But few people who run for president want to bully states, she said.

“They’re not looking to be king. They’re not looking to be a dictator,” Kelly said. “And there is plenty to do just with the responsibilities and the authority that the federal government traditionally has that there’s no need to go that way.”

A presidential administration that makes clear it will give states as much leeway as possible as it advances its agenda will go far in rebuilding relationships between the states and the federal government, said former New Jersey Republican Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.

But if not, states have learned from the Trump era.

“The states know what the potential dangers are,” Whitman said, “and they’re getting better prepared.”

In the birthplace of the nation, Philadelphians this spring were gearing up for a raucous Independence Day celebration. But feelings were mixed in this liberal stronghold, said Pennsylvania House Speaker Joanna McClinton, a Democrat who represents parts of Philadelphia.

She said Trump misunderstands the distinct powers of the states and is “trampling the American order” by seeking to upend American federalism. 

She and other Democrats in the closely divided commonwealth are trying to push back on the federal government through words and deeds.

But she said this administration hasn’t soured the excitement and pride in the American experiment. Republican and Democratic lawmakers were eager to participate in special sessions outside of Harrisburg this year in Philadelphia, where the founders signed both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

“People recognize the challenges of the hour, and they make every effort to engage politically so we can get out of this mess,” she said. “But it doesn’t fully dampen the mood of being grateful for what this country still represents, and the potential that it still has.”

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to clarify comments from David Adkins, executive director and CEO of the Council of State Governments.

States Newsroom reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@statesnewsroom.com. Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Democrats are seizing the mantle of states’ rights to oppose the agenda of President Donald Trump, who has sought to reset Washington’s relationship with the states. 

While the party out of federal power has always pushed its agenda in statehouses, Democrats across the country have recently demanded more autonomy for governors and state lawmakers. Liberals, longtime proponents of a stronger central government, are now championing an ideology that evokes odious memories of slavery and segregation.  

Many state leaders hope that a renewed focus on federalism could help lower the national political temperature. By shifting more political decisions to the states, they envision a nation less subject to blue-red swings that change the entire course of federal law enforcement, environmental policy and business regulation. 

“Otherwise we just end up fighting every four years over red king-blue king,” said Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory, a Republican. “And our entire nation goes entirely one way, and then 180 degrees the other way.”

Ivory said the pendulum swinging is “ripping our nation apart” politically and costing untold dollars as national policy reverses depending on who is in power. He leads Utah’s Federalism Commission, a bipartisan legislative group assessing state-federal boundaries and working to educate leaders across the country on federalism issues. 

While he’s been pushing for a smaller federal government and heightened role for the states for years, he said the fiery policy debates in Trump’s second term have given the effort unprecedented momentum. 

Last June, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said the White House had violated his state’s sovereignty in deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles without the governor’s consent. In a lawsuit the state ultimately won, California cited arguments made by founding father James Madison in the Federalist Papers calling for ratification of the Constitution more than 200 years ago. 

And this winter in Minnesota, Democrats pushed for more state oversight of the federal government after immigration officers killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. 

“This is a matter of states’ rights,” said Democratic state Senate leader Erin Murphy. “And while we can’t impact — except for next November – the makeup of Congress, we can impact and bring relief for the people of Minnesota.”

Many of the most high-profile conversations surrounding states rights’ have proven predictably partisan. Yet Democrats and Republicans behind the scenes have been quietly building momentum for a rebalancing of state-federal authority.  

Conservative state lawmakers who have long pushed for a smaller federal government are welcoming liberal counterparts to a growing movement underscoring the importance of federalism, the uniquely American system created by the framers of the Constitution to share power between Washington, D.C., and the states.

As the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary, Stateline is exploring how the Trump era is transforming the relationship between the states and the federal government. This article is the third in an occasional series examining the fraught moment and what evolving — and often deteriorating — state-federal ties mean for the country, now and in the future.

In Utah, the Republican House speaker called Rep. Ivory several days after Trump’s 2024 election, noting that even California’s liberal governor was talking about federalism.

“He says, ‘We have the opportunity of our lifetime. … We need to get out and work with other states, get them together,’” Ivory recalled. 

“I said, Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. But if Gavin Newsom does something that we believe is state jurisdiction, even if we don’t like the policy, we’ve got to stand with him. And he said, ‘I know,’ and that had never happened before.”

‘An inflection point’

The debate over how much power states should wield is as old as the nation itself: Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, the forebears of our two-party system, famously argued for larger and smaller federal roles, respectively. 

In Trump’s second term, Democrats have leaned on federalism principles as a means of checking federal power, said Troy Smith, a professor of constitutional federalism and director of the Constitutional Federalism Initiative at Utah Valley University in Orem. 

The American federalist system is always evolving as states and the federal government tussle over authority and the two parties come in and out of national power. Smith said state governments, namely governors, have grown increasingly partisan since the 1990s. But that may be changing as Republicans and Democrats embrace states’ rights.

“I think we’re in an inflection point now that looks like it has the potential to go in that direction as the states start recognizing they have many things in common that transcends party and cooperation could be to their benefit,” Smith said.

Federalism scholars took note of December’s inaugural meeting of the Assembly of State Legislative Leaders, a bipartisan gathering of lawmakers from 30 states. Though not highly publicized, that group signed off on a 449-word declaration on the importance of states’ ability to legislate independently. 

“I think that’s pretty unique and telling in this moment that Republican and Democratic leaders came together and unanimously approved that resolution,” Smith said. 

The group of lawmakers has yet to publicize any more meetings and its leader, Ohio’s Republican House Speaker Matt Huffman, declined an interview request.

But New Hampshire House Speaker Sherman Packard, who attended that gathering, said it was clear that concerns over the size and scope of the federal government transcend parties.

“It’s strictly a bipartisan issue,” said Packard, a Republican. “It isn’t an issue that’s dominated by one blue state or one red state. It’s an issue that I think almost every state legislature is dealing with, and red or blue, it’s worth telling the federal government, ‘enough is enough.’”

Tennessee Democratic state Rep. Karen Camper, though, is skeptical that the states will mark meaningful progress during Trump’s term. 

“Bipartisan has become a nasty word for this president,” she said. “So it’s going to have to be after he’s gone, because he will kill it. That’s what I’ve seen from this president.”

Camper, the Tennessee state House minority leader, pointed to May’s special legislative session in which the GOP pushed through a controversial congressional redistricting plan. It splits the state’s only majority-Black congressional district in Memphis across three districts, diluting that area’s vote as Republicans attempt to flip the state’s only Democratic-held district. 

“Look at what just happened in our state,” Camper said, highlighting Trump’s push for redistricting. “That was a chance for our Republican supermajority to say, ‘We’re not going down this road.’” 

Camper is also the chair of the Black Legislative Leaders Network, a national group of Black lawmakers who lead state chambers, caucuses and committees. She said she worries that too much focus on state autonomy could jeopardize important freedoms that were won at the federal level, including civil rights and voting rights.

“So we’re going to be fighting, refighting some of the same stuff, some of the same things that we fought for,” she said. “…We should be protected by these rights, regardless of where we go in this country, but in states’ rights, there’s a chance that you won’t.”

A complicated history

The debate over states’ rights is inextricably tied to race, equality and segregation. 

And some Southerners continue to argue that conflicts over states’ rights — rather than slavery — drove secession ahead of the Civil War. Historians, though, note the only significant right under debate at that time was the right to enslave people.

In the Jim Crow era, Southern states continued the siren call of states’ rights as they defended racial segregation and fought civil rights movements.

While the concept can still evoke those deeply divisive times, liberals in recent years have found political value in embracing states’ rights, said Paul Nolette, professor and director of the Les Aspin Center for Government at Marquette University and co-editor of a national academic journal on federalism. 

That’s particularly true of Democratic attorneys general, who have been aggressively challenging the White House in the past year with scores of lawsuits over its immigration enforcement efforts, environmental policies and the withholding of federal funds from states.

“If states were just this weak link, then they would be able to do nothing,” Nolette said. “You know, it would just be the federal government getting whatever it wants. But in fact, the states have a lot of tools themselves to push back on the federal government.”

Though the federal government has grown in scope over the decades, Nolette noted, state bureaucracies have also expanded influence. Many federal programs, including the national food stamp program and safety net health insurance, are administered by state governments.

“So the nature of federal policy over the last few decades has actually given states additional powers to have a say in national policy,” he said. 

Nick Brown, Washington state’s Democratic attorney general, acknowledged his view of states’ rights has evolved over the years. 

Like many others, the phrase to him frequently evoked the Southerners who championed states’ rights in their efforts to oppose racial integration. The state’s first Black attorney general, Brown previously spent years working in the U.S. Department of Justice, a federal agency he admired for its role in pursuing civil rights cases. 

But he said the Trump era demands a different role for states as the president continues to flout congressional appropriations and punish political opponents.   

“I think certainly we have to look differently at what states’ authorities are in this moment,” he said. 

Brown said a heightened focus on states is welcome after years of outsized attention on national politics. That’s because the issues most important to most people — taxes, schools and public safety — are most affected by local policy decisions, he said. 

Changing the structure 

In Utah, state officials are looking to lead a national movement to bring more authority back to the states. 

While fears over the Trump administration’s overreach have fueled Democratic interest, Ivory, the Republican representative leading that effort, said the initiative is more focused on governmental structure than politics. 

Ivory likened the current federal-state dynamic to a bicycle with a bloated front tire threatening to bust and a back tire so flat it’s about to chew the rubber off the rim.

“Well, the answer is not to get a different rider or a stronger rider or to steer the bike to the left or to the right. It’s to fix the balance in the tires,” he said. “Our structure, our vehicle of government was two spheres with very specific balance, and we haven’t been paying attention to that for a long time.”

This discussion comes naturally in Western states that have for generations feuded with Washington over the proper use and ownership of federal lands. Over 90% of federal lands are located in the West, according to the Congressional Western Caucus, with the federal government owning 1 of every 2 acres. 

Utah’s commission aims at connecting state lawmakers and agency staff from across the country to better adjudicate federal and state jurisdiction on everything from land management to law enforcement. Ivory said the group would also like to help fill the void left after the 1996 disbandment of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, an entity that put state and local governments in direct contact with federal agencies. 

Utah Democratic state Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost acknowledged her initial skepticism of the GOP’s federalism push there because of its historic ties to slavery and segregation.

“I’m pretty liberal,” she said. “Federalism is something that was always viewed, I think for not unjustified reasons, as something that was hostile to equality and equitable outcomes and fairness.”

But after a 90-minute conversation with her Republican colleague, she began to see the value — especially now — of pushing for an expanded role for states. Now a member of the state’s federalism commission, she said she envisions a better structure where states stand together, regardless of party affiliation, to counterbalance the federal government.

“States are oftentimes too wrapped up in whether we’re blue states or red states to really have each other’s back,” she said. “And it’s been hard, politically, to convince a red state like Utah to vocally say blue-state California wants to do things its way, we have to have their back and say that they have the right to do things that way, even if it’s not how we would do things.”

As a member of the political minority in Utah, she acknowledged how difficult that can be. Utah’s Republican party holds all statewide offices and enjoys supermajorities in both legislative chambers. And Dailey-Provost said the state’s LGBTQ+ population has been subjected to “constant attacks” from the GOP there. 

Still, she said, she would rather have that debate locally than rely on the federal government to protect those residents. 

“So, I don’t like the current policy outcomes, but I see more opportunity to continue to work with communities and try to fix it over time here at the state level,” Dailey-Provost said. “… At least I feel like there’s a path forward at the local level.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. States Newsroom reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@statesnewsroom.com.