How Americans for Prosperity’s DC Agenda Is Undermining Grassroots Conservatives

In the wide-open spaces of Wyoming, where energy production powers the economy and local control is a point of pride, a Washington, DC Beltway-based operation—the kind of national advocacy organization that develops campaigns from the nation’s capital rather than from the communities it targets—  is hard at work trying to rewrite the rules of democracy. Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the flagship political vehicle long associated with the Koch network, has set up shop in the Cowboy State and is flooding mailboxes with deceitful claims designed to sway voters in legislative races. 

AFP systematically builds and directs state chapters—Wyoming became the 36th in 2023—to shape state legislatures according to their outsider agenda. State directors and staff receive guidance, messaging, and resources from the national apparatus. The result is a sophisticated operation that can appear “local” while advancing priorities fabricated in the Beltway.

The group’s current attack campaign fabricates three distinct lies about a single piece of legislation—House Joint Resolution 3 (HJ0003)—to smear lawmakers who dared prioritize Wyoming citizens over outside agendas.  According to the mailers, legislators who supported HJ0003 voted to “drive up energy costs,” “destroy energy jobs,” and “stand with bureaucrats.” None of that is true. 

HJ0003 simply proposed amending the Wyoming Constitution to require a statewide vote of the people before high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel could be permanently stored in the state. It imposed no new regulations on coal, oil, or natural gas. It created no new energy costs. It eliminated no energy jobs. It shifted decision-making power to Wyoming voters on one specific, high-stakes issue.

This is not an isolated Wyoming anomaly. It is the latest example of a deliberate national strategy: a D.C.-area organization using opaque funding, state-level chapters, and carefully crafted disinformation to influence—and often purge—state legislators who refuse to march in lockstep with their donors’ priorities.

Why State Elections Matter to a D.C. Operation

State legislatures control energy policy, tax structures, labor rules, education funding, and regulatory frameworks that affect national industries. By installing or protecting aligned lawmakers at the state level, AFP can create a more favorable environment for the policy preferences of its donor network without having to win every national fight. 

Critics from across the political spectrum have noted that this style of politics hollows out local accountability. Lawmakers who answer primarily to distant organizations and their donors rather than local constituents face different incentives. When an out of state organization can spend significant sums on negative mailers that manipulate facts, the playing field tilts away from genuine grassroots competition. Voters cannot easily determine whether the “energy jobs” rhetoric is driven by genuine concern for Wyoming coal and oil workers or by broader national interests in nuclear development, regulatory relief, or ideological consistency. The mailers treat local voters as targets to be moved rather than citizens to be informed.

The Cost to Conservative Self-Government

State legislatures are where conservative policy often advances most effectively—on energy, taxes, education, and regulatory restraint. By intervening in these races with disinformation and misaligned values, AFP focuses on outcomes preferred by its national network over the judgment of local conservative voters and activists. In Wyoming, that means treating a vote to let the people decide on permanent nuclear waste storage as evidence of hostility to energy.

This is the core problem for voters. AFP deploys significant resources to pressure or primary Republican legislators who refuse to fully align with their DC priorities. In Wyoming, that means going after lawmakers who have advanced limited-government measures rooted in local conservative priorities.

When AFP misrepresents a resolution about nuclear-waste storage as an attack on Wyoming energy jobs, it does more than mislead voters. It forces genuine conservative candidates to spend time and resources debunking falsehoods instead of advancing their own platforms. It sows doubt among conservative voters about who can be trusted. And it signals to state legislators that fidelity to local conservative priorities can invite well-funded retaliation from a Beltway operation.

Americans for Prosperity presents itself as a champion of free markets, limited government, and individual liberty. But its methods tell a different story. Opaque funding, coordinated state chapters directed from the national level, disinformation in state races, and a willingness to deploy false claims against conservatives undermine the very principles the organization claims to defend. When voters cannot trust the basic facts presented in campaign materials, and when the entities producing those materials refuse to reveal their true agendas, informed self-government gives way to political theater. 

The practical effect is to make it harder for grassroots conservatives to build durable majorities. Candidates who answer primarily to their districts face pressure from an organization that is not accountable to Wyoming voters. Primary challenges and negative mailers become tools to discipline the right rather than strengthen it. 

The Wyoming episode crystallizes the issue. A resolution about whether citizens should vote on permanent storage of high-level radioactive waste is twisted into a morality play about destroying energy jobs. Three separate false claims are packaged into mailers and sent into communities where energy is both economic lifeblood and cultural identity. The goal is not persuasion through accurate information; it is persuasion through fear and misdirection.

Wyoming conservatives, and grassroots activists across the country deserve campaigns grounded in facts, not fabrications.  And they deserve organizations that reinforce rather than undermine the local conservative movements that have delivered results. Until AFP Wyoming abandons the tactics of misrepresentation and putting DC priorities over Wyoming voters, it will continue to weaken the Wyoming Way it claims to advance—one misleading mailer at a time.

The question Wyoming voters are already asking remains the right one for the country: Why is a D.C.-area group setting up shop in our states and using disinformation to try to influence our elections? The answer, visible in the mailers and the money, is that local self-determination is less important to Americans for Prosperity than achieving the outcomes their donors prefer. That should concern every American who still believes elections belong to the people who live under the laws those elections produce.

 

Wyoming Education Association’s War On Democracy

Wyoming Education Association  Vs The People of Wyoming

Unfortunately for Wyoming, the DC controlled Wyoming Education Association has imported a dangerous strategy of bypassing Wyoming voters and the legislature through endless lawsuits.  

For more than three decades, the Wyoming Education Association (WEA) — the state’s declining teachers union — has pursued a deliberate strategy of filing lawsuit after lawsuit against the State of Wyoming whenever the elected Legislature passes laws or sets funding levels the union dislikes. Rather than accepting the outcomes of democratic elections and legislative debate, the WEA repeatedly turns to the courts to impose its preferred policies on school funding, staffing, facilities, and even programs like Education Savings Accounts. This is not advocacy for students or teachers. It is a sustained effort to override the people’s elected representatives and shift power from voters and lawmakers to unelected judges.

How did we get here?

The Campbell Era: Judicial Remaking of Wyoming Education (1995–2008)

The pattern began with Campbell County School District v. State (1995). The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that education is a fundamental right and that the state must provide a “complete and uniform” system. The Legislature responded by fundamentally rewriting school finance statutes, creating a statewide cost-based funding model, reducing local wealth disparities, and assuming greater responsibility for defining and funding educational adequacy. The litigation did not stop there. A series of subsequent Campbell decisions  through 2008 forced the Legislature to implement “basket of goods” models, recalibration studies, inflation adjustments, expanded transportation and special education funding, statewide facility standards, and more. Each ruling required new statutes and increased state oversight. What began as an effort to address funding disparities evolved into a system where courts effectively directed the expansion of statewide mandates and centralized control.

The 2022 Lawsuit and 2025 Ruling: The Pattern Continues

In August 2022, the WEA (joined by several school districts) sued the state again. It claimed the Legislature had failed to adequately adjust funding for inflation and other costs, rendering the system unconstitutional despite years of rising appropriations. After a lengthy trial, Laramie County District Judge Peter Froelicher ruled in February 2025 that portions of Wyoming’s school funding system were unconstitutional. He ordered the state to modify the funding model and school facilities financing system to comply with judicial standards.

The state has appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court. While this case was pending, the Legislature passed an Education Savings Account program to give families more choice. In June 2025, the WEA filed suit to block it and quickly obtained a preliminary injunction halting the use of public funds for the program. This is the consistent playbook: If the people’s elected Legislature does not deliver exactly what the WEA demands on funding or policy, the union sues. Courts issue orders. Lawmakers must then rewrite statutes, commission new studies, and appropriate more money.

Declining Enrollment, Rising Spending, Expanding Mandates

Wyoming’s public school enrollment peaked at 94,002 students in 2015 and fell to 88,165 by 2025 — a loss of over 5,800 students. During the same period, per-pupil spending rose sharply from approximately $16,055 in 2015 to $20,521 in 2024 (a nearly 28% increase). According to the Legislative Service Office memorandum dated March 11, 2026 the estimated school funding for 2026-27 school year will equate to about $22,626 per pupil. This totals to approximately $1.95 billion dollars.  

Despite fewer students and one of the highest per-pupil spending levels in the country, the WEA insists the system remains underfunded and demands further judicial intervention. Each successful lawsuit produces more reporting requirements, compliance obligations, statewide standards, and oversight from Cheyenne, further eroding the local control that Wyoming communities have long valued.

A Constitutional Mismatch

The Wyoming Constitution clearly assigns responsibility for public education to the elected branches:

Nowhere does the Constitution authorize judges to define the precise contents of a “basket of goods,” dictate inflation adjustments, or order specific staffing levels, mental health programs, or facility standards as constitutional mandates. Yet that is exactly what decades of WEA litigation have achieved. What should be legislative policy choices and subject to voter accountability  have been converted into judicially enforceable obligations.

Who Benefits? Taxpayers Pay the Price

The disputes center overwhelmingly on funding formulas, compensation models, operational costs, and institutional resources — not individual students in specific classrooms. When the WEA wins, the Legislature responds with new statutes, higher appropriations, and expanded state control. These changes accumulate over time, creating a thicker web of mandates. Every lawsuit carries real costs: legal fees paid by taxpayers on both sides, diverted staff time, and the opportunity cost of money spent on litigation instead of classrooms. 

The result is a system increasingly governed by court orders and statewide rules rather than decisions by locally elected school boards and the people’s representatives in Cheyenne. The WEA claims these suits protect students and demand “adequate” funding. In practice, the union has shown it will sue to block legislative choices it opposes (such as school choice programs) and will never declare victory as long as more resources can be extracted through the courts. The cycle is self-perpetuating: more spending is never enough; more lawsuits to follow.

Reclaiming Democratic Control

Wyoming’s Constitution entrusted education policy to the Legislature.  For more than thirty years, the WEA has worked to weaken our democracy and transfer effective control to the judiciary through repeated litigation. This undermines the separation of powers and the principle that policy disagreements should be resolved at the ballot box and in the legislative chamber, not in the courtroom. The definition of a constitutionally adequate education, the level of funding, and the structure of school choice should be determined by Wyoming’s elected representatives — not by union lawsuits and district court orders. Voters deserve an education system shaped by democracy, not by the next round of litigation brought on by the WEA and their DC lobbyist overlords. 

 

Sweetwater School District #1 Leadership Is Under Question Again

Superintendent Joseph Libby’s leadership is under question again as staff use the Sweetwater School District # 1 communication platform to reach out to parents and ask for volunteers to help Eric Barlow’s political campaign for governor.  The latest entry in a growing list of controversies. 

What happened?

Teacher Lyndsey James sent a message out to parents seeking volunteers to walk in an upcoming parade with the Eric Barlow campaign and help hand out Barlow for Governor campaign materials.  She even went as far as posting the campaign’s direct contact information.

Rightfully outraged Wyoming voters called the School District out.  And how did Libby’s office respond?  With an apology that was either confused or disingenuous.

 

The parent communication specifically said they were looking for volunteers to hand out campaign materials for Eric Barlow and little else.  And yet Libby’s office has the nerve to say the message appeared to be a community volunteer opportunity, not to endorse or promote any political candidate or party. 

Instead of the basic accountability and respect this situation demanded, citizens once again had their legitimate concerns brushed off with another CYA notice written by over-priced lawyers at the taxpayers expense.   

Unfortunately, this does not stand alone.

Over the past year, parents have raised concerns over public records disputes, special education complaints, staff turnover, board governance, and communication with families. Those concerns ultimately led to a Wyoming Department of Education investigation that found the district out of compliance in four of the five major areas reviewed, identifying systemic failures involving staffing, implementation of student IEPs, parental participation, and oversight.

The district has also faced public criticism over the handling of a special education classroom incident, allegations involving inappropriate staff conduct, disputes over board transparency, and growing frustration expressed by parents during school board meetings.

Taken individually, each controversy may have its own explanation. Taken together, they reveal something much more concerning: a recurring pattern that keeps bringing the district back to the same place.  

Every controversy eventually comes back to one issue—leadership.  And the minimum standard needed is accountability.  Not another politically expedient apology and another empty promise to review procedures.

Trust is not rebuilt through press releases that are all talk and no action.

It is rebuilt when leadership accepts responsibility, addresses problems before they escalate, and demonstrates through actions—not words—that the district has learned from its mistakes.

Until that happens, each new controversy makes the next apology less reassuring and leaves parents asking an increasingly difficult question: Is anyone truly leading this district 

King Gordon’s Hands Down Latest Edict for His Subjects 

Governor Mark Gordon’s latest royal edict is wrapped in appealing language like stewardship, transparency, Wyoming values, economic opportunity, and ratepayer protection.  But behind the polished wording lies a serious problem.

Executive Order 2026-03, titled “Data Centers the Wyoming Way,” is Gov. Gordon’s 11th-hour decree from on high. It directs state agencies to coordinate the development of large-scale data centers and advanced computing facilities, framing these projects as drivers of economic growth, national security, job creation, energy development, and Wyoming’s place in America’s digital future.

That may sound harmless. It may even sound responsible.

Yet the real question Wyoming citizens should ask is not just whether data centers are inherently good or bad. The real question is whether a term-limited governor should unilaterally issue a sweeping statewide development mandate by executive decree while the Legislature is actively doing the people’s business through public hearings and interim committees.

This is where Governor Gordon’s order crosses from questionable to unacceptable.

The Legislature Is Already Doing This Work the Right Way

Wyoming lawmakers have not ignored data centers. Quite the opposite. Multiple committees are already examining the very issues the order claims to address: water consumption, electric rates, grid reliability, infrastructure costs, local control, property rights, taxation, and the long-term impacts on Wyoming communities.

That is how representative government is supposed to work. Lawmakers hold public meetings. Citizens testify. Industry representatives answer questions. Local officials raise concerns. Committees request research, form working groups, and draft legislation. The process is deliberately slow because major policy decisions must survive public scrutiny before becoming law.

Executive decrees are no substitute for this hard-fought legislative process. Yet Governor Gordon’s order directs agencies to move forward while elected representatives are still actively conducting that work.

The Select Water Committee has held detailed hearings on water use, arid-climate impacts, property rights, and cooling technology, with input from residents, local officials, and industry.

The Joint Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee has focused on electricity demand, transmission constraints, utility policy, third-party generation, and ratepayer protection.

The Revenue Committee has scrutinized property taxes, rapid server depreciation, sales and use tax issues, and the true fiscal impact of these projects.

That is the Legislature doing its job.

And why this makes Governor Gordon’s executive order not just troubling but dangerously premature. Coming in the final months of his administration, the order has all the hallmarks of a lame-duck maneuver: purposely locking executive agencies onto his preferred path before elected officials can finish their review.  Bypassing the people’s representatives and disrespecting the voters of Wyoming.

Wyoming citizens deserve policy shaped by public debate, not a framework handed down from the top. 

The Edict Talks Like a Safeguard, But Functions Like a Blank Check

The order nods to citizen concerns about water sustainability, wildlife, public engagement, ratepayer protection, and community investment. This nod is little more than political cover. Governor Gordon is using these reassuring words to wrap his decree in the language of Wyoming values while directing agencies to fast-track the very development many citizens disagree with. Acknowledging problems is not the same as solving them.

The order creates no new water protections. It establishes no enforceable limits on water consumption, strengthens no permitting standards, and provides no hard protections for ratepayers. Nor does it guarantee meaningful local control or ensure that existing industries, ranchers, farmers, and residential utility customers will be shielded from the demands of large-scale corporate infrastructure.

So what does this executive order actually do?

It directs state agencies to build a massive statewide development framework and orders unelected bureaucrats to deliver formal recommendations within just sixty days. In the process, the governor is shoving the people’s elected representatives aside and trampling their work before they have had the opportunity to finish the people’s business.

Which raises the most damning question: Why is a term-limited governor issuing commands to the unelected machinery of state government to begin charting Wyoming’s future on data centers while the people’s elected representatives are still holding hearings and doing the public’s business?

Government is not the agencies, and it certainly is not the unelected bureaucracy that King Gordon is empowering. Government is the people. As Article 1, Section 1 of Wyoming’s Declaration of Rights states: “All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness; for the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.” 

In Wyoming, the people exercise their authority through the legislators they elect. State Agencies exist to carry out the law after policy decisions are made. They are not empowered to supersede the people’s representatives or to race ahead of the legislative process in shaping those decisions. 

Yet that is exactly what this order does. While citizens are still testifying and lawmakers are still weighing the evidence, the bureaucracy has already been given its marching orders from on high.

This Is Not Gordon’s Lane

Executive orders have a narrow, limited role in directing agencies and handling routine operations within the part of government that carries out laws, not the part that makes them.They must respect constitutional boundaries and cannot override the authority of the people’s elected representatives.

Wyoming citizens do not elect legislators to be bypassed by royal decree on major decisions. They elect them to debate policy in public, answer to constituents, and write guardrails into law. The process matters, even for those who support data centers. The people’s representatives, not executive fiat from the throne, should set the terms.

That is the Wyoming way.

Not a 60-day executive-agency sprint ordered from top down.

Not a top-down framework built to deliver certainty to developers while leaving Wyoming citizens to hope the protections come later. 

Not a parting gift to corporate interests wrapped in language about stewardship.

What Happens Now?

Wyoming citizens deserve their elected representatives to continue and complete the important work they have already begun with strong action to protect families, businesses, and communities. Lawmakers need to require any large-scale data center project to prove a clear net benefit to Wyoming. To demand proof of water sustainability. They must protect existing utility customers from bearing the cost of infrastructure built for massive new industrial loads. Governor Gordon may call this “Data Centers the Wyoming Way.”

But Wyoming citizens should know the difference between representative government and executive fiat from the throne – a top-down power play that bypasses the people’s elected representatives.

 

2026 Legislative Session Roundup

The Wyoming Legislature operates as a citizen legislature: part-time lawmakers who meet for a limited number of days each year on a biennial cycle totaling just 60 legislative days every two years. This structure shapes everything from how bills are introduced to how the state budget is crafted. This guide explains the process step by step while recapping the key outcomes and debates from the 2026 Budget Session (the 68th Legislature), highlighting both what passed and where significant proposals stalled.

Wyoming’s Legislative Process: Structure, Sessions, and Budget Authority

Wyoming alternates between two types of sessions:

During odd-year General Sessions, lawmakers may also pass a supplemental budget to adjust the previous biennial budget. This can correct errors, account for inflation, or address unexpected needs. Supplemental budgets became routine starting in the 1970s and contributed to steady growth in state spending. Notably, in 2025 the Legislature chose not to pass a supplemental budget, the first such instance in the modern era. While some fiscally impactful bills still advanced, skipping the supplemental budget was viewed as a meaningful act of fiscal restraint for Wyoming taxpayers.

How Committees Are Formed and What They Do

Much of the real work of the Legislature happens in committees, both during the session and in the months between sessions.

During the Legislative Session:

House and Senate standing committees operate separately in their own chambers. Each committee focuses on a specific policy area (see the full list below). These committees review bills, hold public hearings, take testimony, debate amendments, and vote on whether to send a bill forward to the full chamber. 

Between Sessions (Interim Period)

After the session ends, most standing committees merge into joint interim committees.

The Legislative Management Council — a bipartisan group made up of House and Senate leadership — plays a key role by:

These joint interim committees travel across the state, study assigned issues, hold open public hearings, gather input, and develop bill ideas for the next session. Many bills introduced each session originate directly from the research and recommendations of these joint interim committees. When the next session begins, the joint interim committees split back into separate House and Senate standing committees and continue working independently. Note: The committees of the Wyoming Legislature keep the same names whether they are working jointly (during the interim) or separately (during the session).

How Bills Are Created

Bills reach the floor of either the House or Senate through two main routes.

  1. Joint Interim Committees: Many bills originate from the research, study, and recommendations of the joint interim committees described above.
  2. Individual Legislators: Individual legislators can also sponsor bills, often drawing from constituent concerns, agency requests, interest groups, court rulings, or campaign promises. Additional lawmakers may sign on as co-sponsors to build support.

Bill Drafting Process

All bills are drafted and reviewed by the Legislative Service Office (LSO), which checks legal soundness, suggests wording, and assigns a bill number: 

There is no strict interim deadline, but most sponsors aim to pre-file by early December. Once the session begins, a firm cutoff (roughly one-quarter of the way through the allotted days) prevents any further new bills from being introduced.

The Life of a Bill: Introduction, Committees, and Floor Action

Once drafted and numbered by the Legislative Service Office, a bill must follow a structured path through the Wyoming Legislature.

First, it is introduced by leadership. It must then pass an introduction vote by the full chamber. This is a significant early hurdle — especially during the short Budget Session, where a two-thirds (⅔) majority is required.

If the bill fails the introduction vote, it is dead. If it passes, it is assigned to a relevant standing committee.

After passing introduction, the bill is assigned to a standing committee for testimony, debate, and possible amendments. If the bill receives a majority vote from the committee members, it advances to the next step; if not the bill is dead.  

Bills that survive committee move to the General File, where the Majority Floor Leader sets the schedule for if and when it will be debated. The chamber then considers the bill through three readings:

Reconsideration

If a bill fails at any stage, a member may move to suspend the rules and request reconsideration. A majority vote is required to proceed. 

Process in the Second Chamber

Once a bill passes one chamber, it goes to the other chamber (House or Senate), where the entire process repeats: committee review, General File, and three readings.

A key deadline in the second chamber requires bills to be reported out of committee by a specific date. If they are not, they die regardless of prior progress.

Amendments

Throughout the process, amendments may be introduced at both the committee level and during floor debate. These changes can significantly alter the bill’s meaning, scope, or impact, sometimes causing legislators to change their position on the bill.

Where Bills Commonly Stall in the Process

Understanding where legislation fails is just as important as understanding how it passes. At each stage of the process, there are specific points where bills are most likely to stall or die. The most common failure points include:

After A Bill Has Passed Both Chambers

Once a bill passes both the House and the Senate, it becomes an enrolled act. The Governor may:

The Governor has 3 days (excluding Sundays) while the legislature is still in session and 15 days (excluding Sundays) after adjournment to sign or veto the bill. If the Governor vetoes the bill, the Legislature may attempt to override the veto by following this procedure:

  1. The Majority Floor Leader in the chamber where the bill originated must introduce a motion to override.
  2. That chamber debates the motion and needs a two-thirds (⅔) majority to proceed.
  3. If successful, the process repeats in the other chamber.
  4. A two-thirds (⅔) majority vote in both chambers is required to override the veto and enact the bill into law.

Special Session for Veto Overrides

If the Legislature has already adjourned when a veto occurs, it must convene a special session to consider an override. 

Under the Wyoming Constitution, this requires a petition signed by two-thirds of the members in both chambers (42 House members and 21 Senators). Any legislator—not just leadership—can initiate the petition.

2026 Budget Session:  Bill Outcomes & Legislative Activity

With an understanding of how bills move through the process, the outcomes of the 2026 Budget Session provide a clearer picture of how that process played out in practice.  

During Wyoming’s 68th Legislative Budget Session, lawmakers filed a total of 335 bills. These bills came from two primary sources:

This breakdown highlights the important role joint interim committees play in shaping the session’s agenda, while also showing that the majority of legislation still comes directly from individual lawmakers responding to constituents, agencies, and other stakeholders.

Senate Activity

The Senate, composed of 31 members, introduced 135 bills at the start of the session, including 55 committee bills and 80 individually sponsored bills.

Outcomes in the Senate included:

Once Senate bills moved to the House:

House Activity

The House, composed of 62 representatives, introduced 200 bills, including 58 committee bills and 142 individually sponsored bills.

Outcomes in the House included:

Once House bills moved to the Senate:

These results show that the session was not defined solely by the bills that became law. A significant portion of legislative activity ended at the introduction stage, where the two-thirds threshold limited which proposals advanced to committee review.

As a result, many bills with majority support were never debated in committee or on the floor. The following section highlights several of those measures.

Important Bills That Failed to Advance at Introduction

The following bills did not receive the two-thirds vote required for introduction in their chamber of origin, preventing further debate:

State Budget Overview and Process

While policy bills often receive the most attention, the primary responsibility of a budget session is to pass the state budget. This is where legislative priorities are ultimately reflected in funding decisions. 

Wyoming’s biennial budget is developed through two primary bills: HB1 and SF1. Although both are referred to as budget bills, they do not begin as identical measures. 

Each chamber’s Appropriations Committee starts with the Governor’s budget recommendation and then creates its own version based on the committee’s priorities and perspective. As the bills move through the House and Senate, legislators debate them extensively and propose amendments that adjust funding levels across many state agencies and programs. By the time the bills reach Third Reading, the House and Senate versions are often significantly different.

At that point, a conference committee is appointed by legislative leadership to reconcile the differences. This committee works to produce a single unified version, meeting as many times as necessary within session deadlines.

Once agreement is reached, the final version is sent back to both chambers for approval. If both pass the reconciled bill, it is then sent to the Governor.

Although budget bills are considered “must-pass,” they are still subject to the full legislative process and can fail. However, because Wyoming operates on a biennial budget, a failure does not immediately halt state operations (aka a state government shutdown). The existing budget remains in place, and lawmakers may address funding through separate legislation or a special session.

Scale of the 2026 Budget Process

The 2026 Budget Session demonstrated the significant scope of this work. In 2026, more than 40 hours of debate occurred, with 247 amendments considered in the House and 72 in the Senate.

Budget Highlights and Key Allocations

The final budget reflects a combination of the Governor’s proposal and legislative adjustments:

Major Funding Sources

Key Allocations

Additional Appropriations

Legislative Branch Budget 

In addition to the general state budget, SF0002 funds the legislative branch itself, including the Legislative Service Office and operational costs of the Legislature.

Often referred to as the “feed bill,” this measure covers legislator compensation, staff salaries, travel expenses, and administrative operations. It also provides flexibility for leadership, through the Management Council, to address unexpected costs such as special sessions or legal challenges.

Unlike other bills with fiscal impact, SF0002 is not incorporated into the final overall budget total.

Recent funding levels show steady growth:

The largest increases between 2024 and 2026 were in travel expenses, organizational dues, and staffing.

Legislative Branch Budget Breakdown

Legislative spending is divided into several primary categories, with compensation and operations making up the largest share:

Beyond the primary budget bills, the Legislature approved additional measures with direct fiscal impact. These bills contribute to the overall budget total of approximately $10.1 billion.

Key examples include:

Property Tax Policy and Relief Efforts

While the budget reflects how the state allocates resources, it also highlights how those resources are generated. This brings tax policy into focus, particularly property taxes, which became a central issue during the session. 

Property tax relief was one of the most debated issues during the session, as lawmakers responded to rising costs for Wyoming residents. While many proposals aimed to reduce tax burdens, they differed significantly in structure, scope, and long-term impact.

Some bills targeted specific groups, while others attempted broader system-wide changes. This raised an important policy question: when tax relief is directed toward one group without corresponding spending reforms, the fiscal impact does not disappear. Instead, it must be shifted elsewhere, either to other taxpayers or into the broader state budget.

This debate also highlighted constitutional considerations, including equal treatment under the law and whether policy should differentiate between groups of residents when distributing tax relief.

More broadly, the discussion raised a fundamental issue: if state spending continues to grow, is tax relief alone a sufficient solution? In that context, evaluating bills requires looking beyond the immediate benefit of tax relief. Consideration of  how each proposal fits within the state’s overall fiscal structure is needed as well. The following bills took different approaches to provide relief, balancing competing priorities, and attempted to address the underlying pressure driving the need for tax reform. 

Bills That Passed

Bills That Failed or Did Not Advance

These outcomes highlight the difficulty of advancing tax reform, particularly when balancing immediate relief with long-term fiscal stability.

Election Policy and Integrity

Election integrity was another key topic this session as citizens voiced concerns about local, statewide and federal issues. Election-related legislation reflected ongoing efforts to maintain confidence in Wyoming’s electoral process through transparency, efficiency, clearly established procedures and accountability.

Lawmakers considered proposals addressing system security, voter identification, audit procedures, and administrative clarity. While these efforts aimed to strengthen trust in the electoral system, the results revealed a clear divide, particularly in the House, where many bills received majority support but failed to meet the two-thirds threshold required for introduction.

Bills That Passed

Bills That Failed or Did Not Advance

Public Safety and Protection of Children

A significant portion of legislation focused on protecting children, particularly in response to concerns about exploitation, safety, and emerging technological threats. These measures addressed both prevention and enforcement, strengthening existing laws while adapting to new risks.

Bills that passed  

Bills That Did Not Pass

The volume and scope of legislation in this area reflect continued concern for protecting children and addressing evolving risks. These discussions often extend beyond a single policy area, connecting to broader questions about the role of government, enforcement, and public accountability.

Government Transparency 

Government transparency is essential to a functioning democracy because it empowers citizens to hold their leaders accountable, builds public trust, and deters corruption and abuse of power. When governments openly share information about policies, budgets, decision-making processes, and potential conflicts of interest, the public gains the tools to scrutinize actions, participate meaningfully in civic life, and make informed choices at the ballot box. This transparency also reduces the risk of waste, mismanagement, and abuse of power by bringing public actions into the open. 

Ultimately, transparency strengthens public trust and reinforces the principle that government exists to serve the people, not operate independently of them. Without clear access to information and accountability mechanisms, that relationship begins to erode. During this legislative session, multiple bills were introduced to expand transparency and improve access to public information. However, progress was limited, with many proposals failing to advance due to divisions within the legislature.

Bills that did not pass introduction

Bills that passed one chamber but did not become law

Transparency greatly influences how the government can be held accountable by the public.  Other governing issues this session centered on what responsibilities the government holds in protecting our fundamental rights. Among the most significant of these discussions were those surrounding the protection of life and how that principle is reflected in law.

Right to Life Bills

The protection of life is a foundational principle of government and the basis upon which all other rights depend. This principle is reflected in the United States Constitution, where the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the government from depriving any person of life without due process of law. It is also reinforced in the Wyoming Constitution, which affirms that all members of the human race are equal in their inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Together, these provisions establish the protection of life as a central responsibility of the government to protect.

Recent legal changes returning authority over abortion policy to the states have led to renewed legislative activity as states define how this responsibility is carried out. During this session, Wyoming lawmakers considered several bills addressing the scope of protections for unborn life and the role of the state in regulating abortion.

Bills that Passed

Bills that Failed

In addition to debates surrounding the protection of life, lawmakers also considered legislation addressing other fundamental rights rooted in both the United States and Wyoming Constitutions. Among these were Second Amendment issues, where discussions focused on how the right to keep and bear arms is defined, protected, and applied in practice. 

Second Amendment Bills

Seven Second Amendment bills were introduced this session. The right to keep and bear arms is recognized as a fundamental constitutional protection at both the federal and state level. Grounded in the United States Constitution and reinforced by the Wyoming Constitution, this civil right forms a core part of the legal framework surrounding individual liberty and self defense. The debate currently is not over whether the right exists, but how it is interpreted and applied within evolving legal and policy making landscapes. Lawmakers considered a range of bills aimed to clarify, expand and reinforce these civil protections. These proposals reflect an ongoing effort to define the scope of the right, the role of the state in protecting it, and how it interacts with enforcement and public policy.

Passed 

Bills that did not pass

Health Care / Medical Legislation 

Healthcare legislation this session focused on the complexity of access, cost, and oversight within Wyoming’s medical system. Lawmakers considered proposals addressing patient rights, provider regulations, and the role of state agencies in shaping how care is delivered.

At the center of these discussions were several key questions: What is the proper role of government in healthcare? What unintended consequences arise when that role expands or contracts? And how should the balance between access, quality, and cost be managed without placing unnecessary burdens on taxpayers?

The government’s role is neither total control nor complete absence, but a limited framework that protects patient freedom, ensures safety, promotes transparency, and preserves competition. That balance, however, remains difficult to achieve. When policy overreaches through excessive regulation or market distortion, it risks driving up costs and limiting choice. When it falls short, it risks failing to protect patients.

Several bills introduced this session reflected these tensions. Some aimed to expand access, while others raised concerns about shifting authority away from elected representatives and toward regulatory bodies. A number of proposals ultimately failed to advance, underscoring the difficulty of reaching consensus in this area.

Bills that passed

Bills that Did Not Pass

Schools and Education 

Education was a major focus this session, with lawmakers considering a wide range of bills affecting funding, governance, and the day-to-day operation of Wyoming schools. Both the state’s constitutional responsibility to provide a complete and uniform system and the practical challenges of delivering education were central to the discussion.

Lawmakers also addressed concerns related to curriculum, classroom policy, the proper role of schools, student behavior, and overall system accountability. Taxpayers continue to expect measurable outcomes alongside responsible spending, while families seek greater involvement in decisions affecting their children.

Debates often centered on how education funding is structured, how effectively schools are meeting expectations, and the increasing cost per student across the state. Wyoming now spends more per pupil than any surrounding state, and that figure has increased year after year. Yet, each increase is met with the same claim, that funding remains insufficient. At the same time, many parents are raising serious concerns about student performance as it becomes clear funding alone is not the determining factor in educational success.

Per-pupil spending reached $19,332 in FY2023—17% above the national average of $16,560. Current spending is pushing $22,000 per student now,  yet only 26% of Wyoming graduates in the Class of 2024 met the ACT math college-readiness benchmark, meaning nearly three out of four students have less than a 50% chance of passing first-year college algebra. The trend continues beyond high school. Nearly half (45.8%) of degree-seeking students at Wyoming colleges require remedial coursework, rising to 51.7% at community colleges. 

At the same time, broader questions emerged about the role of the state versus local communities in shaping education policy and where parents fit in.  A consistent tension throughout these discussions was the balance between local control and state-level direction. While the state is responsible for ensuring standards are met, many policy decisions—particularly those affecting daily school operations—raise questions about whether authority should remain closer to parents and local communities.

Bills that Passed

Wyoming’s Hathaway Scholarship

           The Hathaway Scholarship program is supported by a $400 million permanent endowment, largely funded by federal mineral royalties from Wyoming’s energy production. Investment earnings from this endowment pay for annual scholarship awards. On average, approximately $16 million per year is distributed to students through the Hathaway program. The scholarship is one of Wyoming’s largest investments in higher education for students. It was created to encourage academic achievement and keep Wyoming graduates in-state for college. 

           As the Wyoming Legislature considered several bills during the 2026 session, it’s important for families, educators, and taxpayers to understand what the Hathaway Scholarship does, how it is funded, how award amounts relate to areas such as ACT scores, and what potential changes are being debated.

The Hathaway Scholarship is a state-funded, merit-based scholarship program available to Wyoming high school graduates who attend eligible Wyoming postsecondary institutions. The Hathaway Scholarship has four tiers. Award amounts are paid per semester and vary based on academic performance. Students qualify by completing a required high school diploma, meeting minimum GPA requirements, and achieving qualifying college readiness test scores. The scholarship can be used at the University of Wyoming and any Wyoming community college. Currently, students may use the scholarship for up to eight semesters of full-time enrollment.

             When the Hathaway Scholarship was first created in 2005, the top award covered nearly 90% of tuition and fees at the University of Wyoming. Twenty years later due to rising tuition, the highest Hathaway award covers closer to 40% of tuition and fees. The last time the scholarship amount was increased was in 2014 by 5%. 

This session, lawmakers considered 3 bills that would change how the Hathaway Scholarship operates.

Bills That Did Not Advance Late in Session

On March 3, 2026, the final day for bills to be considered by the Committee of the Whole, a series of procedural decisions effectively halted progress on multiple pieces of legislation. A recess was called shortly after session began in the Senate and when the Senators returned, limited time remained before adjournment. As a result, many important bills on the General File were not heard and failed to advance.

While the Legislature fulfilled its primary responsibility of passing a budget, and did so with measurable restraint, many policy areas revealed clear divides in approach and philosophy. Bills focused on protecting children generally had strong success, reflecting a shared willingness to act where there is broad agreement around safety and well-being. Areas such as election integrity, government transparency, and property taxes saw a high number of proposals fail early in the process, often at the introduction stage where the two-thirds threshold limited further debate. In many cases, these were not issues lacking support, but issues where consensus on approach was not reached.

Education policy highlighted a different kind of tension surrounding funding, accountability, and the scope of the system remain unresolved, particularly as the state navigates constitutional requirements and ongoing legal challenges. Healthcare and regulatory bills reflected an ongoing debate over the role of government itself specifically, whether authority should remain with elected representatives or be delegated to agencies and boards.

Across multiple categories, a consistent theme emerged; not just a disagreement over policy goals, but over who should decide and how those decisions should be implemented and enforced. The differing views around the function of government, balancing the protection of rights, the management of public resources and dollars, and the structure through which decisions are made. In some cases, legislation advanced that reinforced existing systems, while in others, proposals that would have shifted authority or increased transparency were unable to move forward.

This session was not defined solely by what passed, but by what was not allowed to advance. The outcome reflects both the constraints of a budget session and a broader divergence in how legislators interpret the role of government. While progress was made in several areas, many of the most debated issues in Wyoming remain unresolved. 

Education Oversight Collapse: Megan Degenfelder and the Department of Education Destroy Trust with Wyoming Families

In Wyoming, parents are repeatedly assured that public schools have a clear, orderly process for addressing parental concerns. Start with the teacher, then escalate to the principal, district administration, the superintendent, and finally the locally elected school board. If every local step fails, the system promises one last safeguard: the state itself.

That final responsibility rests squarely with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Wyoming Department of Education. Wyoming Statute 21-2-202 grants the Superintendent “general supervision” of the public schools.  In fact, the Wyoming Constitution demands a “complete and uniform system of public instruction.” These are not suggestions—they are the legal foundation meant to protect every child and every family.

Yet in Sweetwater County School District No. 1, that foundation cracked and then crumbled.  Parents in Sweetwater County followed the process exactly as designed. They raised documented concerns at the school level. They escalated through every required channel. When local remedies failed, they did what the system told them to do: they took their complaints to the state. 

The Wyoming Department of Education acknowledged receipt of formal complaints, however, families received a response that has now become disturbingly familiar from Superintendent Megan Degenfelder: “My hands are tied. There is nothing I can do. You will need to seek legal counsel.”

This was only the beginning of the problem. When parents filed the complaints with the state, they were assured that certain personal information would remain confidential to protect their families from potential public harassment or retribution from school administrators. 

And yet in a total breach of fiduciary responsibility, the Department of Education released these families’ confidential information in responding to a FOIA request.  Breaking their word and greatly damaging the department’s already tattered reputation.

Superintendent Degenfelder’s response?  Brushing it off as a staff member error, saying they are fixing the problem. Basically a “ nothing to see here”  attitude.  She then told parents she would be talking with the Attorney General to find out what to redact, after they had already released the original documents and confidential information.  A shocking admission of malfeasance. Obviously this was not some type of clerical error, but a breakdown of leadership and legal protocols.  Blaming staff errors does not resolve the underlying issue, it highlights a failure to supervise, train, and enforce the most fundamental responsibilities of the agency. If leadership cannot ensure that its own employees follow clear legal and procedural safeguards, it is difficult to see how it can be trusted to manage the broader obligations of the office. Trust is not only broken through words, but through patterns of mismanagement that show a lack of control over the very institution entrusted to her care.  

Did the problem get corrected? Nope. In fact, the official response was to ask folks that had received the original unredacted documents to disregard the confidential information while the Wyoming Department of Education prepared a second redacted FOIA document.  But in what can only be described as extreme incompetence, the second FOIA document set that was sent out still didn’t have the proper redactions.

Federal law (FERPA) and the Wyoming Public Records Act both impose strict duties to review, redact, and protect sensitive student information before any release. Those duties exist precisely to prevent the kind of harm that occurred here. The Department failed at every level of that responsibility. No one at the top appears to have reviewed the documents before they went out. Parents were left to deal with the consequences after the fact.

The pattern of selective inaction is even more revealing. According to families involved, meaningful state action only materialized when the issues clearly triggered the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

Superintendent Degenfelder holds an executive-branch office. That role carries more than the power to acknowledge problems—it carries the duty to fix them. It includes directing agency practices, ensuring compliance systems actually work, and intervening when failures become known. 

Complaints were received. Violations were merely acknowledged. Opportunities to act were presented at every turn. Those opportunities were not taken.  When the state refuses to resolve issues inside its own system, the entire burden shifts to private litigation. Only families with the financial resources to hire lawyers can hope for accountability. Everyone else is left with unresolved problems and a system that has openly told them it will not help. 

These instances continue to erode public confidence as the constitutional promise of a uniform system of public instruction becomes a hollow slogan.This is not a policy disagreement but a failure of basic governmental function.   The complaint process in Sweetwater County—and in other districts where similar stories are now emerging—worked exactly as designed right up until it reached the one person and one agency with clear statutory power to act. At that final step, the process and Superintendent Degenfelder’s department failed.  

A prime example of where the Wyoming Constitution created clear protections for the people, complaints were known and there was clear authority for government agents to address and correct the problems. And yet Superintendent Degenfelder and her staff presided over a serious systemic failure on their watch. 

 

Outrageous: Wyoming School Wants $5,000–$8,000 to Let a Mom See the Sex Ed Curriculum Pushing Pronouns and Sexual Role Play on Kids

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

In August 2025, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services sent a letter to the Wyoming Department of Health regarding school curriculum developed with federal funding, raising concerns about sexually explicit content intended for use in Wyoming’s 7th–12th grade sex education courses.

This publicly funded material encourages students to share their pronouns — including made-up ones like “zir” and “hir” — and pushes heavy DEI ideology. Even worse, it contemplates asking kids to participate in “sexual pressure role play,” forcing them to act out sexual pressure scenarios in class.

This is not education. It is inappropriate, potentially harmful, and has no business being taught to middle and high school students using taxpayer money.

Any parents would be rightly furious to learn this has infiltrated Wyoming schools.

A concerned Wyoming mother did what any responsible parent should do: she requested to review the curriculum being used with her own children. She sent a public records request to Sweetwater County School District No. 1 Assistant Superintendent Nicole Bolton.

The district’s response? They quoted her a fee of $5,000 to $8,000 just to access the materials.

Let that sink in.

A mom — a taxpayer funding these schools — simply wants to know what her children are being taught about sex, pronouns, and “sexual pressure role play,” and the school district hits her with a fee that could cost in excess of $5,000. Just to see the materials. 

This fee is not only ridiculous — it’s anti-parent and anti-transparency.

Public schools are funded by the public. Parents have a fundamental right to see the curriculum their kids are exposed to without being charged an exorbitant fee that feels designed to discourage or punish them for asking questions. Charging $5,000–$8,000 to view publicly funded educational content isn’t transparency — it’s a barrier meant to hide what’s really going on in the classroom.

Even more infuriating: during the 2026 legislative session, Wyoming lawmakers had a clear chance to address these barriers with SF49 — a bill revising the Wyoming Public Records Act as a whole. The bill would have standardized fees for public records requests, shortened response times, strengthened enforcement mechanisms, increased penalties for violations, and given the ombudsman more tools to ensure agencies actually provide access without abusive costs or delays.

Instead, they voted to not even allow debate or discussion on the bill, killing it in its tracks.

The lawmakers who voted “nay” on giving SF49 a chance were:

Anderson, Barlow, Brennan, Cooper, Crago, Crum, Driskill, Gierau, Hicks, Jones, Landen, Love, Nethercott, Olsen, Pappas, Schuler.

These legislators had the opportunity to make meaningful improvements to public records transparency that would have helped parents in exactly this kind of situation — and they chose to do nothing.

It’s time to act. Sign the petition here.

Sign the petition today demanding that Wyoming lawmakers fix the Public Records Act once and for all. We need real reform: standardized and reasonable fees, faster responses, stronger enforcement, and real accountability so no parent is ever hit with a multi-thousand-dollar bill just to see what their children are being taught in public schools.

No more barriers. No more excuses. No more treating the taxpayers like outsiders who must pay thousands of dollars for basic transparency.

SIGN THE PETITION

The League of Extraordinarily Progressive Voters

Wyoming is one of the most conservative states in the country, and the people who call it home live accordingly—building businesses, helping their neighbors, serving in their churches, and instilling those same values of faith, family, freedom, and heritage in their children. But Wyoming’s conservative culture is increasingly under pressure from out-of-state progressive organizations that worm their way into our communities under unassuming names. 

The League of Women Voters of Wyoming is one such organization.

This might come as a surprise to some readers. The League of Women Voters of Wyoming describes itself as “a nonpartisan organization with expertise in voting and elections,” and the group’s parent organization, the widely known League of Women Voters (LWV), says it is “a nonpartisan, grassroots nonprofit dedicated to empowering everyone to fully participate in our democracy.” Since its founding in 1920, LWV has claimed to help register voters and host forums where candidates explain their stances. Sounds commendable, right? 

The earnest, civic-sounding language, however, masks the group’s opposition to election integrity and support for radical progressive causes that extend far beyond the voting booth. The LWV and its fundraising and education arm, the League of Women Voters Education Fund, have received millions of dollars from powerful leftwing nonprofits like the Carnegie Corporation of New York, NEO Philanthropy, and others. In other words, what you see with LWV and its state chapters like the League of Women Voters of Wyoming is not what you get. 

The League of Women Voters and its affiliates present themselves as friendly, nonpartisan advocates for democracy — think neighborly volunteers helping communities register to vote and stay informed. The image they project is one of wholesome, salt-of-the-earth patriots, the kind of people you might find involved in the local Lions Club or VFW.

But beneath that folksy exterior lies an organization whose real priorities are undermining election integrity and advancing a progressive agenda, even in conservative states like Wyoming.

The League of Women Voters of Wyoming made news again during the 2026  legislative session when it took aim at a series of commonsense election integrity bills. The bills sought to restore confidence in Wyoming’s election system at a time when Americans, having witnessed election officials across the county alter and suspend voting rules during the COVID-19 pandemic, are increasingly skeptical that their votes will be counted accurately. 

Further, The ACLU of Wyoming joined with the League of Women Voters of Wyoming to oppose and misrepresent bills like SF 30. What did SF 30 seek to do? It clarified a small aspect of existing election law related to residency requirements. That’s it. The bill established zero barriers to voting, but that didn’t stop progressive advocacy organizations from claiming otherwise. Another bill, HB 48, would have required paper ballots for all in-person voting—a fair, tamper-resistant method of voting that would have reinforced Wyoming’s reputation for principled governance. For those groups, any effort to strengthen the security and integrity of our voting systems is suspect and immediately parroted as suppressing voter’s rights. Hint: that’s not what they do.

ACLU OF WY PROPAGANDA

 

For those who know about the League of Women Voters of Wyoming’s actual record of lobbying, as opposed to its deceptive rhetoric, none of this is surprising. For decades, LWV and its state and local affiliates have sided with Democrats against even the most basic election reforms championed by conservatives. Time and time again, LWV, which portrays itself as a kind of impartial, nonideological expert on voting and elections, has gone into a meltdown whenever someone even whispers the word “voter ID.” When lawmakers introduce voter ID bills, or they become law, LWV mobilizes its state and local chapters, petitions its deep-pocketed progressive donors, applies pressure to lawmakers, and lets loose its attorneys. The League of Women Voters of Wyoming was among the fiercest critics of a voter ID requirement that was signed into law in Wyoming in 2021, for example.

LWV’s position here is utterly disqualifying. Voter ID requirements are the bare minimum when it comes to election integrity. Most countries around the world compel voters to identify themselves before they cast a ballot (a no-brainer!), and supermajorities of Americans, including Democratic Party voters, say they support voter ID laws. The only reason an organization, especially one whose mission is related to voting and elections, gets something as simple as voter ID this wrong is because it has embraced a progressive ideology that is fundamentally detached from reality .

In practice, what LWV is pushing for is an election system that allows anyone and everyone to vote, whether or not they’re qualified to do so. Of course, LWV wouldn’t put it like that; its members and leadership would tell you that federal and state laws already prohibit illegal immigrants from casting ballots so voter ID requirements are unnecessary. But if they really cared about keeping illegal immigrants from voting, they wouldn’t actively fight every measure that enables state and federal election officials to enforce those existing statutes. 

To quote Maya Angelou, one of the left’s favorite writers, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” 

But it gets so much worse. 

Although LWV portrays itself as an organization devoted to voting rights, it advocates and lobbies for just about every progressive hobby horse under the sun. The group supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion, expanding the definition of sex in federal law to include “gender identity,” and gun control. LWV even dedicates resources to combating school choice, because nothing says “empowering voters” like fighting to keep low-income families in failing public schools.

Earlier this year, LWV filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox, a case about laws prohibiting men and boys who identify as transgender from playing in the same sports leagues as women and girls. To be clear, the case has nothing to do with voting or elections. Can you guess on which side of the case LWV came down? If you guessed LWV argued for pitting women and girls against male athletes, you would be correct. Like its stance on voter ID laws, LWV’s defense of men in women’s sports put it in a minority of Americans—even among Democrats!

The League of Women Voters of Wyoming is generally quieter than its parent organization in D.C. about its many progressive commitments, but it has nevertheless strayed far from the topic of elections and voting on multiple occasions, even as it devotes much of its time each legislative session to lobbying against election integrity bills.

One egregious example in particular serves to illustrate why the group’s claim of nonpartisanship is so insincere. In January 2021, the League of Women Voters of Wyoming endorsed and broadcast a message from its national leaders accusing President Trump of instigating the January 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol and calling for him to be “immediately removed as President of the United States of America and banned from running for federal office ever again.” At the same time, LWV urged Congress to certify Joe Biden’s victory, calling Republican concerns about the process “political theater,” even though the country was in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and many states had changed their voting systems at the last minute under the guise of an emergency. 

LWV’s demand that Congress waste no time certifying the election results in favor of Biden contrasts sharply with how the group treated U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings. In Fall 2020, shortly after President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, Susan M. Simpson, the then-president of the League of Women Voters of Wyoming, cautioned Wyoming’s U.S. Senate delegation against “rushing the Supreme Court nomination process.” 

In theory, Simpson’s advice sounds unobjectionable, prudent even. The problem is that there was no evidence at the time, and there is no evidence now, the U.S. Senate “rushed” Barrett’s confirmation (she sat through over 20 hours of questioning over two days). Most importantly, slow-walking the hearings was part of a concerted Democratic Party strategy to ensure Barrett’s nomination was not put up to a vote until after the November 2020 election. Leftwing strategists believed Democrats would be on firmer ground if Biden won the presidency to try to deny Trump his right to select a new U.S. Supreme Court justice. Democratic Party officials and countless progressive organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, all complained the process was rushed, even though it wasn’t, and like Simpson pressured Congress to delay, delay, delay. 

Or take a more recent example of the group’s hypocrisy. On January 31, 2026, the League of Women Voters of Wyoming said Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray’s recent decision to share voter registration lists with the U.S. Department of Justice “undermines public confidence in our election process,” suggesting there’s something untoward about states working with the federal government on election integrity. But notably, the League of Women Voters of Wyoming had nothing to say about H.R. 1, the “For the People Act,” which Democrats in Congress failed to enact in 2021. H.R. 1 would have centralized control of election administration in the federal government, violating the U.S. Constitution. Although the League of Women Voters of Wyoming released no statement on H.R. 1, the national organization supported the bill and pushed for its enactment. 

The pattern is clear—and partisan. When a Republican like Gray complies with a lawful request from the U.S. Department of Justice to share voter roll data, groups like the League of Women Voters of Wyoming cry foul, complaining of federal overreach. But when Democrats propose to expand federal control of elections, the League of Women Voters of Wyoming is silent. 

All of this reveals an organization fundamentally at odds with Wyoming’s conservative values — and it’s not even close. The League of Women Voters of Wyoming is not a moderate or centrist group that has simply drifted left over time. On the contrary, many of its positions — such as its support for men in women’s sports — place it well to the left of most Democrats.

Like its parent organization in Washington, D.C., the Wyoming chapter hides behind a respectable, nonpartisan facade while actively lobbying for policies that undermine election integrity and advance a progressive agenda. It presents itself as a grassroots, homegrown organization, but it is neither. It functions as an extension of D.C.-based progressive networks and their major donors.

Whenever someone challenges LWV’s nonpartisan reputation by pointing to its long history of progressive advocacy, its leaders will say that “nonpartisan” means only that it doesn’t endorse candidates. But this is misleading. The group, in spite of its many progressive commitments, does not advertise itself as a left-leaning organization. When people hear the term “nonpartisan,” they do not typically think of advocacy and lobbying groups. For LWV, the term “nonpartisan” is a smoke screen. 

It’s no crime, of course, for an organization to advocate for bad ideas like progressivism, but it should be clear about what it stands for—and to whom it is beholden. Through LWV and its state chapters, the web of progressive foundations that hold so much influence in the Democratic Party are able to push their agendas—transgender ideology, noncitizen voting, abortion, opposition to parental rights—in conservative states like Wyoming. 

The League of Women Voters of Wyoming is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It joins many other organizations in Wyoming whose respectable names also mask their radical ideas and ties to D.C, and we’ve helped expose many of them. The Wyoming chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (WY-AAP), for example, fights to undermine parental rights and supports transgender healthcare for minors on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The Wyoming Library Association (WLA) lobbies on behalf of the American Library Association (ALA) against reasonable restrictions on age-inappropriate books in local libraries, making it harder for families to protect their children from subversive ideas about gender and explicit sexual content (are you noticing a pattern?). In each case, the organizations are beholden not to Wyomingites but rather to their out-of-state parent organizations and the powerful groups that fund them. 

The only way to defend Wyoming’s conservative heritage is to be clear-eyed about the groups undermining it—and not let them take us for fools.  

 

It’s Time To Turn The Page on the Wyoming Library Association

In 2022, the Campbell County Public Library board voted to withdraw from the American Library Association (ALA) and its affiliate, the Wyoming Library Association (WLA).

It’s time for the rest of Wyoming’s libraries to do the same. In Wyoming, a state where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats nearly 10-1, the WLA serves as the ALA’s local propagandist. They explicitly promote DEI, critical race theory, anti-police progressive activism, and opposition to capitalism. All things that go against the clear preference for conservatism in Wyoming.

The Wyoming Library Association does not develop these priorities on its own. It follows the direction set by the ALA, which was founded in 1876 with the commendable mission of promoting libraries and librarians.Over time, however, the ALA’s focus has shifted and it has been overtaken by ideological activism. Rather than focusing on the core mission of libraries—education, intellectual development, and the preservation of cultural heritage—the ALA increasingly devotes its energy to political advocacy. In practice, that has meant prioritizing the defense of explicit LGBTQ-themed materials for minors over the legitimate concerns of parents and communities, reinforcing the very agenda Wyoming voters have consistently rejected.

Libraries have long played an important role serving Wyoming communities, but like so many once-revered institutions, they now champion values at odds with the communities in which they reside and serve.

The WLA rallies against commonsense laws 

Here in Wyoming, lawmakers are debating a bill that would allow community members to sue libraries that allow sexually explicit material in sections of the library open to kids.

The WLA has come out swinging against the bill, apparently convinced that it is, in fact, the duty of libraries to make porn and other inappropriate content easily accessible to kids. WLA president Cristine Braddy argues that restricting minors’ access to inappropriate material constitutes a “ban,” as if banning children from inappropriate material is a bad thing.

You might wonder how we got to the point at which Wyoming’s association of librarians would fight a bill that seeks to protect children’s innocence.

The answer lies in the WLA’s close association with the ALA.

The ALA isn’t hiding the ball 

At the October 2022 Campbell County Public Library board meeting when residents debated staying affiliated with the ALA and the WLA, one resident declared that the ALA exists to “to promote reading, libraries, library professionalism. They’re not a political entity.” 

State and community libraries in Alabama, Florida, Montana, Missouri, Texas, and elsewhere would beg to differ. These states cut ties with the ALA starting in 2022 over its explicit support for age-inappropriate books for kids, DEI, and other progressive values. In 2023, the Florida Department of State, which manages the state’s public libraries, prohibited libraries from accepting grants from the ALA. In other words, a growing number of states have concluded that the ALA’s activities extend well beyond promoting libraries and reading.

The ALA has not attempted to conceal its ideological orientation, a fact illustrated by its recent leadership. In June 2022, shortly after being elected ALA president, Emily Drabinski tweeted, “I just cannot believe that a Marxist lesbian who believes that collective power is possible to build and can be wielded for a better world is the president-elect of @ALALibrary.”

It is difficult to imagine the organization extending the same enthusiasm to a president who publicly identified as a conservative Christian in support of capitalism. The contrast highlights the narrow range of viewpoints that appear acceptable within the ALA’s leadership culture.

Drabinski led the organization until July 2024. Her public framing of the role reflects an understanding of the ALA presidency as a vehicle for advancing a particular political worldview, rather than as a neutral professional position.

 The ALA’s current president is Sam Helmick, a “nonbinary, aromantic, asexual” who uses “they/them” pronouns. As with prior leadership, these self-descriptions are accompanied by a public embrace of contemporary progressive identity frameworks that increasingly shape the organization’s culture and priorities.

The WLA’s woke values

The name “Wyoming Library Association” suggests a neutral, professional organization that represents staunchly conservative WY. Yet a review of its public record and website shows that it consistently promotes progressive ideological positions more commonly associated with national advocacy groups than with a statewide library association

Would an organization that sought to reflect Wyoming’s conservative values and love of country adopt an “Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion” statement that trashes America as a fundamentally racist nation, finds nothing redeeming in its history, and pushes critical race theory as a solution?

The statement is worth quoting at length:

“The Wyoming Library Association acknowledges that systemic racism and discrimination has harmed people in our communities, across our state, our country, and internationally…With this knowledge, we will dismantle these structures and build equitable, diverse, and inclusive systems…The nation’s history of settler colonialism and slavery, along with its capitalistic structures and beliefs in rugged individualism imposed on the land, serve as the foundations to Wyoming’s vast and textured human landscapes.”

The WLA’s “EDI” (which is just DEI with the letters re-arranged) committee page includes resources on “microaggressions”, “critical race theory,” links to writings by arch-race hustler Ibrim Kendi (who spoke at the ALA’s 2023 annual conference), an endorsement of the 1619 Project, which places slavery at the center of the American founding, and resources for those wishing to “confront race, policing, and mass incarceration.”

If ideological activism is truly waning, as some have claimed, the WLA hasn’t gotten the memo.

Whatever claims are being made about the decline of ideological activism in public institutions, the WLA’s own materials make clear that it remains fully committed to it.

In search of banned books

The WLA’s opposition to the bill that would force libraries to keep inappropriate material far from children makes sense in the context of the ALA’s favorite cause—”banned” books.

Each year, the ALA releases reports claiming that books are being banned across the country, prompting widespread media coverage. Portraying these disputes as censorship has become a powerful tool for generating attention and influence.

The ALA presents itself as a defender of public access to books, warning that efforts to limit certain materials are part of a broader push to restrict what Americans can read. If widespread government censorship truly existed, opposing it would be a cause most Americans could agree on. Governments should not be in the business of suppressing books, and efforts to ban ideas outright would raise serious First Amendment concerns.

But that is not what is happening.

One concern is how the ALA defines the term “ban.” When someone files a complaint against a book, the ALA counts that in its statistics, even if the challenge is unsuccessful and the book stays on shelves. In the event that the library does remove a book from circulation in response to a complaint, it’s still not clear that “ban” is the most apt word. If the book is widely available in brick-and-mortar bookstores, online sellers like Amazon, and other library systems, is it accurate to say the book is banned?

Historically, banned books were truly inaccessible. When a book was banned in the Soviet Union, you risked imprisonment—or worse—if you tried to get your hands on it.That is not the situation in the United States today.

A bigger problem with the ALA’s methodology is that, as its own data indicates, the majority of the so-called censorship efforts involve books marketed to children or teens. Several of the ALA’s top 10 “most challenged books of 2024” are, for example, young adult books thick with LGBTQ themes. Gender Queer  the second most challenged book of the year, is a graphic novel that includes explicit sexual imagery, references to sex acts, and detailed discussions of masturbation and other adult topics.

The ALA wants to make the debate over books like Gender Queer about censorship, but it’s really about whether kids should have access to sexually explicit material. The answer is obviously no, and libraries have a duty to protect kids from inappropriate material.

By opposing even basic restrictions on sexually explicit content in youth sections, the Wyoming Library Association aligns itself with national advocacy positions blatantly opposing the values of many Wyoming families. Libraries should be safe, welcoming spaces for children and should prioritize education and literacy over ideological messaging.

Our librarians are experts at reading books—now they need to read the room and close the chapter on the WLA and ALA.

The Wyoming Hospital Association’s War Against Patients

This past legislative session, Wyoming Hospital Association (WHA) President Eric Boley marshaled his organization’s resources to sink a sensible bill that would have required hospitals to be up front about the prices they charge patients. Boley, who runs one of Wyoming’s most powerful lobbying groups, had a creative explanation for why Wyoming families pay exorbitant healthcare costs:

“The consumers aren’t working with their insurance companies,” he grumbled. “They’re not finding out what their payments are.” 

In other words, you are the problem. It’s not that the Wyoming healthcare system is a tangled bureaucratic mess of overlapping providers, pharmacies, public and private insurance plans, and government agencies. It’s not that many Wyoming hospitals have been found to be out of compliance with federal price transparency requirements.

No, the problem is supposedly Wyoming citizens who fail to devote enough unpaid time and expertise to navigating a system so convoluted that even the institutions running it cannot fully explain how their own prices are set.

The WHA works hard to keep it that way. A ubiquitous presence in Cheyenne each legislative session,the WHA consistently aligns its advocacy with the policy priorities of the American Hospital Association (AHA), one of the nation’s most powerful healthcare lobbyists. This alignment has the effect of preserving high prices, limiting competition, and reducing price transparency for Wyoming families.

Here’s what you should know about these insidious organizations and their influence in Wyoming politics. 

What is the AHA?

The American Hospital Association describes itself as “national organization that represents and serves all types of hospitals, health care networks, and their patients and communities.” It regularly spends millions each year to oppose federal legislation that it sees as threatening to hospitals’ bottom line. Founded in 1898, it has been a consistent force in American politics. Consistent, that is, at working for laws that enrich its members and make the healthcare system more confusing and less affordable for everyone else. 

As the state affiliate of the ALA, the WLA closely follows the direction of the national organization. The ALA advances its priorities at the federal level, while state affiliates carry those same priorities into state and local policy debates. This structure allows the ALA to function as a centralized advocacy organization, with affiliates like the WLA promoting its goals within Wyoming.

The AHA says it serves “all types of hospitals, health care networks, and their patients and communities,” but its advocacy has resulted in few wins for patients.  To understand the WHA’s approach in Wyoming, it helps to examine the national policy priorities of its parent organization. The AHA was one of the driving forces behind Obamacare. This objective was self-serving, as described by National Review’s Kevin Glass: “What the AHA wanted most was to preserve the flow of government money to its member hospitals, especially through Medicare and Medicaid. In exchange, the AHA agreed to the $155 billion in payment cuts, spent incredible sums of money on lobbying, and steered most of its campaign donations toward Democrats.”

And how has that worked out? Since 2010, when President Barack Obama (D) signed Obamacare into law, total U.S. healthcare spending has increased roughly 40%.

This year, in line with its previous support for Democratic Party healthcare priorities, the AHA opposed President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB). The AHA cunningly framed its opposition as a concern for patients it claimed would lose insurance coverage due to the legislation, but reading between the lines shows its real worry was that hospitals would receive less government funding. 

As a lobbying organization that represents large, often profitable hospitals, the AHA’s support for Democrat healthcare policies is unsurprising. Those policies tend to emphasize expanded public spending through programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which reimburse hospitals for services provided. Increased funding reliably benefits hospital systems financially.

What this approach does not necessarily emphasize is whether higher spending has led to better outcomes for patients. Despite rising healthcare costs, many Americans continue to experience longer wait times, higher out-of-pocket expenses, provider shortages, and uneven quality of care. The incentive structure rewards hospitals for volume and reimbursement, not for improving results. In that context, the AHA’s focus appears less centered on system performance and more on protecting the financial interests of its members.

The AHA and the WHA work together to quash competition

Capitalism benefits consumers by lowering prices and increasing quality, and it does this through market competition. If businesses have to compete against each other, they’re more likely to make choices with consumers in mind. The alternative, of course, is to go out of business.

The AHA opposes competition. Instead, the AHA lobbies for laws that protect its members from the competitive pressures that most other businesses face.

It has been highly successful at that goal. 

Over the last few decades, the hospital sector has become more consolidated and less competitive, leading predictably to higher prices and lower quality of care. Multiple studies suggest that as hospitals merge, becoming larger but more impersonal, patient mortality actually increases! 

Who is behind the decline in competition between hospitals? You guessed it—the AHA. In 2010, for example, the AHA successfully lobbied Congress to include in Obamacare a provision effectively banning the creation of new physician-owned hospitals. Before 2010, the number of physician-owned hospitals had been increasing to meet our aging country’s growing demand for healthcare services. Established hospitals, rather than compete with these smaller and more community-oriented providers, demanded to the tune of millions of dollars that the government protect them from competition—and lawmakers obeyed. The AHA now spends millions of dollars each year to keep the ban in place.

Another way the AHA protects its members from competition is through Certificate of need (CON) laws, which require state officials—such as a health planning agency—to approve new healthcare facilities or expansions. The AHA began lobbying for states to adopt CON laws in the 1960s and 1970s. At best, CON laws are unnecessary—competition, not bureaucrats, should decide if a given market can support a new or expanded hospital. At their worst, CON laws encourage the largest and most powerful hospitals in the state to curry favor with the bureaucrats charged with authorizing new certificates. Unsurprisingly, the big players, those with the most money, tend to have their way, commonly resulting in the denial of certifications.  

At the start of 2025, Wyoming was one of 36 states with a CON law. In Wyoming’s case, the CON law applied to nursing homes. Some  lawmakers have tried to repeal the law in 2024but the WHA has, like a fox guarding the henhouse, nipped those efforts in the bud. It was not until 2025 that lawmakers successfully passed HB 289, allowing for proper competition in nursing homes. 

Less transparency, fewer beds, higher profits

Although the federal government has required hospitals to post their prices (prompting the AHA to unsuccessfully sue), most have dragged their feet or made only half-hearted attempts to comply. 

More states are moving to pass their own price transparency laws, including Wyoming. Unfortunately, those efforts have not always been successful due to lobbying by groups like the AHA and WHA. 

Wyoming’s HB 121, sponsored in 2025, would have required hospitals to maintain and make public a list of standard charges for items and services. HB 121 passed the House but failed narrowly in the Senate. Another unfortunate victory for WHA’s lobbying. 

Wyoming families pay some of the highest healthcare costs in the region. Boley could use the AHA’s considerable resources to pressure hospitals into being more transparent about the prices they charge insurance companies and individuals, but he’d rather blame patients.

Incredibly, the number of hospital beds in Wyoming has decreased over time as the state’s population has grown, from 3.8 beds per 1,000 people in 1999 to 3.25 in 2023. In aggregate, Wyomingites are not only spending an increasing portion of their income on healthcare—they’re getting less in return over time. This should be a five-alarm fire, a turning point moment for organizations like the WHA that purport to take the Hippocratic Oath. 

And what do we hear from the WHA about all of this? Crickets.  

Wyoming or D.C.? 

In its 2023 legislative recap, the WHA wrote: “Too often during the session we heard a narrative characterizing hospital [sic] as ‘big business’ or money hungry or as an arm of the federal government.  This sentiment is a real challenge, which cannot be ignored and requires a concerted response.” 

In other words, the WHA admits it has a PR problem. And why is that? If you’ve made it this far, you know it’s because the WHA’s lobbying history and its close relationship to the AHA paint a clear picture of an organization working in lockstep with outside interests to protect hospitals at the expense of Wyoming families. It’s that simple.  

Like the Wyoming chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Wyoming Medical Society (WMS), the WHA’s allegiance is to D.C. and the large corporations who fund these organizations. Not the people of Wyoming, and certainly not to our state’s conservative values. When well-heeled outside interests use the levers of government to benefit the few at the expense of the many, it’s obvious the system isn’t working as it should.

That’s where we come in. Join us as we build a movement dedicated to restoring integrity and transparency in Wyoming politics—starting with exposing the interlopers pushing D.C.’s soulless values on us.