In a single 30-day period, Cheyenne’s Flock cameras logged 223,424 plate reads in a city of 66,507 people, captured simply because a vehicle passed a camera. No crime, no warrant, no suspicion required. The system records the plate, the location, and the time. Eventually, you can stack enough cameras and images for the government to reconstruct where a car traveled across town. That is already happening in Cheyenne, Jackson, Glenrock, Lusk, and on the Wind River Reservation. The best part? Nothing in Wyoming law stops cities from adding more.Lawmakers had an opportunity to change that. And for a moment, it looked like they might.

The original proposed solution, 27-LSO-0033, started with a clear principle: government surveillance should be prohibited unless specifically justified.Government could not install these readers on public buildings, roads, or highways, could not use them to identify vehicles, and could not hire a vendor to do it. The proposal also addressed other forms of surveillance, including  biometric identification and geolocation tracking. Exceptions were contemplated for stolen vehicles, missing persons, and legitimate investigations, generally requiring a warrant. .  

But that broader approach did not survive the committee’s revisions. In July, the Select Committee on Blockchain, Financial Technology and Digital Innovation Technology directed LSO  staff to narrow it down and work with law enforcement. This resulted in a working draft 27-LSO-0139.

The committee reviewed the revised draft on September 28–29 but took no vote. Instead, members sent it back for further work ahead of their November 19–20 meeting in Cheyenne. For now, it remains just a working draft.

The Proposed “Ban” That Is Already Acting Like a Permission Slip

Section 31-21-102 announces that no person, including government, may use an automatic license plate reader (ALPR’s). Sounds great on the surface… until you get to the exceptions.

So who gets a permission slip? According to the draft:

• Law enforcement may run the cameras to compare every plate, in real time, against a hot list drawn from the national crime database, stolen-vehicle lists, missing-person alerts, and Wyoming Department of Transportation registration records.
• A judge may authorize adding a plate, including part of a plate, to a hot list when law enforcement alleges the vehicle is connected to a crime. A criminal traffic offense counts.
• A supervisor may add a plate without a court order under “exigent circumstances.” The draft leaves the duration as “XX hours.” Yes, the blank is still blank.
• Cities may use the same systems for parking enforcement on a public street, highway, right-of-way, or any other place where parking is regulated. That’s the open road, not just a gated parking lot.

And what happens to all that data? Hits can be kept until the case ends. Non-hits are supposed to be deleted within three minutes. For parking enforcement, the data is not supposed to be checked against hot lists and must be deleted within 12 hours after a citation is resolved, or within 12 hours of capture if none is issued.The definition then steps aside even further. School-bus cameras are excluded. So is anything the bill calls an “automatic traffic enforcement system” such as red-light cameras, speed cameras, toll cameras, and port-of-entry cameras. Rename the device or change its stated primary purpose, and the prohibition does not apply. They even removed the biometric and geolocation limits from the earlier proposal.

There’s another practical problem, the draft itself, flags. Legislative staff noted that the photograph and associated data captured by these systems may qualify as a public record under the Wyoming Public Records Act the moment the image is taken and processed. Under Wyoming law, public records are generally open to inspection unless a specific exemption applies. That creates a direct conflict with the bill’s short deletion windows: non-hits are supposed to be deleted within three minutes, and parking data within twelve hours. If someone files a public records request for images from a particular time and place before or during that window, agencies are typically required to preserve the records until the request is handled. In other words, the very images the bill says must be quickly and permanently deleted can be locked in place by an ordinary open-records request. Staff flagged the tension and suggested the committee may need explicit language so the deletion rules are not undercut by the Public Records Act or so these images are clearly placed outside ordinary public inspection. Without that fix, the “delete it fast” protections on paper can be defeated in practice, and the images of ordinary drivers will not disappear as quickly as the draft claims.

This draft does not provide the robust constitutional protections as being represented. They are thin operational limits that can be adjusted with minor language changes in a future session and produce large consequences. 

Consider how easily those limits could change.The “XX hours” blank can be filled with 72, 168, or longer. “Exigent circumstances” could be broadened or made permanent through future amendments.. Additional databases can be added to the approved hot-list sources. The “sole purpose” parking exception can be expanded to other municipal functions, allowing cameras to serve additional purposes beyond parking enforcement. Definitional carve-outs can be widened by reclassifying new devices. Retention windows can be lengthened “for investigative practicality.”

Each of those is a one-line tweak. None of those changes would require rewriting the entire law. But each could expand how much information the government collects, retains, or searches about ordinary drivers.

And here’s what doesn’t change, even under the current draft: The three-minute deletion rule applies only to non-hits and does nothing to stop the initial capture of every plate. The network itself remains authorized.

The Technology Already Outruns the Rules

Cato Institute researcher Matthew Cavedon warned the committee the technology products have already advanced well past what this draft addresses. Flock’s higher-end systems can build vehicle fingerprints from dents, stickers, and other identifying characteristics. Separate surveillance technologies can read Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and radio-frequency signals from phones and wearables inside cars. A bill focused narrowly on license plate readers risks leaving these capabilities unrestricted.

And technology doesn’t stand still. Once cameras are on the poles under the bill’s exceptions, new software or additional sensors could expand their capabilities without requiring lawmakers to revisit the law. The technology can evolve while Wyoming’s protections remain frozen in place. 

That is the danger of a partial ban. Supporters can claim Wyoming has already “banned” the technology, while the cameras remain mounted, license plates continue to be scanned, and data is still compared in real time. And when new surveillance capabilities emerge, the existence of a supposed ban could become an excuse to avoid revisiting the issue. Instead of establishing meaningful limits on government surveillance, Wyoming risks creating a legal framework that allows the technology to expand beyond the protections lawmakers intended. The distinction matters: limiting certain uses of surveillance technology is not the same as prohibiting the technology itself.

What Happens If It Passes? 

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.But those protections raise a simple question about 27-LSO-0139: Does this proposal actually limit government surveillance of people who aren’t suspected of a crime, or does it establish the rules for allowing it to continue?  Under the proposed framework, cameras could still scan passing license plates and compare them against designated lists. Certain records could be retained for investigations, parking enforcement, or other authorized purposes. The draft  puts limits on how long some data can be kept and who can access it, but those rules don’t stop the cameras from collecting the information in the first place. Nor do they necessarily prevent that information from being used to reconstruct someone’s movements.So, what actually changes if this bill becomes law?

After this bill, can a city still bolt the cameras to the pole and run every plate that passes? Yes. 

Can the government still keep a file on people who have done nothing wrong? Under certain circumstances, yes. 

And arguably the worst part: those who decide when an ordinary driver becomes someone on the list are the same agencies authorized to operate the cameras.

The committee has not sponsored 0139. The November 19–20 meeting in Cheyenne is the next decision point. What remains unresolved is whether Wyoming will prohibit this form of surveillance or establish a legal framework for its continued use.

Wyoming doesn’t need a partial ban that allows government surveillance to continue under a different set of rules. It needs a complete prohibition on automatic license plate surveillance and a clear standard for emerging technologies. Mass surveillance of innocent people should be prohibited by default, with any proposed exceptions requiring explicit legislative authorization, not quietly permitted until lawmakers decide to claw that authority back.

No loopholes. No permission slips. Just protect Wyoming’s privacy.

The 2026 Wyoming legislative session produced a range of measures in an attempt to advance sincere aims—strengthening maternal options, clarifying property rights, supporting education, protecting public safety, and encouraging economic development. Many of these bills carried appealing titles and addressed concerns that resonate with Wyoming values of independence, local control, and practical problem-solving.

Yet legislation that sounds constructive on its face and during debate or even on the campaign trail can generate longer-term effects that run counter to the very problems we are trying to solve. Creating Unintended Consequences that are important to recognize and understand.

With input from conservative grassroots advocates from across the state, Honor Wyoming put together our first annual post- session Unintended Consequences report. We selected specific bills from the 2026 legislative session precisely to illuminate those unintended consequences, showing how well-intentioned expansions of government authority, administrative complexity, or preferential treatment can quietly erode consistency, property protections, fiscal discipline, and institutional accountability.

The purpose is not to challenge the motives of legislators or bill supporters, but to offer a measured, professional assessment of the practical shortcomings that often accompany how bill language is structured. By reviewing the specific mechanisms and downstream implications of these measures, we hope to encourage clearer scrutiny in future sessions—favoring solutions that remain faithful to limited-government principles, treat similar programs consistently, and avoid embedding new layers of bureaucracy or special advantages that prove difficult to unwind. The analyses that follow are offered in that spirit of constructive reflection.

Christians are not called to place their hope in politics or human government. Our ultimate allegiance belongs to Christ, whose kingdom is not of this world. Yet Scripture does not leave believers without guidance concerning civil authority. It teaches that government exists under God, serves a defined purpose, and must never assume the place that belongs to Him or the responsibilities He has given to individuals, families, and the church. 

Against the backdrop of Roman imperial rule, the apostolic writings offer clear and consistent guidance on how believers should understand human government. The New Testament’s central focus remains the kingdom of God – a realm Jesus Himself described as “not of this world” (John 18:36).  Yet the New Testament speaks clearly about the source, purpose, and limits of civil authority. Within that focus, the apostolic writings offer clear and consistent guidance on how believers are to understand human government. These teachings, read carefully and with humility, lean toward a limited view of the state’s role – one whose authority is confined to its proper God-given purpose. For Christians seeking to honor Scripture as they participate in elections, this limited vision is worth careful consideration. 

Scripture teaches that governing authorities are instituted by God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1). There is no authority except from Him; human government is derived, never ultimate. Jesus Himself reminded Pilate that any power the governor possessed had been “given from above” (John 19:11). Because rulers hold office under God’s sovereign appointment, “whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” (Romans 13:2). 

Yet this divine appointment does not give rulers unlimited power. Because their authority comes from God, it must operate according to His purposes rather than human ambition or self-interest. The New Testament therefore balances its high view of government with a clear and careful definition of the authority’s proper role. “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:3-4). Peter echoes the same narrow charge: governors are “sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:14). Believers are therefore urged to pray “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

These statements sketch a defined and restrained mandate. Government exists to restrain chaos, protect the innocent, and maintain basic order. It is not commissioned to reshape hearts, redistribute every resource, or assume the church’s calling. Jesus’ clear distinction—“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21)—preserves two spheres. When the two collide, the apostles model the higher loyalty: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Christians live as free people under civil authority, yet they should refuse to use that freedom as a cloak for undoing this restrained mandate; they remain “servants of God” first (1 Peter 2:16). All earthly powers, however impressive, stand under the lordship of Christ, the true “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15).

This restrained mandate becomes especially clear when we consider the place of private property. Scripture presents ownership not as a gift from the state but as a trust from God to individuals and families. Property therefore helps mark the practical boundary between civil authority—which is called to protect what belongs to others—and personal stewardship, which remains the responsibility of people before the Lord.

Scripture also upholds the legitimacy of private property and personal economic responsibility, carefully distinguishing the government’s protective role from the active stewardship assigned to people. The commandment “You shall not steal” presupposes that individuals may rightly own and control goods. Jesus’ parables routinely treat property as something held and managed under God by ordinary people, while the early church records that believers retained ownership of their possessions and gave only voluntarily—“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?” (Acts 5:4). Paul further instructs that each person should labor productively “so that he may have something to share with anyone in need” (Ephesians 4:28) and states plainly that “if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

These passages establish a clear biblical principle: ownership and generosity belong first to individuals and families under God. The government’s God-given task, by contrast, is to restrain evil by punishing theft and fraud. Romans 13:6-7 ties the payment of taxes to this same limited purpose—“for this very thing” of maintaining order—rather than to an open-ended management of wealth.

Because the New Testament consistently places the duties of productive work, personal stewardship, and free-hearted giving on people themselves, the civil authority stays within its proper bounds when it protects what belongs to others rather than taking over those responsibilities. When government reaches beyond this protective calling and begins to assume extensive control over resources or requires their compulsory redistribution, it therefore moves beyond the role the New Testament describes. When that boundary is crossed, the state risks displacing the very personal responsibility and mutual care that God has placed on individuals, families, and the body of Christ.

From these writings a picture of limited government emerges—not as a modern ideological slogan, but as a practical implication of the New Testament’s own teaching. When the state confines itself to justice and order, many goods follow. Peaceful and quiet lives become more possible. The civil and spiritual realms remain distinct, safeguarding conscience. People are protected from harm without being micromanaged. And, most importantly for the Christian life, individual moral responsibility and voluntary love are left intact.

Here the danger of overextension becomes clear. Government power, when treated as a ready crutch, can quietly assume the very duties Jesus assigned to His people. The New Testament never calls the state to perform the works of mercy, discipleship, or neighbor-love that belong to believers. Jesus placed those responsibilities squarely on individuals and on the community of faith: we are to love one another as He loved us, to care for the needy among us, to teach and admonish one another, and to live out the gospel in free, heartfelt obedience. 

When government expands beyond punishing evil and praising good, it begins to displace these callings. Charity that should flow from grateful hearts becomes a bureaucratic entitlement. Moral formation that belongs to parents, churches, and mutual encouragement among brothers and sisters is absorbed into state programs. The resources that families and congregations might freely give are extracted through ever-heavier taxation “for this very thing”—yet the “thing” has swollen far beyond the justice and order Scripture describes (Romans 13:6-7).

In such overreach, the state functions as a substitute rather than a servant. Christians can slowly grow dependent on its provisions instead of practicing the mutual care Jesus commanded. The church’s distinct mission of gospel transformation is crowded out by competition or regulation. And the freedom Peter describes—living as free people who still serve God—is diminished. 

Limited government, by contrast, refuses this crutch. It keeps the sword for its proper use against wrongdoers and leaves the deeper work of love, repentance, and restoration to those whom Christ Himself commissioned. In doing so, it protects the space in which believers can obey the New Testament’s ethical commands without coercion or displacement.

These benefits are not guarantees of utopia. The New Testament is realistic about human sinfulness; even limited governments fail, and unchecked power can grow beast-like. Still, the apostolic pattern is clear: government is a temporary servant, not a savior. Its proper restraint creates space for the higher work of loving God and neighbor as individuals and as the body of Christ, keeping the state itself from becoming an idol or a totalizing power that demands ultimate allegiance. Stability is fostered in a fallen world, yet ultimate hope is directed away from any human ruler and toward Christ alone.

As for how we are to engage in civics and politics while on earth? Scripture clearly commands, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Romans 12:2). Yet Jesus Himself prayed that His disciples would remain fully present within it: “I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one… As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John 17:15, 18). Precisely because we are not of this world yet still live in it—and because our minds have been renewed by the gospel—civic engagement is not merely permitted but a Christian duty. With transformed minds we are called and equipped to pray for those in authority, to vote thoughtfully, and to pursue or support civic leadership as opportunity allows.  Instead of stepping back from these duties, we need to eagerly embrace them, for this is how we honor Christ while remembering that our true home is in heaven.

For Christians contemplating how to vote, this New Testament vision matters deeply. Elections are one ordinary means by which citizens may encourage rulers to stay within God-ordained bounds—punishing evil, praising good, and protecting the conditions for peaceful life—while refusing to hand over the responsibilities Jesus placed on His people. Candidates and policies that treat government as the primary solution to every human need risk turning the state into the very crutch Scripture never authorized. Conversely, those who respect limited authority may better serve the common good without claiming the place that belongs to Christ and to His church. Voting, then, becomes an act of stewardship rather than of messianic expectation. We cast ballots under the same Lord who already reigns, praying for those in power while remembering that no earthly system can redeem the world or fulfill the commands given to the followers of Christ.

In the end, the New Testament’s leanings toward limited government invite humility. They do not supply a complete political platform, nor do they excuse us from the hard work of wisdom and charity in public life. They simply remind us that government is God’s servant for a specific, restrained purpose. When Christians keep that purpose in view—and guard against its overextension into the duties Jesus Himself assigned—we are better equipped to seek the peace of the city while fixing our deepest hope where it alone belongs: on the King whose kingdom is not of this world.

Your May 2026 letter to Green River parents opens with a glaring contradiction that is hard to ignore. You begin with claiming to “celebrate” the largest teacher salary increase in 15 years and the new “Instructional Silo” that locks those dollars strictly for classrooms and educators. In the very next breath, you complain that this same silo is a “rigid framework” that prevents you from diverting the money wherever you please. 

In plain English?: the legislature finally forced you to put classroom teachers first, and your complaint is that you can no longer redirect those funds to support an already bloated non-instructional bureaucracy—administration, maintenance, custodial services, and the other overhead. That is not prioritizing teachers. That is resenting the fact that teachers can no longer be treated as a piggy bank for everything else.

Equally absurd is your treatment of declining enrollment. By your own admission, the district lost 94 students this year, automatically reducing state funding by roughly $1.2 million. Fewer students means fewer classrooms to staff, fewer buses to run, fewer meals to serve, and less square footage to clean and heat. In any rational organization that would be grounds for a smaller budget, not a demand for more money. Yet you present the enrollment drop as a crisis that somehow justifies political mobilization for additional funding. The logic is pure administrative self-interest: the bureaucracy must be preserved even as the student population shrinks.

But the closing pitch really exposes the letter for what it really is: an official school-district communication using taxpayer resources, official letterhead, the district website, and parent contact lists to advance a political agenda and steer voters toward one special-interest political scorecard right before the August 18 primary.

You instruct parents to “Research: Review the 2026 WEA Legislative Scorecard to see which legislators support public education” and then “advocate” by contacting regional legislators. That is not neutral budget information. That is directing citizens to the Wyoming Education Association—the state teachers’ union and the DC based NEA affiliate—whose scorecards systematically rate lawmakers on how well they deliver the union’s preferred funding outcomes, collective-bargaining priorities, and opposition to reforms the union dislikes. 

You did not point parents to the actual bill text, the Legislative Service Office analysis, independent fiscal scorecards, or even the district’s own detailed budget documents. You pointed them exclusively to the union’s political rating tool. In an election year, with candidates already filing, that is electioneering by proxy.

Wyoming Statute § 9-13-105 is unambiguous: a public official or public employee “shall not use public funds, time, personnel, facilities or equipment for political or campaign activity” unless specifically authorized by law or properly incidental and reimbursed. Your letter was produced on district time, distributed through district channels, and signed in your official capacity as superintendent. 

School-district policies across Wyoming routinely bar the use of facilities, equipment, or supplies for campaigning or political activity and require neutrality on candidates and contested issues. Directing parents to a single partisan scorecard so they will pressure (or replace) lawmakers is textbook political activity. It is not “incidental” to explaining a budget shortfall. It is the budget shortfall being weaponized to mobilize a constituency behind the union’s preferred politicians.

The selective framing is equally revealing.  You complain that the state has “restricted your local School Board’s ability to make local decisions” and “locked our local reserves,” then immediately outsource the solution to the WEA scorecard. That is not a cry for local control. That is an admission that the real power center is the teachers’ union that pulls the strings of the bureaucrats who run the district. When the only “research” tool you recommend is the union’s own report card, the claim of independence collapses.

Parents and taxpayers fund this district. They are not a captive audience for WEA’s political operation. Using the official apparatus of a public school system to amplify one interest group’s electoral scorecard is unethical on its face and runs headlong into the statute that exists precisely to prevent public employees from turning government machinery into a campaign arm. If the district truly believed in transparency, it would publish the full recalibration numbers, the precise trade-offs, and multiple independent analyses—not a single union-curated ranking timed for primary season.

The proper response is simple: stop. Retract the political directive. Issue a corrected communication that sticks to the actual budget facts without the scorecard. And recognize that when a superintendent’s official letter reads like a WEA press release with a district logo slapped on top, the public is entitled to conclude that the union, not the elected board or the parents, is calling the shots. Green River students and parents deserve administrators who manage scarce resources, not political operatives who treat the parent email list as a get-out-the-vote machine for their preferred legislators.

 

Sign the petition today demanding State Superintendent Megan Degenfelder take immediate action to stop Wyoming schools from being used as campaign tools.

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  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:

• Article 7, Section 1: The Legislature “shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a complete and uniform system of public instruction.”
• Article 7, Section 9: The Legislature “shall make provision by taxation for a thorough and efficient system of public schools.”
• Article 1, Section 23: The Legislature “shall suitably encourage means and agencies calculated to advance the sciences and liberal arts.”
• Article 7, Section 14: General supervision of public schools “is entrusted to the Superintendent of Public Instruction”.

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. 

 

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 

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.

 

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:

• General Session (odd-numbered years, such as 2025):
  Runs for up to 40 days. It allows a wide range of bills to be introduced and debated. Only a simple majority vote is required to introduce a bill and to pass it.
• Budget Session (even-numbered years, such as 2026):
  Lasts about 20 days. Its primary purpose is to pass the state’s two-year budget. Non-budget bills face a much higher threshold: they must receive a two-thirds (⅔) majority vote to be introduced and debated.

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.

• House and Senate versions of the same committee combine into one bipartisan group.
• Members come from both chambers and both parties.
• Leadership in each chamber appoints the members (usually reflecting party majorities).

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

• Deciding which topics each joint interim committee will study
• Monitoring committee work
• Setting the calendar for the next budget session
• Handling the Legislature’s administrative tasks during the interim

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).

• Judiciary
• Appropriations
• Revenue
• Education 
• Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources
• Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Culture Resources
• Corporations, Elections, and Political Subdivisions
• Transportation, Highways and Military Affairs
• Minerals, Business and Economic Development
• Labor, Health, & Social Services
• Journal (only a standing committee)
• Rules and Procedures (only a standing committee)

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: 

• HB = House Bill
• SF = Senate File

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:

• First Reading (Committee of the Whole): The full chamber debates the bill and considers amendments. A voice vote is taken. If the bill is not heard before the Committee of the Whole deadline, it dies on the General File.
• Second Reading: The bill is considered again the following day and may still be amended. Another voice vote is taken. If the bill is not heard before the second reading deadline, it dies.
• Third Reading: This is the final vote in the chamber. A recorded roll call vote is required. If the bill passes, it moves to the other chamber. If it fails, it is dead for the session.

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. 

• If approved, the bill returns to the stage where it previously failed. 
• If the motion fails, the bill remains dead.

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:

• Failure of introduction (especially common in budget sessions)
• Committee vote failure
• Never being scheduled on the General File
• Not being heard before the Committee of the Whole (COW) deadline
• Missing the second chamber committee deadline
• Running out of legislative days

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:

• Sign it into law
• Allow it to become law without a signature
• Veto the entire bill OR (in the case of budget bills) issue a line-item veto. 

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:

• 110 bills originated as committee bills, developed through the research and recommendations of the joint interim committees.
• 235 bills were introduced by individual legislators.

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:

• 70 bills were signed into law
• 2 were vetoed by the Governor (SF119 and SF101)
• 32 failed the two-thirds introduction vote
• 1 was not introduced for consideration
• 1 was postponed indefinitely
• 7 died in Senate committees
• 1 was withdrawn by the sponsor
• 2 failed during first reading (Committee of the Whole)
• 2 failed during third reading

Once Senate bills moved to the House:

• 4 died in House committees
• 10 failed during first reading
• 3 failed during third reading

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:

• 60 failed the two-thirds introduction vote
• 48 were not considered for introduction
• 5 failed in committee
• 20 were not considered for first reading
• 1 failed during first reading (Committee of the Whole)
• 1 failed during third reading
• 2 were withdrawn by their sponsors

Once House bills moved to the Senate:

• 6 died in Senate committees
• 10 failed introduction due to cutoff deadlines
• 2 failed after reconsideration attempts
• 3 failed during first reading (Committee of the Whole)
• 3 failed during third reading
• 1 was vetoed by the Governor
• 41 were signed into law

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:

• HB60 – Attorney General Elected
  Would have made the Attorney General a statewide elected position, establishing terms, salary, and vacancy procedures while reducing gubernatorial appointment authority. (vote total: 35–26)
• HB88 – Public Funds Lobbying
  Would have prohibited state and local entities, including school districts, from using public funds to lobby the Legislature or support organizations. (vote total: 27–34–1)
• HB93 – Judicial Transparency
  Would have required Wyoming courts to provide free public access to records and audio recordings online at no cost, with searchable systems and timely posting. (vote total: 34–28)
• HB134 – Legislator Email Transparency
  Would have required the LSO to ensure constituent emails are delivered directly to legislators unless flagged as a verified security threat. (vote total: 32–27–3)
• HB135 – Public Officials and Nondisclosure Agreements
  Would have prohibited public officials from entering into nondisclosure agreements in their official capacity and established penalties for violations. (vote total: 36–25–1)
• HB179 – Hospital Pricing Transparency
  Would have required hospitals to disclose pricing for services and prescription drugs, with enforcement through the Department of Health and created penalties for noncompliance. (vote total: 31–29–2)
• HJ3 – Nuclear Waste Storage Approval
  Proposed a constitutional amendment requiring voter approval before high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel could be stored in Wyoming. (vote total: 32–30)
• SF49 – Public Records Act Revisions
  Proposed changes to the Wyoming Public Records Act including shorter response timelines, standardized fees, expanding what qualifies as a public record, and increased enforcement authority. This included allowing the Ombudsman office to refer violations for legal action. (vote total: 15–16)
• SF97 – Cash Payments for Government Entities
  Would have required government entities to accept cash payments and prohibited additional fees for cash transactions. (vote total: 19–12)
• SJ4 – Judicial Nomination Reform
  Proposed restructuring the judicial nominating commission, allowing the legislature to define qualifications for judges and requiring Senate confirmation for Supreme Court justices. (vote total: 16–15)

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:

• The Governor’s recommended biennial budget totaled $11.1 billion, a 12% increase from the 2024 budget.
• The Legislature approved a $10.099 billion budget, reducing spending by approximately $836 million (7.6%) from 2024 levels and over $1 billion (9%) from the Governor’s proposal.

Major Funding Sources

• General Fund: $3.46 billion (34.2%)
  • Wyoming’s main flexible revenue source, which is primarily funded by mineral taxes, sales tax and investment earnings
• Federal Funds: $2.19 billion (21.7%)
  • Funding that comes from the federal government to the state, typically through grant or program funding. It must be used for specific purposes and in accordance with federal laws and guidelines.
• School Foundation Program: $2.27 billion (22.5%)
  • This is Wyoming’s constitutionally required funding for K-12 public education. It combines state and local revenues to fund all school districts in the state. The general fund is the largest contribution, followed up by property tax and federal mineral revenues. 
• Other Funds: $2.18 billion (21.6%)
  • Do not come from general taxation, allocated to areas such as hunting and fishing, professional licensing fees, highway funds, tourism, state-run services, environmental and regulatory funds, and investment earnings.

Key Allocations

• Department of Health: $2.66 billion
  • $1.108 Billion From General Funds 
  • $1.241 Billion From Federal Funds
  • $311 Million from Other Funds
• K–12 Education: $2.556 Billion
  • $2.21 Billion for school districts from the School Foundation Program
  • $392.7 million to the Department of Education 
    • $349.8 million from Federal Funds
    • $25.6 million from Other Funds
    • $17.3 million from General Funds
• University of Wyoming: $486.8 million
  • $486.8 million from General Funds
• Community Colleges: $293.4 million
  • $290.3 million from General Funds
  • $1.9 million from Federal Funds
  • $1.2 million from Other Funds
• Department of Corrections: $346.1 million
  • $325.8 million from General Funds
  • $19.8 million from Other Funds
  • $472,000  from Federal Funds
• Department of Family Services: $339.3 million
  • $175.4 million From General Funds
  • $149.8 million From Federal Funds
  • $14.1 million from other funds

Additional Appropriations

• $16 million (up to) for rare earth resource projects
• $15 million for tourism projects
• $172.2 million to restore portions of the Governor’s recommendations
• $111.8 million for salary adjustments
• $3.3 million for court security grants
• $800,000 for outdoor trails matching funds 
• $550,000 General Fund for rural veterinary education program 
• $30,000 for Yellowstone historical display project 

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:

• 2022: $22.1 million
• 2024: $23.6 million
• 2026: $26.1 million

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:

• Compensation: $11.5 million for LSO staff, $1.15 million for legislators during session, and $2.24 million for interim work
• Travel: Approximately $1.5 million for session travel and $1.25 million for interim travel
• Benefits: $4.9 million in employer-paid benefits
• Administrative Support: $1.5 million for general operations
• Membership Dues: $667,190 for national and regional organizations
• Statutory publications: $405,000
• Telecommunications: $50,000 

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:

• HB34 / HB35: Firefighter retirement and compensation adjustments ($181,000 and $422,500)
• HB36 / HB106: Wildland fire response and leadership funding ($2.57 million and $499,709)
• HB105: K–12 facilities funding ($237.9 million)
• HB107: Local government distributions (county and municipal support)
• HB111: Capital construction funding across agencies, including:
  • $228.7 million (General Fund)
  • $59.2 million (Private Funds)
  • $47 million (Federal Funds)
  • $84.8 million to the University of Wyoming

---

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

• HB45 – Long-Term Homeowner Tax Exemption Revisions
  Adjusted eligibility and benefit structures for qualifying homeowners to provide targeted property tax relief. While the bill offered assistance to specific residents, it did not address broader structural concerns within the property tax system.
• SF79 – Sales and Use Tax Reorganization
  Reorganized statutory language governing sales and use taxes, clarifying how in-state and out-of-state transactions are handled. This measure focused on administrative efficiency rather than direct tax reduction.
• SF80 – Department of Revenue Electronic Communication
  Modernized communication between the state and taxpayers by shifting from paper-based systems to electronic notifications, improving efficiency and accessibility.

Bills That Failed or Did Not Advance

• SF110 – Residential Property Tax Revisions
  Proposed targeted reforms to limit tax burdens on primary residences. While intended to provide relief, the bill raised questions about how benefits would be distributed and sustained over time. (Failed House introduction: vote was 30–31–1)
• HB73 – Property Reassessment on Transfer
  Would have required property to be reassessed at market value upon sale, potentially increasing tax obligations for new property owners. (Failed House introduction: vote was 37–25)
• HB124 – Property Tax Exemption Reduction
  Proposed limiting existing exemptions, which could have increased tax liability for certain groups. (Failed House introduction: vote was 31–29–2)
• SF78 / SF77 – Taxable Value and Exemption Changes
  Attempted to modify how property values and exemptions are calculated, reflecting broader efforts to restructure the system. (Failed introduction)
• HB58 / HB118 – Structural Tax Changes
  Proposed more fundamental changes to property tax mechanisms but were not considered for introduction.

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

• SF28 – Voting System Testing
  Strengthened requirements for testing voting machines and electronic election systems before elections. Requiring that pre-election testing be conducted in a more structured and transparent manner, expands who may observe the testing including the public, and ensures results are documented and available. This measure aimed to increase transparency and public confidence in election systems.
• SF30 – Voter Registration Revisions
  Standardized the definition of a “qualified elector,” aligning eligibility requirements across statutes aligning requirements like age, residency, citizenship, and voter eligibility in one consistent framework. This reduced ambiguity without significantly altering voter qualifications.
• SF113 – Hand Count Comparison
  Requires every Wyoming County to conduct a hand-count audit of ballots in both the 2026 primary and general elections. 5% of ballots must be manually counted and compared to machine results to check for accuracy and consistency. The requirement is temporary and applies only to the 2026 elections.  While intended to verify machine accuracy, the measure also raises questions about scalability and long-term implementation.

Bills That Failed or Did Not Advance

• HB48 – Pen and paper ballots
  Would have required elections to use paper ballots as the primary voting method instead of electronic systems. Failed House introduction (38-24).
• HB49 – Ballot drop boxes prohibition
  Would have banned the use of ballot drop boxes for returning absentee ballots. Failed house introduction (38-24) 
• HB50 – Ballot harvesting prohibition
  Would have restricted or prohibited third-party collection of ballots, limiting who can return a voter’s ballot. Failed house introduction (39-23) 
• HB51- Random hand count audits of election results
   Required random hand count audits of election ballots to verify accuracy, along with directing rulemaking for how those audits would be conducted.  Failed house introduction (39-23)
• HB53- Poll watchers-polling stations observation
  This bill would have expanded and clarified the appointment and authority of poll watchers, including how they observe polling locations and election processes. The bill directed rulemaking for implementation.  Failed house introduction (36-26)
• HB54-Elections-independent candidate requirements
   Would have revised requirements for independent candidates by requiring them to affirm they are not affiliated with a political party, increasing signature thresholds, and changing filing deadlines to qualify for the ballot.  Failed house introduction (32-30)
• HB94-Election purity and hand count
   Would have required all elections in Wyoming to be conducted using hand-counted paper ballots, prohibited the use of voting machines for casting or tabulating votes. Also, the bill would have established statewide standards for ballot handling, reconciliation, and audits. Failed house introduction (32-30) 
• HB52-Elections-hand counting for recounts
   This bill would have established a structured process for election recounts, requiring hand counting in certain close races. Allowing candidates and election officials to request recounts, and outlining costs, procedures, and oversight for those recounts. Senate did not consider for COW.
• HB84- Falsifying election documents
  This bill clarified that falsifying election documents includes submitting a false post-election ballot audit. The bill strengthens enforcement around election integrity violations. Senate did not consider for COW
• HB85-Post-election audit procedures
  A bill that would have strengthened post-election audit requirements by requiring official minutes to be taken, ensuring audits are publicly observable. Allowed representatives from political parties and independent candidates to monitor and document the process.  Failed Senate 3rd reading (9-21)
• HB86-Removal of county officers election code violations
   Allowing the Secretary of State to file a complaint with the governor against a county clerk for violations of election law. Creates a clearer process for addressing misconduct by county election officials. This bill died in the Senate committee.
• SF0108-Election purity and hand count
  A mirror bill to HB0094. Failed Senate introduction (9-21)
• SF29-Elections-acceptable identification revisions
   The bill attempted to revise the forms of acceptable identification required for voting in Wyoming. The goal was to update and potentially tighten voter ID requirements, an ongoing effort to address election procedures and security. Failed senate introduction (18-13).

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  

• HB8 Stalking of Minors
  Strengthened existing law by recognizing that offenses involving minors carry greater risk, elevating penalties to a felony in certain cases including stalking of minors, repeat offenses, violations of court orders, and cases involving serious harm. 
• HB9-Grooming of Children
  Created a felony offense targeting patterns of manipulation used to prepare minors for exploitation. The bill establishes clear definitions and penalties of up to 30 years, strengthening early intervention tools for law enforcement, adding the offense to sex offender registration and ineligibility for deferred sentencing. 
• HB28 Sexual Exploitation of Children Amendments
  Expanded statutory definitions to close gaps in existing law, improving consistency in enforcement and prosecution.
• HB92 Sex Offenders and Public Office
   Establishes that individuals registered as sex offenders are ineligible to run for or hold certain public offices in Wyoming, including positions such as school board trustee, county commissioner, mayor, sheriff, and prosecutor.  Setting clear eligibility standards aimed at protecting public trust related to conduct-based qualifications.
• HB102 Protecting Kids from Deepfakes and Exploitive Images
  Addressed emerging threats by criminalizing the use of artificial intelligence in creating exploitative content, ensuring that technological advancements do not create legal loopholes.  It criminalized the distribution of nonconsensual synthetic sexual material, the use of AI to create or possess child pornography, and the development of AI systems intended to promote child exploitation or self-harm, while also providing limited liability protections for developers acting without criminal intent. The bill modernizes criminal statutes to keep pace with emerging technology, focusing on protecting individuals, especially children, from new forms of digital exploitation and harm.
• SF9 Fentanyl to Minors- Enhanced Penalty
   Increased penalties for distributing fentanyl to individuals under 18, recognizing the heightened risk associated with the drug.
• SF85 – Raven Act
  Allocated $1.6 million to support investigations and prevention efforts related to online child exploitation, providing dedicated funding for enforcement.
• SF88 – Residency Restrictions
  Expanded restrictions preventing registered sex offenders from living near childcare facilities, strengthening safeguards for young children.

Bills That Did Not Pass

• HB72-Obscenity amendments
  Proposed changes to Wyoming’s obscenity laws by creating a new crime of promoting obscenity to minors, expanding definitions of obscene material, and applying those standards to places like public school and county libraries. It also removed certain exemptions for educators and librarians and required materials deemed harmful to minors to be restricted or relocated. Was not considered for introduction 
• HB10-Sexually explicitly materials in libraries requirements
  Would have required public libraries to ensure that sexually explicit materials are not accessible in children’s sections and instead are restricted to adult-designated areas. It also mandated that county libraries create a formal challenge process, allowing any resident to request review of materials, with a required written decision within 60 days. The bill would have defined “sexually explicit material” in detail and applied consistent standards for classification and placement. Overall, it aimed to restrict minors’ access to explicit content while creating a structured, transparent review process for library materials. Died in the Senate.

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

• HB0088 – Public funds lobbying
  This bill would have prohibited the use of taxpayer funds to influence legislative action. Failed House introduction (vote total: 27–34–1)
• HB0093 – Judicial transparency
  This bill required courts to provide free public access to records and livestream proceedings, with limited exceptions for sensitive cases. It also directed the judicial branch to develop a statewide access system. Failed House introduction (vote total: 34–28).  
•  HB00134- Disclosure of filtered legislator emails
   This bill addressed a fundamental principle of a representative government. Citizens must be able to communicate with their elected officials without unseen barriers. When constituent emails are filtered away from a legislator’s inbox without their knowledge, it creates a disconnect between the public and those elected to serve them. This bill requires the Legislative Service Officer (LSO) to verify whether emails have been filtered and, upon request, ensure those communications are routed directly to the legislator, unless there is a legitimate, articulable security threat. The bill did not eliminate cybersecurity protections or prevent spam filtering. Instead, it created a mechanism for transparency and correction, ensuring that lawful communication is not quietly redirected without oversight. In doing so, it would have reinforced accountability in the legislative process and affirms that access to elected officials should not be subject to unseen administrative barriers. Failed House introduction (32-27-3)
• HB0135 – Public officials nondisclosure agreements
  This bill prohibited public officials from entering into nondisclosure agreements that restrict disclosure of information involving public funds or government operations. It also established penalties and allowed legal challenges. Failed House introduction (vote total: 36–25–1)
• SF0049 – Public Records Act revisions
  This bill strengthened public records access by shortening response timelines, standardizing fees, and expanding enforcement through referrals and penalties. It also aimed to improve consistency in how records requests are handled. Failed Senate introduction (vote total: 15–16)

Bills that passed one chamber but did not become law

• HB0022- Recall of elected municipal officers
  This bill established a formal process allowing voters to recall elected city and town officials through a petition signed by 40% of eligible voters, followed by a recall election. The bill set timelines, limited when recalls could occur and restricted multiple recall attempts within a single term. This bill passed out of the Senate (57-0-5) but failed to pass the Senate Committee of the Whole reading (10-20-1)
• HB0083- Legislative subpoena-penalty
  The bill would have increased the penalties for refusing to comply with legislative subpoenas. The bill passed out of the House (60-0-1), but died in the 3rd reading in the Senate (15-16). A motion for Reconsideration was made in the Senate and failed a roll call vote (11-20)
• HB0141 Fifth Amendment Protection Act
  This bill was designed to protect private property rights by prohibiting cities and counties from imposing unnecessary housing-related fees or conditions on development. This bill was tied to affordable housing mitigation program problems occurring in the state. Supporters argued the bill upheld a core constitutional principle: that private property should not be taken or burdened for public use without just compensation, preventing local governments from shifting the cost of public housing needs onto individual landowners or developers. The bill passed the House (35-17-10) but Senate leadership did not assign the bill to a committee.  An attempt was made in the Senate to suspend the rules and to refer directly to the Committee of the Whole for debate but that effort was voted down as well (7-24).
• HB0178 – Public Unions: Transparency and Dues Withdrawal Limitations
  The bill centered around whether taxpayer-funded government payroll systems should continue handling union and association dues deductions for public employees.  Supporters argued the bill was about separating government operations from private political advocacy organizations. Under HB0178, public employers including state agencies, community colleges, municipalities, counties, special districts, political subdivisions, and school districts would no longer deduct union dues, political contributions, or certain organization fees directly from employee paychecks. Employees could still voluntarily join unions or associations, but payments would be made privately and directly by the individual. The bill focused on government neutrality and taxpayer accountability, arguing that public payroll systems should not serve as collection systems for private organizations that lobby legislation, endorse policy positions, or engage in political advocacy.The original version of the bill also included transparency requirements for public employee labor organizations, requiring disclosures related to revenues, expenditures, political spending, litigation costs, and membership information. Some of those provisions were later amended during the legislative process.HB0178 passed the Legislature but was vetoed by Mark Gordon. An attempted veto override later failed in the House on a 36-21-5 vote.

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

• HB0003- Wyoming Pregnancy Centers-Autonomy and Rights
  A bill prohibiting the state and local governments from requiring pregnancy centers to provide, refer for, or promote abortions, abortion inducing drugs, or contraceptives. This was to protect their ability to operate according to their mission. The bill also allows legal action if a government entity violates these protections.
• HB0126- the Human Heartbeat Act
  This bill prohibits most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, typically around six weeks of pregnancy, with limited exceptions. It reflects legislative intent to recognize a detectable heartbeat as an indicator of developing human life. It includes limited exceptions, such as when the life of the mother is at serious risk. The bill overwhelmingly passed in both the House (51–7) and the Senate (27–4).

Bills that Failed

• HB0186 Baby Olivia Act
  This bill proposed requiring strengthened human development education in schools, including medically accurate instruction and visual materials on fertilization and fetal development. While the intent was to expand student understanding of fetal development, concerns were raised about statutory placement and potential impacts on local control over curriculum. The bill failed House introduction (vote total: 39–20–3). 

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 

• HB0039- Firearms rights restoration amendments
   Clarifies that if a person has their firearm rights restored in another state where they were convicted, Wyoming will recognize that restoration for firearm possession. Does not automatically restore other rights though like voting or holding office. 
• HB0096- Carrying of concealed weapons- age requirement
  Lowers the minimum age to obtain a concealed carry permit in Wyoming from 21 to 18. Making for conforming updates and maintaining existing liability protections for issuing authorities. 
• HB0098- Prohibit Red Flag Gun Seizure Act-penalty amendments
  Creates a misdemeanor offense for knowingly violating Wyoming’s prohibition on red flag seizure laws. Establishes penalties of up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $2,000, or both. 

Bills that did not pass

•  HB0095-Concealed carry-colleges and universities
  Would have allowed individuals who can legally carry concealed weapons without a permit to do so on public college and university campuses. There would be limited exceptions for certain events like sports that involve alcohol. 
• HB0130- Second amendment protection act amendments
  Would have expanded Wyoming’s second amendment protection act by prohibiting state and local officials from enforcing certain federal firearm regulations. The bill created civil liability and significant penalties for violations and allows individuals to bring legal action against agencies that violate these protections. The bill had significant legislative support but failed in the Senate.
• HB0097-Second amendment financial privacy act amendment
  The bill passed introductory vote 59-2-1 and out of the appropriations committee 6-1 but was not considered for Committee of the Whole by the cut off date. The bill would have prohibited the use of firearm specific merchant category codes to track or record firearm and ammunition purchases, barring discrimination against firearm related transactions and created civil and criminal penalties for violations.
• SF0101-Second Amendment Protection Act amendments
  One of the clearest points of division in the 68th Legislative Session centered on SF0101, the Second Amendment Protection Act amendments, which passed the legislature but was ultimately vetoed by Governor Mark Gordon. The bill proposed expanding Wyoming’s existing Second Amendment protections by adding a civil enforcement mechanism, allowing individuals to challenge the use of state and local resources in enforcing certain federal firearm regulations that are not reflected in Wyoming law.Supporters argued the bill was a necessary and logical next step following Wyoming’s earlier Second Amendment Protection Act. While prior law established criminal penalties, proponents believed those provisions lacked practical enforcement, and that adding a civil cause of action would give real effect to the policy. They emphasized that the bill was narrowly tailored, applying only to actions “solely” related to federal firearm regulations and only involving “law-abiding citizens,” defined as individuals not prohibited under Wyoming law from possessing firearms and lawfully present in the United States. Supporters rejected claims that the bill would interfere with efforts to combat violent crime, drug trafficking, or immigration violations, noting that those activities clearly fall outside the bill’s scope. They also argued that existing federal precedent, such as Printz v. United States, allows states to refuse participation in federal enforcement, but does not prevent states from voluntarily assisting, making additional state-level protections necessary if Wyoming intends to fully separate its resources from federal firearm enforcement. From this perspective, the bill was about drawing a clear boundary and ensuring that Wyoming taxpayers and personnel are not used to enforce policies the state itself has not adopted.Opponents, including the Governor and some members of the law enforcement community, focused less on the intent of the bill and more on its real-world application. They raised concerns that even with limiting language, the bill could create ambiguity for officers and agencies operating in complex, fast-moving situations where federal and state authority often overlap. Critics warned that determining whether an action is “solely” related to federal firearm enforcement could be unclear in practice, potentially leading to hesitation or second-guessing in critical moments. Additionally, the introduction of a civil enforcement mechanism raised concerns about increased legal exposure for agencies, with opponents cautioning that the bill could open the door to lawsuits that, regardless of outcome, would require time and resources to defend. Some also questioned whether the bill was necessary at all, pointing to existing legal principles that already prevent the federal government from compelling state enforcement, and suggesting the bill risked disrupting established cooperation between state and federal authorities.The debate over SF0101 revealed a deeper divide in how Wyoming approaches the balance between protecting constitutional rights and maintaining effective law enforcement coordination. Supporters viewed the bill as a clear affirmation of state sovereignty and individual liberty, while opponents saw it as introducing uncertainty into an already complex enforcement environment. With the veto, the issue remains unresolved and likely to return in future sessions.

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

• SF0005 – Hospital bankruptcy proceedings
  This bill passed and significantly expanded the authority of trustees for county memorial hospitals and hospital districts to pursue Chapter 9 bankruptcy or dissolution. Under the enacted version, trustees may initiate these actions with approval from county commissioners for county hospitals, while hospital districts are no longer required to obtain voter approval. Public notice requirements were limited to posting a bankruptcy plan just seven days prior to consideration. While the bill provides struggling hospitals with a more streamlined path to address financial distress, it raises concerns about reduced community oversight and accountability, particularly in rural areas where these hospitals serve as the primary or sole source of care. Critics argue this could prioritize financial survival over responsibility for essential services.
• SF0004 – Medicaid rate increase – EMS services
  This bill increases reimbursement rates for emergency medical services provided to Medicaid recipients, bringing the state’s contribution to 100% of the enhanced rate with a corresponding federal match and a $1.3 million general fund appropriation. It applies only to Medicaid patients and does not broadly address overall EMS challenges of responsibility in funding.
• SF0057 – Transparency in hospital service pricing
  This bill, known as the Hospital Price Transparency Act, requires hospitals to maintain and provide searchable public lists of standard charges for services and items, with enforcement mechanisms and penalties for noncompliance. The goal is to empower patients and insurers with clearer cost information, driving more competition in pricing and reducing patient financial burden from surprise billing.
• SF0121 – Wyoming Pharmacy Act amendments
  This bill passed and expanded the statutory definition of the “practice of pharmacy” to include assessing patients, initiating care, and prescribing certain medications. Authority for the scope of these services is largely delegated to rulemaking by the Board of Pharmacy rather than fixed in statute. While the measure seeks to increase access to care, particularly in underserved rural communities where pharmacist availability exceeds that of physicians, it raises concerns about shifting clinical decision-making away from physicians toward a regulatory framework with less direct legislative oversight. By delegating broad authority to an unelected board under the executive branch, the bill reduces direct public accountability. Future expansions or restrictions would occur through rulemaking rather than open legislative debate, introducing uncertainty about long-term application. It also creates a situation where two competing boards (Wyoming Board of Medicine and the Wyoming Board of Pharmacy) may have conflicting rules and guidelines for the same health care services across the state.
• HB0004 – Birthing centers – Medicaid coverage
  This bill authorizes Medicaid reimbursement for services provided by licensed birthing centers, aiming to expand maternal care options and improve access in rural areas where traditional hospital-based maternity services are limited or declining by expanding the Medicaid program.
• HB0003 – Wyoming pregnancy centers – autonomy and rights
  This bill provides legislative findings and prohibits state and local governmental entities from adopting laws or rules that unduly burden the operations of pregnancy centers, protecting their autonomy in providing counseling, pregnancy tests, and related services.
• HB0122 – Wyoming rural health transformation program
  Established the Wyoming Rural Health Transformation Program to administer approximately $205 million in federal funds, creating an advisory committee,  an expenditure account, and a perpetuity fund for sustainable investments.

Bills that Did Not Pass

• HB0013 – Ivermectin without prescription
  This bill would have allowed ivermectin to be sold over the counter without a prescription by removing existing medical and pharmacy restrictions. Failed House introduction (38-23-1)
• HB0064 – Enhanced Medicaid reimbursement rate – maternal services
  This bill aimed to authorize enhanced Medicaid reimbursement rates for eligible maternal health providers in rural areas to help prevent “maternity deserts” and sustain obstetric services. It failed House introduction (27–34-1)
• HB0063 – Medicaid reimbursement – nursing homes
  This bill sought increases to Medicaid reimbursement rates for nursing homes to support long-term care facilities. Failed introduction in the House (27-34-1).
• HB0161 – Wyoming health insurance market study This bill proposed a comprehensive study of Wyoming’s health insurance market, including legislative findings and a required report to identify challenges and potential reforms. Leadership did not consider for introduction.
• HB0143 – Free speech for health care providers
  This bill, titled the Free Speech for Health Care Providers Act, sought to prohibit state agencies and boards from discriminating against providers based on their speech or expressions, while offering protections against adverse actions and certain contracting/licensing requirements. It advanced through the Labor committee but was not considered for a Committee of the Whole vote.

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

• SF0018-Attendance of Students in K-12 Schools
  Ensures that public schools are “equally free and accessible” to part-time students, allowing families greater flexibility to enroll children in specific classes or programs without requiring full-time attendance.
• HB23-Participation in school activities
  Expands access to extracurricular and cocurricular activities beginning in the 2026–2027 school year. Requiring school districts to allow resident school-age children, regardless of full-time enrollment status, to participate in district activities, including those sanctioned by Wyoming High School Athletic Association (WHSAA). This includes homeschool, private school, and alternative education students, provided they meet eligibility requirements and makes participation mandatory for districts, ensuring equal access to sports, clubs, and activities while preserving eligibility standards. The bill removes enrollment-based barriers and supports broader participation in school programs while maintaining standards for involvement.
• SF0035-School district-cell phone and smart watch policies
  Requires school districts to adopt policies governing student use of cell phones and smart watches. While presented as a classroom management tool addressing distractions and student behavior, the bill raises broader questions about who should set policies for students during the school day. By establishing a state-level framework, it shifts authority away from parents and local districts toward a more centralized approach. This is particularly relevant in Wyoming, where families often rely on devices for practical needs such as communication across long distances, transportation coordination, and safety.The bill does not require meaningful parental input or guarantee flexibility for varying local circumstances. As a result, it highlights an ongoing tension not over whether policies are needed, but over who determines them and whether parents are treated as partners or sidelined in decisions affecting their children.
• SF0081-K-12 Public School Finance-2
  While the above bills addressed specific aspects of school operations and policy, a much larger portion of the education debate this session centered on how the entire system is funded. At the core of that discussion was the required recalibration of Wyoming’s school finance model, a process that carries significant implications for both funding levels and the structure of public education moving forward.Referred to as the recalibration bill, SF0081 was a central focus of the session. Recalibration is not optional, it is a required statutory process designed to update the school funding model to reflect current costs and conditions. It intended to adjust the existing framework, not redefine the scope of public education. This year’s updates include adding approximately 260 staff positions statewide, increasing average teacher salaries from about $67,000 to $75,000, restructuring how teacher compensation is calculated, accelerating transportation funding, modifying special education timelines, increasing substitute pay, and adjusting enrollment calculations.The bill aimed to address litigation that has created a broader conversation around school funding. In August 2022, the Wyoming Education Association filed suit against the State (Case No. 2022-CV-200-788), arguing that Wyoming is underfunding public education and failing to meet its constitutional obligations. District Court Judge Peter Froelicher issued a ruling finding that the current school funding model is not constitutionally sufficient, citing concerns that it has not been properly maintained as a cost-based system and has not been consistently adjusted for inflation or evolving educational needs. The State of Wyoming filed an appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court (Docket S-25-0136)   seeking to overturn the district court’s finding that the school funding system is unconstitutional. This appeal is still open as of May 20th, 2026.  Because of this there is a pause on what the district court is asking to be implemented. The state argues that Wyoming schools are already adequately funded and that the court overstepped by substituting judicial judgment for legislative decision-making, particularly on questions of funding levels and policy priorities.The ruling has reignited a decades-long debate over what the Wyoming Constitution actually requires when it calls for a “complete and uniform” and “thorough and efficient” system of public instruction. At its core is a fundamental question: where does constitutional obligation end and legislative discretion begin? Where is the line to be drawn on funding areas such as mental health, school resource officers, technology, and food within funding education?   Supporters of recalibration argue that SF0081 represents a good-faith effort to update and maintain the model within fiscal realities. Others argue that without more structural changes, adjustments alone may not be enough to address the deficiencies identified by the court.Wyoming’s Constitution is clear that the state has a duty to fully fund public education, and that funding must remain aligned with actual costs and current conditions. But that raises an important question, what exactly is included in the “basket of goods” that defines a constitutionally required education? While the state is obligated to conduct recalibration to adjust the model to reflect real-world costs, it also raises the issue of where that obligation ends and how far expansion should go, as costs and expectations continue to grow as do the student performance and safety concerns of parents.Funding cannot be separated from outcomes. If the state is required to invest significant resources into education, there must also be meaningful accountability for performance. That includes ensuring students are meeting expectations and that funding decisions are tied to measurable results. A constitutionally compliant system is not only one that is adequately funded, it is one that demonstrates those resources are effectively supporting student achievement.

  When performance falls short, the system must include defined mechanisms for correction. This is where the current gap exists. Effective funding should be tied to clear outcomes and meaningful consequences; otherwise, there is little assurance that increased investment will translate into improved student performance.

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.

• SF0036- Hathaway lump sum merit scholarship
  The bill would have eliminated the requirements that students maintain sufficient academic progress, continuous enrollment, and credit hour requirements. The bill would also allow scholarship funds to be distributed as a lump sum, rather than requiring continuous full-time enrollment over multiple semesters. It also removes mandates related to minimum credit hours and continuous enrollment. (H COW: Failed 3-51-8-0-0)
• HB0057-Hathaway private post-secondary institution scholarships
  House Bill 57 would expand the Hathaway Scholarship to allow limited use at qualified private postsecondary institutions. The bill does not change existing eligibility criteria but requires the department of education to develop additional eligibility and payment rules for this expansion. (H Failed Introduction 39-23-0-0-0)
• SF0047- Increases of Hathaway scholarship awards
  Increased the Hathaway Scholarship award amounts by approximately 28.8% for each of different criteria groups.  Passed (Senate 26-4-1 and House 59-0-2-1)

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.

• HB0084 – Falsifying Election Documents- would have created and strengthened criminal penalties for knowingly falsifying election-related documents (such as ballots, registrations, or certifications), aiming to protect election integrity and deter fraud.
• HB0010 – Sexually Explicit Materials in Libraries Requirements– would have established standards for restricting minors’ access to sexually explicit materials in public and school libraries. Would have required a review process, classification, and potential removal or limited access to certain materials.
• HB0052 – Elections: Hand Counting for Recounts-would have required that election recounts be conducted by hand rather than by machine to increase transparency and to public confidence in election results.
• HB0070 – Wyoming Granite Act– was a broad election integrity bill focused on tightening voter eligibility and registration processes,  including provisions like proof of citizenship requirements and maintenance of voter rolls.
• HB0095 – Concealed Carry on Colleges and Universities– would have allowed individuals with valid concealed carry permits to carry firearms on public college and university campuses, expanding Second Amendment rights in higher education settings.
• HB0117 – Stop Harm, Empower Women with Informed Notices– would have created requirements for medical facilities to give women specific medical or informational notices (often related to abortion or chemical abortion procedures), ensuring informed consent and awareness of risks and alternatives.
• HB0127 – Voter Approval for Recreation Mill Levy– would have required that any new or increased recreation-related property tax (mill levy) must be approved directly by voters rather than imposed solely by local governing bodies.
• HB0147 – Property Tax Exemptions: Effect of People’s Initiative– would have clarified how property tax exemptions created through citizen-led ballot initiatives are applied and enforced, ensuring consistency with voter-approved measures.
• HB0157 – Protection of Parental Rights: Cause of Action– this bill created a legal pathway (cause of action) allowing parents to sue if they believe their fundamental rights regarding the care, custody, and upbringing of their children have been violated.
• HB0159 – Safeguarding Personal Expression at K-12 Schools– the passing of this bill would have protected students’ rights to free expression in public schools, ensuring they can express beliefs (including political or religious views) without undue restriction, within certain limits.

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. 

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.