On June 27, the Wyoming Education Association (WEA), a leftwing advocacy group that represents public school bureaucrats, persuaded a judge to temporarily block the state’s new Education Savings Account (ESA) program from taking effect on July 1. The WEA is a longtime advocate against giving families choice in education, regularly lobbying lawmakers in Cheyenne to keep kids in schools that aren’t working for them. Its latest lawsuit is as predictable as it is harmful to Wyoming students and their parents.  

The ESA program, created in 2024 and expanded this year to make all students eligible, provides participating families with up to $7,000 for approved educational expenses, such as tutoring services, homeschooling textbooks, private school tuition, and more. In short, the ESA program gives Wyoming students an escape hatch out of the public school system when it isn’t working for them. 

This was something the WEA couldn’t stand, so they sued to shut down the program, leaving nearly 4,000 families in a lurch as the 2025-26 school year looms in August. Judge Peter Froeliche’s block on the program will remain in effect while he decides the outcome of the case. 

The WEA claims to represent all stakeholders in the public school system. However, its lobbying efforts reflect the interests of two often overlapping groups—bureaucrats who benefit financially from keeping students in failing public schools and leftwing ideologues who believe governments, not parents, should primarily shape students’ moral upbringing. 

Who doesn’t the WEA represent? Families. 

The WEA is the state affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA), the country’s largest union. The NEA spends tens of millions of dollars each election cycle helping to elect Democratic candidates up and down the ballot who oppose school choice. During last year’s presidential election, the NEA endorsed Kamala Harris, who once said, “When you see our kids, and I truly believe that they are our children, they are the children of our country, of our communities.”

This chilling sentiment helps explain why the WEA is so opposed to policies that undermine the public school system’s near-monopoly on K-12 education. In the WEA’s twisted understanding of education, students exist to serve the public school system, not the other way around. 

The WEA claims in its lawsuit that the ESA program violates the Wyoming constitution because it “diverts public education funds to private entities with no meaningful oversight or accountability.” These are the same tired falsehoods the left has unsuccessfully advanced against school choice programs in other states. The accusations about oversight and accountability ring especially hollow to many Americans because public schools continue to receive an ever-increasing amount of funding, even as test scores decline or stagnate.Wyoming, for example, spends over $20,000 per public school pupil—higher than the national average of $17,144. Wyoming’s spending on education continues to increase each year, something the WEA always fails to point out.

Meanwhile, the latest National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) report, known as the Nation’s Report Card, finds that only 29% of eighth graders in the state are considered “proficient” in reading—a percentage that continues to decline each year. To put that figure a different way, 71% would struggle to “identify basic literary elements such as order of events, character traits and motivation, and main idea” in a fictional book.

As public schools have spent more time instructing students on the finer points of DEI, Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), and other progressive orthodoxies, they’ve devoted less time to teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, and other foundational skills. It’s no wonder that public school enrollment is declining around the country.  

Let’s walk through a few of the WEA’s deceptions.

For starters, Wyoming’s ESA program takes no money—we repeat, no money—from the education budget. The 2024 and 2025 bills appropriated $50 million in funding only from the general fund, leaving the education budget untouched (roughly $1.5 billion!). The WEA conveniently leaves this fact out of their press releases. 

The claim that the program lacks accountability and oversight is similarly—and obviously—false. The program places commonsense restrictions on how families can use the ESA money, ensuring it is put toward legitimate educational expenses, and empowers the state superintendent of public instruction to investigate allegations of misused funds. This is information that anyone could find through 30 seconds of basic research into the program.   

Those accountability measures, however, play second fiddle to the program’s most important guardrail—parents themselves. Parents know their children’s educational needs better than WEA bureaucrats, school administrators, or lawmakers, and it is parents who decide where and how to use the funding. Private schools, for example, that fail to provide an excellent educational experience—academically or otherwise—will soon find themselves struggling to attract new students.

This, ultimately, explains why the WEA is so desperate to stop a program that costs less than 2% of the state’s K-12 education budget. In the absence of school choice, public school becomes the default for most families. Since most parents will struggle to afford educational alternatives to the public school system, they’re stuck with the public school to which they’ve been assigned, regardless of quality. This is great for the WEA bureaucrats and public school administrators, who depend on state funding for their paychecks and a continuous supply of impressionable students on which to push their political agendas. But it’s not so great for students or their families, especially when they lack the means to move to a better school district or find an alternative educational arrangement for their children.  

Wealthy families have always had a choice in how to educate their children. But poor and middle-class families are too often forced to send their kids to a public school that might not fit their unique needs.

For this reason, Wyoming’s ESA program aims an arrow at the heart of the public school monopoly, providing educational options to all students. Those options could include homeschooling, virtual academies, microschools, and so on. For many parents, the best option will still be the local public school, and the ESA program won’t change anything for them. But for thousands of families, the program will give their kids a lifeline, a real chance at thriving in the classroom.   

That includes families like Nicolette and Travis Leck, who reside in Cody, and who have joined the lawsuit in defense of the ESA program. The Leck’s three boys struggled in public school, so Nicolette and Travis enrolled them in a classical school where they have “benefitted from regular feedback, a more structured learning environment, and focused instruction in music and Latin.” Education is so important to the Lecks that Nicolette got a full-time job to help the family afford the classical school’s pricey tuition. The ESA program will go a long way toward helping the Lecks ensure a quality education for their boys. 

Isn’t that a win for not only the Lecks but also all of Wyoming? If the WEA cared at all about student outcomes, they’d cheer that the Leck boys found a school in which they thrive. Instead, the WEA is adamant about ending a program that will help so many kids, even though it doesn’t divert a single penny from the public education budget. 

The WEA’s priorities are clear—bureaucrats over families. 

With school beginning in August, Judge Froelicher’s decision to stop the program from dispersing funds means families are left scrambling to rethink their plans for the next year. We urge Judge Froelicher to issue a quick ruling that recognizes the program is consistent with the Wyoming Constitution. Wyoming’s public school system exists to provide a robust education to students. It is not an end in and of itself or a make-work program for bureaucrats, and its one-size-fits-all approach to schooling cannot meet the needs of every family. Families have a right under the U.S. and Wyoming constitutions to seek the best education for their children, and the ESA program helps facilitate that without diverting funding from the public school system.  

The WEA can only prevail at the expense of families. For the sake of Wyoming’s students, let’s hope they don’t succeed. 

Learn more about the WEA here:
Which special interest group is using WY students as their political pawns?

Indoctrination Inc., brought to you by the Wyoming Education Association
and here:

After each legislative session, Honor Wyoming releases the Wyoming Political Integrity Index. The Integrity Index measures a lawmaker’s integrity based on action, not talk. Because keeping your word is more than a fair standard to set for any self-respecting Wyomingite. And we should expect nothing less from our elected leaders. 

After every legislative session, each bill voted on by either the House or the Senate is carefully reviewed to determine if it aligns with the principles and responsibilities found in the U.S. and Wyoming constitutions, as well as the Democratic and Republican party platforms.

This year, Honor Wyoming scored over 118 bills and 8,773 votes to compile the 2025 Wyoming Political Integrity Index. The results are in—and while there’s still work to do, this year’s scores show that accountability and integrity are catching on in Cheyenne. 

House of Representatives: A Marked Improvement

Here’s the breakdown of 2025 Integrity Index scores for the 62 members of the Wyoming House of Representatives:

🏆 Top Hands: 58% (36 lawmakers, up from 21 last year)

🤡 Clowns:  36% (22 lawmakers, down from 37 last year)
🪑 Fence Sitters: 6% (no change)

This shift reflects a substantial increase of 15 lawmakers into the Top Hand category this legislative session, creating a first-ever Top Hand majority in the House.

Senate: Limited Gains

Here’s the breakdown of 2025 Integrity Index scores for the 31 members of the Wyoming House of Representatives:

The Wyoming Senate, with 31 members, showed slower progress in 2025:

🏆 Top Hands: 39% (12 lawmakers, up from 11 in 2024)
🤡 Clowns: 45% (14 lawmakers, down from 17 in 2024)
🪑 Fence Sitters: 16% (5 lawmakers, up from 3 in 2024)

With such a modest shift, it indicates there is still a lot of work to be done in the Senate before we see greater accountability to voters.

Why the Integrity Index Matters

The voters of Wyoming need a simple way to keep an eye on our state lawmakers.

And to know if they are living up to their commitments.

So, Honor Wyoming developed a reasonable, fair, and easy tool to measure whether lawmakers in Cheyenne have integrity when representing the people who voted for them: The Integrity Index.

How the Integrity Index Works

After every legislative session, each bill voted on by either the House or the Senate is carefully reviewed to determine if it aligns with the principles and responsibilities found in the U.S. and Wyoming constitutions, as well as the Democratic and Republican party platforms.

For the 2025 legislative session, 118 bills and 8,773 votes were used to tabulate the Integrity Index.

If a lawmaker’s vote on a bill aligns with these documents, their integrity score goes up. If their vote on the bill does not align, their integrity score goes down. Once all the votes are tallied, we have a clear understanding of where each lawmaker stands. 

Rankings

Once all votes have been reviewed and scored, each legislator is placed into one of three categories:

• Lawmakers with high integrity are recognized as Top Hands, showing voters they truly ride for the people of Wyoming. That they Honor Wyoming.
• Lawmakers with questionable integrity are recognized as Fence Sitters, indicating they need to up their game and show the people of Wyoming that they are not all talk.
• Lawmakers with low integrity are recognized as Clowns, showing voters they are not honoring their word. That maybe they don’t Honor Wyoming.

Non-Partisan, But Not Unbiased

Non-partisan?  Yes.

Unbiased?  No.

Our Integrity Index was meticulously developed to be biased toward the United States Constitution, the Wyoming State Constitution, and the Party Platform of the lawmaker being evaluated. You can learn more about why we developed the Integrity Index by watching this video.  Or keep reading for a detailed explanation of our scoring process.

The main goal of the Integrity Index is to score each lawmaker’s votes to see if they are in alignment with the most basic and agreed-upon responsibilities all Wyoming voters expect them to uphold. These responsibilities are included in:

• The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution
• The Declaration of Rights in the Wyoming State Constitution
• The principles and values in their party platform: Republican or Democrat

Why This Tool Is Essential

In an era when political messaging can be carefully crafted to obscure the truth, the Integrity Index offers clarity. It provides Wyoming voters with a factual analysis of how their lawmakers are performing in Cheyenne. The data is clear. The standards are public. And the scoring is rooted in values every Wyomingite should be able to stand behind.

While progress was made in 2025—particularly in the House—there’s still work to be done. Nearly half of Wyoming’s legislators are not yet consistently voting in alignment with these core responsibilities.   The last election brought major change, with long-time incumbents replaced by new voices. As we look ahead to the next cycle, it’s more important than ever for voters to stay informed, engaged, and ready to hold this new generation of lawmakers to a higher standard.

To find out how your lawmaker scored and learn more about the scoring process, visit wyomingintegrityindex.com 

A poll is only as good as its methodologies. Understanding a poll’s methods and techniques—how researchers collect responses, phrase questions, analyze data, and account for bias—is critical for knowing if you can trust that it accurately captures a population’s sentiments. A poll that relies on shoddy methodology and loaded questions should not inspire confidence. 

Conducted in the month leading up to the 2024 general election, this biennial survey was administered by UW’s School of Politics, Public Affairs, and International Studies in partnership with the Wyoming Survey & Analysis Center. While it claims to measure residents’ attitudes toward government, elected officials, candidates, and current policy issues, it instead exemplifies the pitfalls of poor polling. The survey should be defunded as it produces biased or misleading data, relies on inconsistent methodology, and lacks transparency. Yet its findings—often making bold claims about controversial topics—were uncritically reported as fact by the media, despite falling short of basic methodological and ethical standards.

Released in the run-up to the November general elections, media outlets and advocacy groups on the political left immediately used the survey to promote to the public that Wyoming is turning away from its conservative values. Their claims were then parroted through social media.

Honor Wyoming had a professional research company examine the survey and they found numerous concerns across several variables that render the results unreliable and should be rescinded by the university. From a changing sampling methodology and method of fielding the survey to biased and leading questions, the survey does not qualify as proper output from an academic institution.

Perhaps most troubling, the University of Wyoming, whose survey claims to rely on tracking data over time, has failed to produce past years’ survey results despite repeated inquiries. This lack of transparency is especially concerning given the University’s frequent emphasis on long-term data in its reports and public messaging.  The public is left without any ability to ascertain whether opinions reported as fact (on topics from abortion to election integrity) truly are what the University and biased media reporting outlets claim.

Is this just incompetence—or something more?

Methodological issues 

Let’s begin with the survey’s questionable methodology. The 2024 Election Year Survey relies on a combination of telephone interviews and a self-administered web survey. In past surveys, researchers used only telephone interviews to elicit answers from respondents. For the 2024 survey, the survey included responses from those who were mailed or emailed a link to an online version of the questions. Although online surveys can be a legitimate way of surveying a population, it is important to keep in mind that there are often stark demographic differences between individuals who take online surveys and those who do so over the phone (especially over landlines).

Further alarming, the 2024 live-interviewer options were not provided with certain answer options that those utilizing the web link were given.[1] This leads to inconsistent answers being used to come to the same conclusion. This, combined with sample population demographics changing from phone based to internet based responses, gives little reason to think the survey tells an accurate story of changing political and cultural beliefs over time. 

Take the survey’s finding that roughly 20% of Wyomingites identify as members of the Democratic Party for example. Question 55 asks, “Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or what?” 142 of the 723 respondents chose Democratic Party label. 

Given voter registration data and the Republican Party’s recent electoral victories in the state, it seems unlikely that a fifth of Wyoming identifies with the Democratic Party. According to the Wyoming Secretary of State, registered Democrats declined by 40% between 2016 and 2025, from roughly 19% of registered voters to 12%. Recall that conservative candidates had their best election cycle in history in 2024, with voters rewarding incumbents who supported pro-life legislation, the 2nd Amendment, the integrity of elections, and other conservative issues. 

While it’s possible that 20% of Wyomingites think of themselves as Democrats, the survey has to be weighed against other data points and trends in the state. The Election Year Survey paints a picture of Wyoming that is at odds with voter registration data and conservative electoral successes this year. Without that context, you might reasonably conclude Wyoming is trending liberal.

One way to judge the accuracy and reliability of the Election Year Survey’s most recent results would be to judge them against previous years’ survey data. Good luck accessing that data, though! We reached out to two University officials about accessing the historical data and were rebuffed on both occasions. “Such reports,” the University’s Wyoming Survey & Analysis Center told us, “do not exist.”

Another problem with the Election Year Survey is its length. It is well known in the professional polling world that lengthy surveys increase the chance that respondents skip questions or answer carelessly. The Election Year Survey is 75 questions! And, indeed, if you look at the results, you find that the number of “missing” respondents reaches as many as 213 of the 739 as you get deeper into the survey.

Loaded questions

Polling is an art as much as it is a science, especially when it comes to wording the questions that respondents answer. Language is finicky, and there are numerous ways of wording or framing questions. But the goal of all polling should be accurate measurement. You’re more likely to get an honest answer from a simple, straightforward question. Loaded—or biased—questions, on the other hand, lead respondents to answer in a particular way. In some cases, loaded questions are simply the result of not thinking hard enough about the wording. But in other cases, loaded questions are loaded by design. 

The Election Year Survey is rife with questions that rely on emotional trigger words—words designed to stir up feelings in the respondent. Take the survey’s question about abortion:

Q52: There has been some discussion about abortion during recent years.  Which one of these opinions best agrees with your view?

Answers:

1. 1.  By law abortion should never be permitted

• The law should permit abortion only in case of rape, incest or when a woman’s life is in danger.

• The law should permit abortion for reason other than rape, incest, danger to the woman’s life, but ony after the need for the abortion has been clearly established.

1. By law, a woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice.  

Answer #4, in using the phrase “matter of personal choice,” is framed in a way sympathetic to pro-abortion advocates. What would the results have looked like if the University of Wyoming had instead given respondents the following option: By law, a woman should always be able to end the life of an unborn child.

Does that nuance matter? It surely does when media outlets use the survey findings to convince Wyomingites that opinion on abortion is more liberal than it really is. WyoFile, in a story last year about the survey results, states: “Comparing this year’s responses to the last four decades of Wyoming election-year surveys, the rate of respondents who want all abortions to be illegal — 10.5% in the latest survey — has remained fairly steady.”   A claim that runs contrary to election trends in the state as staunch pro-life lawmakers continually get rewarded by voters. 

Given the biased survey question, we can assume that figure understates the percentage of the population that opposes abortion and believes the law should protect babies. WyoFile’s claim that the percentage of citizens who believe abortion should be illegal has remained steady over time is, as we discussed above, unsubstantiated, since the University of Wyoming will not release historical data. We contacted WyoFile, and they referred us to the University. The University, you’ll recall, says the data does not exist. 

Here’s another loaded question:

Q112: Select the answer below that best expresses your overall opinion.  Would you say that requiring firearm sales to be reported and recorded is:

•  A very good idea

• A good idea

• Neither a good or bad idea

• A bad idea
• A very bad idea

This question is written in the passive voice, and it omits one very salient detail—the actor to whom Wyomingites would be reporting their firearms! Are we talking about reporting our firearms sales to our spouses—or to a government bureaucrat? The answer matters! By leaving out the detail about who is reporting to whom, the question comes across as abstract and noninvasive. It certainly doesn’t automatically raise 2nd Amendment concerns.  

Overall, these biased questions add up into a larger narrative of misinformation. 

Flaws undermine confidence in the survey 

Over the years, the survey—including its methodologies and questions—has changed, undermining the project’s integrity. But the University and biased media outlets sell it as a rigorous and accurate reflection of Wyomingites’ beliefs and values over time.  

Newspapers, political campaigns, and advocacy organizations love a good poll. Polls confer legitimacy—they sound precise, scientific, and authoritative. Reporters mine surveys to support or challenge anecdotal observations, while advocacy groups seize on numbers that, unsurprisingly, suggest their causes are wildly popular.

Polling can help us understand the world—or manipulate it. As Mark Twain famously put it, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The phrase endures because it reflects a reality we’ve all witnessed: statistics—and by extension, polls—can be powerful tools, not just for insight, but for influence.

If the University of Wyoming’s Survey & Analysis Center is going to claim the survey as the benchmark of voter sentiment in the state on critical issues, it must do better. The survey is produced at taxpayer expense, making the shifty, ever-changing methodology and manipulative questions even less defensible. Wyomingites deserve a legitimate survey that reflects what citizens actually believe—and institutions that are transparent enough to show their work. 

 

 

[1] https://www.uwyo.edu/news/_files/documents/2024/11/perceptions-of-uw-issue-brief-final.pdf

[2]https://wyofile.com/wyoming-abortion-views-hold-steady-as-lawmakers-pursue-more-restrictions/

Last October, we examined a WyoFile story about the race between two Republicans for Wyoming House District 57. Our exam illustrated the subtle and not-so-subtle ways leftwing media outlets cloak their biases in the reassuring language of “facts” and “objectivity.” That story, framed in such a way as to quietly promote one candidate at the expense of the other, was misleadingly presented as news instead of opinion. 

WyoFile claims to be an unbiased and nonpartisan source of local news. Although WyoFile is an online-only outlet, it has considerable reach in the state. In its 2024 annual report, editor Matthew Copeland boasted that local newspapers republished its stories more than 2,700 times last year. WyoFile promotes itself as “Wyoming’s independent news for independent thinkers.”  

WyoFile’s claims of independence, however, are belied by its reliance on States Newsroom, a liberal nonprofit in D.C. with a network of news outlets in all 50 states. These affiliates include the Arizona Mirror, Utah News Dispatch, and the Idaho Capital Sun—all outlets that claim to be unbiased but approach covering the news with a well-known liberal slant. States Newsroom has 220 full-time staff covering 39 states and supports established partners in 11 others (including Wyoming). 

If you know anything about States Newsroom and its origins, you won’t be surprised that WyoFile approaches the news from a liberal perspective. States Newsroom’s wide-ranging network of state-based outlets allows it to push leftwing narratives from one coast to the other. 

Since its earliest days, States Newsroom has existed within a constellation of leftwing nonprofits and donors. The organization owes its beginnings to the Hopewell Fund, which is managed by Arabella Advisors. According to Scott Walter’s 2024 book Arabella: The Dark Money Network of Leftist Billionaires Secretly Transforming America, Arabella Advisors is an “influential philanthropic consulting firm in Washington, D.C., catering to donors like the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Ford Foundation, and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. The firm belongs to Eric Kessler—Arabella’s founder and chief string-puller—a child of wealth turned environmental activist and Clinton administration staffer who now operates in the highest echelon of Democratic Party politics.” 

In the past, States Newsroom did not even try to hide its political leanings. In a 2020 job listing on LinkedIn, for example, the organization described itself as “a progressive political journalism startup.” 

More recently, States Newsroom has received millions of dollars in funding from Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss’ foundation. The New York Times said Wyss has “quietly become one of the most important donors to left-leaning advocacy groups and an increasingly influential force among Democrats.” It has also received funding from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a public-sector labor union with a singular passion for backing Democrats. 

Let us pause here for a moment to consider the implications of all this. Why would a leftwing donor group, a wealthy foreign kingmaker in Democratic politics, and one of the most progressive public-sector unions in the country want to fund a nonprofit news organization with national reach? It does not take a very serious leap of the imagination to conclude that, just maybe, these financiers are using States Newsroom as a vehicle for their progressive ideals.   

If States Newsroom serves as the ground force for a network of progressive political nonprofits, then WyoFile is its local office.

While States Newsroom calls WyoFile “our newsroom,” WyoFile is not quite so upfront about the relationship. In fact, readers must dig into WyoFile’s annual report to discover that States Newsroom is one of its sponsors. WyoFile may be furtive about its ties to States Newsroom, but their shared politics bleed through WyoFile’s coverage of local issues. 

Take WyoFile’s coverage of trans healthcare as an example. 

In a story last year about SF 99, a bill signed into law that prohibits doctors from providing minors with puberty blockers, surgery, and hormone therapy, reporter Madelyn Beck repeats one of the central claims underpinning trans activism: “Research shows youth with gender dysphoria who don’t receive gender-affirming care — which includes treatments ranging from therapy to puberty blockers — have worse mental health and double the rate of suicidal thoughts and attempts compared to those who do.”

Contrary to Ms. Beck, research does not in fact establish that so-called “gender-affirming care” helps minors with gender dysphoria or reduces suicide attempts. Chase Strangio, the trans ACLU attorney who recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Skrmetti, admitted to Justice Samuel Alito that there is “no evidence in some—in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide.” If the evidence were as ironclad as trans activists want to claim, then why is one European country after another—all of them less religious and more progressive than America—reversing course on the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking to change their gender?

WyoFile simply adopts the progressive line on trans healthcare as though it were fact. So do the other members of States Newsroom. CalMatters, for example, which covers California, published a story in March about how transgender youth in the state feel “threatened” by President Donald Trump’s (R) executive orders. Instead of a balanced summary of the weak and sometimes contradictory scientific literature on transgender youth medicine, CalMatters tells its readers that “dozens of studies show that gender-affirming care positively impacts youth mental health and decreases suicidality.” You can find similar positive language about experimental gender-related youth medicine across States Newsroom’s state-based outlets. 

Another example of WyoFile’s liberal bias is the language its reporters use to describe the conservative lawmakers they dislike. The ones the outlet views as problematic are described as “far-right,” an epithet progressives liberally apply to everyone from Reagan conservatives to Nazis. Illustrative examples include the following headlines and excerpts:

• “Far-right lawmakers prepare to wield their growing power”
• “Special session vote fails following far-right push to combat Gordon’s vetoes”
• “Four Wyoming lawmakers announce their departure, opening door to far right”

The conservative lawmakers whom WyoFile calls “far-right” don’t identify as such, of course. The label serves only to convey to readers that these lawmakers are dangerous, that they are beyond the pale and should be regarded warily. Unsurprisingly, other States Newsroom affiliates also do this. A headline in the Arizona Mirror reads: “Far-right Republicans denounce push for ranked-choice voting in Arizona.” States Newsroom reporters Jennifer Shutt and Ashley Murray used this line in an article about Republican budget disagreements: “The disagreement between centrist Republicans and far-right lawmakers over potential spending cuts to Medicaid is already on full display.” That article was republished across States Newsroom’s network of affiliates. 

WyoFile’s leftwing values show up in its opinion section, too. Like most media outlets, WyoFile has a section of its website devoted to “opinion,” which is supposedly separate from “news.” That section is littered with liberal op-eds with headlines like “Should I worry about Trump deporting me?”, “To protest or vote? Pick the right tool for the job.,” and “Traveling upstream: A call to Wyoming’s faith leaders to pursue justice.” Conservative voices are few and far between in its digital pages.

WyoFile separates “opinion” from “news” on its website, but the distinction is meaningless when so much of its news coverage is slanted toward the liberal perspective. Like so many “mainstream” outlets, WyoFile’s reporting reflects biases, hoping readers won’t notice, while unironically decrying plummeting trust in journalism.

The problem is not that WyoFile champions progressive causes—the problem is that they’re not transparent about doing so. Readers imagine that they are reading objective news from a local source when, in reality, they are ingesting the views and values of States Newsroom’s progressive donors. The deception is the problem. If Wyoming readers knew that WyoFile was a front for influential D.C.-based groups, they’d likely read its stories through a more skeptical lens.

Wyoming deserves news outlets that believe in taking an honest approach with their audience. That’s why Honor Wyoming openly makes our position known – to defend and advocate for the conservative values and priorities of our community members, values that we believe represent the best of Wyoming.  We strive to provide information that the people of Wyoming won’t get from other news outlets and we do so without pretending that we don’t have a point of view.  While we hope to persuade others to our point of view through education and awareness, we don’t expect everyone to agree with our positions.  We trust Wyomingites to make up their own minds when presented with this type of respect. 

In an 1822 letter, James Madison wrote, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” WyoFile’s progressive backers want to keep residents ignorant of their involvement in local news, allowing them to push their outside values unbeknownst to readers. However, a thorough understanding of who these groups are and what motivates them can empower readers to see through the progressive smokescreen.  

At Honor Wyoming, we’re committed to pulling back the curtain on news bias. If you value independent reporting from a conservative Wyoming perspective, we invite you to subscribe, share, or support our work.

The National Conference of State Legislatures’ leftwing stances raise questions about its commitment to nonpartisanship.

Conspicuous double-dealing on behalf of liberal and progressive interests is not unique to widely known institutions, like Harvard, CNN, or the National Institutes of Health. A broad array of liberal organizations that claim the mantle of nonpartisanship operate behind the scenes at the state level, quietly advancing values and policies at odds with conservative majorities in state houses, including Wyoming’s, across the country. 

Wyoming citizens should regard self-proclaimed nonpartisan organizations with skepticism until they’ve demonstrated their commitment to impartiality or come clean with their advocacy. 

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), which claims to provide nonpartisan support to state lawmakers in Wyoming and elsewhere, appears to be a solid, even-handed organization at first glance. But its history of policy stances, including some recent missteps, undermines its stated commitment to bipartisanship and raises questions about its continuing usefulness to lawmakers.  

You might not recognize the name. Outside of those who work in and around state legislatures and in state policy, NCSL is not widely known. But you might be interested to know that the Wyoming State Legislature pays NCSL nearly $270,000 in membership dues every two years. So, what is NCSL— and what is Wyoming getting in return for the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars Wyoming lawmakers give them? 

A handful of state officials founded the organization in 1975 to lobby the federal government on behalf of state legislatures and provide resources, such as legislation tracking and policy research, to lawmakers. States pay regular membership dues to NCSL, and in return, all sitting state legislators, as well as their staffers, become members. 

In theory, NCSL serves as a neutral knowledge resource for state lawmakers and a counterweight to federal overreach. However, in practice, like many supposedly impartial institutions these days, it turns out that NCSL committees have backed resolutions supporting Obamacare and cap-and-trade, among other things. 

Today, all 50 states continue to funnel taxpayer funding toward NCSL, and the organization continues to advocate for a concerning number of leftwing policies. Let’s look at some recent policy stances, beginning with Medicaid. 

In February of this year, NCSL wrote a letter opposing a Republican plan to require that able-bodied Medicaid recipients provide proof of employment, writing, “Policy changes that mandate specific eligibility requirements and alter the fiscal makeup of the program threaten Medicaid’s effectiveness and reduce state flexibility in program design.” Medicaid work requirements have become a flashpoint in the recent budget reconciliation drama on Capitol Hill, with Democrats adamant that healthy adults should not have to work to receive taxpayer welfare dollars.   

Why is NCSL taking the Democratic Party’s position on Medicaid, and why are Wyoming residents paying for them to do so?

NCSL’s leftwing dalliances extend beyond tax and welfare policies. In 2023, the group, along with the National Association of Cities, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, penned a letter in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). You’ll recall that the Obama Administration created the DACA program in 2012, allowing illegal child migrants to stay in the country for an indefinite period of time.

NCSL’s defense of an unconstitutional program protecting illegal immigrants was more than a little tone deaf at a time when the Biden administration was allowing millions to flood the country. The organization’s support for DACA mirrored the Democratic Party’s position. It was neither nonpartisan nor bipartisan, considering that Republican states have sued the federal government to end the program.

NCSL says its mission is to “advance the effectiveness, independence and integrity of legislatures and to foster interstate cooperation and facilitate the exchange of information among legislatures.” If that’s true, then one wonders why NCSL feels the need to advocate for leftwing policies in the first place. 

Their periodic support for leftwing policies calls into question whether the organization can credibly claim to be nonpartisan—and whether it is deserving of our tax dollars. In this day and age, especially, that kind of inconsistent behavior should set off blaring alarm bells. Over the last five years, Americans have watched as one institution after another shed its commitments to fairness and nonpartisanship in favor of progressivism. It’s no wonder trust in institutions is declining precipitously. 

They say that trust is earned, not given. Before the Wyoming State Legislature trusts NCSL with another check for $270,000, lawmakers should take a close look at the organization’s record and demand an accounting for its leftwing missteps. Wyoming families should not be on the hook for organizations that advocate for policies that run contrary to our conservative values. NCSL should have to prove that it has reformed its ways, or risk losing its funding. 

The poll results are in.  And the people’s voice is loud and clear, with over 1,500 Wyomingites weighing in*.

The message to lawmakers couldn’t be more obvious.  99% of Wyoming thinks it is a violation of the Wyoming and US Constitution that the State government is censoring communications between voters and elected officials. 

What happened?  We reported that in early January, it became known that constituent emails were being blocked through the State’s email quarantine system.  Whether wittingly or unwittingly, the Wyoming Legislative Services Office (LSO) has been censoring communications with legislators. This is a critical threat to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 20 of the Declaration of Rights in the Wyoming Constitution. 

Lawmakers in Cheyenne had a chance to fix this problem by passing HB 338 during the 2025 legislative session.  The bill simply required that:

1.  The LSO publish a list of all domain names and addresses that are being quarantined or prevented from delivering email to legislators in any way.
2. Any person whose email communications to legislators that had been quarantined would be able to contact the LSO to request that their emails be removed from quarantine and delivered to legislators. 
3. The LSO would remove requested domain names or addresses from quarantine unless the release from quarantine or allowed delivery posed an actual security threat to the information technology systems of the state of Wyoming.

But, in a blow to free speech and a degradation of trust in the Wyoming political system, the bill was killed on February 3rd, 2025, before it was even assigned to a legislative committee for public input.

Over 100 days have passed, and still, the people of Wyoming have no assurances from Cheyenne that their free speech rights will be restored.  How much longer will lawmakers fail to act?

Since the legislative session is over, Wyomingites must now rely on the members of the LSO Management Council to do the right thing. The Management Council is a select committee of lawmakers that oversees all aspects of the LSO.  During any of their regular meetings, they can enact a simple policy change to LSO protocols.  One that would temporarily protect Wyoming voters with the same reasonable and effective safeguards as HB338 would have provided permanently.  

Will the following lawmakers commit to restoring the trust and respect of the people?  Wyoming voters are watching.

Representative Chip Neiman (Chairman)

Senator Bo Biteman (Vice Chair)

Members: 

Senator Barry Crago

Senator Mike Gierau

Representative John Bear

Representative Jeremey Haroldson

Senator Tara Nethercott

Senator Tim Salazar

Representative Scott Heiner

Representative Mike Yin

 

 

*Results based on a randomized Honor Wyoming poll of 1,507 Wyoming respondents on Facebook from 03/28/2025 through 05/09/2025

For 35 years, the Wyoming Community Foundation (WYCF) has been “connecting people who care with causes that matter to build a better Wyoming.” With over $100 million granted to charitable causes and support provided to nonprofit agency fund holders across the state, their positive impact on local communities is undeniable. WYCF proudly serves donors by “accepting a wide range of gifts”—from cash and securities to real estate and mineral interests—and is governed by a volunteer board that pledges to use those funds to “best support Wyoming.”

A community foundation is a public charity that works to improve the quality of life in a specific geographic area by pooling donations, managing assets, and making grants to local nonprofits.  Community foundations receive donations, manage these assets, and then make grants to local nonprofits that align with their mission.  They typically address a wide range of community needs, including education, healthcare, arts and culture, social services, and the environment.  Community foundations often act as leaders and conveners, bringing together various stakeholders to address community issues and foster collaboration.  By managing endowments, community foundations provide sustainable support for local initiatives and nonprofits.

This mission has historically made WYCF a trusted partner for a wide range of individuals, families, and organizations across the political spectrum. Their reputation has been built on neutrality, community impact, and donor trust—qualities that can be quickly undermined if political involvement overshadows their charitable purpose. Donors who give in good faith, believing their contributions will support broad community needs, may be surprised to learn that a specific foundation arm is actively shaping policy and taking sides on contentious issues. For a foundation that depends on long-term relationships with Wyoming residents and donors, maintaining credibility and public confidence is crucial.  

With this in mind, Honor Wyoming reviewed over 850 grants WYCF has given out over the past few years and found the balance between civic, nonprofit, and general philanthropy grantees to be very reflective of the demographics of Wyoming residents.  Especially when it came to grants to organizations that have political or cultural bias, the grantee list was very representative of the state’s population.  

You can see the full grantee list here: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OEuHeCpAqbc9FeBDJ8eATyPs-xl7LtaA/view?usp=sharing 

While WYCF remains active in many positive community efforts, a surprising development emerged: their Wyoming Women’s Foundation is now actively engaged in legislative advocacy, taking positions that oppose widely supported conservative legislation in our state.

Just this past session, they opposed bills related to homeschool freedom, property tax reform, defining what a woman is, and ending DEI initiatives and many more. 

HB46 Homeschool Freedom Act

SF103 – Terminating DEI Funding

SF69 Homeowner Property Tax Exemption

HB282 Property Tax Acquisition Value

HB32 What is a Women Act

HB96 Prohibiting Mask, Vaccinevaccine and Testing Discrimination

HB159 Protecting Water from Chemical Abortion Waste

HB156 Proof of Voter Residency Registration Quantification

HB147 Prohibition of Institutional Discrimination (DEI)

These aren’t fringe issues—they’re policies with broad grassroots support across Wyoming. 

❓Why is a respected community foundation diving into partisan politics?

❓Why is their political advocacy tilted so heavily toward progressive causes in one of the most conservative states in America?

We asked the people of Wyoming in an online poll between May 30th, 2025, and June 13th, 2025, if they believe the Wyoming Community Foundation should be involved in divisive political advocacy.    The response was overwhelming, as 80% of respondents said “NO”

In 2025, the Wyoming State Legislature passed House Bill 0172, also known as the Wyoming Repeal Gun Free Zones Act. The bill, which goes into effect on July 1, 2025, significantly reshapes where individuals can lawfully carry concealed firearms in the state..

As news of the law spread, so did a mix of curiosity, concern, and misinformation. With conflicting claims circulating online and in conversations across the state, Honor Wyoming went directly to the legal experts at Gun Owners of America to get the facts and provide the public with a clear, accurate understanding of what this law really does.

What HB0172 Does

HB0172 removes many restrictions that previously barred law-abiding individuals from carrying concealed weapons in places considered “gun-free zones.” It clarifies that only the state legislature has the authority to regulate firearms and preempts local governments, universities, and other entities from creating their own firearm regulations.

It also introduces penalties for individuals or organizations that attempt to prohibit lawful concealed carry where the law now allows it.

Who Can Carry Under This Law

HB0172 applies to individuals who are lawfully carrying under one of three legal paths:

• With a Wyoming-issued concealed carry permit
• With a valid permit from a state that recognizes Wyoming’s permit
• Under Wyoming’s permitless carry statute (for residents eligible to carry concealed without a permit)

However, different carry permissions apply depending on which of these categories a person falls under.

There has been confusion about what HB0172 does and does not allow—and much of it comes from misunderstanding or misinformation. At its core, the law ensures that individuals who are lawfully permitted to carry concealed weapons have the ability to do so in many public spaces previously deemed off-limits, while preserving private property rights and setting boundaries for high-risk areas.

As with any law, understanding the details matters. Honor Wyoming is committed to promoting facts, transparency, and constitutional rights for all Wyoming residents. That’s why we’ve also included a detailed FAQ section at the end of this blog, where we address the most common community questions.

 

Here in Wyoming, we have the unenviable distinction of facing some of the highest healthcare costs in the region. According to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, Wyoming residents’ per capita healthcare expenditures in 2020 were roughly 50% higher than in neighboring Utah.    

Recent legislation that would have helped Wyoming residents save money on their healthcare bills and put downward pressure on prices died in the Wyoming State Senate. The culprits? Fifteen Republicans (and one Democrat), who sided against Wyoming residents.   Instead, they chose some of the largest healthcare providers in the state.

HB 121, the “Hospital Price Transparency Act,” would have required hospitals to maintain and make public a list of standard charges for items and services—something most businesses already do. The legislation also would have prohibited hospitals that didn’t post their prices from sending unpaid bills to collections and authorized the Wyoming Department of Health to suspend, revoke, or deny noncompliant hospitals’ operating licenses.  

The House passed the bill 58-3, but it failed narrowly in a 16-14 vote in the Senate. Republican State Rep. Daniel Singh sponsored HB 121, saying, “If you go to the grocery store, you’re not going to check out eggs and not know directly how much you’re paying for the eggs, right? There may be variance in prices, right? But everyone has to be upfront about how much the eggs cost.”

 

For most of us, this is common sense. Who could disagree that we benefit when we know the prices we pay for goods and services?

If you want to know why someone might oppose legislation like HB 121, just look at who stands to lose if the status quo changes. 

Tellingly, the Wyoming Hospital Association (WHA) opposed the measure—and rallied its representatives to sink it. WHA President Eric Boley had the gall to blame Wyoming residents, saying “consumers aren’t working with their insurance companies. They’re not finding out what their payments are.” This is classic blame-shifting. Why should consumers have to go through a third-party to find out the price of basic medical services? That’s not how commerce works in most other areas of modern life. Boley also suggested a state-level law was unnecessary, saying, “I find it interesting that we want to pass additional laws when we already have federal laws in place.”

Although a federal law does require that hospitals post their prices, a 2024 Patients Rights Advocate (PRA) study of 2,000 hospitals found that 66% were out of compliance—an increase from the previous year’s report. Of the four Wyoming hospitals whose websites PRA studied in 2024, 75% were out of compliance. Indeed, hospitals across the country have dragged their feet in response to federal price transparency mandates. One hospital chain in Texas, for example, outright refused to comply in 2021, shortly after new requirements went into effect, saying a list of prices would only benefit its competitors (the chain eventually acquiesced).

State laws like HB 121 are necessary because broad federal mandates alone haven’t been sufficient to motivate compliance. Additionally, HB 121 was tailored to Wyoming’s healthcare system. The genius of federalism is that the people closest to the problem are often in the best position to know how to do something about it. 

Contrary to the WHA, whose members benefit from the present state of affairs, there are compelling reasons for Wyoming families to support laws like HB 121. 

For starters, the healthcare system has become such a thick tangle of state and federal regulations that few consumers ever know the actual costs their insurance covers. That makes it hard for consumers to know if they’re getting the best value for their money. Austrian economist F.A. Hayek won the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economic Science for his insight into the crucial role prices play in coordinating economic activity. New York University law professor Richard Epstein writes, “Hayek’s basic insight is that prices and markets facilitate selective communications among individuals and thus overcome the fundamental barrier of ignorance, one transaction at a time.” 

When it comes to the healthcare market today, the absence of transparent pricing perpetuates consumer ignorance, preventing individuals and families in Wyoming from comparison shopping and holding hospitals accountable for shady practices like overbilling.

Another benefit of price transparency is that it promotes competition among healthcare providers, helping to bring prices down. Currently, hospitals and other providers lack a strong incentive to compete for patients on price. Hospitals often get away with charging insurance companies wildly different prices for the same services, and patients are none the wiser. A 2021 New York Times investigation found that a hospital in Florida charged anywhere from $262 to $2,455 for the same M.R.I., while a hospital in Pennsylvania billed between $10 and $93 for a pregnancy test, depending on insurance plans. It is no surprise, then, that healthcare costs in Wyoming continue to go up, up, up.

Although the number of academic studies on hospital price transparency laws is limited so far, the evidence we do have suggests they work to reduce prices. A 2023 economic analysis estimated the country could save up to $80 billion by 2025 if providers fully complied with all federal transparency rules. The authors write that “across the American health care delivery system, incentives are misaligned, a significant bureaucratic paperwork exists, the true cost of care delivery is unknown, and prices from a patient point of view are shrouded in mystery”—and they hold up price transparency as an obvious policy for beginning to address those problems.

Other states, blue and red alike, are beginning to get the picture. In 2024, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed legislation similar to HB 121 that requires providers to post prices for common procedures and blocks them from pursuing medical debt claims when they don’t. The bill received bipartisan support in both chambers of Oklahoma’s legislature. Minnesota enacted a law last year that sets standards for how hospitals publish their prices, making it easier for consumers to find and compare costs across providers.

It’s no surprise that the country is seeing a bipartisan push for transparency in healthcare costs. A 2023 poll found that 85% of Americans, including an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, support legislation that strengthens price transparency, so consumers can shop around. 

President Donald Trump (R) knows what Wyoming state Sens. Eric Barlow (R), Barry Crago (R), and others apparently don’t—that price transparency is good for consumers. That’s why Trump recently signed “Making America Healthy Again by Empowering Patients with Clear, Accurate, and Actionable Healthcare Pricing Information,” an executive order directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enforce price transparency laws in hospitals and healthcare plans. 

Trump’s executive order is welcome, of course, but as previous experiences with federal hospital price transparency efforts show us, states will need to lead the charge if we want to see real, sustained savings on our healthcare bills. HB 121 was an opportunity for Wyoming lawmakers to side with ordinary residents and shed light on an opaque pricing system. Regrettably, 16 senators voted against the public interest to keep Wyoming families in the dark. 

But Wyoming families deserve better. If our representatives won’t stand up to special interests, then it’s up to us to stand up to them at the ballot box, in public forums, and in every conversation about our healthcare system. When lawmakers choose powerful lobbies over the people they represent, they forfeit our trust—and we should remember it.

Wyoming lawmakers successfully passed HB165 – Ranked Choice Voting-Prohibition during the 2025 legislative session. The bill reaffirms Wyoming’s commitment to clear, transparent, and fair elections.

At its core, HB165 ensures that every Wyomingite retains the right to vote for one candidate who best represents their values, without interference or confusion caused by Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) systems. This law makes it clear that no election in Wyoming may be conducted using Ranked Choice Voting, and that any attempt by counties, municipalities, or other governmental bodies to implement RCV is invalid and void under state law.

But what is Ranked Choice Voting, and why has it become a controversial issue across the country?

What is Ranked Choice Voting?

Ranked Choice Voting is a method of casting and counting votes where voters rank candidates in order of preference (first, second, third, etc.). If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to voters’ next choices. This process continues through multiple rounds until a winner emerges.

RCV is currently used in some cities and states, mostly in progressive-leaning areas. However, it’s been rejected or banned in over a dozen conservative states, including Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, South Dakota, Montana, and Arizona—many of which cite transparency, fairness, and voter trust as key reasons for opposing it. After successfully banning RCV in Alabama, Secretary of State Wes Allen said, “Elections conducted using ranked choice voting violate the fundamental principle of ‘one-person one-vote.” He further explained this system is known to cause voter confusion, large percentages of spoiled ballots, and excessively delayed election results.”

Why Wyoming Said “No” to Ranked Choice Voting

While RCV is often promoted as a “modern” or “innovative” alternative to traditional voting systems, real-world experiences in cities and states where it has been implemented tell a different story. Far from improving the democratic process, RCV has introduced a host of problems that impact voters, complicate elections, and undermine trust in the outcomes.

Here are just a few of the most pressing concerns:

It Undermines the Principle of “One Person, One Vote”

In a traditional election, every voter casts a single vote, and the candidate with the most votes wins. It’s simple, fair, and straightforward. But Ranked Choice Voting changes that.

In RCV, some voters end up having their votes counted in multiple rounds, while others may only have their vote counted once. This happens because, as candidates are eliminated in successive rounds, the votes of those who ranked additional candidates continue to be redistributed, while the votes of those who didn’t rank remaining candidates are essentially ignored. This violates the long-held American principle that each person gets one equal vote—and only one.

It Leads to “Exhausted” Ballots

A significant issue with RCV is the concept of “exhausted” ballots—votes that don’t count in the final round of tallying. This can happen for several reasons:

• A voter only ranked one or two candidates, and both were eliminated in early rounds.
• The voter skipped rankings or made errors on their ballot.
• The voter misunderstood how to rank, resulting in an overvote or undervote.

In any of these scenarios, the ballot becomes “exhausted” and is not included in the final result. That means some voices are simply silenced before a winner is declared. In one San Francisco election, RCV led to nearly 10,000 ballots being discarded over 20 rounds of counting. That’s not voter empowerment—that’s voter elimination.

It Creates Confusion for Voters

The RCV system is complex, even for politically active and informed citizens. It asks voters not just to pick the candidate they support, but to rank multiple candidates in order of preference— even those they know little or nothing about.

This complexity results in a much higher rate of voter error. People may accidentally skip rankings, assign the same rank to multiple candidates, or misunderstand how the process works. A Rasmussen poll in 2023 found that only 32% of voters believe RCV is a more fair system than traditional voting—suggesting widespread confusion and skepticism. Studies also show that this confusion is even more pronounced among senior citizens, non-native English speakers, and first-time voters—the very groups we should be working to empower and include.

It Delays Election Results

In most traditional elections, results are known on election night, or within a day. With RCV, results are often delayed for several days or even weeks as officials go through multiple rounds of tabulation, redistributing and recounting votes in each round.

In a 2022 special election held in Alaska, it took over 2 weeks for a winner to be declared. This delay was due to the time required to count absentee ballots and conduct multiple rounds of tabulation inherent in the RCV process

This delay undermines voter confidence in the process and increases the risk of disputes, misreporting, and public mistrust, particularly in close or contentious races. At a time when Americans are already concerned about election integrity, introducing a system that drags out results and complicates verification is a step in the wrong direction.

It Creates Overwhelming Ballots

One of the lesser-discussed consequences of RCV is the sheer volume of information voters must process. With RCV encouraging larger fields of candidates, voters may be asked to rank a dozen or more individuals for a single office.

This means a responsible voter would need to research each candidate’s background, platform, and qualifications just to cast an informed ballot. That level of homework might be manageable in one race, but not across a full ballot with multiple offices up for election. Many voters end up guessing or skipping rankings entirely, increasing the number of exhausted or incorrectly completed ballots.

The Bigger Picture

Ranked Choice Voting may be gaining traction in progressive states, but the push to implement it nationwide is heavily funded—over $150 million was spent between 2022 and 2024 alone to promote the system. While it’s often packaged as “progress,” in practice, RCV introduces confusion, uncertainty, and unequal representation into our elections. That’s why conservative states across the country—including Wyoming—are choosing to reject it. With the passage of HB165, Wyoming has taken a firm stand for clear, constitutional, and trustworthy elections, keeping our voting process simple, secure, and exactly what voters expect and deserve.