Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Campaign is joined on Colorado's future in electoral vote compact

Voting in Colorado
Veronaa/Getty Images

Civic engagement and progressive groups this week launched their campaign in Colorado to defeat one of the hottest ballot measures in the world of democracy reform this year.

The proposal would make the state quit a deal it made just a year ago: It pledged to award all its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, as soon as states with 270 votes in the Electoral College (a majority) do likewise.

Fifteen other states and Washington, D.C., with a combined 187 votes, have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. All of them are more deeply blue than Colorado, which has tilted increasingly that way — and is the first place where a grassroots campaign to exit the compact has gained significant traction.


For those alarmed at how two of the past three presidents, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, got elected while finishing second in the popular vote, the compact has gained steam as the leading alternative to outright abandoning the Electoral College. That's a near impossibility because it would require amending the Constitution and smaller states would never agree.

The campaign kicked off on Tuesday with a tele-town hall featuring organizers and state officials. The groups will be hosting a series of virtual discussions over the next several weeks, hoping to build momentum for defeating a repeal referendum that has already earned a spot on the ballot in November.

The Democratic General Assembly passed and Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed the measure joining the compact in March 2019. The effort to revere that decision by popular votes started soon thereafter.

It was led by two Republicans, Commissioner Rose Pugliese of Mesa County, centered on Grand Junction, and Mayor Don Wilson of Monument, a suburb of Colorado Springs.

They gathered more than 125,000 signatures to get their challenge on the ballot. Their main argument is that the pact will give the big cities unfair control over the presidency at the expense of suburbs and rural areas.

Their position put them at odds with their party's leader, Trump, who has said he supports doing away with the Electoral College.

Three committees have been formed in support of staying in the pact: Coloradans for a National Popular Vote, Yes on National Popular Vote and Conservatives for Yes on National Popular Vote. The Colorado chapters of the League of Women Voters, the NAACP and Common Cause, along with more than a dozen other civic engagement organizations, are also backing the initiative.

A "yes" vote is for staying in the compact, which is still years away from being joined by enough purple and deep red states to take effect.

A "no" vote is to get out, and if that side wins the state will stick with the current system of awarding its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes in Colorado.

Colorado has nine electoral votes now, but is projected to gain a 10th starting in 2024, because of population gains reflected in the census that will also award the state an additional House seat.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less