Show notes
Song playsIntro by hostWelcome to High Country - politics in the American West. My name is Sean Diller; regular listeners might know me from Heartland Pod’s Talking Politics, every Monday.Go to heartlandpod.com for information on all our political podcasts, and a link to support our work on Patreon. Sign up as an Official PODhead for just $5 per month to access all our premium podcast segments and political writing. To join the conversation on Twitter, find us at THE Heartland POD. Alright! Let’s get into it: NEVADA CURRENT:Tribes in six states awarded $73MM in new high-speed internet grants.Three Nevada tribes will receive $11.6 million for high-speed internet, in the latest round of “internet for all” grants, federal officials announced Wednesday.The funding will directly connect more than 800 homes on tribal lands in Nevada to high-speed internet, improving access to education, jobs, and healthcare on tribal lands.Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said“The Biden administration is committed to fostering meaningful partnerships with Tribal Nations, which have been vital to our goal of connecting everyone in America, with affordable, reliable, high-speed Internet service,” So far, about $1.6 billion has been awarded to 121 tribal nations with funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that passed last year. Those funds have connected more than 3,100 unserved Native American households that previously had no connectivity to high-speed Internet, as well as businesses and community institutions.These awards are part of a series of commitments the Biden administration announced Wednesday to strengthen nation-to-nation engagement between the federal government and Tribal Nations.The Walker River Paiute Tribe in Mineral County will receive more than $6 million to install fiber internet directly to more than 400 households, 22 community institutions, and 10 tribal businesses. The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe in Nye County is set to receive more than $3 million to install fiber internet to nearly 80 homes and 11 tribal institutions. The Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe in Churchill County will be awarded nearly $2 million to directly connect more than 300 households.Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, who has pushed for more broadband funding on tribal lands, praised the announcement Wednesday.“Throughout my time in the Senate, I’ve worked to make sure Tribes in Nevada have access to critical broadband,” she said. “I made sure these funds would get to Tribes in Nevada in a timely and efficient fashion, and I’m committed to helping Nevadans in every community access the critical educational, business, health care, and cultural resources that the internet provides.”Additionally, the national Affordable Connectivity Program - ACP - provides a discount of $30 per month toward Internet service for eligible households, and up to $75 per month for households on qualifying tribal lands. You’re eligible for the benefit If you currently receive SNAP benefits, are on Medicaid, or earn less than 200% of the federal poverty line. That’s about $27K for a single person household, or $55K for a family of four.To Apply, visit AffordableConnectivity.govCOLORADO SUN: Colorado Democrats ready to move on gun safety laws.A host of changes to Colorado’s gun laws, from a ban on assault weapons to tweaks to the existing red flag law, are already being considered by Democrats at the state Capitol in response to the shooting last month at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs. “Pretty much everything is on the table,” according to Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat. “The question now is: What is the highest priority?”Democrats will return to the Colorado Capitol in early January with expanded majorities in both the House and Senate, and facing pressure to act after the state’s latest mass shooting. Five people were killed and more than a dozen others wounded in a Nov. 19 attack on Club Q, allegedly carried out by a 22-year-old shooter armed with a semi-automatic, AR-15-style rifle.“Tay” Anderson, a Denver School board member, posted on Twitter that Democrats should immediately use their majority at the Capitol to pass an assault weapons ban.Saying “If folks refuse to act, vote them out,”Senate President Fenberg, who said gun control conversations were underway even before the Club Q shootings, said a ban on assault weapons is certainly a possibility. The challenge is figuring out how to write the law - how to define what an assault weapon is, what should happen to weapons already in the possession of Colorado residents, and how to address people traveling through Colorado to neighboring states where the weapons are permitted. It’s more likely that Democrats pursue other changes to Colorado’s gun laws first, such as raising the minimum age to purchase a rifle or shotgun to 21 from 18. The minimum age to purchase handguns in Colorado is already 21. Sen. Tom Sullivan, a Centennial Democrat, is working on changing the minimum age to purchase a gun. He initially wanted to raise the age only for so-called assault weapons, but thinks a broader change would be easier. “That will save us having to come up with a definition of what assault weapons are,” said Sullivan, whose son, Alex, was murdered in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting. “And that seems to be the consensus that we’re hearing from the rest of the Democratic caucus.”There are also discussions about enacting a waiting period that looks like those passed in California and Hawaii, which have 10- and 14-day waiting periods, respectively. Illinois has a 72-hour waiting period after purchases a firearm, before they can access it.Colorado already requires universal background checks on all gun purchases, and has laws limiting gun magazines to 15 rounds, and requiring the safe storage of firearms. People whose guns are lost or stolen must make a report with law enforcement, as well, and there is a statute temporarily barring people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors from purchasing firearms.Colorado counties and municipalities are also now allowed to enact gun regulations that are more stringent than the state’s policies after the legislature in 2021 repealed a preemption law.When it comes to Colorado’s red flag law, a 2019 policy that lets judges order the temporary seizure of firearms from people deemed a significant risk to themselves or others - legislators might expand the list of who can petition a judge to initiate a red flag proceeding. Right now, law enforcement and family members are effectively the only groups allowed to petition a judge to order a seizure. Gov. Jared Polis has expressed support for adding district attorneys to the list, and others have suggested the attorney general’s office, and teachers should be allowed to request seizures as well. The Colorado legislature reconvenes on Jan. 9.COLORADO NEWSLINE: $35 insulin price cap coming to Medicare in January.A recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report showed drug companies increased prices for several drugs by more than 500% since 2016. But starting next month, a $35 cap on insulin prices will go into effect for millions of Medicare recipients. The lower pricing is one of the first of several policy measures Americans will see under the Inflation Reduction Act, passed without a single Republican vote and signed into law in August.The insulin cap benefits Medicare Part D recipients, who also no longer have to meet a deductible on their insulin. A $35 cap on insulin pumps for Medicare Part B recipients goes into effect July 1, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare patients spent $1 billion on insulin in 2020, and an estimated 16.5% of people with diabetes rationed their insulin in the past year, which can be extremely harmful to their health or even fatal.According to an analysis of the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act from the Center for American Progress, an elderly middle class couple could save as much as $2,400 per year on insulin.ARIZONA MIRROR: AZ SOS Katie Hobbs recommends criminal prosecutions for Cochise County supervisors who refused to certify their election results. Hobbs wrote to Attorney General Mark Brnovich and Cochise County Attorney Brian McIntyre, that without repercussions, the decision of supervisors Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd not to certify their results could encourage future violations, further eroding election integrity in the state, and stomping on the will of Arizona voters. “Supervisors Crosby and Judd’s actions not only demonstrate a complete disregard for the law but also jeopardize Arizona’s democracy,” she wrote. “Had a court not intervened, the failure of these two Supervisors to uphold their duty would have disenfranchised thousands of Cochise County voters. This blatant act of defying Arizona’s election laws risks establishing a dangerous precedent that we must discourage.” Crosby and Judd threw the Arizona state certification process into disarray last month, when they delayed their official canvassing of the midterm election results in Cochise County, citing bogus claims that electronic tabulators didn’t meet required standards. It was only after a court ordered them to complete their statutorily mandated duties that they did so on Dec. 1, days after the Nov. 28 deadline. Their actions put the official statewide canvass in jeopardy, as Hobbs must meet a Dec. 5 deadline to certify the results. She can only push that deadline as far as Dec. 8. If she decided to go ahead with the process without the results from Cochise County, a heavily Republican region, more than 47,000 voters could have seen their ballots ignored and a number of races would have flipped in favor of Democratic candidates. The responsibilities of county supervisors are clearly laid out in state law and the state’s Election Procedures Manual, Hobbs said, and they are non-negotiable. And, Crosby and Judd were given ample notification of the consequences.“Supervisors Crosby and Judd knew they had a statutory requirement to canvass the election by November 28, but instead chose to act in violation of the law, putting false election narratives ahead of Cochise County’s voters,” Hobbs wrote. Hobbs, who was elected governor in the election, wrote that the two Republicans violated several state laws, with penalties ranging from a class 3 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony. If Crosby and Judd were convicted of a felony, their right to vote would be revoked. They also stand to lose their elected office: State law deems an elected office vacant if the officeholder is convicted of a felony or any “offense involving a violation of the person’s official duties”. This is the second call for an investigation into the Supervisors possibly criminal acts - Earlier this week, former Attorney General Terry Goddard and Maricopa County Attorney Richard Romley wrote to outgoing AG Brnovich requesting he hold Crosby and Judd accountable.It’s likely that Attorney General-elect Kris Mayes will make the final decision on whether to prosecute, once she takes office in January. In a statement, she said she agrees with the request from Hobbs’ office to begin an investigation, and said that it is through that process that a decision on what further response, if any, is appropriate.COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE: Didn’t we do this aJustices signal support for web designer who won’t help gay couples with weddingsThe conservative majority appeared ready to answer a question the high court dodged four years ago: Must creative businesses put aside their religious beliefs to accommodate the beliefs of protected groups? WASHINGTON (CN) — A six-year crusade came to a head at the Supreme Court on Monday, pitting Colorado's nondiscrimination law against a Christian website designer who refuses to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. It was unsurprising that the narrow question at the center of the case perplexed many of the justices, since the high court passed up on answering it only four years ago. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court ruled in favor of a cakemaker refusing his services to a same-sex couple, but declined to expand the ruling much beyond the case in front of them. Lorie Smith's case brings that topic to a head. Stating that her Christian beliefs confine marriage only to heterosexual couples, Smith argues that Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws - protecting LGBTQ+ Coloradans as well as others - violate her free speech rights. Smith’s attorney argued that “Colorado is declaring her speech a public accommodation, and insists that she create and speak messages that violate her conscience.” After two and a half hours of arguments, the conservative majority appeared inclined to agree.The liberal wing of the court expressed concern that a ruling for Smith could snowball into a free speech loophole allowing discrimination. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned where the court would draw the line, on what kind of discrimination would be permitted - noting that the same arguments could be made for interracial marriage or even for excluding people with disabilities. The hypothetical-heavy arguments included almost every culture-wars issue on the books including discrimination on race, religion, sexual orientation and political preference. These scenarios conveyed a worry by some justices about how far even a narrow ruling in the case could extend. Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson said Smith’s request for a free-speech exemption clause to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act would equate to a “license to discriminate.” “The free speech protection the company seeks here is sweeping, because it would apply not just to sincerely held religious beliefs as in this case, but also to all sorts of racist, sexist and bigoted views,” Olson said. “This rule would allow another web design company to say no to interracial couples, an ad agency could refuse to run ads for women-led businesses, and a tech consulting company could refuse to serve the web designer here, because it disagreed with her views on marriage. Where exactly to draw the line between free speech and anti-discrimination laws eluded many of the justices. This was partly because Smith brought the justices a preenforcement suit - she filed her suit against the state of Colorado before any same-sex couple actually requested her services. This creates difficulties for the justices in deciding a ruling. Justice Elena Kagan said the reason for the multitude of hypotheticals during oral argument was due to the lack of facts in the case - which make the justices’ ruling all the more difficult. Kagan said “It really depends on the facts, and on what exactly Ms. Smith is being asked or compelled to do.”I could definitely be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the actual free speech claim isn’t really justiciable without a real action from the state against the business owner. Seems like it’s not ripe, as they say.But the court, in its infinite power, could rule on whether the 1st Amendment Free Speech clause of the Constitution provides an out for companies looking to discriminate against certain customers. You might be thinking, doesn’t the U.S. Constitution protect all Americans from discrimination based on sex? It does - but that protection only applies to discriminatory actions by the state. So the state can’t deny you a marriage license because of your sex or your partner’s sex. The state can’t deny you employment or throw you in jail, either - anymore.Here, it’s a business that wants the right to turn away same-sex couples, and the state is looking to enforce a state anti-discrimination law - which may or may not conflict with the business owner’s protected free speech.It’s not a slam dunk that the conservative Supreme Court will rule for the anti-gay web designer, though. No small number of right-wing attorneys have made their entire careers using anti-discrimination laws on behalf…
Full show notes at the publisher 
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
