Missouri's Mark Mitchell (25) dribbles the ball (copy) (copy)

(The Center Square) – American voters overwhelmingly support their country’s founding ideals – yet the majority also believe that the U.S. is failing to live up to them, according to new polling.

The Center Square’s Voters’ Voice Poll revealed that 86% of registered U.S. voters support America’s founding principles, among which the poll listed “individual rights such as life, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, equal treatment under the law, and government by the consent of the people.”

Only 31% of all voters, however, believed those principles are being practiced well, painting a gloomy picture of voters’ moods as the U.S. approaches its 250th anniversary.

The poll was conducted by Noble Predictive Insights from June 1-4, 2026, surveying 2,585 registered U.S. voters. The sample was comprised of 915 Republicans, 1013 Democrats, and 297 True Independents, the latter of whom chose neither major party when asked about their political leanings. The poll’s margin of error is +/- 1.93%.

“Voters are not rejecting the founding ideals, but many doubt the country’s political system is healthy enough to live up to them,” Mike Noble, founder and CEO of Noble Predictive Insights, told The Center Square. “All of them are pretty pessimistic on how well these founding principles are being practiced today.”

The poll found significant support for American principles among all political groups, with 89% of Republicans, 85% of Democrats, and 79% of Independents on board.

Gender and geographic divides over the issue were virtually nonexistent, with 87% of males and 85% of females supportive of American ideals, while support across rural, suburban, and urban areas hovered equally around 86%.

Racially, white voters expressed 90% support, Hispanic or Latino voters 83%, Black voters 73%, and voters of other races 79%.

Support across generations never dipped below 70% and progressively increased with age, with nearly 95% of voters ages 65 and older supporting American ideals.

Favorable views of American values also progressively increased alongside education and annual income growth, with support for American values surpassing 90% among the most highly educated and wealthiest respondents.

The “big disconnect,” Noble noted, is not over American principles in theory, but “whether they’re being practiced well.”

Nearly two-thirds of voters surveyed don’t believe those ideals are being practiced well in the country today.

Not even the majority of Republican voters, whose party currently holds a government trifecta, believe the country is upholding its founding principles – 44% think so.

“I was actually a little surprised by it,” Noble added. “Remember, Republicans are kind of in the driver's seat right now.”

Democratic and Independent voters have less than half of Republicans’ confidence – only about 20% of each group – while over 70% in each group believe the country is failing to live up to its principles.

Younger voters were also slightly more hopeful than older voters, with roughly 34% of Gen Z and Millennials believing the country practices its ideals, versus less than 30% of all voters over the age of 45.

While the gender gap reappeared – 36% of males remain positive, compared to 26% of females – the racial divide was almost nonexistent, with 31% of white, Hispanic, and Black voters respectively believing principles are being practiced well.

Higher household income and higher education levels translated to slightly higher beliefs that American principles are well-practiced. Urban voters were also more likely (37%) to hold that view than voters in rural (31%) or suburban (28%) areas.

Unsurprisingly, only 17% of voters who voted for 2024 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris held a hopeful view, compared to 47% of those who voted for President Donald Trump.

Noble believes the principles versus practice disconnect is “a symptom of the hyper polarization that's happened” with nearly all political issues – many of which are directly tied to America’s founding principles.

“If you were to take freedom of speech, for example, there's some questions on that, or equal treatment under the law, or government by consent to the people, or right to bear arms,” Noble noted. “The parties both agree on those in principle, but then when you talk about details, like automatic weapons … are they really staying true to that, or are they getting down into these partisan trenches?”

Republicans and Democrats at the congressional level have frequently clashed over how to protect American ideals and accused the other party of violating them.

Republican lawmakers have accused the former Democrat-led administration of violating Americans’ free speech rights by pressuring social media companies to censor politically incorrect speech during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, have condemned federal law enforcement's sometimes deadly responses to public protests against the current administration, arguing that the attempted federal crackdowns on allegedly violent protests suppressed protestors’ free speech rights.

Similarly, both parties oppose unequal treatment, but disagree on what that looks like. Republican lawmakers, for example, believe DEI policies in federal workplaces violate the principle of equal treatment, while many Democrats believe such policies are equitable.

By contrast, many Republicans see no problem with federal law enforcement arresting illegal immigrants without judicial warrants, while Democratic lawmakers view the practice as contrary to the equal treatment principle.

“These two parties are going after each other, and they’ve kind of forgotten it's not about the two parties – what about the country and America's founding principles as a whole?” Noble said.

“I think it's just more of a symptom of getting too far into this partisan trench. What about these higher-level ideas? It’s not just the red versus blue team – which is kind of what we're sitting at right now.”

(The Center Square) — U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow won Louisiana’s Republican nomination for U.S. Senate on Saturday, defeating state Treasurer John Fleming in a runoff that became a test of President Donald Trump’s influence over the state GOP.

Letlow will face Democrat Jamie Davis, a northeast Louisiana farmer, in the November general election for the seat now held by U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy. Cassidy, a two-term Republican, was eliminated in the May primary after finishing third behind Letlow and Fleming.

Trump’s endorsement defined the race from the start. The president backed Letlow before she formally entered the contest, seeking to replace Cassidy after his vote to convict Trump during the 2021 impeachment trial following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

The runoff also exposed a split inside the pro-Trump wing of the Louisiana Republican Party. Letlow campaigned as Trump’s endorsed candidate and drew support from Gov. Jeff Landry and U.S. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. Fleming, a former congressman and Trump administration official, argued he had the more conservative record and deeper ties to the MAGA movement.

The two campaigns were built quite differently. Letlow’s Senate committee reported about $5.4 million in receipts through June 7, including roughly $3.8 million transferred from other authorized committees. Fleming reported about $12.2 million in receipts, but nearly all of that came from $11.5 million in loans from the candidate.

The race turned increasingly negative in its final stretch. Fleming attacked Letlow over past comments about diversity, equity and inclusion from her time in higher education. Letlow, a former university administrator, said this year she opposes DEI policies. Fleming also shared an AI-generated video that depicted Letlow discussing DEI and referenced her late husband, Luke Letlow, drawing condemnation from Letlow’s campaign.

Letlow entered Congress in 2021 after her husband Luke Letlow, who had been elected to the 5th Congressional District seat, died from COVID-19 before taking office. She later won the special election to fill the vacancy and became the first Republican woman elected to Congress from Louisiana.

Her Senate win also leaves her House seat open, creating a separate race for the sprawling 5th District, which stretches from northeast Louisiana into parts of the Baton Rouge region.

Saturday’s runoff was part of Louisiana’s new closed-primary system for certain federal and statewide offices, a major shift from the state’s longtime “jungle primary” model. Under the system, Republicans and Democrats choose party nominees before the general election, while unaffiliated voters may participate in one party’s primary but must remain with that party through any runoff.

In the Democratic runoff, Davis defeated businessman and Navy veteran Gary Crockett. Davis enters the general election as a longshot in a state Trump carried by 22 percentage points in 2024.

If elected, Letlow would become Louisiana’s first female Republican U.S. senator.

(The Center Square) – Ninety-six percent of voters want Senate candidates to explain how they'll prevent an automatic 22% Social Security benefit cut for 70 million Americans, a new poll finds, as the program's trust fund moves toward a 2032 deadline.

A poll by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a foundation focused on reducing the national debt and long-term federal fiscal sustainability, found 92% of Americans are concerned the growing national debt is driving up the cost of living.

Inflation climbed 4.2% over the past year through May, the highest rate in more than three years, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The foundation's Fiscal Confidence Index, Peterson's own measure of public sentiment on the debt, stands at 39 out of 200 in June, indicating pessimism about the nation's fiscal outlook.

Social Security's retirement trust fund is projected to be depleted in 2032, triggering an automatic 22% cut to benefits for about 70 million Americans. If Congress doesn't act, beneficiaries could lose about $500 a month, or $6,000 a year, according to a June 3, 2026 Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget report.

Eighty-eight percent of voters said they are concerned the national debt is contributing to higher borrowing costs, including credit card interest, car loan rates and mortgage rates.

"Inflation just hit a three-year high, and voters understand that the rising debt and interest rates are adding to their daily affordability challenges," said Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peterson Foundation. "As we approach the midterm elections, voters are calling for leaders to put forward solutions to our $39 trillion debt, which will help address America's affordability crisis and put our country on a stronger, more sustainable path."

Eighty-five percent of voters said a candidate's plan to address the national debt is a factor in deciding their support in the 2026 election. Seventy-four percent said they would consider supporting a candidate from a political party they do not usually support if that candidate had a clear plan to address the debt.

Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute, said the poll's most important finding is the gap between voter concern and congressional inaction.

"Policymakers face a credibility problem," she told The Center Square. "Historically, Congress has tended to wait until deadlines become imminent before reaching bipartisan agreement on tough political issues, and the trustees' projected depletion date increases the pressure to act, but not until 2032."

A December 2025 Cato Institute survey of 2,000 Americans found 71% favor creating a nonpartisan commission to address Social Security's funding shortfall.

Shai Akabas, vice president of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, who testified at a Senate Finance Committee hearing this week on Social Security, said the electoral stakes are real.

"The U.S. senators elected this fall will, for the first time, be required to confront Social Security's insolvency during their term in office," he said. "That is a new political reality."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said delay makes the problem worse.

"The longer we wait to act, the worse the options become," Grassley said in a prepared statement at a Senate Finance Committee hearing this week.

The Fiscal Confidence Index has fallen from 42 in April to 36 in May before rising slightly to 39 in June. The survey of 1,001 registered voters was conducted June 15-17 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

(The Center Square) – Republican voters are more likely to identify themselves as supporters of the party itself rather than supporters of President Donald Trump, results of a new poll show.

The Center Square’s Voters Voice Poll, conducted by Noble Predictive Insights, found 56% of Republican voters said they identify with the Republican Party, whereas 35% of voters identify themselves as supporters of Trump.

The Voters Voice Poll, conducted between June 1 to June 4, surveyed 2,585 respondents, including 915 Republicans, 1,013 Democrats and 297 true independent voters, those who do not lean toward either major party when asked. Republican and independent voters were the only ones who ranked their support for either side.

Mike Noble, founder of Noble Predictive Insights, which conducted the poll, said rising gas prices due to the U.S. conflict in Iran has likely contributed to an increased distance between voters who identify with him or the party as a whole.

“With all these economic pain points in these issues, you can see he might be starting to lose a little bit of his grip on some of the Republicans he used to have,” Noble told The Center Square.

Loyalty to Trump has been tested throughout the past two months as voters head to the polls in key primary states across the country.

In Georgia, Trump-backed U.S. Senate candidate Mike Collins won in a runoff primary against football coach Derek Dooley. However, Burt Jones, a candidate for Georgia governor who Trump endorsed, lost his primary runoff against billionaire Rick Jackson.

“He’s still obviously performing well in the primaries, but it just shows that drinking the Kool-Aid on Trump may be souring for some of these Republicans based on what they’re feeling with the financial pinch,” Noble said.

Younger voters were more likely to support the Republican Party over Trump, particularly compared to older voters. About 60% of voters ages 18-29 said they were supporters of the Republican Party, compared to voters age 65 years or older at 56%.

Among respondents who said they voted for Trump, 55% said they identified more as a supporter of the Republican Party than the president. Noble said Trump's foreign policy such as the conflict with Iran leading to higher energy costs has been a self-inflicted wound that is reflected in the data.

“This foreign policy is really hurting people domestically,” Noble said. “[Voters] thought he'd do better financially, because people were already feeling that economic pain going into it.”

While voters showed waning support for Trump, respondents appeared ready to support members of the president’s cabinet. About 58% of voters who said they would support Vice President JD Vance in a hypothetical Republican party presidential primary more closely supported the Republican Party

About 53% of voters who supported Marco Rubio closely identified as supporters of the Republican Party as well. Additionally, 67% of hypothetical Ron DeSantis voters said they more closely identify as supporters of the Republican party.

(The Center Square) – Texas and Florida are leading in tort reform, bringing more business and economic growth to southern Boom Belt states, the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute (TCCRI) and The James Madison Institute (JMI) argue.

TCCRI was founded in 1996 by a group of state leaders determined to implement conservative public policies in state government based on the principles of limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise and traditional values. Florida-based JMI is dedicated to the ideals of limited government, economic freedom, federalism and individual liberty coupled with individual responsibility. 

Their new joint report argues, “Texas’ and Florida’s economic dominance is the direct result of multi-decade efforts to create a predictable civil justice environment. These reforms spurred the business investment, population growth, and capital inflows that define the Boom Belt.”

They also argue this competitive edge “is under threat” by trial lawyer organizations. In Florida, the Florida Justice Association is targeting pro-business politicians to unseat in state legislative races, the JMI argues. In Texas, plaintiff-aligned groups are funding candidates and PACs to weaken reforms the state legislature has implemented, TCCRI argues.

“Texas and Florida are enjoying a period of unprecedented economic growth, much of which is the result of hard-fought reforms to civil litigation and tort litigation policy. Those policies cannot be taken for granted. They must be maintained with renewed focus in order to maintain the Boom Belt status our states have earned,” the report states.

At a Texas Stock Exchange roundtable in Miami, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Paul Atkins, Citadel Securities President Jim Esposito and TXSE Founder & CEO Jim Lee pointed to Texas’ and Florida’s pro-growth policies they argue are driving the economy, attracting businesses and causing more residents to relocate there, The Center Square reported.

Texas and Florida are leading economic growth in 11 Boom Belt states, they argue. Boom Belt states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Texas-based The Perryman Group and Florida-based Protecting American Consumers Together, point to legal reforms in Florida that directly impacted the insurance industry after dozens of companies had gone bankrupt. New reforms resulted in insurers returning to the market, premiums dropping and billions in economic activity being generated. By fixing a system that allowed lawsuit abuse to drive up costs, costs dropped with an ongoing rippling effect, they argue, The Center Square reported.

The TCCRI and JMI argue trial lawyers and their allied organizations are attempting to roll back reforms in both states, including targeting specific Republican primary elections, reviving one-way attorney fee structures the legislature repealed, expanding liability through new causes of action and repealing existing damages protections. 

TCCRI and JMI also argue that third-party litigation financing is largely unregulated and is problematic because foreign financier disclosures aren’t required.

The groups recommend state lawmakers in Texas and Florida consider passing legislation to prevent unreasonable damage awards and rising public costs, including how future lost earnings and noneconomic damages are calculated and limiting medical negligence liability. They also urge lawmakers to pass legislation related to the risks of third-party litigation funding, including mandatory disclosure of funding agreements and safeguards against foreign government and sovereign wealth fund involvement in U.S. litigation.

In response to the report’s findings and recommendations, Chairman of the Texas House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, said, “We absolutely must continue to attack the proliferation of abusive and frivolous lawsuits in Texas while at the same time ensuring the doors to the courthouse are wide open for injured Texans to pursue and obtain justice. It can be done — and anyone interested in pursuing and working in good faith to achieve both objectives has a seat at the table as we prepare for the 90th legislature.”

(The Center Square) – As Americans celebrate the 250th anniversary of independence, they are also celebrating the first attorneys general who helped establish the justice system. 

Among the first five were those who served in the Continental Army, helped ratify the U.S. Constitution, were elected to state legislatures and served in state leadership roles. They also established legal precedent, advocated for states’ rights and defended impeached judges and a former vice president accused of treason. 

The first U.S. attorney general was Edmund J. Randolph, appointed by the first president, George Washington. Randolph joined the Continental Army in August 1775 and served as General Washington’s aide-de-camp. A Virginia lawyer and delegate to the Continental Congress, Randolph helped draft and ratify the U.S. Constitution. 

He was elected to the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1776 and served on the committee that drafted the state bill of rights and constitution. He also served as Virginia’s governor, attorney general and in the Virginia House of Delegates.

As Washington’s secretary of state, Randolph’s negotiations with Spain were instrumental in westward expansion. He helped negotiate the 1795 Treaty of San Lorenzo, opening the Mississippi River to U.S. navigation and establishing U.S.-Spanish boundaries.

In 1795, he was forced to resign from Washington’s cabinet after he was accused of disclosing confidential information and soliciting a bribe, which he denied. He later represented Aaron Burr during his 1807 trial for treason.

Washington next appointed William Bradford as attorney general. The son of a publisher from Philadelphia, he’d volunteered in the Pennsylvania militia before joining the Continental Army. At age 25, he became Pennsylvania’s attorney general and was later appointed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In 1794, he was appointed attorney general where he served until his death in 1795.

Washington then appointed the third attorney general, Charles Lee, who was the first attorney general to serve under two presidents. Lee was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and served as a naval officer in the Potomac River District from 1777 to 1789. 

He also served under the second president, John Adams, through March 1801. He later served as a circuit court judge and then established his own law practice. One notable case he litigated was Marbury v. Madison, representing William Marbury against the United States in 1803. 

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case established the principle of judicial review, allowing courts to strike down laws and statutes judges believe are unconstitutional. It also limited the power of Congress to expand the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. “The Court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Marshall is considered one of the foundations of U.S. constitutional law,” Britannica states.

Lee also successfully defended Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase before the U.S. Senate in 1805 during his impeachment trial. He also joined Randolph in successfully defending Burr, who was acquitted.

President Thomas Jefferson appointed the fourth attorney general: Levi Lincoln from Massachusetts. Lincoln joined a Massachusetts militia unit of Minute Men after the Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775. He was elected to the Continental Congress in 1781 but declined to serve.

He wrote a series of appeals to patriotism known as “a farmer’s letters to the people” and played an instrumental role in the events that led to the Marbury v. Madison case. 

He served two terms as Massachusetts’ lieutenant governor and as its acting governor. He was elected to the Massachusetts House and Senate. He served for one year in the U.S. House of Representatives before he was appointed attorney general.

Jefferson also appointed the fifth attorney general, John Breckenridge, an advocate of states’ rights. He sponsored Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions, which, like James Madison’s Virginia Resolutions, advocated for states’ rights. They describe the United States as “a compact among sovereign states and the federal government as a creation of the states.” 

He served as Kentucky’s attorney general in the Kentucky legislature. He also served in the U.S. Senate, where he advocated for westward expansion and supported the Louisiana Purchase. In 1805, he resigned from the U.S. Senate to become U.S. attorney general.

Breckenridge was instrumental in shaping early American law and governance, played a critical role in political debates related to the Alien and Sedition Acts, advocated for free speech protections and for a balanced federal system.

In 250 years, there have been 87 U.S. attorneys general, another nearly two dozen have served in acting capacities.

They’ve been members of five political parties: Federalists (3); Whigs (4); Democratic-Republicans (5); Democrats (34) and Republicans (40), according to an analysis of public data by The Center Square.

Only three have been women: Janet Reno, Loretta Lynch and Pam Bondi.

In 250 years, U.S. attorneys general have come from 29 states, with the most from Pennsylvania, followed by New York, Maryland, Virginia and Massachusetts.

(The Center Square) – Recently introduced legislation that would rein in certain regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency has drawn praise from dozens of energy industry groups.

The bicameral End EPA Abuse Act, sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., forbids the agency from enforcing policies that fall under the purview of Congress.

That includes regulations which “can reasonably be determined” to undermine the electrical grid’s reliability, force fossil fuel power plants to change fuel sources, restrict the use or sale of internal-combustion engine vehicles, or “otherwise technically, economically, or practically infeasible.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank which had previously criticized the EPA for policies like tightening carbon emissions standards for power plants, hailed the bill’s sponsors for taking action.

“Instead of reacting to agency overreach after-the-fact, this bill makes it clear up front that the EPA is prohibited from using the Clean Air Act to take actions that common sense tells us Congress never would have authorized,” Daren Bakst, director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment, told The Center Square. “The legislation lists specific prohibitions addressing abuses we know the EPA has already engaged in and will likely try again. It also has an important catch-all provision to prohibit other future abuses.”

The Clean Air Act, enacted in 1970, allowed the federal government and states to develop regulations to limit the emission of toxic air pollutants from industrial and mobile sources.

Amendments to the act beginning in the 1990s expanded the EPA’s authority, allowing the agency to take actions like limiting the sulfur content in diesel fuel and enforcing the phasing out of ozone-depleting chemicals.

Bakst believes as soon as the EPA approves or tries to implement regulations so strict that they effectively force transition to electric vehicles or renewable energy generation, for example, the agency is clearly overstepping its authority. 

In 2022, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the EPA’s attempt to broadly limit carbon emissions from American power plants in a way that would force a nationwide transition away from coal-powered electricity generation to other nonfossil fuel sources.

“Nobody with a straight face can say that Congress wanted the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to try and kill off gas-powered cars or to change how the country produces electricity,” Bakst said. “The agency has constantly been trying to act more like an economic planning agency than the Environmental Protection Agency.”

The End EPA Abuse Act is supported by the American Energy Institute, the American Energy Alliance, the American Consumer Institute, and others. Twenty state attorneys general have expressed support for the legislation as well.

(The Center Square) - After several days of hearings and votes, the Texas State Board of Education voted late Friday to require a reading list for every grade level in public schools, including at least 200 Biblical texts.

Texas is now the first state to require public school students to read passages of the Bible as mandatory curriculum.

There are roughly 5.5 million students enrolled in Texas public schools, or roughly 11% of the total U.S. public school population.

The school board is composed of 15 members; 10 are Republicans. The majority have never been public school educators, The Center Square reported. 

The mandatory reading list has been controversial as has been the SBOE’s attempt to overhaul state standards to transform how social studies is taught. The overhaul has received extensive backlash, including from educators, The Center Square reported. This week, a vote on revamping state standards for social studies for high school students was postponed until the fall.

Votes are ongoing Friday night regarding revamping social studies curriculum for grades K-8. The changes would go into effect in the 2030-2031 school year.

The SBOE passed its mandatory reading list by a 9-5 vote. It includes roughly 200 biblical passages, including about Noah’s Ark, David and Goliath, Daniel in the Lion’s Den, Moses, the Book of Lamentations, among others. The required texts are from news outlets, various translations of the Bible, from a Jewish Publication Society, among others. 

The mandate comes from a law that was enacted in 2023, House Bill 1605, which directed the Texas Education Agency to require a new mandatory reading list be adopted for K-12 students. 

HB 1605 required one literary work per grade level.

The SBOE has mandated up to 20 per grade, exceeding the legislative mandate, Texas House Democrats argue. The mandatory reading list will take up to 80% of English Language Arts instructional time annually, exceeding the legislative mandate. They also argue the mandate strips school districts of control over their own curricula.

They also take issue with the Biblical texts presented “almost exclusively” from Evangelical Protestant translations, “reflecting a clear denominational preference.”

It’s not just Democrats who have issues with the reading list. 

Rabbi David Segal, policy counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, points out what he argues are multiple errors in the text as well as how its presented. 

He points to a mandatory seventh-grade text, Psalm 23, which is grouped with works by Jewish writers Anne Frank and Hannah Szenes, as well as George Washington, as problematic. A King James translation of Ecclesiastes for a mandatory eighth-grade reading text also appears to contradict the Ten Commandments text, now also required to be posted in classrooms. 

Republican Mary Lowe with Families Engaged also pointed to past testimony given to the state Legislature and SBOE by theologians and Bible experts who “repeatedly challenged the integrity, application and literary placement” of the mandatory reading list. “I am a Christian and have great concern for the HOLY BIBLE being taught out of context and without reverence for the work as the inerrant word of GOD.”

Proponents argue the mandatory list is instructive and that the Bible should be taught in public schools. 

HB 1605 also required the TEA to develop state-owned textbooks, referred to as Bluebonnet Learning, which includes Biblical instruction. In late 2024, the SBOE approved the Bluebonnet books, and educators and others started pointing out multiple errors. 

There are so many errors in it — more than 4,200 — that fixing them is costing taxpayers $8.4 million. SBOE Vice Chair Pam Little, who has a background in publishing, said the volume of errors is unprecedented.

She told Fox 4 News that nearly 2,000 were factual errors and more than 1,000 were licensing image issues. These were among the 4,200 the SBOE approved to fix in February. 

School districts receive incentives for electing to adopt using the Bluebonnet texts. Only less than one-third of Texas’ 1,200 school districts have chosen to do so. 

The Freedom From Religion Foundation said it was “appalled” by the SBOE’s vote for a “state-mandated reading list that privileges Christian Scripture.”

“A mandatory public school reading list should never function as a bible lesson,” FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said her organization's website. “Texas is telling millions of children that one religion deserves the government’s seal of approval, while everyone else is an afterthought. That’s government-sponsored religious favoritism — and the First Amendment strictly forbids it.”

The FFRF and the FFRF Action Fund said they “will continue to oppose efforts that erode students’ and families’ constitutional rights. Religious freedom means that every student is free to practice, or not practice, religion without government pressure or favoritism. That guarantee is fundamental to both public education and American democracy.”

More than 10 years ago, the state Legislature passed a law allowing for Bible electives in the public school system, which took effect in the 2009-2010 school year. The ACLU of Texas published a “know your rights” fact sheet in response.

Former Missouri guard Tamar Bates is getting another opportunity in the NBA.

According to NBA insider Michael Scotto, the Utah Jazz plan to sign Bates to a two-way contract after an impressive season in the NBA G League.

Bates spent the 2025-26 season in the Denver Nuggets organization on a two-way deal before a foot injury sidelined him. Prior to the injury, he emerged as one of the G League's most efficient scorers, averaging 19.5 points, 4.4 rebounds, 2.3 assists and 1.5 steals per game while shooting 55% from the field and 44% from 3-point range.

The new deal gives Bates another chance to develop as he continues his pursuit of a full-time roster spot.

Bates finished his collegiate career at Missouri as one of the program's most accomplished guards in recent years. During the 2024-25 season, he earned All-SEC honors after averaging 13.3 points per game and helping lead the Tigers back to the NCAA Tournament.

The Kansas City product became a key piece of coach Dennis Gates' program during his two seasons in Columbia, appearing in 69 games while providing perimeter shooting, defensive versatility and veteran leadership. Bates scored 1,221 career points across his four seasons at Indiana and Missouri and was widely regarded as one of the Tigers' most reliable players during their resurgence.

Now healthy and coming off a productive G League campaign, Bates will look to turn his latest two-way opportunity with Utah into a permanent place in the NBA.

(The Center Square) - Two Democrats and three Republicans have pulled ahead in Colorado's crowded race for the soon-to-be vacant Governor’s Office.

Following Democratic Gov. Jared Polis’ term limit, candidates looking to fill the seat are debating the economy, government accountability, the environment and public safety. Five candidates, including the current state attorney general and a U.S. senator, have dominated debates and headlines.

As has been the case across much of the country, Colorado’s candidates for governor have centered much of their campaigns around the economy.

Democratic candidate and Attorney General Phil Weiser said he would focus on expanding affordable housing by reducing regulations and prioritizing essential workers’ ability to get a home. Those workers would include teachers and nurses. 

“Permitting fees are so high, permitting timetables take so long, and it’s the same whether you’re building a starter home or a mega mansion,” Weiser said at a June Democratic primary debate. “When I’m governor, we’re going to change that. We’re going to make permitting fees lower to build starter homes, make it quicker to change this equation and provide down payment assistance for essential workers so they can buy the homes that they deserve to have.”

The other Democratic candidate, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, has also endorsed a similar solution of reducing regulation to the state’s housing development as a means to the affordability issue.

“To slash the red tape at the state level, but also at the local level to make sure that Colorado can finance workforce housing again in our state, and that the private sector isn’t ignoring Colorado because it’s too hard to build here,” said Bennet in the June debate.

The three Republican candidates have largely agreed on similar housing proposals. State Rep. Scott Bottoms, R-El Paso County, said he would focus on getting rid of regulations that make building homes in the state more expensive, according to his campaign. 

State Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer, R-Larimer and Weld counties, said she would “Lower Grocery and Home construction costs by repealing onerous regulations and increasing water supply,” according to her election website. 

Kirkmeyer and Bottoms did not respond to a request for an interview by The Center Square.

According to World Population Review, Colorado ranked fifth highest among states with a median home value at $539,400 in 2024.

The three frontrunner Republican candidates have focused on public safety during their campaigns.

Republican candidate and nonprofit founder Victor Marx said the state needed to expand programs to fight fentanyl and fill shortages in police enforcement across the state.

“As Governor, I will require the Department of Public Safety to conduct statewide staffing and training assessments under C.R.S. § 24-33.5-401 et seq. to identify shortages in patrol coverage, investigative capacity, and officer safety resources,” read Marx’s campaign website. He did not respond to a request for an interview by The Center Square.

The two Democratic candidates have highlighted Colorado’s environmental struggles, which come as the state experiences a drought in all counties and is locked in negotiations with neighboring states over Colorado River water rights.

“We’ve made some good progress as a state, but I think we can lead all 50 states,” Bennet said during the Democratic primary debate. “And I’m proud that Conservation Colorado and other environmental groups have endorsed my cap-and-dividend plan.”

According to a statement by Bennet’s campaign, his cap-and-invest environmental program would progressively cap greenhouse gas emissions, at still unspecified amounts, and increase investment into renewable energy in the state.

“The future is solar, it’s storage, and the way we drive it is through effective leadership and our public utilities commission, ensuring that we’re getting more competition, more innovation closer to users,” Weiser said at the Democratic debate. He added that he wanted Colorado’s energy to be created from within the state. 

Weiser and Bennet did not respond to The Center Square's requests for an interview.

Both Democratic candidates have so far outraised the three Republican candidates. Weiser led the pack with over $6.5 million in total contributions, followed by Bennet at more than $4.8 million. Marx led the Republicans with just shy of $2.8 million, trailed by Kirkmeyer at $608,000 and $227,000 for Bottoms.

Reports by the Secretary of State's Office did not make it immediately clear who gave the most money to the various campaigns.

Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 30, Election Day. For more information, visit the Secretary of State’s website, coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections. Early election results will be published that evening at www.thecentersquare.com/colorado.