sleepystork.com

Had President Donald Trump actually read the U.S. Constitution he would have seen that Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 says state legislatures determine the “Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections” and only Congress can alter such laws, not the president. Would it have mattered to someone who views such clauses as mere suggestions? Maybe not.

In a recent social media post, Trump declared he intends to issue an executive order to prohibit state laws from using mail-in voting in the 2026 election. This is a clear defiance of the Constitution’s delegation of power to the states. Trump also lambasted mail-in voting as inaccurate, said no other country allowed it, and claimed Democrats used mail-in voting to cheat and could not be elected without it. He also assailed voting machines as less accurate than hand counting. If Trump was striving for 100% inaccuracy in a single post, he nailed it.

A few days earlier, Trump told Sean Hannity that Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin told him the 2020 election was rigged because of mail-in voting. Whether such flattery will get Putin ownership of Donetsk, Ukraine, time will tell.  A master of fraud who stays in power by putting competitors and critics behind bars and in the grave isn’t exactly credible on elections.

Study after study shows that instances of election fraud in the U.S. are exceedingly rare. Certified ballot-counting machines are actually more accurate when counting large volumes of ballots than hand counts, which are more susceptible to human error. Mail-in voting combines the best of voting methods. Every voter gets a trackable paper ballot that can be recounted if necessary. Certified machines do the counting, reducing instances of error, intentional or accidental. Unlike in the less-than-golden olden days, people cannot stuff ballot boxes or toss them into the river because ballots are tracked and voters are notified when their vote is cast.

Voting by mail is also far more inclusive. Before mail-in ballots, in order to vote absentee, one had to request such a ballot in advance. That meant on election day voters who were unexpectedly called out of town, too sick to leave the house, stuck at work, or held up in a crisis situation did not get to vote.

While I miss the days of in-person voting, serving as an election judge, and meeting members of my community in what felt like a patriotic, community effort, giving more Americans greater access to the polls is more important than my nostalgia.

Where mail-in voting is permitted, it is preferred. Colorado adopted mail-in voting in 2013. While Colorado voters can still vote in-person on election day, mail-in voting has become by far the more popular method. In the 2024 election, 92.2% of voters voted by mail.

The superiority of mail-in voting is why an increasing number of nations — 34 mostly western countries or territories at this time — allow some or all of their citizens to vote by mail.

In the U.S., eight states — Colorado, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington — vote predominantly by mail. If Democrats rely on mail-in voting to cheat, how did Utah manage to send only Republicans to Congress?

Still other states allow mail voting under certain circumstances. Nebraska and North Dakota enable counties to opt for mail-in elections. Twelve states allow mail-in voting for small jurisdictions like rural towns or small elections like for school boards or both (Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and Wyoming) according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. All states allow absentee voting for those under certain conditions such as being away from their precinct on election day, having a disability or illness, and being in the military and working abroad.

It is unclear whether Trump will attempt to stop just mail-in voting or will also target absentee voting and voting machines. One wonders if the planned executive order is just a prop in his stolen 2020 election farce or an actual attempt to reduce voting. Either way it’s going down in the courts.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Walk any mountain trail, city park, or downtown street this Labor Day weekend and you’ll likely spot plastic bottles or aluminum cans left behind. We call it “litter.” But let’s be honest — this isn’t consumer waste. It’s corporate trash.

For decades, packaging and beverage companies have pulled off one of the most cunning blame-shifts in modern American life. They convinced us that the garbage problem is about our bad habits, our laziness, or our failure to recycle.

Who can remember the famous “Crying Indian” ad from the 1970s? That wasn’t made by environmentalists. It was created and paid for by the beverage and packaging industry. The message was simple: if bottles are floating in creeks or scattered across trails, blame yourself — not the companies churning out billions of single-use containers.

And the ploy worked. For fifty years, we’ve dutifully sorted bottles into blue bins, internalizing guilt, while corporations kept cashing in. The result? They pocket profits, and taxpayers get stuck with the cleanup bill.

At least some institutions are beginning to push back. The University of Colorado recently announced it will eliminate single-use plastic bottles at all home football games and Pepsi has agreed to only sell aluminium and glass products on campus. That’s a small but powerful step–showing leadership while the corporate giants keep dragging their feet

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: recycling alone cannot fix this problem. Fewer than 10% of plastics ever get recycled. Aluminum cans fare better, but even then, U.S. cans contain only about 40% to 50% recycled content. Millions still wind up in Colorado landfills each year — proof that the system is more illusion than solution. It’s like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Meanwhile, cities like Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins, Pueblo, and Colorado Springs spend millions every year on waste collection and recycling. Who pays? Not Coca-Cola. Not Pepsi. You do — through taxes, garbage fees, and sometimes bottle deposits. We pay once at the store, again when municipalities clean up, and sometimes a third time through bottle deposits.

Imagine allowing a chemical plant to dump sludge in a river and then telling residents to organize Saturday morning cleanups. Absurd? Yes. But that’s exactly how the packaging industry operates — leaving the public to mop up after their mess.

To their credit, Colorado lawmakers recognized this reality in 2022 by passing House Bill 1355, the state’s Producer Responsibility for Recycling Packaging law. Once fully implemented, companies selling packaging and paper products will be required to pay into a statewide system that funds collection and recycling. It’s a forward-thinking step that puts responsibility where it belongs — on the producers, not the public.

But let’s not kid ourselves. Passing the law was the easy part. The real challenge lies ahead: resisting the inevitable push by corporations to water it down. Lobbyists are already circling, looking for loopholes, delays, and exemptions. If Colorado is serious about cleaner trails, reduced landfill waste, and fairer costs for taxpayers, it will need to enforce this law with real teeth.

And remember — fewer than 20% of U.S. states have adopted anything like it. Colorado is ahead of the curve, but national action is lagging badly.

Let’s call the current system what it really is: a subsidy. Every bottle or can that ends up in a landfill represents a hidden taxpayer handout to multinational corporations that choose the cheapest packaging possible and offload the costs onto the public.

Why should Colorado families pay higher waste fees so that beverage giants can shave pennies off production? Why should local governments spend countless hours hauling trash off trails instead of investing in habitat restoration or recreation access?

This is backward economics. The people least responsible for creating the waste are the ones paying the price.

And this issue isn’t only about dollars and cents. Plastics are fossil fuels in disguise — petrochemicals molded into bottles, bags, and straws. Their production fuels greenhouse gas emissions. Their breakdown releases microplastics into rivers, lakes, wildlife, and, yes, even human bloodstreams.

If producers were forced to shoulder cleanup costs, they’d finally have an incentive to use recycled content, eliminate unnecessary packaging, and invest in reusable alternatives. Colorado’s environment would reap the benefits–from the Arkansas and Colorado rivers to alpine lakes in Rocky Mountain National Park.

Industry lobbyists warn that producer-responsibility laws will raise prices. But let’s be clear: consumers already pay. We just do it through hidden taxes, fees, and cleanups. A few pennies more per bottle, openly dedicated to recycling and waste reduction, is far fairer than the billions we silently shell out today.

And if those higher costs spur companies to redesign packaging so it’s reusable or genuinely recyclable? Even better. That’s how a free market is supposed to operate–rewarding innovation while discouraging waste.

Ultimately, this debate is about more than bottles and cans. It’s about what kind of values we want to live by. Do we keep letting corporations profit while offloading cleanup costs onto taxpayers? Or do we demand accountability–aligning responsibility with the mess that’s made?

It’s time to stop blaming the public. Stop subsidizing corporate waste. And start applying the most basic rule every parent teaches their kids:

If you make the mess, you clean it up.

Jim Martin is a former University of Colorado regent. He can be reached at jimmartinesq@gmail.com.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The Wyoming man who deliberately ran down a wolf with his snowmobile in 2024 didn’t face any consequences, unless you count a $250 fine for “possessing a live animal.” But as the terrible story and graphic photos of the wolf’s suffering spread across the nation, public reaction could be summed up as “horrified.”

Still, the Wyoming state Legislature failed to make illegal what Cody Roberts did. After running over the young female wolf with his snowmobile, Roberts paraded the dazed animal — its mouth taped shut — through a bar in Daniel, Wyoming. Then he shot the wolf dead.

In reaction, Wyoming’s governor and legislature passed a bill with no substance, House Bill 275, blandly labeled “The treatment of animals.” In passing it, Wyoming lawmakers sanctioned killing wildlife with vehicles.

At a hearing before the vote, representatives of Wyoming’s agricultural community defended the practice. One argued that without access to M-44 sodium-cyanide bombs that are now virtually prohibited, they needed to run over wolves and other wildlife with vehicles to protect their livestock.

For a while it seemed that the old ways of the Cowboy State would persist without question. That is, until the attorney for Sublette County convened a grand jury to examine Cody Roberts’ actions.

The closed-door grand jury acted on August 21, indicting Roberts on “felony animal cruelty,” an offense punishable by up to 2 years in prison, a fine of $5,000, or both. Roberts must appear in court to enter a plea of “guilty” or “not guilty” at arraignment. He could accept a plea deal or take a gamble and face trial.

Wyoming’s decision leaders may not realize it, but they now face a new landscape that increasingly demands responsible, nuanced responses, as well as humane policies involving animals. This ethic has already emerged in the West. For the most part, Wyoming leaders seem to be taking bad advice from the wrong people and find themselves badly out of step with the rest of the nation.

In a better world, those who work with animals–whether wild or domestic—would use ingenuity to prevent negative interactions with wildlife. Using the blunt force of a snowmobile to “manage” wildlife isn’t wildlife management at all: It is state-sanctioned cruelty.

Roberts needs to be punished. But what’s really at stake is achieving a changed relationship with wildlife in Wyoming. Ethics, not indifference, and a responsible attitude should prevail. And the state’s politicians and leaders need to be at the head of the parade on passing and enforcing laws that reflect the values of their fellow citizens.

In two separate polls, an overwhelming majority of Wyoming residents–including 74% of sportsmen—agreed that running over animals with vehicles is neither ethical nor “fair chase.” Our poll showed 71% of Wyoming residents do not approve of animal cruelty.

The coming years could pose a rare opportunity for sportsmen, conservationists–and also the agricultural community— to find common ground, building a future where humane wildlife stewardship is the norm.

I believe this can happen because precedents exist. Simultaneously with the passage of its HB275 wolf bill this year, another nightmare had been brewing: Two legislators proposed a bill to allow year-round hunting and trapping of mountain lions. But hunters and wildlife advocates stood together and shouted a collective “No!”

The Legislature listened. That moment proved something important. When we rise above division and focus on fairness and respect for wildlife, we can protect what makes Wyoming wild and wonderful, and we can do it together.

By dragging that muzzled wolf into a bar, Roberts also dragged Wyoming’s outdated treatment of wildlife into broader public view. In the harsh glare of what became a global spotlight, he may end up having done Wyoming a strange kind of favor. His grotesque actions exposed to the world what many here already knew–that cruelty to wildlife is not tolerated by most Wyoming residents, even if it happens to be protected by law. Those who might think the state should ignore such cruelty grow ever fewer in number.

If there’s any justice to be found in the matter, it rests with the prospect that Roberts’ brutality could spark real change for the better for wolves and other wildlife, for ethics and for Wyoming’s future.

Wendy Keefover is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. She works as an advocate for native carnivores for Humane World for Animals.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Although the term “neoconservative” has fallen into disuse — except as an occasional slur used by the MAGA right, the progressive left and social-media antisemites who really mean to say “Jew” — I’ve never been shy about describing myself as one. In Donald Trump’s whipsawing performances with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday and Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his European allies in Washington on Monday, I’m reminded of why.

Neoconservatism emerged in the early 1970s as a loosely coherent movement of disenchanted liberals who were critical of the welfare state and turned off by the anti-Americanism of parts of the anti-war left. But the movement also took a dim view of the Nixon administration, particularly in its pursuit of arms control with the Soviet Union, its relative indifference to human rights issues behind the Iron Curtain, and its realpolitik approach to foreign policy in general.

I learned this the hard way 14 years ago, when Henry Kissinger nearly kicked me out of his Park Avenue office for having the ill grace to ask him about China’s brutal treatment of Liu Xiaobo, the imprisoned dissident. The former secretary of state, then 88, was still too concerned with currying influence in Beijing to say anything nice about his fellow Nobel Peace laureate.

Little wonder, then, that many of Trump’s most ardent conservative opponents in recent years are, or were, old-school neocons. Like President Richard Nixon’s, Trump’s politics are a mix of statist economic impulses, populist grievances, the conceit of being above the law and a transactional approach to foreign policy that discounts the moral force of American ideals. What Trump lacks in his predecessor’s intellectual sophistication, he makes up for with his gifts for crude showmanship.

What would a traditional neocon say about Trump’s latest diplomatic efforts between Russia and Ukraine? A few points.

First, we’d note that dictators who are contemptuous of the rights of their own people tend to be equally contemptuous of the rights of other countries. That’s why some of us were ringing alarms about the global threat from Putin when many liberals still thought he was negotiable. By retreating from his threat to sanction Russia if it didn’t agree to a ceasefire, Trump has simply ratified Putin’s strategy of contempt.

Second, dictators who do not abide by the rule of law at home will not honor international agreements, either. The Soviet Union violated virtually every arms control agreement it signed. Putin’s Russia has followed suit with violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the 1994 Budapest memorandum supposedly guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and the Minsk agreements that were supposed to end the fighting between Ukraine and Russia in 2015. Whatever deal Putin may yet sign will simply be another paper promise he’ll inevitably break.

Third, Putin does not see Trump’s chummy manner, his effort to forge personal ties, as an invitation to be reasonable. He sees it as vanity and therefore weakness: The perennial hankering of Western politicians for a deal, a win, a Nobel Prize. Even worse is Trump’s constant blaming of Joe Biden for the war, which would make the United States responsible for the war Putin started — exactly the anti-American narrative Putin wishes to advance.

Fourth, neocons subscribe to a “broken windows” theory of international order: If disorder goes unchecked, or if aggression is rewarded, in one part of the world, it will encourage disorder and aggression in other parts. Some in this administration, particularly the Pentagon’s Elbridge Colby, seem to think that settling the war in Ukraine will allow the United States to concentrate its efforts on containing China. In fact, nothing will do more to encourage Chinese adventurism against Taiwan or in the South China Sea than to see Putin rewarded in Ukraine.

Fifth, neocons believe that American ideals do not undermine American power; rather, they march hand in hand. When the United States lent destroyers to the United Kingdom in 1940, we created the conditions that allowed us to prevail in World War II. When we stood up for West Berlin in the face of Soviet threats, we secured an oasis of freedom that would eventually lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Union. By putting the interests of what Trump calls “peace” ahead of the interests of freedom, we are all but guaranteeing that Ukraine will lose both.

Sixth, international guarantees are mostly worthless unless backed by credible and overwhelming power. If Putin has reason to doubt America’s commitment to Ukraine’s independence — and Trump has done nothing but give him reasons — he or his successors will seek ways to violate it.

Seventh, the only way to guarantee an end to this conflict is steadfast opposition to Putin through sanctions, ostracism, and military and economic support for Ukraine and every other country Russia threatens. Trump aims to do the opposite.

Neocons may have long ago fallen out of fashion. To watch Trump in recent days is to be reminded that some old fashions deserve to be made new again.

Bret Stephens is an Opinion columnist for The Times, writing about foreign policy, domestic politics and cultural issues.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Fear mongering stopped leaders from considering carbon-free power innovation this week. Rightwing climate deniers strike again? Nope.

Agitation from the left prompted Mayor Mike Johnston and Denver International Airport CEO Phil Washington to shelve a plan to study building a small modular nuclear reactor to meet the airport’s growing energy needs while reducing carbon emissions.

These city leaders foresee a time when 120 million passengers will pass through the airport’s gates each year and the air hub will need more reliable power. Keeping the lights on in the control tower isn’t optional. The study should proceed. Fear should not stop leaders from simply knowing more which is what a feasibility study provides.

SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors), which represent the newest breakthrough in nuclear technology, are worth considering. They are smaller and less expensive than traditional reactors and can be prefabricated, transported, and assembled on-site. As with the 54 traditional nuclear power plants around the country, SMRs produce reliable, safe, carbon-free energy. Unlike wind and solar power, which also do not emit carbon dioxide, nuclear reactors produce power continuously regardless of time of day or weather conditions.

Would I live next to a nuclear reactor? Of course. Men and women spend years 500 feet away from a nuclear reactor without ill effect and these submariners aren’t the only ones. More than 120 million Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant.

When Colorado closes the last of its coal plants in 2031, additional clean energy sources capable of supplying baseload power will need to be in place. Wind and solar, even with battery storage, will not be sufficient. Nuclear power and natural gas are the two options. Right now, nearly a third of the state’s power is supplied by natural gas. This fossil fuel emits less greenhouse gas than coal or petroleum but it will not ultimately enable the state to reach its goal of achieving 100% clean energy.

Earlier this year, the Colorado General Assembly passed legislation to add nuclear power to the list of clean energy sources utilities can use to meet state carbon reduction goals, a sign that a bipartisan consensus has emerged supporting nuclear technology.

They are not alone. Political leaders of both parties and private industry are looking to nuclear power to support the growing energy demands required by artificial intelligence and cloud storage data centers, and the installation of heat pumps and EV chargers. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are building an SMR in Kemmerer, Wyoming, and Amazon and Google are working with other states and power companies to build SMRs to support their centers. Our neighbor to the west, Utah, just signed an agreement with companies to create a “nuclear energy ecosystem” that combines domestic manufacturing, training, and the building of SMRs.

DEN could join these innovators. The third busiest airport in the country and sixth busiest in the world, DEN broke a record last year with 82.3 million air travelers. Over the next 10 years, the number of passengers will likely increase 15% and with them, the need for more power generation. The airport has already demonstrated support for clean energy by installing solar panels and efficiency measures.

A feasibility study, which will likely cost $1.25 million and take up to a year to complete, will determine how SMR technology can help DEN meet its long-term power needs, assess models and relevant regulations, calculate costs and risks, and elicit community feedback. Johnston and Washington’s willingness to study the technology shows they understand what it will take to keep the lights on when people are up in the air. Fear and NIMBism should not stop them from learning more.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The Salvation Army has been a steadfast partner to the City and County of Denver for years, dedicating its human and financial resources to supporting the city’s efforts to address homelessness. When The Salvation Army announced it would conclude its operation of the city’s three hotel shelters after fulfilling its contracts through December 2025, the city responded not with gratitude, but with insinuation that The Army was no longer welcome in this space.

As leaders of The Salvation Army Denver Metro Advisory Board, we find this response disingenuous and deeply disappointing. Few agencies have stepped forward in recent years to partner with the city on sheltering our unhoused neighbors. Perhaps they’ve seen how current partners — those who’ve carried the weight of this work — have been treated.

Time and again, when isolated incidents occurred at these shelters, the city stepped back and allowed The Salvation Army to shoulder the blame. Meanwhile, criticisms about the buildings themselves — heat, cold, pests, broken appliances, safety concerns — rest squarely on the city, which owns the facilities. The Salvation Army operates the programs and provides pathways to stable housing.

Let the numbers speak. Across the three hotel shelters, The Salvation Army has housed up to 1,800 people nightly and helped 1,994 individuals transition into stable housing — 52% of those served, compared to a national average of 30%.

Every guest receives case management and wrap-around services. This is the city’s strategy, executed by The Salvation Army with excellence.

And yet, The Salvation Army has its own proven programs — like the Harbor Light Center, where 86% of graduates maintain sobriety and stability. These programs save lives. Is it any wonder the organization wants to refocus on its core mission?

The toll of this partnership has been immense. Since 2020, The Salvation Army has been central to the city’s emergency sheltering efforts, including operating eight shelters and leading the response at the Denver Coliseum during the pandemic. Former Mayor Michael B. Hancock publicly praised The Salvation Army’s role. Without their support, the pandemic’s impact on our unhoused neighbors would have been far worse.

Five years of relentless service has taken its toll. The work is exhausting. The operational challenges are constant. The Salvation Army has done more than any other agency in Denver.

Financially, the burden of covering costs up front has been staggering. The contracts were rolled out so quickly by the city in 2023, in an unprecedented scale of operation, that the organization was not able to anticipate all the costs that such an operation would entail.

In 2024 alone, The Salvation Army spent over $5.2 million, which will be slowly reimbursed, operating the three hotel shelters. In 2025, it went six months without reimbursement from the city, struggling to make payroll for three consecutive months. This is not sustainable.

We serve on The Salvation Army’s Advisory Board because we believe in its mission to meet human need in Jesus’ name without discrimination. We’ve seen its heart, its integrity, and its impact. The city should be thanking The Salvation Army — not casting doubt on its commitment.

Let’s be clear: on August 11, when HOST leadership learned The Salvation Army would not renew its shelter contracts, they pleaded for the organization to continue operating all three shelters beyond December 31. That speaks volumes.

The Salvation Army is, quite simply, Doing The Most Good. It’s time the city acknowledged that — with respect, gratitude, and grace.

Elbra Wedgeworth was a Denver City Councilwoman from 1999-2007 who served two years as Council president. Debbie Ortega was on the City Council from 1987-2003 and from 2011-2023, who served two years as Council president. Liz Stillwell is a businesswoman. Larry Burgess is a business owner. All four are members of the Salvation Army Advisory Board — Intermountain Division.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.