Ballot

where he focused heavily on threatened and endangered species, biodiversity conservation, and ecosystem management.

He was also the agency staff lead in developing the 2005 wolf management plan long before wolves were restored through a ballot initiative in 2020.

Gary later was appointed to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission in a seat representing sportsmen and also lives west of the Continental Divide.

He hunts, he supports wolf restoration, and today he opposes Amendment 83, which is the ballot measure that would establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Colorado.

So Gary, it is a privilege to welcome you, my friend, to the Wildlife Wire.

And I'm going to start out with two quick questions before we get going.

You know, we all have our interesting little tidbits in our background that it's always fun to kind of highlight and bring forward when so much is often, you know, we talk about the relevant histories of our lives and how those aspects like being a biologist or a hunter and angler, you know, inform our work today.

But it's fun to Here are a little extra thing that you had done in your career.

Um, and that question, uh, about separation.

But the other nine questions on the ballot, and Real Talkers you've been communicating this to us en masse, uh, deserve a closer look.

Five of them dealing with immigration or touching on Alberta's current approach and what an approach might look like were Alberta to separate from Canada.

A group of former political leaders in the province of Alberta and a constitutional lawyer have argued that these questions go far beyond legitimate debate about immigration levels or pressure on public services, uh, and instead scapegoat newcomers.

Um, if I can say, Rachel, uh, you, you know, the, these, uh, referendum questions obviously described as divisive.

They're being described as such, uh, by many in our live chat as well, scapegoating newcomers, but what specifically, like, as someone who's held the office of premier, um, uh, where's the evidence or what jumps out at you as a scapegoating effort or, or, or an effort in, in bad faith as opposed to, uh, as the government might say, a response to legitimate concerns about, about rapid population growth, about pressure on public services? I mean, that's the justification the government's providing for these questions.

Well, I mean, a- as I said, first of all, let me also just re- uh, remind folks that unlike the, the referendum question, uh, which received signatures from about 300,000 people seeking to have that on a ballot, not the 700,000 that the premier claims, but the 300,000 or so.

These other nine, nobody asked for those questions to be on the ballot.

So that if the lost bill was best, the bill that will not be lost can only be second best, said the Lord Chancellor.

I certainly did think that after the debate before Easter, we should not have come to shipwreck about the ballot.

said Mr. Mildmay.

"'It was brewing for us all along,' said Mr. Gresham, who then, with a gesture of his hand and a pressure of his lips, withheld words which he was nearly uttering, and which would not, probably, have been complimentary to Mr. Turnbull.

We should feel great about this.

You can join the conversation by emailing 1A at WAMU.org. With September officially here, that means we're also two months away from the midterms and the first ballots are being mailed to voters.

But a federal whistleblower is sounding the alarm, saying a new system from the U.S.

Postal Service could potentially— keep many Americans from getting mail-in ballots this fall.

The whistleblower also warned that large numbers of submitted ballots could be rejected.

That's if the courts allow President Donald Trump's executive order reshaping mail-in voting to stand.

A judge has temporarily blocked the plans for now.

Here are all the people who technically qualify to receive an absentee ballot or a mail ballot.

City Council candidate Drew Stanley has submitted an official statement of voluntary withdrawal to the Flagstaff City Clerk and is withdrawing from the November 2026 election.

As ballots are already being printed, Mr. Stanley's name will appear on the ballot, however, any votes cast for Mr. Stanley will not be counted.

Notification of this will be posted at polling places.

For related questions, please contact Stacey Salzberg, City of Flagstaff Communication and Civic Engagement Director at stacey.salzberg at flagstaffers.gov. Read more stories from the mountain cities on SignalsAZ.com.

Postal Service.

reported grave concerns with the agency's new system for mail-in ballots as it's come under fire in court, warning lawmakers that the risky and haphazard implementation of the rule could keep millions of voters from receiving a mail-in ballot in the November midterms.

An anonymous whistleblower submitted a report to Connecticut's Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal about the implementation of USPS's new rule on mail-in voting, which requires election officials to submit voter information to a federal database as a condition for the Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots.

USPS's rollout of the new rule has been a secretive, rushed, chaotic and fundamentally flawed process, the whistleblower alleged, with the agency implementing a new IT system that was rapidly built and minimally tested and could result in a catastrophic failure which could derail the midterm elections.

The new system could lead to voters not receiving ballots, the whistleblower alleged, pointing to new verification processes that require mail-in ballots to have special barcodes to ensure they've been approved in the federal system and noting the opportunity for error is high.

The way the system is designed means that even if one barcode in a batch of 10,000 doesn't scan properly, the entire batch of ballots would be rejected and sent back to election officials, the whistleblower alleged, effectively stopping the ballots from being mailed to voters.

Now, while the new USPS rule is currently blocked in court, the whistleblower alleged that workers were directed to continue developing the new system, even as court orders were in place, barring the agency from moving forward with implementing it.

The new rule means local election officials now have to submit the name and address of every voter requesting a mail-in ballot to a new federal database.