Republican state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer is the latest candidate vying to be Colorado’s next governor. 

The state senator from Brighton filed paperwork Monday making her long-anticipated 2026 bid official. She’s planning to hold a launch event Tuesday evening in Fort Lupton.

Kirkmeyer ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2022, losing narrowly to Democrat Yadira Caraveo in the 8th Congressional District. Kirkmeyer sits on the legislature’s powerful Joint Budget Committee, which makes her a ubiquitous voice in the state’s budget conversations.

Before entering the legislature in 2020, Kirkmeyer spent two decades as a Weld County commissioner. As a commissioner, Kirkmeyer supported an unsuccessful 2013 push for 11 counties in northeastern Colorado, including Weld County, to break off from Colorado and form a 51st state.

Kirkmeyer also served as head of the Colorado Department of Local Affairs under-then Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican. Additionally, she ran unsuccessfully in 2014 for Congress in the 4th Congressional District. 

Current Gov. Jared Polis is term-limited and can’t run for reelection in 2026. He won reelection in 2022 by nearly 20 percentage points. He secured his first term in 2018 by 10 points.

Colorado has not elected a Republican to be governor since 2002, when Owens secured a second term.

Two prominent Democrats are running to replace Polis: U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser. 

The Democratic headwinds in the race haven’t stopped a growing crowd of Republicans from mounting a run for governor, including state Rep. Scott Bottoms of Colorado Springs; Sen. Mark Baisley of Woodland Park; and Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell.

Baisley and Kirkmeyer serve in the state Senate together. They’re statehouse colleagues with Bottoms.

This is a developing story that will be updated.

Many communities have foods that define them: Los Angeles has tacos, Green River, Utah, has melons, while New Mexico’s Hatch Valley is famous for its green chiles. Historic power dynamics — from colonization to migration — have always influenced how and why people began growing, cooking and consuming these symbolic dishes and crops. Today, these foods and those who prepare, raise and sell them carry cultural power; people travel hundreds of miles to buy a juicy Crenshaw or sweet canary melon from a family-run stand in Green River. And yet the farmers themselves often struggle to stay afloat. They lose access to markets as large companies buy up smaller, locally run grocery stores. 

Most grocery stores across the West trace back to a few major corporations. Whether you’re visiting King Soopers in Colorado, Smith’s in Utah or Fred Meyer in Oregon, you’ll find the same Kroger-brand products. The original names of the once-locally owned grocers might remain, but the shops are now just part of one of the nation’s largest grocery corporations.

A handful of companies control the production and distribution of most of our food, and the West plays a leading role in that system. The U.S. headquarters for the world’s largest meatpacker, JBS S.A., is in Greeley, Colorado, while Driscoll’s, the largest berry producer, is headquartered in Watsonville, California. These companies rarely confront the riskiest parts of agribusiness, raising the cows and growing the berries. Instead, they produce, brand and ship them. 

This global food system has profound impacts on the West’s farmers, workers and consumers. It’s getting harder for family farms to turn a profit, and those who seek alternatives to the consolidated corporate market must navigate complicated policies and finances in order to sell directly to consumers. Berry-pickers and meatpacking workers — often immigrants — face exploitation and unsafe conditions, with workplace protections varying from state to state. 

Meanwhile, food insecurity has increased across the West, and yet Republican-led states, including Utah and Idaho, opted out of a federal summer grocery program for kids last year, in part because of anti-welfare politics. 

Beyond its connection to this international system, the West has deeply rooted myths and policies around water and land that create and sustain other layers of power. In the 1800s, settlers stole land from Native people and killed off bison as they drove tens of thousands of cattle westward. Ever since, the cowboy and his glorified cattle have held cultural power that politicians are rarely willing to tarnish. 

As “The Big Four” meatpackers have consolidated most of the beef industry, the economic power of ranchers has dwindled. Only 2% of U.S. beef comes from cows that graze on public lands, and yet multigenerational ranching families and large landowners continue to influence and benefit from antiquated federal grazing policies. 

Most land in the Eastern U.S. is privately owned, but the federal government owns nearly half of all land in the West. Ranchers graze cows on huge swaths of public lands, paying fees well below the actual cost of managing those lands. Over the past century, grazing policies have changed little even as cows destroyed native vegetation and degraded waterways. State and federal policies often put the health of livestock above that of the region’s arid soils or the lives of large carnivores like wolves and bears. 

Ranchers and Big Beef also intersect and overlap with those who control water in the West. Agriculture consumes nearly 80% of the water diverted from the drought-stricken Colorado River Basin, primarily to grow alfalfa and other cattle-feed crops. An investigation by ProPublica and The Desert Sun found that most of the water consumed in California’s Imperial Valley goes to just 20 farming families, with one of them using more than the entire metropolitan area of Las Vegas. Only four of those families use the majority of their water rights to grow foods people consume, like broccoli or onions. The rest use their water to grow hay for livestock. 

Many of these families have senior water rights, and that increasingly means power in the arid and rapidly growing West. Together with livestock associations, irrigation districts and their political allies, they have sought to influence food and water policy. 

Yet in some parts of the West, other interests are gaining power. In the Northwest, years of advocacy from tribes and environmental groups led federal agencies to decommission dams on rivers like the Elwha and Klamath. The farmers might worry about their ability to continue irrigating, but tribes are reclaiming their traditional foodways as salmon return. 

And the Northwest’s rivers aren’t the only places where tribes are reasserting their culture and food sovereignty: Indigenous-run restaurants, farms and cooking classes are springing up across the West. 

Farmers markets, mutual aid efforts and community gardens are creating new forms of cultural, social and economic power, often led by and benefiting those who are excluded and marginalized, including queer, immigrant and Black farmers. Their efforts encourage people to take back intrinsic food traditions while they act in resistance to the global, capitalist food system. 

Still, the corporate structures of our food system are so deeply entrenched that they can be hard to fully comprehend or even notice. In this region, food is power, and that power is not equally shared. Before that can change, however, we need to understand the complexities of this system, tracing its roots to the growth of retail giants and the consolidation of Western agricultural production. 

The grocery giants

The illusion of competition

Farmers markets — a bright spot in the grocery landscape

Get big or get out: Consolidation in agricultural production

The small family farm holds a special place in the American imagination. Today, however, a modest and diminishing portion of our nation’s food is grown on smallholder farms. Production is shifting to larger-scale factory farms in every Western state and across nearly every commodity.

This November, regional voters will decide whether or not to pass the Early Childhood Service District ballot measure proposed by the Confluence Early Childhood Education Coalition (CECE). If approved, it would become Colorado’s first special taxing district meant to improve access to early-childhood care and education — another is being explored on the Front Range, but won’t likely make the 2025 ballot. Following a successful judicial review in July, CECE launched its “Strong Start, Bright Future” (SSBF) campaign to promote the measure and connect with voters.

“We really believe sustainable funding is one of the critical pieces [of the] puzzle,” said Maggie Tiscornia, SSBF’s outreach coordinator. 

Spanning Garfield, Pitkin and the southwest corner of Eagle County, the special district would implement a 0.25% sales tax on non-essential goods. Items excluded from the tax are things like groceries, gas, medicines, diapers, feminine hygiene products and other goods not taxed by the state. The tax could generate an estimated $10 million in annual revenue.

To maximize reach and address the region’s diverse socioeconomic needs, the funds would be flexible. Families with children under 5 could benefit from sliding-scale tuition assistance, while childcare providers would receive grants for expanding capacity (particularly for infant and toddler care), lowering tuition rates, improving quality of services or obtaining licensure and so forth. Additional funds would be used for the district’s operational needs and third-party accountability reviews.

Voters will also elect the special district’s five-person board of directors. Akin to a school board, the special district’s board would implement programs, determine policies and listen and adapt to the community’s needs. Nominations for the new board are due Aug. 22. 

“I think the beauty of this being local, and these directors being voter-elected to represent these communities, is that we can directly advocate, have our voices heard and respond to the needs here,” said Tiscornia, “rather than at the state level.” 

Community-wide challenge
From Parachute to Aspen, the need for high-quality, reliable and affordable childcare is increasingly prevalent. Noting that 90% of brain development happens from birth to 5 years old, Tiscornia said supporting these children will set them up for success and also benefit the communities where they live and play.

Currently, the region has 2,272 licensed childcare placements, but over 5,100 children under the age of 5. Faced with this challenge, many working parents have opted to reduce their work hours or leave the workforce entirely. Based on CECE’s data analysis, the lack of accessible childcare leads to an estimated regional loss of $50 million in annual revenue, earnings and productivity.

Families who have secured a spot face another challenge: tuition. The federal government recommends that 7% of household income goes toward childcare. In the Valley, families making the median household income with two young children are budgeting nearly 37% of their monthly income toward childcare. In some cases, this surpasses their monthly housing budget.

Ali Cottle, founder and director of the Thompson Schoolhouse and a CECE volunteer, said childcare funding is a systemic problem. Providers have to charge more to maintain their business and employees in an expensive area, and families struggle to afford the tuition. 

“We just need money; that’s the big answer,” said Cottle. “This proposal is a way [visitors and second homeowners] can help build our small community.”

Sweeping support
Founded in 2017, CECE has been a leading voice in expanding access to childcare. When the ballot proposal was made public, it quickly garnered support from community leaders and organizations. The boards of county commissioners in each of the three counties unanimously supported the proposal, while former and current superintendents from Roaring Fork School District and Aspen School District have endorsed it. In May, CECE gathered over 1,000 registered voter signatures in support. 

“One thing that really grabbed me about this campaign is that it is a nonpartisan group trying to do something good for so many families in our valley,” said Kassidy Birdsong, another CECE volunteer. She added that with the number of overwhelming challenges worldwide – from healthcare to food insecurity –  opportunities for success can be limited. For her, this childcare tax is an actionable piece of the solution.

“Becoming a mom made me feel a sense of solidarity with other moms around the world and in my community,” said Birdsong. “I want to see parents and providers in my community thrive.”

Nominations for the Early Childhood Service District board of directors are open until Aug. 22. Visit www.strongstartbrightfuture.com to learn more about the ballot measure and board nominations.

The post Formation of Colorado’s first special district funding childcare to be decided by tri-county voters appeared first on The Sopris Sun.

En mayo, el Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos (USDA) anunció que los estados debían presentar información detallada sobre todos los solicitantes del Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP) de los últimos cinco años. Esta medida ha generado preocupación entre los defensores de los derechos de los inmigrantes, quienes advierten que la divulgación de datos dará lugar a deportaciones dirigidas a personas indocumentadas y además negará a las familias los alimentos necesarios.

El USDA solicita “los nombres de todos los miembros del grupo familiar, sus fechas de nacimiento, números de seguro social, direcciones residenciales y postales utilizadas o facilitadas, así como todos los registros de datos utilizados para determinar la elegibilidad o inelegibilidad”. Una evaluación del impacto sobre la privacidad del USDA también menciona una solicitud de información sobre el estatus migratorio y de ciudadanía, la educación, el empleo y el estado civil.

Aunque los inmigrantes indocumentados no son típicamente elegibles a las prestaciones del SNAP, su información puede estar en peligro. Los hogares con estatus mixto que solicitan el SNAP deben proporcionar datos de todos sus miembros, incluidos los indocumentados. 

Beatriz García, organizadora de Western Slope para la Coalición por los Derechos de los Inmigrantes de Colorado, dijo que este tipo de divulgación de datos es un riesgo significante para las comunidades de inmigrantes.

“Estas son políticas que están afectando no solo a familias indocumentadas, sino también a las familias con estatus mixto, compuestas por ciudadanos y residentes legales, debido al temor de que el gobierno utilice su información para localizarlos y expulsarlos de los Estados Unidos por el simple hecho de ser inmigrantes”, dijo García. 

Sumado a estas preocupaciones la regla de “carga pública” de la ley de inmigración de Estados Unidos, que permite a los funcionarios de inmigración negar visas o ajustes de estatus si se determina que los solicitantes dependen probablemente de asistencia del gobierno. García señaló que algunos inmigrantes indocumentados evitan programas como el SNAP por temor a que pueda perjudicar sus casos de inmigración, a pesar de que el SNAP no se tiene en cuenta para la regla de carga pública.

Lo que resulta es una relación delicada entre las personas indocumentadas y las agencias gubernamentales en torno a la privacidad de datos. El USDA defiende su solicitud de datos como una herramienta contra “el desperdicio, el fraude y el abuso”, citando una orden ejecutiva de marzo que concede “acceso ilimitado” a los datos estatales. Defensores como García ven esto como otra forma de agravar la injusticia.

“Los niños y las familias están sufriendo inseguridad alimentaria”, dijo García. “Y eso no es fraude. Es una realidad. Si el gobierno no quiere ver la realidad y quiere llamarlo fraude, es difícil porque el SNAP surgió de la necesidad de proteger a las familias para que pudieran tener un plato de comida sobre la mesa. Y si eso es fraude para un gobierno, eso significa estar en contra de un sistema humanitario”.

Datos del Urban Institute estiman que 298,000 familias de Colorado perderán una parte o la totalidad de sus prestaciones del SNAP debido a los recortes del ‘Big Beautiful Bill’. En promedio, los hogares se enfrentan a una reducción de $88 dólares al mes, o $1,056 dólares anuales. Con tantas familias potencialmente afectadas, las organizaciones locales se están preparando para el aumento en la demanda de sus servicios.

Lift-Up ha funcionado por mucho tiempo como una red de seguridad vital desde Aspen hasta Parachute. Desde el colapso de la industria de la pizarra bituminosa hasta la pandemia de COVID-19, Lift-Up ha creado numerosos programas de seguridad alimentaria para satisfacer las necesidades cambiantes y crecientes del valle. Desde 2020, Lift-Up afirma que ha visto un aumento del 600% en la demanda y espera que la cifra vaya en aumento. 

Elyse Hottel, directora ejecutiva interina de Lift-Up, explicó que la ayuda alimentaria contribuye a aliviar los problemas. “Hay mucha gente que se desplaza largas distancias porque no puede permitirse vivir más cerca de su trabajo”, dijo. “Y, por lo tanto, a veces hay que tomar decisiones muy difíciles. ¿Pago el alquiler o compro comida? ¿Pago por cuidado médico o compro comida? ¿Pago la gasolina para ir al trabajo y así tener dinero, o compro comida?”.

Para acceder a los programas de ayuda alimentaria de Lift-Up, es necesario registrarse. Se solicita el nombre, el número de teléfono, la dirección de correo electrónico y un documento de identidad para evitar duplicidad y garantizar una distribución equitativa de los recursos entre las comunidades del valle.

“No buscamos por licencia de conducir, pasaporte o cualquier otra cosa. Pueden traer una sobre postal con su nombre y dirección”, dijo Hottel.

“La divulgación de datos ha sido uno de los mayores riesgos, y el gobierno ha dejado muy claro que los está poniendo a disposición del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional a través de muchos medios”, dijo García. A medida que la administración Trump toma medidas para recopilar datos de programas federales como el IRS y compartirlos con agencias de control de inmigración como el ICE, crece el temor de que los datos personales conduzcan a la deportación.

En el futuro, los recursos locales como Lift-Up pueden ser fundamentales para apoyar a los más vulnerables entre nosotros. García destacó la importancia de dar a conocer estos recursos comunitarios y animó a la gente y a los gobiernos locales a apoyarlos. Con suficiente apoyo, cree que estos recursos pueden satisfacer las necesidades básicas de las personas y crear un movimiento significativamente grande como para resistir un sistema opresivo y llevar los recursos a las personas que más los necesitan.

Traducción por Dolores Duarte

The post Cambios en SNAP afectarán a inmigrantes locales appeared first on The Sopris Sun.