BluePrint 2026

BLUEPRINT

BUILDING A STRONGER ALABAMA

2026

1. Full Funding for Alabama’s Universal S chool Choice Program

Table of Contents

18. Reform the Governance of the Alabama High S chool Athletics A ssociation Free Market s

2 Decrease Barriers to Af fordable Healthcare Through Certificate of Need Reform

3 Reduce Restric tions on Home-Based Businesses and Youth Entrepreneurship

4. Reform Alabama’s Burdensome Occupational Licensing Infrastruc ture

5. Strengthen Competitive Bidding and Public Works Laws

6. Increase Requirement s to Receive Public Welfare

7. Expand Portable Benefit s for Alabama’s Changing Workforce

Limited Government Strong Families

8. Provide Tax Relief to All Alabamians

9. Reduce Future State Budget Grow th

10 Protec t Healthcare Freedom for All Alabamians

11 Improve Regulator y Oversight and Increase Government Transparency

12. Require State and Local Government Entities to Livestream Meetings

13. Resist any Expansion of Gambling and Increase Penalties for Illegal Gambling Ac tivit y

14. Provide Alabamians Access to Innovative Healthcare Treatment Options

15. Allow for Alternative Accreditation Options at Alabama’s Colleges and Universit y

16 Remove Logistical Barriers to Opening New Micro -schools

17 Strengthen Alabamians Fourth Amendment Privacy Protec tions

19. Restric t the Flow of Abortion Inducing Drugs into Alabama

20. Strengthen Internet Protec tions for Alabama’s Children

21 Allow Volunteer Chaplains in Alabama’s K-12 Public S chools

22 Promote and Improve Civics Education in K-12 Public S chools

23. Hold S exual Predators Accountable and Increase Penalties for Crimes Against Minors

24. Prevent Medically A ssisted Suicide from Occurring in Alabama

25. Ban Non-Medical Psychoac tive THC Produc t s from Being S old in Alabama

26. Promote the Lessons of the Ten Commandment s in Alabama’s K-12 Public S chools

27 Provide a Consistent Statewide Framework for K-12 Religious Release Time

28 Allow for Alternative Testing and Amend “Advanced Placement ” Language

29. Increase Transparency in the Review of Copy-writ ten Educational Materials

30. Protec t Female Spaces for Girls and Women in Prisons and Other S et tings

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Full

Funding for Alabama’s Universal School Choice Program

Introduction

Alabama’s Creating Hope and Oppor tunity for Our Students’ Education (CHOOSE) Act was enacted in March 2024 to give families more options over how their K 12 students are educated so that individual needs can be better met. The law creates education savings accounts (ESAs) through refundable income tax credits that families can use for pr ivate school tuition, fees, educational therapies, cur r iculum or to help fund home education prog rams, among other pur poses[i].

The Alabama Policy Institute (API) believes the prog ram can transfor m education by promoting parental choice and foster ing competition among schools.

Strong demand in the f irst year and exper ience from other states demonstrate that additional funding will be needed for the prog ram to reach all eligible students when income caps lift in 2027. Lawmakers should take steps dur ing the 2026 regular session to ensure that those demands are fully met by the FY 2027 Education Tr ust Fund budget.

Background

When the application window opened in early 2025, 36,873 students applied for ESAs across all 67 Alabama counties. The Alabama Depar tment of Revenue ultimately approved more than 23,000 applications and deposited over $124 million in ESAs for use dur ing the 2025-2026 school year. Families who enrolled their children in par ticipating schools received $7,000 per student, while those opting to homeschool their children were eligible for $2,000 per student, capped at $4,000 per family[ii]

The volume of applications far exceeded the state’s or iginal estimate of 14,000 to 15,000 students, so dur ing the 2025 regular session, lawmakers shifted $80 million from the Educational Oppor tunities Reser ve Fund and ultimately set aside $180 million for the 20252026 school year, approximately 1.8% of the total FY 2026 ETF budget. By May 2025, the state had awarded 22,857 ESAs totaling about $125 million[iii]. Seventy-f ive percent of Alabama students are cur rently eligible for the prog ram and due to over whelming interest, legislators created an automatic transfer from income-tax receipts to the CHOOSE Act fund, setting a minimum annual commitment of $150 million beginning in 2027 [iv].

Eligibility and Priorities

Eligibility for the CHOOSE Act is phased in over three years. Dur ing the f irst two years, only students from families ear ning less than 300 % of the federal pover ty level may receive an ESA Star ting in 2027-2028, the prog ram becomes universal and income limits disappear, though awards continue to pr ior itize lower-income families and those already par ticipating[v].

Within each award cycle, the f irst 500 ESAs are reser ved for students with special needs, followed by dependents of active-duty ser vice members and siblings of cur rent par ticipants

Remaining awards are allocated to new applicants based on income.

To qualify, students must reside in Alabama, be between f ive and nineteen years old (or up to twenty-one if they have a disability), and be lawfully present in the United States. Par ticipants cannot receive funding from other state scholarship prog rams at the same time[vi].

Demand Exceeds Funding

High interest in the f irst year of the CHOOSE Act prog ram underscores signif icant demand for education choice. More than 37,000 students applied for ESAs demonstrating that many families desire to seek alter natives to traditional public schools. A large share of applications came from pr ivate-school and homeschool families. Among public-school awardees, roughly 58% used the $7,000 credit to switch to pr ivate schools, while about 13% used a $2,000 credit to begin homeschooling.

Current Law

The CHOOSE Act is codif ied at Ala. Code § 16-6D-1 et seq. It author izes the Depar tment of Revenue to create ESAs funded through refundable income-tax credits and specif ies award amounts of $7,000 per student enrolled in a par ticipating school and $2,000 per homeschool student, capped at $4,000 per family [vi].

Beginning in 2027, a por tion of income tax receipts will f low directly into the CHOOSE Act fund, ensur ing that funds are available when the academic and f iscal years do not align. Funding is drawn from these income tax receipts and deposited into a dedicated "CHOOSE Act Fund" within the State Treasur y before it is appropr iated to the general ETF budget.

Dur ing the 2025 legislative session, lawmakers increased the state’s baseline commitment to $150 million annually star ting in 2027 and author ized supplemental funding if awards exceed 90 % of the fund balance[iv]. Eligibility for the prog ram is phased in.

Dur ing the 2025-26 school year, families ear ning up to 300% of the federal pover ty level could apply with f irst pr ior ity given to special-needs students, students with an active duty militar y parent and remaining awards distr ibuted according to income[v] The same income cap applies in 2026-2027, but renewing students, siblings or renewing students, and special-needs students/militar y families are pr ior itized before new applicants [vi]. From 2027-2028 for ward, income limits for application are removed[vii]

Funding In Other St ates

Alabama is not alone in adopting universal or near universal school choice prog rams. Examining other states provides perspective on the funding needed to ser ve all eligible students. Data below are from 2024–2025 or 2025–2026 budgets, depending on the state.

State/Program Estimated Funding /Participation Notes

Arizona, Empowerment Scholarship Account

Iowa, Students First ESA

Estimated cost of $723 5M for 74,000 students in FY 2025. The median award is $7,000–$8,000 per student.

The ESA budget will rise from $218M in FY 2025 to $314.6M in FY 2026, with about 39,415 participants projected in FY 2026 equal the public school per pupil amount (about $7,988).

Universal eligibility since 2022.

Beginning in the 2025 2026 school year, all K 12 students are eligible regardless of income.

West Virginia, Hope Scholarship

Florida, Family Empowerment Scholarship & Florida Tax Credit

S h l hi

North Carolina, Opportunity Scholarship

About $110M spent in 2024–2025 for 19,000 students; universal eligibility begins in 2026–27. If all eligible students participate, the program could cost $315M.

The Florida Policy Institute estimated $3 9B in funding for the 2024–2025 school year, with more than 500,000 scholarships awarded

The legislature appropriated $541.5M for 2024–2025, capping participation at about 95,000 students. Scholarship amounts range from $3,458 to $7,686 depending on family income.

Alabama’s Current Commitment Falls Short

Program started in 2022 with 2,333 students and grew to 10,000 by 2024–2025.

A 2023 law removed income and enrollment caps, making virtually all students eligible

The program removed income caps in 2024–2025. Award size is based on income tiers.

With a $150 million statutor y commitment star ting in 2027, Alabama could fund roughly 21,400 pr ivate-school students at $7,000 each or 75,000 homeschool students at $2,000 each, but not both Based on year one data and inter nal calculations, API believes that the cur rent level of funding will not meet year three demand. Based on those projections, API estimates that demand could reach around 44,000 br ick & mor tar students and 25,000 homeschool students by the 2027-2028 school year If public school students continue to par ticipate at a similar rate as the 2025-2026 school year, the total cost of the prog ram would be an estimated $330 million for the 2027 school year, $150 million more than what is cur rently set aside for the prog ram in 2026

For context, $330 million represents less than 3.4% of the more than $9.9 billion FY 2026 enacted ETF budget, and an increase $150 million above the FY 2026 enacted CHOOSE Act funding level Absent additional appropr iations, many eligible families expecting to par ticipate would be tur ned away in year three.

Recommendations

The FY 2027 appropr iation should be increased from the $180 million level provided in FY 2026 to $330 million, an increase of $150 million. A $330 million appropr iation would position Alabama alongside states like Iowa and Arkansas without negatively impacting the overall ETF budget. To be clear, API is not proposing $330 million in new/additional CHOOSE Act funding.

Education Tr ust Fund Allocations 2026

The Education Tr ust Fund ended FY 2025 with a projected balance of more than $1.6 billion. Of the nearly $1.6 billion ETF budget sur plus, approximately $100 million will be transfer red to the ETF Budget Stabilization Fund, around $750 million is to be transfer red to the Advancement and Technology Fund, and an estimated $300 million available for transfer to the Educational Oppor tunities Reser ve Fund, leaving approximately $450 million available for ETF supplemental appropr iations. Taking less than half of the $450 million available for supplemental appropr iations would fully fund the CHOOSE Act. Additionally, between the three reser ve funds, the total balance was nearly $3 billion enter ing FY 2026. In addition to funds available for supplemental appropr iation, the Educational Oppor tunities Reser ve Fund specif ically has a balance of $1.04 billion, a por tion of which could also be used to increase CHOOSE Act funding.

A $330 million total commitment for universal funding is less than 3.4% of the FY 2026 total ETF budget. Failing to provide adequate funding for the prog ram r isks disenfranchising families, losing the tr ust of the voters, and under mining the state’s statutor y commitment to the CHOOSE Act prog ram. Alabama families and Alabama schoolchildren are counting on the eligibility and funding that was promised to them with the passage of the prog ram.

Alabama is tied for third best state in the nation for Educational Freedom according to the 2025 EdChoice Fr iedman Index.[viii] Alabama’s score ref lects that all children in the state are eligible to par ticipate in and may receive funding from a choice prog ram. “What Flor ida, Arkansas, Alabama, Ar izona, and several other states have achieved in per mitting families to have more educational choice oppor tunities is tr uly remarkable! Advocates in those states and their legislative and guber nator ial allies should feel ver y good about their tremendous accomplishments.” [ix] Alabama could possibly drop out of the top ten in the nation if legislators fail to complete their f inancial promise to Alabama’s families.

Now is the time for legislators to prepare to fulf ill the obligations they promised with the passage of the CHOOSE Act By increasing dedicated appropr iations to meet the demand of the prog ram they created, Alabama can fulf ill the promise of the CHOOSE Act and continue to be amongst the nation’s leaders in empower ing families with tr uly universal educational freedom

Conclusion

The CHOOSE Act has given almost 30,000 Alabama students new educational options, and early demand signals that the prog ram is popular. Alabama’s cur rent funding commitment, $180 million in FY 2026 and $150 million annually thereafter, was intended for a limited, income-restr icted prog ram. However, the CHOOSE Act was wr itten and passed by Alabama lawmakers to be a universal school choice prog ram. The Gover nor, Lt. Gover nor, and a major ity of Alabama legislators made a promise to Alabama families when the CHOOSE Act was debated, passed, and signed. When income caps lift in 2027, par ticipation will necessar ily r ise, and existing appropr iations will be insuff icient without fur ther action by those who created and promised universal school choice eligibility for ever y single Alabama family and ever y single school aged child in Alabama.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Decrease Barriers to Af fordable Healthcare Through Certif icate of Need Reform

Overview

Cer tif icate-of-need (CON) laws are regulations that require any new or expanded healthcare ser vice or facility to be approved by Alabama’s state gover nment. In essence, a healthcare provider must prove to the Alabama Cer tif icate of Need Review Board that a new or expanded ser vice is needed. This is often a costly and time-consuming process that increases the healthcare costs for all patients and can delay access to essential care[i]. Alabama is cur rently one of 35 states operating a CON prog ram[ii]. The maximum Cer tif icate of Need f iling fee is cur rently $25,706, though costs can quickly increase depending on whether an application is approved or denied[iii].

Because existing hospitals and healthcare providers have the power to oppose attempts to provide additional medical ser vices, CON laws ser ve to limit competition and promote an antifree-market environment in the healthcare space[iv].

The assumption with CON regulation is that excess capacity (in the for m of overbuilding) directly results in health care pr ice inf lation When a hospital cannot f ill its beds, f ixed costs must be met through higher charges for the beds that are used. Larger institutions have g reater costs, so CON suppor ters claim it makes sense to limit facilities to keep existing facilities at capacity to meet actual needs[v] In reality, CON regulations restr ict the supply of medical facilities and equipment, making them more expensive. To increase competition and lower the overall costs of healthcare for Alabamians, CON regulations should be repealed[vi].

History

The or igins of CON laws date back to 1974 when Cong ress passed the National Health Planning and Resource Development Act

As a way to control r ising healthcare costs, the act required that in order to receive federal healthcare funding, constr uction of new healthcare facilities and the expansion of existing facilities had to be approved by a state agency established to issue cer tif icates of need. All 50 states had established such agencies by 1980, with Alabama’s beginning in 1979. The expansion of ser vices would only be allowed if providers could demonstrate that the costs would be offset by actual demand. The federal gover nment initially subsidized state gover nments for CON related expenses[vii].

Dur ing the 1980s, the federal gover nment stopped its Medicare cost-based reimbursement system and instead began paying a predeter mined f ixed cost based on the type of treatment. At that point states were no longer federally required to have CON regulations[viii] Since 1987, 15 states have dropped CON requirements[ix].

The Case for Legislative Reform CON regulations have failed to slow the g rowth of healthcare costs[x]. By repealing CON requirements, Alabama’s state gover nment could reduce the costs of healthcare for all patients as well as improve access to care, without spending more taxpayer dollars Alabama has one of the most restr ictive CON requirements in the nation, with 17 ser vices falling under the CON umbrella as of Januar y 2020. The Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that states with four or more CON laws “have systematically lower-quality hospitals than non-CON states[xi].”

According to research from the Mercatus Center, per capita patient spending in Alabama could be reduced by $203 annually if CON requirements were repealed. Mercatus also found that removing CON requirements could improve overall access to healthcare, increasing the total number of hospitals by 53 and adding 6 additional ambulator y surgical centers. Rural Alabamians specif ically, would gain access to an estimated 18 new hospitals and an additional ambulator y ser vice center[xii]. While this level of expansion may be unrealistic in Alabama, compar ing CON states to non-CON states has consistently illustrated that repealing CON laws substantially increases the number of healthcare providers, par ticularly in r ural areas.

Aside from access to care, the quality of care received by patients could also improve if CON regulations were repealed. The Mercatus Center found that post-surger y complications and mor tality rates for hear t attacks, hear t failure, and pneumonia would all be reduced in Alabama if healthcare providers were not regulated by CON. It is also estimated that readmission rates will decrease while overall patient satisfaction of the healthcare they receive will increase[xiii].

Removing CON regulations and encouraging a free-market healthcare system is the key to lower ing costs and improving outcomes for Alabamians. Economists widely recognize that competition in the healthcare sphere is the most effective tool for dr iving down overall costs[xiv].

Alabama’s cur rent CON str ucture allows the state gover nment to choose winners and losers and favors long-established healthcare providers over new companies and innovations looking to enter the state’s market. Competitiveness provides incentives to discover new technologies and new eff iciencies to deliver ing those technologies to patients in an ever-changing healthcare environment. There is no evidence that free-market competition cannot work to control r ising healthcare costs. CON laws have had the opposite effect of this intent. In areas where providers have been allowed to f lour ish, customers have been rewarded with an increase in healthcare options and more competitive pr icing[xv]. It is time for the Alabama Legislature to refor m the states CON regulations and allow a free market healthcare system to f lour ish.

Reforms in Other St ates

Mississippi

In Apr il 2025, Mississippi passed House Bill 569, a CON refor m bill that raises the capital expenditure thresholds tr igger ing CON review. Legislators noted this change will allow hospitals to upg rade facilities and add ser vices more quickly and cost-effectively without navigating a lengthy CON approval. Earlier versions of the bill had proposed broader exemptions (for psychiatr ic, dialysis, and MRI ser vices), but those were removed dur ing debate. The f inal law also mandates a state study on CON impacts to guide fur ther refor ms, signaling that Mississippi may pursue additional CON rollbacks in the next session. State leaders, including the Gover nor, have indicated suppor t for more substantial changes aimed at improving medical access in underser ved areas[xvi].

North Carolina

Nor th Carolina moved toward a potential full repeal of its CON prog ram in 2025. In Apr il, the NC Senate advanced Senate Bill 370, which would abolish the state’s cer tif icate-of-need requirements for new healthcare facilities and ser vices. The proposal gained committee approvals amid arguments that CON laws are “anti-competitive” and dr ive up costs for patients, par ticularly by impeding new providers in needed areas. Notably, Nor th Carolina’s r ural hospitals have str uggled, and suppor ters of repeal contend that freeing up new entrants could br ing clinics or bir thing centers to r ural communities cur rently lacking care[xvii]. While the bill was approved by the Senate, it was not considered in the Nor th Carolina House of Representatives. 11

Wyoming

In 2025, Wyoming became the latest state to fully eliminate its cer tif icate-of-need regulations. The legislature enacted House Bill 289, repealing Wyoming’s last remaining CON law This repeal (effective July 2026) removes state restr ictions on adding nursing home beds or facilities, allowing providers to expand long-ter m care ser vices and ser ve more patients without state approval

Proponents applauded the move, suggesting it will improve patient access and choices in care, including in r ural communities, by opening the market to new facilities[xviii].

Florida

In 2019, Flor ida enacted a law eliminating a por tion of CON laws for hospitals. The elimination occur red in two phases. First, the state repealed CON regulation for general hospitals, including most surgical centers. The second phase of the elimination, implemented in 2021, exempted regional hospitals with 101-500 beds, specialty hospitals offer ing a restr icted range of ser vices, and specialty hospitals offer ing Intensive Residential Treatment Facility

Ser vices for Children and Adolescents. Nursing homes, hospice care, and facilities that treat the developmentally disabled remain subject to the states CON regulations[xix].

In the wake of Flor ida’s par tial CON repeal, healthcare providers announced plans to build a minimum of 65 new hospitals between 2020 and 2022. This is more than three times the amount approved from 2016 to 2018[xx]. The repeal has expanded the availability of healthcare into areas that had previously been limited because of the CON veto power of existing providers[xxi].

South Carolina

South Carolina signed Senate Bill 164 into law in May 2023. The law repeals CON requirements for all of the state’s providers, with the exception of long-ter m care facilities. In suppor t of the bill, the Institute for Justice said that “repealing CON will help all South Carolinians by decreasing healthcare costs and increasing access to needed care[xxii].”

While it is too early to analyze the overall impact of South Carolina’s CON repeal, Palmetto Promise Institute, a non-par tisan think tank, said that it was a “step towards a more affordable, accessible, and effective healthcare system” and that it will lower healthcare costs, promote competition, and increase healthcare innovation[xxiii]

West Virginia

In 2023, the West Virginia Legislature enacted a law to repeal CON regulations for all hospital ser vices and the state’s bir thing centers. Hospitals are no longer required to receive state approval for the expansion of procedures such as inpatient ser vices, out-patient ser vices, emergency room ser vices, surgical ser vices, diagnostic and imaging ser vices, and laborator y ser vices. According to the Cardinal Institute, CON regulations had blocked at least 2,424 additional hospital beds, 25 hospitals and ambulator y surger y centers, up to seven MRIs, and 16 additional CT scan machines from being established in the state.” They expect the par tial CON repeal to expand access to high quality healthcare for West Virginia residents[xxiv].

Proposed Alabama Reforms

In 2025, Alabama legislators renewed effor ts to loosen CON restr ictions, especially to improve r ural mater nity care. Senator Lar r y Stutts introduced Senate Bill 285 to exclude new or expanded obstetr ic and neonatal facilities (as well as psychiatr ic facilities) from the state’s CON requirement[xxv].

Senator Stutts noted that in pr ior sessions he had pushed broader rollbacks (initially aiming to waive CON in r ural counties with poor access) before nar rowing the focus to obstetr ic and psychiatr ic ser vices in 2025[xxvi]. These proposals came amid alar ming shor tages of mater nal health ser vices in r ural Alabama, with 25 of Alabama’s 67 counties are classif ied as “mater nity care deser ts” with no obstetr ic providers or units[xxvii].

Although Senate Bill 285 did not advance out of committee in 2025, it underscored g rowing concer n that CON laws hinder expansion of bir thing centers and labor & deliver y units, contr ibuting to Alabama’s high mater nal and infant mor tality. The focus remains on expanding r ural obstetr ic capacity and improving mater nal health outcomes by reducing regulator y bar r iers.

In the 2024 session, Senator Stutts sponsored Senate Bill 236, a targeted refor m addressing Alabama’s r ural health cr isis. The bill proposed to exempt health care facilities and ser vices in r ural counties from the state’s CON approval requirement. Under this bill, any new or expanded hospital, clinic, or ser vice located outside a metropolitan statistical area (about 47 of Alabama’s 67 counties) would have no longer needed a cer tif icate of need[xxviii].

Senator Stutts and others had also previously introduced legislation to fully repeal the state’s cer tif icate of need process.

Impact on Rural Hospit als

Evidence shows that CON regulations negatively impact r ural communities the most. A study conducted by the Mercatus Center at George Washington University found that CON states have 30% fewer r ural hospitals per 100,000 residents than non-CON regulated states and 14% fewer ambulator y surgical centers. CON states also spend more Medicaid dollars per patient in r ural areas and have higher emergency room utilization levels[xxix].

Rural hospitals in CON states are also at a much g reater r isk of closure than in non-CON states. Data compiled by the University of Nor th Carolina found that 191 r ural hospitals have closed since 2005. None of those closures occur red in non-CON regulated states[xxx].

The Mercatus Center study concluded that “CON prog rams do not promote access to r ural care in the for m of r ural hospitals. CON laws are associated with a decrease, not an increase, in the number of hospitals, r ural or other wise. Policymakers seeking to protect access to r ural care should not use CON prog rams to achieve their goals[xxxi].”

Conclusion

CON laws have never had their intended effect of reducing the r ising costs of healthcare and increasing access to care. In most examples they have done the opposite, increasing costs and making it more diff icult for Alabamians to f ind quality healthcare providers, par ticularly in r ural and underser ved communities. Alabama lawmakers should enact refor ms that increase competition and innovation in the healthcare industr y, not continue to give preferential treatment to long-standing providers

GUIDE TO

THE ISSUES

Reduce Restrictions on Home-Based Businesses and Youth Entrepreneurship

Overview

Over the course of the past f ive years, more Alabamians are working from home than ever before. Specif ically, home-based entrepreneurship has increased signif icantly. The federal Small Business Administration estimates that 86.3 percent of Amer ica’s 34.8 million small businesses are sole propr ietorships, with about half of those being home-based[i].

Home-based businesses provide several benef its. First, they can be used as a source of pr imar y income and supplemental income. They also provide f lexibility to Alabamians car ing for dependents (both children and the elderly), and citizens with disabilities and other health care limitations.

A 2022 repor t by the CATO Institute also found that home-based businesses can “br ing goods and ser vices into areas whose needs are not being met because they are far from commercial centers” and are an impor tant outlet for low-r isk entrepreneurship[ii]

Histor ically, home-based businesses have played an impor tant role in Amer ican innovation. Some of the countr y’s best known companies, such as Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook, were bor n from their owner’s home (or dor m room)[iii]. Though ver y few homebased star tups will ever come near the success of those companies, they still provide the oppor tunity for Alabamians to improve their f inancial well-being and f ind a fulf illing career path. All citizens should have the oppor tunity to own their own business if they want to.

Despite the benef its of home-based businesses, potential owners often face several legal and regulator y bar r iers in star ting them.

Local gover nments impose onerous and in many cases costly zoning and licensing requirements on home-based businesses. There are also industr y specif ic bar r iers used to prevent business owners from ser ving their clients from home[iv].

While some of the requirements and restr ictions placed upon home-based businesses are in the interest of the public’s health, safety, and well-being, they are often applied across the board to all businesses. Alabama businesses that have no impact on the health and safety of their local communities and do not pose the r isk of creating a public nuisance should be allowed to operate as freely as possible without unnecessar y gover nment inter ference. Doing so could create a more prosperous business climate for individuals and provide needed goods and ser vices to underser ved communities.

A separate but somewhat similar issue relates to so-called “Lemonade Stand” businesses, which are essentially small businesses owned by minors that are r un infrequently. Allowing children to r un lemonade stands or similar occasional businesses teaches practical skills that schools often ignore such as basic economics, customer ser vice, and the satisfaction of ear ning money. Parents encourage these activities as a way to build self esteem, responsibility, and f inancial literacy.

Unfor tunately, some states and local gover nments treat these micro enter pr ises like commercial food vendors by requir ing business licenses, food handler per mits or even imposing taxes. The Liber tas Institute argues that this red tape discourages young people from tr ying entrepreneurship. Utah’s 2017 lemonade stand law emerged after cities across the countr y shut down lemonade stands for lacking per mits

The Colorado legislature followed with similar refor ms. Liber tas notes that these laws cover many minor r un enter pr ises, such as lemonade stands, lawn mowing, babysitting and other low‑r isk businesses, and they prevent gover nment from “tur ning childhood lessons into cr imes”[v].

Current Law

There are few specif ic state laws relating to home-based businesses in Alabama, though as a “disregarded entity”, i.e. a sole propr ietorship that is not a cor poration and is not taxed as a separate entity for federal tax pur poses, home-based businesses are liable for the state’s business pr ivilege tax, depending on the amount of revenue they generate each year. State business licenses are not required for sole propr ietorships[vi].

Beyond the business privilege tax, there is also an Alabama Cottage Food Law, which was last amended in 2021. The law allows certain non-hazardous foods to be sold by home-based businesses without inspection by local county health departments.

The law requires that eligible foods be labeled to include the common name of the food, address that it was produced at, a statement that it has not been inspected by the health department, a list of ingredients, and a notation that it may contain allergens. While health department inspection is not required, the law does require cottage food operators to maintain a food safety certification[vii].

Aside from the limited state requirements, other regulations are left to county and municipal governments. These requirements, from licenses, fees, zoning, safety, etc., can vary widely from one jurisdiction to another.

In terms of lemonade stand laws, Alabama does not have a statewide lemonade stand exemption. The state’s child labor statute bars the employment of children younger than 14 and requires work permits for minors between 14 and 15; it explicitly states that children working in a parent’s business are not exempt[viii].

These rules are designed to prevent exploitation, but they were written for traditional employment relationships rather than occasional enterprises. Health codes and peddler ordinances vary by municipality and generally require vendors who sell food to obtain permits. There is no clear statewide guidance distinguishing a child’s lemonade stand from a commercial food vendor.

The lack of statutory clarity has led to confusion. In 2023 an eight year old boy in Hueytown, Alabama, advertised a one‑day hiring event for his lemonade stand, offering $20 to local children for two hour shifts. Someone reported the post to the Alabama Department of Labor for alleged child labor violations. The boy’s mother explained that the stand was meant to teach “self esteem, math skills, following directions, and some good old fun,” but she received a call from the department[ix].

The department later clarified that it “does not stop lemonade stands, and we never have”, yet the incident shows how existing laws can be misinterpreted when no explicit exemption exists.

Reforms in Other States and Model Legislation

Home-Based Businesses

Arizona

During its 2018 regular session the Arizona Legislature approved a sweeping home-based business reform bill, Senate Bill 1387. Ultimately the Legislature failed to reach agreement on the bill in conference committee[x].

Under the provisions of the Arizona law, a municipality would not have been allowed to prohibit the operation of a “no-impact” home business or require a no-impact home-based business to obtain any type of permit, license, variance, or any other type of pre-approval from the municipality to operate.

In order to qualify as a no-impact business, the law specified that there could only be two nonfamily members employed by the business, businesses were limited to the sale of lawful goods and services, no more than three customers could be on the property at one time, it could not substantially increase on-street parking or traffic, business had to take place within the residential dwelling, and activities could not be visible from the street[xi].

Model Legislation

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has created model legislation relating to so called “no-impact home-based” businesses A no-impact home-based business is defined as one whose total number of employees does not exceed the occupancy limit for a residential property.

Business activities are limited to the lawful sale of goods and services, they do not generate onstreet parking or cause significant increases in traffic through a residential area, all activities occur inside the residential dwelling, and no activities are visible from the street. Fenced yards that cannot be viewed from the street can also be used for business purposes under the provisions of the ALEC model legislation[xiii].

The ALEC bill bars municipalities from prohibiting no-impact home-based business activities and does not allow local governments to require any type of permit, license, variance, or other prior approval from a municipality to operate. It also protects these businesses from rezoning and fire safety requirements in detached dwellings. It does not prohibit a municipality from establishing health and safety requirements for home-based businesses[xiv].

In 2023, the Ar izona-based Goldwater Institute produced similar model legislation called the Home-Based Business Fair ness Act. It requires that no-impact home-based businesses (i.e., those that do not cause a disr uption to the residential area they are located in) comply with health and safety regulations, building codes, pay all applicable taxes, abide by local traff ic, parking, and noise ordinances, and adhere to occupational licensing standards. They are not required to obtain any other home occupational licenses or per mits. All businesses that do have an impact on neighborhoods would be regulated through existing, state, county, and municipal laws[xv].

Lemonade St and Laws

Ut ah

Utah’s lemonade stand law prohibits cities and counties from requir ing business licenses, per mits, or fees for occasional businesses operated by minors. Child entrepreneurs do not need per mits until they tur n 19, thanks to Senate Bill 47 from the 2024 legislative session. The law covers lemonade stands, car washing, babysitting and similar enter pr ises and was enacted after municipalities shut down stands for lacking per mits. Utah positions the law as a way to foster real world lear ning without bureaucratic hurdles[xvi].

Colorado

Colorado enacted a law modeled on Utah’s, bar r ing local gover nments from requir ing minors to obtain per mits or licenses for occasional businesses The law was a direct response to stor ies of children’s lemonade stands being shut down[xvii].

Georgia

The Georgia Lemonade Stand Act prohibits counties and municipalities from requir ing a license, per mit or registration for a business operated solely by individuals under 18 on pr ivate proper ty, as long as they are in school (or have a high school equivalency), have per mission from the proper ty owner, ear n $5,000 or less in g ross receipts per year, and sell non‑consumable goods or prepackaged foods or lemonade[xviii]. The law took effect July 1, 2023 and was amended in 2024; it explicitly def ines such micro enter pr ises as outside local licensing power.

Policy Recommendations for Alabama Lawmakers

Create a “No-Impact” Designation for Cert ain Home-Based Businesses

Not only do many home-based businesses present no health and safety r isk to the general public, but they can also ser ve as a catalyst for entrepreneurship and provide needed goods and ser vices in underser ved communities.

The Alabama Legislature should enact policy refor ms that reduce the county and municipal regulator y burdens on these small business owners by specifying that no-impact home-based businesses do not require licenses, per mits, zoning var iances, etc., if they pose no r isk to the public.

Tie Home-Based Business Per formance St andards to Measurable Health and Public Safety Impacts

Too often, home-based business ordinances are “var ying deg rees of too vague, too str ict, or unenforceable ” Ultimately decisions about whether a home-based business is allowed to continue operating are left to the whims of enforcement off icials. Investigations of home-based businesses often come as the result of a complaint by neighbors, leading to the potential that cur rent laws are only applied in response to those complaints, and not evenly across the board

The state, county, and municipal gover nments should put clear and unifor m per for mance standards in place, which are tied to measurable impacts on health and public safety If there is no measurable impact, then those businesses should be allowed to operate without gover nment inter ference[xix].

Set Profession Specif ic Regulations for Home-Based Businesses

The potential wide var iety of home-based businesses means that they are unique and should not be lumped into the same broad categor ies as large, incor porated businesses. While many home-based businesses pose no public health and safety r isk, there are those such as childcare that inherently come with health and safety concer ns.

For these types of small businesses, the Legislature should adopt specif ic home-based business regulations that address those health and safety r isks while making regulator y requirements the least burdensome as possible[xx].

Enact an Alabama Lemonade Stand Act

Alabama should adopt a statute like Utah’s and Georgia’s that explicitly exempts minors from state and local business license requirements when operating occasional businesses. The law should: apply to individuals under 18, or to 18 year old high school students until they turn 19; allow the sale of non potentially hazardous foods (lemonade, prepackaged snacks) on private property or on public property with permission from the property owner or appropriate authority; cap annual gross receipts (e.g., $5,000) to distinguish occasional activities from commercial enterprises, as Georgia’s law does; prohibit municipalities, counties and homeowners associations from imposing permits, licenses or fees on such activities; and clarify that minors operating these stands are not employees under child labor statutes. The law should also state that occasional youth businesses are exempt from Alabama’s work permit requirements and hour restrictions.

Conclusion

Alabamians should have the ability to create and operate no-impact home-based businesses with minimal interference from state and local governments. By enacting an Alabama Lemonade Stand Act and educating local officials, Alabama can empower young entrepreneurs, provide clarity for parents and regulators, and ensure that a simple childhood venture does not become a regulatory minefield. All citizens of the state can benefit from allowing entrepreneurship to flourish in Alabama.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Reform Alabama’s Burdensome Occupational Licensing Infrastructure

Overview

As of August 2025, Alabama had a labor par ticipation rate of 57.3%, one of the lowest in the nation[i]. In practical ter ms, that means that nearly 43% of Alabama’s working-age population has chosen to leave the workforce and have not actively sought a job in at least 30 days. One of the biggest bar r iers to enter ing the state’s workforce is occupational licensing. According to a 2018 repor t from the Alabama Policy Institute (API), Alabama ranked 47th in the countr y in ter ms of having the most burdensome occupational licensing laws[ii].

Alabama licenses 151 occupations, cover ing nearly half a million workers Sixty-three of the licensing requirements fall on low-income workers. This includes occupations such as barbers, shampoo assistants in salons, manicur ists and secur ity alar m installer helpers. There are 12 occupations that require a state license just to ser ve as an apprentice, inter n or trainee[iii]

Besides the sheer number of occupational licenses required by the state, the costs of obtaining those licenses are burdensome for many individuals, par ticularly low-wage ear ners. Initial licensing fees can exceed $1,000 and numerous state licensing boards require annual renewals. API’s 2018 repor t found that combined license and renewal fees totaled an estimated $167 million annually.

Continuing education requirements added an additional $243 million to the annual costs for licensees.[iv] Aside from the costs to individuals, Alabama’s str ict occupational licensing requirements come at a large economic cost. According to a study conducted by the Institute for Justice, Alabama loses almost 21,000 jobs per year due to occupational licensing requirements, and the economic impact of those job losses is $1.88 billion annually[v].

What Reforms Should Lawmakers Pursue in 2026?

Prohibit St ate Agencies and Occupational Licensing Boards from Silencing Whistleblowers

When an employee sees conduct that is inappropr iate or illegal occur r ing at their workplace, they should have the ability to disclose that infor mation publicly, without being silenced by their employer or having the fear of retaliation.

Section 25-8-7 of the Code of Alabama offers some protections for whistleblowers, stating that they cannot be discr iminated against for refusing to take par t in or exposing illegal activities. It fur ther says that no employer, agent of an employer, or any other person can f ire, discipline, threaten, harass, blacklist, or in any other way discr iminate against cur rent and for mer employees for disclosing nonprohibited infor mation or refusing to obey illegal orders[vi].

What cur rent law does not do is prohibit agencies and licensing boards from enter ing into Non-Disclosure Ag reements with employees or paying them to remain silent about questionable activities and practices.

The Legislature should ensure that this r ight is statutor ily protected

Conduct a Thorough Assessment of Current Occupational Licenses

The legislature should conduct a thorough review of cur rent occupational licenses Lawmakers should ensure that unnecessar y requirements or excessive costs are not a prerequisite for licensing. They should deter mine if removing a cur rently required license would create a threat to public safety

Alabama should delicense an occupation with no demonstrable consumer safety or health concer ns. In deter mining what professions should be eligible for delicensing, Alabama lawmakers could look to other states in the Southeast and deter mine what professions Alabama cur rently licenses that those states do not[vii].

Par t of any review of occupational licensing should include a thorough examination of the costs of licensure for existing licensees. Lawmakers should ensure that licensing costs are not unreasonable or unnecessar y, par ticularly when compared to neighbor ing states[viii].

Consolidate St ate Occupational Licensing Boards

Dur ing the 2023 Regular Legislative Session, Senator Chr is Elliott introduced Senate Bill 156, which would have created the Occupation Licensing Board Division within the Alabama Secretar y of State’s Off ice. Among other provisions, the bill would have established standardized r ules for the examination and licensure of applicants, standards for deter mining licensure fees, and provided unifor mity in the collection of fees, f ines, and other money dure to the licensing division[ix]. A similar bill, Senate Bill 193, was introduced by Senator Elliott dur ing the 2025 regular session, as was Senate Bill 224 in 2024, but they were not considered by the full Senate[x].

There’s also the issue of the cost to the state of paying pr ivate management g roups to administer state licensing boards. Many of Alabama’s occupational boards are administered by professional management companies, several of which manage as many as 15 boards and commissions at a cost to the state of more than $1.5 million per company. Numerous questions have been raised by lawmakers as to how well these management companies are doing their job and the high costs to the state for their ser vices[xi].

According to the Legislative Ser vices Agency’s f iscal note of Senate Bill 156, consolidating all of Alabama’s licensing boards under the Secretar y of State’s Off ice would costs taxpayers approximately $2.6 million per year, all, or par t of which would be offset by licensing fees[xii].

Adopt Universal Occupational License Recognition

Occupational licensing regulation can be par ticularly burdensome for new or temporar y residents of Alabama Universal license recognition would make it easier for those people to contr ibute to Alabama’s workforce.

As of late 2025, 28 states, including Mississippi and Nor th Carolina, had adopted some for m of universal license recognition. Universal recognition states waive licensing requirements if an applicant already holds a license that is in good standing in another state. Applicants are bar red from having any pending disciplinar y action before their home licensure boards nor can they have a cr iminal record that would prohibit them from obtaining a license in the recognizing state[xiii].

Dur ing its 2025 regular session, the Nor th Carolina General Assembly expanded upon previously enacted occupational licensing refor ms by providing universal licensure recognition for all but 11 specif ied occupations. The law states that occupational licensing boards and state agency licensing boards shall issue a license, cer tif ication, or registration to any applicant that establishes residency in Nor th Carolina if they are already licensed for the same occupation in Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, or West Virginia. The law also requires that applicants have passed any required or iginating-state exam, have their license be in good standing, demonstrate competency, and have no disqualifying cr iminal histor y, among other provisions[xiv].

While universal licensing recognition does not address the issue of whether all of Alabama’s cur rent occupational licensing requirements should exist, it does make it easier and, in some cases, less costly for people moving from another state to f ind employment.

Conclusion

Occupational licensing imposes substantial costs on Alabamians in ter ms of reduced occupational mobility, reduced entrepreneurship, higher unemployment, and higher consumer pr ices The negative effects of occupational licensing on employment and entrepreneur ial oppor tunities suggest that licensure may also be, in par t, responsible for the low labor par ticipation rate and relatively low rate of entrepreneurship in Alabama.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Strengthen Competitive Bidding and Public Works Laws

Overview

In Alabama, most state, county, and municipal gover nment purchases and constr uction projects are gover ned by either the state’s competitive bid law or the public works law. These laws provide sets of requirements that must be fulf illed in order for gover nment bodies to expend public funds for projects, goods, and ser vices. When entities do not abide by these statutor y requirements, contracts can be declared null and void and are not enforceable[i].

Alabama’s gover nment has practiced some for m of competitive bidding since at least 1919, when the Legislature established a State Board of Economy and Control to oversee all state purchases, which included a “for malized bidding process.” In 1939 the Legislature gave broad author ity to the Division of Purchases and Stores to administer the state’s competitive bid law until those duties were transfer red to the Division of Purchasing in the late 1980’s[ii].

The goal of these sets of laws is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent in a responsible manner. It also br ings accountability to the process by laying out clear guidelines that gover nment bodies as well as those bidding for contracts must follow.Under the competitive bid and public works laws, the process is generally out in the open. Requests for bids must be adver tised and/or posted, proposals must be submitted and reviewed with clear timelines, and the Alabama Legislature plays a role in reviewing state contracts.

While competitive bidding and/or the public works law are followed in most circumstances, the laws do provide specif ic exemptions This includes things such as purchases from sole-source vendors, purchases of regulated projects, specif ied professional ser vices contracts, and purchases from approved statewide contracts, among others.

However, no bid contracts sometimes extend beyond these exemptions. Most recently, the Alabama Legislature bypassed the competitive bidding process for the constr uction of a new pr ison in Elmore County, choosing to go with a “design-build” process instead, where a single entity handles both the design and constr uction phases of the project. The or iginal cost of the Elmore County pr ison was projected to be $623 million. Since then, the costs have ballooned to more than $1.2 billion, almost as high as the or iginal estimate to constr uct two new pr isons[iii].

Despite Alabama’s sordid histor y with no bid contracts, there is likely to be a push in the 2026

Regular Legislative Session to expand the state’s ability to use them. This is likely to come in the for m of legislation that will allow for alter native constr uction deliver y methods such as designbuild, public-pr ivate par tnerships, the Constr uction Manager at Risk (CMAR) model, or the expansion of unsolicited bids.

Alabama’s Competitive Bid and Public Works laws are designed to protect taxpayers and public ser vants from scenar ios where an awarding author ity has sole discretion to choose who per for ms public works projects, which often leads to higher costs for taxpayers and opens the door for political cor r uption. The Alabama Legislature should reject any effor t to weaken the state’s competitive bid and public works laws.

Current Law

Competitive Bid Law

Alabama’s competitive bid law for public contracts is gover ned by sections 41-16-1 through 4116-144 of the Code of Alabama. It provides that for any gover nment contract involving $30,000 or more for labor ser vices, work, the purchase or lease of mater ials, equipment, supplies, and other personal proper ty must be entered into by free and open competitive bidding, using sealed bids, to the lowest responsible bidder.[iv] It gover ns all contracts except for public works, with are gover ned by Title 39 of the code.

The law fur ther provides the splitting of contracts into smaller par ts to avoid meeting the $30,000 threshold is prohibited. It also provides that joint purchases made by two or more gover nmental entities must be done so in accordance with the Competitive Bid Law.

In 2023, the Legislature passed a law that could automatically increase the threshold for competitive bidding in the future. Under the provisions of the act, beginning in f iscal year 2028 and ever y three years thereafter the threshold will be increased to account for changes in the Consumer Pr ice Index, based on a recommendation from the Chief Examiner of the Depar tment of Examiners of Public Accounts. The recommendation will be subject to approval from the Legislative Council.[v]

In ter ms of adver tising a public contract, the competitive bid law does not require adver tising in a newspaper, rather a notice must be posted on a bulletin board maintained outside of the purchasing off ice Bid solicitations must also be sent by mail to all entities who have previously requested that they be listed in solicitation for bids for par ticular goods and ser vices.Bidders may be required to post a faithful per for mance bond which may be required under some circumstances to protect the awarding agency from “damages, loss, or detr iment” The amount of the bond must be specif ied in the adver tisement for bids. Contract awards will be made to the lowest responsible bidder taking into consideration factors such as the quality of the commodities proposed to be supplied, their confor mity with specif ications, the pur pose for which they are required, the ter ms of deliver y, transpor tation charges, and the dates of deliver y. It is at the discretion of the gover nment entity to deter mine which bidder is the lowest responsible bidder[vi].

Exemptions

(a) Competitive bids for entities subject to this ar ticle shall not be required for utility ser vices, the rates for which are f ixed by law, regulation, or ordinance, and the competitive bidding requirements of this ar ticle shall not apply to any of the following:

(1) The purchase of insurance.

(2) The purchase of ballots and supplies for conducting any pr imar y, general, special, or municipal election.

(3) Contracts for secur ing ser vices of attor neys, physicians, architects, teachers, super intendents of constr uction, ar tists, appraisers, engineers, consultants, cer tif ied public accountants, public accountants, or other individuals possessing a high deg ree of professional skill where the personality of the individual plays a decisive par t.

(4) Contracts of employment in the regular civil ser vice.

(5) Contracts for f iscal or f inancial advice or ser vices.

6) Purchases of products made or manufactured by blind or visually impaired individuals under the direction or super vision of the Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title 21.

(7) Purchases of maps or photog raphs from any federal agency

(8) Purchases of computer prog rams, software applications, manuscr ipts, books, maps, pamphlets, per iodicals, and librar y or research electronic databases of manuscr ipts, books, maps, pamphlets, or per iodicals.

(9) The selection of paying agents and tr ustees for any secur ity issued by a public body

(10) Existing contracts up for renewal for sanitation or solid waste collection, recycling, and disposal between municipalities or counties, or both, and those providing the ser vice.

(11) Purchases of computer and word processing hardware when the hardware is the only type that is compatible with hardware already owned by the entity taking bids and custom software.

(12) Professional ser vices contracts for codif ication and publication of the laws and ordinances of municipalities and counties.

(13) Contractual ser vices and purchases of commodities for which there is only one vendor or supplier and contractual ser vices and purchases of personal proper ty which by their ver y nature are impossible to award by competitive bidding.

(14) Purchases of dir t, sand, or g ravel by a county gover ning body from in-county proper ty owners in order to supply a county project in which the mater ials will be used. The mater ial shall be delivered to the project site by county employees and equipment used only on project components conducted exclusively by county employees.

15) Contractual ser vices and purchases of products related to, or having an impact upon, secur ity plans, procedures, assessments, measures, or systems, or the secur ity or safety of individuals, str uctures, facilities, or infrastr uctures.

(16) Subject to the limitations in this subdivision, purchases, leases, or lease/purchases of goods or ser vices, other than voice or data wireless communication ser vices, made as a par t of the purchasing cooperative sponsored by the National Association of Counties, its successor organization, or any other national or regional gover nmental cooperative purchasing prog ram.

The purchases, leases, or lease/purchases may only be made if all of the following occur:

a The goods or ser vices being purchased, including those purchased through a lease/purchase ag reement, or leased are available as a result of a competitive bid process conducted by a gover nmental entity and approved by the Depar tment of Examiners of Public Accounts for each bid

b. The goods or ser vices are either not at the time available to counties on the state purchasing prog ram or are available at a pr ice equal to or less than that on the state purchasing prog ram

c. The purchase, lease, or lease/purchase is made through a par ticipating Alabama vendor holding an Alabama business license if such a vendor exists.

d. The entity purchasing, leasing, or lease/purchasing goods or ser vices under this subdivision has been notif ied by the Depar tment of Examiners of Public Accounts that the competitive bid process utilized by the cooperative prog ram offer ing the goods complies with this subdivision. In addition, upon request, a vendor shall provide the entity purchasing, leasing, or lease/purchasing goods or ser vices equaling thir ty thousand dollars ($30,000) or more which are made under this subdivision dur ing the previous 12 months a repor t of the sales, leases, and lease/purchases.

The repor t shall include a general descr iption of the goods or ser vices; the number of units sold, leased, and leased/purchased per entity; and the pr ice of units purchased, leased, or leased/purchased.

17) Purchases of goods or ser vices, other than wireless communication ser vices, whether voice or data, from vendors that have been awarded a cur rent and valid Gover nment Ser vices Administration contract. Any purchase made pursuant to this subdivision shall be under the same ter ms and conditions as provided in the Gover nment Ser vices Administration contract. Pr ices paid for the goods and ser vices, other than wireless communication ser vices, whether voice or data, may not exceed the amount provided in the Gover nment Ser vices Administration contract.

(18) Purchases of goods or ser vices from vendors that have been awarded a cur rent and valid statewide contract listed on the Alabama Buys e-procurement system. Any purchase made pursuant to this subdivision shall be under the same ter ms and conditions as provided in the statewide contract.

Pr ices paid for the goods and ser vices may not exceed the amount provided in the statewide contract

(19) Purchases of goods or ser vices between gover nmental entities of the state, as author ized by Section 11-1-10

20) Purchases of goods or ser vices between a municipality and a gover nmental entity, as def ined in Section 8-38-2

(b) This article shall not apply to:

(1) Any purchases of products where the pr ice of the products is already regulated and established by state law.

(2) Purchases made by individual schools of the county or municipal public school systems from monies other than those raised by taxation or received through appropr iations from state or county sources.

(3) The purchase, lease, sale, constr uction, installation, acquisition, improvement, enlargement, or expansion of any building or str ucture or other facility designed or intended for lease or sale by a medical clinic board organized under Chapter 58 of Title 11.

(4) The purchase, lease, or other acquisition of machiner y, equipment, supplies, and other personal proper ty or ser vices by a medical clinic board organized under Chapter 58 of Title 11.

(5) Purchases for public hospitals and nursing homes operated by the gover ning boards of instr umentalities of the state, counties, and municipalities.

(6) Contracts for the purchase, lease, sale, constr uction, installation, acquisition, improvement, enlargement, or extension of any plant, building, str ucture, or other facility or any machiner y, equipment, fur niture, or fur nishings therefor designed or intended for lease or sale for industr ial development, other than public utilities, under Division 1 of Ar ticle 4 of Chapter 54 of Title 11, or Ar ticle 2 of Chapter 54 of Title 11, or any other law or amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 2022, author izing the constr uction of plants or other facilities for industr ial development or for the constr uction and equipment of buildings for public building author ities under Chapter 15 of Title 11 or Chapter 56 of Title 11.

(7) The purchase of equipment, supplies, or mater ials needed, used, and consumed in the nor mal and routine operation of any water works system, sanitar y sewer system, gas system, or electr ic system, or any two or more thereof, that are owned by municipalities, counties, or public cor porations, boards, or author ities that are agencies, depar tments, or instr umentalities of municipalities or counties and no par t of the operating expenses of which system or systems, dur ing the then cur rent f iscal year, have been paid from revenues der ived from taxes or from appropr iations of the state, a county, or a municipality.

(8) Purchases made by local housing author ities, organized and existing under Chapter 1 of Title 24, from monies other than those raised by state, county, or city taxation or received through appropr iations from state, county, or city sources.

(9) The purchase of ser vices to aid in the prevention and detection of cr iminal activity by law enforcement agencies and community-or iented policing prog rams.

c) The state trade schools, state junior colleges, state colleges, and universities under the super vision and control of the State Board of Education, the distr ict boards of education of independent school distr icts, the county commissions, and the gover ning bodies of the municipalities of the state shall establish and maintain purchasing facilities and procedures as may be necessar y to car r y out the intent and pur pose of this ar ticle by complying with the requirements for competitive bidding in the operation and management of each state trade school, state junior college, state college, or university under the super vision and control of the State Board of Education, the distr ict boards of education of independent school distr icts, the county commissions, and the gover ning bodies of the municipalities of the state and the gover ning boards of instr umentalities of counties and municipalities, including water works boards, sewer boards, gas boards, and other like utility boards and commissions[vii].

Public Works Law

Alabama’s public works law is contained in Title 39 of the Code of Alabama. It applies to all public works contracts under taken by the state as well as county and municipal gover nments.

Section 39-2-1 of the Code def ines public works as “the constr uction, installation, repair, renovation, or maintenance of public buildings, str uctures, sewers, water works, roads, curbs, gutters, side walls, br idges, docks, under passes, and viaducts as well as any other improvement to be constr ucted, installed, repaired, renovated, or maintained on public proper ty and to be paid, in whole or in par t, with public funds or with f inancing to be retired with public funds in the for m of lease payments or other wise.”

Pr ior to 2023, the minimum threshold for requir ing competitive bids for public works contracts was $50,000, however, Act 2023-497 raised the threshold to $100,000 as well as making other modif ications to the law[viii] Public works contracts valued at $100,000 or less may be awarded without adver tising or through sealed bidding. Contracts for $100,000 or more must be adver tised at least once per week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or counties in which the project is to take place.

Bid bonds totaling at least 5% of the bid or a maximum of $10,000 must be f iled. In addition to the bid bond, if a contract is awarded then a per for mance bond in an amount equal to 100% of the contract pr ice as well as a payment bond equal to 50% of the contract pr ice must be obtained within 15 days of the contract being presented.

Under Alabama’s public works law, contracts are awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. A responsible bidder is def ined as, “one who, among other qualities deter mined necessar y for per for mance, is competent, exper ienced, and f inancially able to per for m the contract”, while a responsive bidder is def ined as “one who submits a bid that complies with the ter ms and conditions of the invitation for bids[ix].” If a selected bidder fails to sign the contract or withdraws, the contract can then be awarded to the next lowest responsible and responsive bidder.

Under state law, a contract award must be made within 30 days of the bid opening, unless a potentially successful bidder ag rees to a time extension in wr iting. If this does not happen, then all bids are rejected.

Exemptions

Var ious types of contracts are exempt from Alabama’s public works law, including professional ser vices contracts for architectural and engineer ing work, constr uction management, prog ram management, or project management. Additionally, heating and air conditioning units and systems are exempt from the public works law so long as they are purchased from an Alabama vendor with approved vendor status. Emergencies affecting public health, safety, or convenience (when declared in wr iting by the awarding author ity) are exempt from the provisions of the public works law and competitive bidding law[x].

Why Weakening Alabama’s Public Works Law Would be a Mist ake

As discussed previously, most gover nment contacts in Alabama are gover ned either by the state’s competitive bid laws or public works laws. However, as noted there are exceptions to those laws. It is also within the Legislature’s power to exclude specif ic projects from the provisions of the competitive bid and public works law.

Such is the case with ongoing pr ison constr uction projects in Alabama. To br ief ly recap, Alabama’s pr ison system began being scr utinized by the U.S. Depar tment of Justice nearly a decade ago amidst allegations of overcrowding, excessive violence at the hands of other pr isoners as well as cor rectional off icers, and questions regarding the sanitation and living conditions at state pr isons. In the following years there were several failed attempts to build new pr isons in Alabama.

With pressure from the Depar tment of Justice continuing to mount, in 2021 the Legislature approved legislation that would constr uct two new mega pr isons and allow the state to circumvent the competitive bidding requirements of the public works law, instead negotiating directly with Montgomer y-based Caddell Constr uction to oversee the project. The or iginal cost of constr ucting the two new pr isons was projected to be $1.3 billion with $785 million of that coming from a state bond issuance, $400 million coming from federal COVID-19 recover y funds, and the remainder coming from other state funds.

In par t because of the timing and COVID related increases to constr uction mater ials as well as the fact that the project was not subject to competitive bidding requirements, constr uction costs have swelled. The or iginal cost of a new pr ison located in Elmore County was expected to be $623 million. As of November 2024, those costs had ballooned to approximately $1.25 billion, nearly exceeding the or iginal cost estimates to build two new pr isons[xi].

No major constr uction prog ress has been made on the second pr ison in Escambia County. With much of the budget for both pr isons already consumed, taxpayers will be burdened with paying additional costs. At this point it is not even clear how much the second facility is expected to cost. Lawmakers have already provided some additional funding through supplemental General Fund appropr iations. Senate Bill 60, which was passed dur ing the 2025 Regular Legislative Session, increases the maximum amount of bonds that can be issued by the Alabama Cor rections Finance Author ity by $500 million, increasing the state’s debt ser vice obligation by an estimated $30.5 million annually for the next 30 years. That is on top of the debt ser vice payments for the initial $785 million in bonds that were previously issued[xii].

Senator Greg Albr itton, Chair man of the Senate Finance and Taxation General Fund Committee indicated that the state would go back to the traditional (and competitive bidding controlled) design-bid-build process for the second pr ison Albr itton said that “the other system” meaning design-build was “not conducive for our oppor tunities.” He went so far as to say that he did not think some of the contractors on the Elmore County project knew what they were doing[xiii]. The key takeaway from the pr ison constr uction debacle of the last decade is that effor ts to circumvent the competitive bidding process led to delays and increased constr uction costs for Alabama’s pr ison system.

Nearly a decade later, not one pr ison has been completed and the costs to taxpayers have r isen exponentially, with it still unclear how much the f inal bill will be. Many of these problems could have been avoided if lawmakers had insisted on using the existing public works law to complete the projects instead of going around the law.

Given the lessons learned from prison construction, why would lawmakers consider expanding what public works projects are exempt from current law?

Beyond being in place to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent in a responsible manner, the state’s competitive bid and public works laws also ser ve to ensure that cronyism and cor r uption are not par t of the awarding of gover nment contracts. There are several high prof ile examples over the past 20 years that illustrate this need, both in ter ms of no-bid contracts as well as contract requirements being wr itten so that they favor one specif ic vendor over another. Most notably, for mer Gover nor Don Siegelman and several co-conspirators were convicted on federal charges relating to br iber y, conspiracy, honest ser vices mail fraud, and obstr uction of justice.

Another notewor thy example of cor r uption in the gover nment contracting process involved a br iber y scheme relating to sewer projects in Jefferson County. In 2010 for mer Bir mingham Mayor and President of the Jefferson County Commission Lar r y Langford was sentenced to 15 years in pr ison for a br iber y scheme. Several other county off icials were caught up in scandals relating to sewer projects as well. As both the Siegelman and Langford cases show, gover nment contracts need more scr utiny if anything, not less transparency and accountability. Allowing more no-bid contracts for state purchases and public works projects will only increase the likelihood of creating cor r uption within the process, ultimately increasing costs for all taxpayers.

Beyond the potential to increase costs to taxpayers and increase cor r uption in the process, moving away from the competitive bidding process would also hit small and minor ity owned businesses the hardest, giving preferential treatment to large vendors, general contractors, and subcontractors Minor ity contractors and subcontractors may f ind it diff icult or be unable to meet pre-qualif ication contracts for state contracts. Smaller general contractors and subcontractors would be at a disadvantage because they do not have large budgets or personnel to solicit awarding entities.

Essentially, large contractors would have a monopoly on gover nment business through no-bid contracts. On the cost side, there would be no incentive for self-per for ming large contractors to keep costs down and be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Rather it could promote inf lation of project budgets to ensure that the f inal project is completed at or under budget.

Conclusion

Cur rent Alabama laws regarding state purchases and public works projects already allow a limited number of exceptions to competitive bidding requirements. In some cases, there may only be one vendor capable of providing a specif ic good or ser vice. In other cases, there are tr ue emergencies where infrastr ucture repairs need to be addressed immediately, without going through a prolonged competitive bid process.

However, these cases are an exception, not the rule.

Alabama’s competitive bidding requirements have been in statute (in some for m) for more than 100 years. They are intended to protect taxpayers’ dollars and ensure that cronyism and cor r uption are not a par t of the awarding of gover nment contracts. As illustrated in this paper, when competitive bidding laws are ignored or circumvented, the results negatively impact the state and its taxpayers These laws are in place for good reasons The Legislature should reject any effor t to weaken Alabama’s competitive bid and public works laws. 36

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Increase Requirements to Receive Public Welfare

Overview

Workforce development has been a key issue for Alabama lawmakers over the past several legislative sessions. During the 2024 Regular Legislative Session, lawmakers enacted a package of five bills (the Working for Alabama package) aimed at incentivizing Alabamians to return to the state’s workforce. Amongst bills included in the proposal were the creation of a new childcare tax credit, a workforce housing tax credit, and the creation of a workforce pathways diploma, which created an alternative route to earning a high school diploma that will focus heavily on career training[i].

One of the major goals of the workforce development package is improving the state’s continually lagging labor participation rate, which sat at 57.3% as of August 2025[ii]. Alabama has consistently had one of the lowest labor participation rates in the nation over the past two decades. By implementing the Working for Alabama agenda, lawmakers hope to remove barriers that some Alabamians face when trying to enter the workforce, including the costs of childcare and housing and providing better career training to potential/future employees.

While these initiatives will not discourage state citizens from working, only time will tell how far they will go towards improving the state’s labor participation rate. There are other things that lawmakers can do to achieve that goal, such as reforming welfare program eligibility and unemployment insurance compensation requirements. The state's three main social safety-net programs are unemployment insurance (UI), Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP). Collectively, thousands of Alabamians are enrolled in these programs. Alabama continues to have one of the lowest labor force participation rates in the country, 57 3% , and one way to combat this underperformance is through strengthening these programs’ work requirements. [iii]

While in some case these prog rams provide necessar y assistance to Alabamians who tr uly need them, they can also potentially discourage citizens from meaningful par ticipation in the labor force. Through strengthening the requirements to access cer tain benef its, the citizens who need assistance will still receive it, and those able to work will be incentivized to rejoin the labor force.

Alabama has traditionally pursued policies that seek to tighten the eligibility requirements for these prog rams. Previously, some lawmakers attempted to strengthen work requirements but those effor ts stalled due to federal opposition. Recent shifts in Washington, such as the Big Beautiful Bill Act, suggest that the political environment for strengthening these requirements is more favorable for policymakers.

Current Law and Proposed Alabama Reforms

As of July 2025, Alabama’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 3.0% represented 72,506 unemployed able-bodied Alabamians. This is approximately 3,000 more unemployed citizens than at this point in July 2024 and is approximately 8,000 more unemployed Alabamians than at this point in July 2023 . [iv]

Unemployment compensation is provided to workers who are unemployed or working reduced hours through no fault of their own. The prog ram is funded by qualif ied employers on the f irst $8,000 of each employees’ g ross ear nings, which are then deposited into the state’s Unemployment Compensation Tr ust Fund[v]. In order to draw unemployment compensation benef its, there are cer tain conditions that a claimant must meet, and continue to meet.

Unemployment Insurance

Cur rently, unemployment compensation is available to workers who are actively searching for a job, unemployed or working reduced hours, and are facing unemployment due to no fault of their own. Unemployment compensation is provided to workers through the state’s Unemployment Tr ust Fund. This is funded by a tax on qualif ied employers of the f irst $8,000 of each employee’s g ross ear nings and through g rants. To draw from this tr ust fund unemployed citizens must meet cer tain requirements. First, it must be deter mined that the claimant ear ned enough wages in the preceding 12-18 months to be eligible for compensation. If a person is out of work due to their employer not having enough work or reducing hours, unsafe working conditions, or if they or their child were the victim of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault, they are eligible to receive benef its.

However, a person will not be eligible to receive compensation if they voluntar ily left their job for personal reasons, were f ired for cause, did not ear n enough wages dur ing the 12–18-month deter mination per iod, are not eligible to work in the United States, or are already receiving workers’ compensation from an on-site injur y.[vi]

Finally, to qualify for benef its the claimant must be actively searching for work, mentally and physically able to work, legally able to work in the United States, and available to star t new work. These work requirements could have been strengthened through House Bill 29, proposed by Representative Ed Oliver in the 2025 regular session, which would have increased the number of prospective job contracts sent per week to remain eligible for unemployment insurance from 3 to 5 . The bill was approved by the Alabama House but was not voted on by the full Senate. [vii]

In Alabama, weekly unemployment benef its range from a weekly minimum of $45 to a maximum of $275, deter mined by the claimant’s base per iod ear nings. Recipients can generally receive benef its for a ter m of 14-20 weeks, with some extensions available for citizens par ticipating in approved job training.[viii]

Medicaid

Cur rently, to qualify for Medicaid in Alabama all prospective recipients must meet a range of income requirements depending on the prog ram and situation. Under cur rent Alabama law applicants are allowed to self-attest to cer tain eligibility factors with ver y little follow-up or ver if ication after the fact. Senate Bill 245, proposed by Senator Ar thur Or r in the 2025 Regular Session, aims to signif icantly reduce Medicaid fraud by eliminating recipients’ ability to self-attest to cer tain eligibility requirements. The elimination of this self-attestation would not change any eligibility requirements, it would simply cross-check and ver ify infor mation provided by applicants through var ious databases. This legislation directs Medicaid to create an eligibility cross-check system, that would electronically and systematically ver ify infor mation across databases. Lastly, this bill proposes annual accountability repor ting on fraud and investigations. [ix] [x] [xi]

Supplement al Nutritional Assist ance Program (SNAP)

Alabama’s SNAP prog ram (aka food stamps, EBT) is administered by the Depar tment of Human Resources following federal guidelines. This prog ram aids families with a monthly income of up to 125% of the federal pover ty line. Alabama cur rently employs a broad-based categor ical eligibility (BBCE), which allows households to automatically qualify for SNAP if they are already receiving other for ms of assistance The BBCE loophole allows families that far exceed the str ict federal requirements to still receive SNAP benef its, raising questions about the prog ram’s integ r ity.

[xiii]

Senate Bill 246, proposed by Senator Ar thur Or r in 2025, prohibits the use of BBCE in deter mining SNAP eligibility in favor of a system of cross checks and ver if ication. This bill also requires a retur n to str ict compliance with federal income and asset eligibility thresholds, effectively closing the BBCE loophole. Finally, the proposed legislation would require enhanced electronic data-matching between databases to ver ify infor mation and eliminate fraud.[xiv]

What Other St ates are Doing Congress

HR 1, President Donald Tr ump’s Big Beautiful Bill Act, was a comprehensive legislative package passed by the United States Cong ress in 2025 This package covered a wide ar ray of policy issues the Tr ump Administration has pr ior itized, including federal changes to unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and SNAP. These changes are aimed at reducing federal expenditures, administrative burdens, and welfare fraud HB 1 tightens requirements for UI recipients to remain enrolled in the prog ram. Notably, recipients must complete and document at least 5 job search activities per week. This legislation also shor tens the maximum duration for UI benef its, reducing the number of weeks individuals can receive assistance.[xv]

This legislation also introduced substantial changes to Medicaid. Medicaid eligibility is contingent on at least 80 hours per month of work, education, or ser vice, with cer tain exemptions. HB 1 also increases cost shar ing responsibility. Medicaid recipients’ ear ning 100% and 138% the federal pover ty line may be required to pay up to $35 copays for medical ser vices received. States are now required to ver ify enrollee eligibility ever y 6 months, instead of annually. Finally, the Big Beautiful Bill prohibits Medicaid from cover ing gender-aff ir ming care and restr icts funding to cer tain providers. The SNAP prog ram’s eligibility requirements and cost shar ing requirements were also increased for enrollees and states, respectively.

[xvi]

North Carolina

In 2021, Senate Bill 116, the Putting Nor th Carolina Back to Work Act, was introduced in the Nor th Carolina General Assembly. The bill would have withdrawn Nor th Carolina from the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation prog ram, which provided $300 in enhanced weekly benef its to unemployment claimants. In addition to this provision, the Putting Nor th Carolina Back to Work Act required unemployment claimants to respond to any inter view request by an employer offer ing suitable work within 48 hours. It fur ther required that once an inter view request has been made, an inter view must be scheduled within seven days[xvii].

The Putting Nor th Carolina Back to Work Act was approved by the General Assembly but vetoed by Gover nor Roy Cooper

Iowa

Dur ing its 2023 legislative session, the Iowa Legislature considered a bill to require between 4-6 work searches each week that an individual received unemployment benef its. The legislative set a sliding scale for the number of searches required which would be tied to the number of available jobs in the state. When more than 60,000 jobs were available, six searches would be required each week. If less than 50,000 jobs were available across the state, four searches would be required each week to continue receiving unemployment benef its[xviii] The bill was not approved by the Iowa Legislature.

Pennsylvania

In 2024, Pennsylvania lawmakers introduced a bill that would have established a process for employers to repor t refusals to work. The bill was aimed at addressing situations in which job candidates admitted to only applying for a job in order to comply with the states unemployment compensation requirements, with no intention to accept a position. The proposal required the Pennsylvania Depar tment of Labor to create for ms allowing employers to repor t unemployment insurance claimants who “discourage their own hire”[xix]. The bill passed the Pennsylvania Senate but was not considered by the House of Representatives.

Florida

In addition to the requirement of submitting f ive job applications per week (with some exceptions), new unemployment insurance claimants in Flor ida are required to register with the Employ Flor ida Marketplace. The claimant provides infor mation (training, resume, location, etc.) through the website that is used to connect employers with potential employees.[xx]

Georgia

In 2023, Georgia implemented its Pathways for Coverage Initiative. This prog ram ties coverage eligibility for cer tain adults to completing at least 80 hours a month of work, ser vice, or education. This prog ram incentivizes labor force par ticipation and expands eligibility to some individuals who did not previously qualify for coverage.[xxi]

Mississippi

To be eligible to receive SNAP benef its, enrollees in Mississippi aged 16-59 must either work 30 hours per week, par ticipate in SNAP employment and training, accept suitable jobs, and not voluntar ily reduce hours below 30 without good cause.

Fur ther, in Mississippi, Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) must par ticipate in at least 80 hours per month of work, training, or ser vice to maintain eligibility. Non-compliant ABAWD are limited to three months of benef its within a 36-month per iod.[xxii]

Potential Reforms to Consider

Representative Ed Oliver introduced House Bill 29 for the 2025 Regular Legislative Session that would have ensured that Alabamians who are receiving unemployment compensation are actively seeking employment. Under cur rent law, unemployment recipients are required to make a reasonable effor t to secure work in order to continue receiving benef its. This includes contacting at least three prospective employers each week that they are receiving unemployment benef its. Under the provisions of Oliver’s bill, the number of weekly contacts would have increased from three to f ive[xxiii]. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives but was never brought to the Senate f loor for a vote In 2022, the Legislature increased the required number of weekly contacts from one to three[xxiv].

Cur rent law also requires that if a person is offered “suitable work” and fails to accept the position, they are bar red from receiving unemployment compensation benef its for at least one week and not more than f ive weeks. Representative Oliver’s bill would have eliminated the range and set the disqualif ication per iod at f ive weeks, strengthening the penalties for failing to accept work and choosing to remain in the state’s unemployment system[xxv].

Representative Oliver’s approach to strengthening unemployment compensation requirements is reasonable and measured. Asking someone who is receiving a direct benef it from the state to increase their effor ts to f ind gainful employment not only benef its the individual, put will decrease the overall stress to the state’s Unemployment Compensation Tr ust Fund, which exper ienced shor tfalls dur ing the COVID-19 pandemic and was ultimately replenished by federal relief funds[xxvi].

Similarly, increasing the time per iod that unemployment benef it recipients are disqualif ied from receiving those benef its for declining to accept a job offer is reasonable as well. Unemployment compensation is intended to br idge the gap between jobs. Ultimately taxpayers are helping fellow citizens who have found themselves without a job. Taxpayers should only continue to do so if benef it recipients are actively engaged in looking for another job and willing to accept any job that they are qualif ied for. A one-week disqualif ication per iod is not enough of a disincentive for some Alabamians to choose to forgo employment in favor of remaining on unemployment benef its

Alabama should also consider adopting a model like Mississippi’s ABAWD prog ram, where to receive SNAP benef its able-bodied individuals must be gainfully employed or actively searching for employment. Able-bodied Medicaid recipients should also meet this cr iter ion, with cer tain exceptions (dependents, pregnant, etc.). Fur ther, these prog rams should implement a unif ied ver if ication and cross-checking system to reduce fraud and decrease administrative burdens.

Conclusion

Unemployment compensation and other safety-net prog rams should provide temporar y aid to Alabamians who are tr uly in need. The goal of welfare prog rams should be to provide necessar y assistance, but not to promote long-ter m dependency on the prog rams Strengthening welfare work requirements is another piece of the puzzle towards reducing Alabama’s labor par ticipation rate and putting more citizens back to work.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Expand Port able Benef its for Alabama’s Changing Workforce

Overview

The rise of the gig economy and independent contracting has left a growing share of workers without access to traditional employment benefits. In the United States, tens of millions of people engage in independent work, including freelancers, contractors, and app-based workers[i]. In Alabama alone, around 79,000 people work in app-based rideshare or delivery jobs, and many more are self-employed in other industries[ii].

Unlike full-time W 2 employees, these independent workers typically do not receive health insurance, retirement plans, paid leave, or other benefits through an employer[iii]. This gap creates financial insecurity and “job lock,” where workers feel tied to jobs solely to keep benefits[iv]. It also means independent contractors may have to fund their own benefits or forgo benefits altogether, a tradeoff they accept for the flexibility of independent work[v].

Portable benefits, which are essentially benefits tied to the individual worker rather than any single job or employer, offer a promising solution to this problem. In practice, they often take the form of flexible, worker-owned benefit accounts that employees or businesses can contribute to, and which travel with the worker from job to job. Funds in a portable benefits account can be used for typical benefits such as health insurance premiums, retirement savings, paid time off, disability coverage, or other needs[vi].

Policymakers nationwide are increasingly interested in portable benefits as an alternative to rigid employment mandates Rather than reclassifying contractors as employees, portable benefits aim to preserve independent work arrangements while extending a measure of security to those workers. Surveys show this is what most independent workers prefer. Over 80% of independent workers want access to benefits but also wish to not become traditional employees[vii].

Por table benef its represent a free-market, voluntar y solution that can empower gig workers with f inancial secur ity without sacr if icing f lexibility.

Current Law

Alabama became a national leader on this issue in 2025 by enacting a f irst-of-its-kind por table benef its law. Senate Bill 86 by Senator Ar thur Or r established a legal framework for “Por table Benef it Accounts” for independent contractors Under this law, Alabama businesses may voluntar ily contr ibute to a por table benef its account owned by an independent contractor they engage with, as a for m of compensation. The law builds in several protections and incentives to make this ar rangement attractive[viii]

First, it provides that there is no impact on worker classif ication. The statute explicitly provides that a company’s contr ibutions do not reclassify the worker as an employee In other words, offer ing benef its through a por table account will not tr igger an “employee” designation or new employer obligations[ix]. This safe harbor alleviates the biggest legal bar r ier that previously deter red businesses from giving benef its to contractors[x].

Second, the prog ram is entirely optional for both businesses and employees. Companies can choose whether to contr ibute, and contractors can opt in or out. There is no mandate[xi].

There are also tax advantages for both par ties. Contr ibutions a business makes to a contractor’s benef it account are treated as a tax-deductible business expense, and the contractor does not owe state income tax on the value contr ibuted. This effectively mir rors the tax treatment of traditional employer-provided benef its[xii].

The law also provides a range of eligible benef its including health insurance premiums, retirement savings accounts, or life or disability insurance. The law allows an independent worker to build a customized benef its por tfolio with contr ibutions from one or multiple employers[xiii].

Finally, the statute specif ies that businesses contr ibuting to a por table account do not become subject to Alabama’s workers’ compensation requirements for that worker. This reinforces the classif ication safe harbor by clar ifying that such contr ibutions aren’t treated as providing for mal employee benef its under state law[xiv].

Reforms in Other St ates

Tennessee

In Apr il 2025, Tennessee Gover nor Bill Lee signed the “Voluntar y Por table Benef it Plan Act” into law. Much like Alabama’s law, Tennessee’s refor m provides a safe harbor for companies to contr ibute to independent contractors’ benef its without affecting their contractor status. It allows voluntar y contr ibutions to por table benef it accounts and protects f ir ms from misclassif ication r isks Because Tennessee has no state income tax on wages, the emphasis of its law is on legal clar ity rather than tax treatment. Tennessee’s move was widely seen as par t of a g rowing national movement to suppor t f lexible benef its for gig workers[xv].

Ut ah

Utah passed the f irst state por table benef its law in 2023, which explicitly removed legal bar r iers by stating that offer ing benef its would not alter a worker’s independent contractor status This opened the door for pilot prog rams. For example, after Utah’s law passed, Shipt and the benef its platfor m Str ide par tnered to deliver health coverage and other benef its to gig workers in Utah. Utah’s example demonstrated that allowing voluntar y benef it contr ibutions could work in practice and not just theor y[xvi].

Florida

Flor ida has also shown interest in por table benef its. In early 2025, legislation was introduced in the Flor ida House (HB 1067) to establish por table benef it accounts for independent contractors and sole propr ietors, with provisions for voluntar y contr ibutions by any person or hir ing entity. The bill would have created a framework similar to Alabama’s. While Flor ida’s proposal gar nered attention, it was not enacted dur ing the 2025 session[xvii].

Additional Reforms Alabama Should Consider

Alabama’s new por table benef its prog ram is an excellent star t, but there are several oppor tunities to build on it and fur ther strengthen the system for both workers and businesses. The goal of any refor ms should be to expand access to benef its in a voluntar y, f lexible manner, empower ing workers rather than imposing new mandates. Below are recommendations for additional refor ms beyond cur rent Alabama law:

·Broaden the Safe Harbor for Benef its Provision: Alabama should consider explicitly extending the misclassif ication safe harbor to any for m of benef its provided to independent contractors, not just contr ibutions to por table accounts. Cur rently, Senate Bill 86 ensures benef it account contr ibutions won’t affect a worker’s status

Additional legislation could clar ify that offer ing any benef it, such as allowing a contractor to buy into a company’s health plan or providing a stipend for insurance, will not, by itself, tr igger reclassif ication. This would give businesses g reater conf idence to pilot creative benef it offer ings. Utah’s law took this approach, aff ir matively stating that no agency may reclassify a worker solely because they received benef its[xviii].

Enable an “Independent Worker” Registration or Certif ication: To reduce ambiguity in worker classif ication, Alabama could create a system for individuals to register as independent contractors with the state if they meet cer tain cr iter ia. Under such a refor m, a person who plans to work as a freelancer/contractor could f ile a simple declaration or obtain a cer tif ication of independent status, and hir ing entities could then rely on that status in good faith. Mercatus researchers recommend this as a way to give businesses assurance that a worker is legitimately independent[xix]

Facilit ate Group Benef it Purchasing and Pools: One disadvantage independent workers face is buying benef its on the individual market, which can be costly. Alabama could pursue refor ms to make g roup rates and r isk-pooling accessible to independent workers.

Allow Association Benef it Plans: The state can explicitly allow individuals to band together to purchase g roup insurance. For instance, Alabama could clar ify that any g roup of independent workers or sole propr ietors can for m an association (or use an existing professional association) to negotiate health insurance or other benef its, regardless of industr y or aff iliation, as long as they are state residents. This would let freelancers pool their r isk to get lower premiums similar to a large employer’s plan[xx].

Let Contractors opt into Employer Plans: Alabama could also encourage companies to voluntar ily open their employee benef it plans to independent contractors who work with them. While ERISA and federal r ules gover n many benef it plans, at least for fullyinsured plans Alabama could per mit this practice without treating the contractor as an employee for state pur poses[xxi].

Promote and Educate to Build Participation: A policy is only as good as its implementation. Alabama should invest in outreach and par tnerships to ensure independent workers and businesses know about these new options.

In consider ing these refor ms, it’s impor tant to maintain the voluntar y, f lexible nature of Alabama’s approach. All of the above options respect freedom of contract and avoid imposing new burdens on those who prefer the cur rent system. Por tability should not be conf lated with mandates. The success of Alabama’s law and those in sur rounding states lies in expanding choices for independent workers, not forcing any company or worker into a one-size-f its-all model.

By implementing the above refor ms, Alabama can incrementally build a robust por table benef its ecosystem.

Conclusion

Alabama can solidify its position as a leader in adapting labor policy to the 21st-centur y workforce The por table benef its law enacted in 2025 was a g roundbreaking step that balances the needs of independent workers and businesses while preser ving the f lexibility and entrepreneur ial spir it of independent work. To build on that foundation, Alabama’s policymakers should consider the additional refor ms discussed above. These refor ms would fur ther reduce the bar r iers that keep independent contractors from obtaining benef its, and they would encourage a competitive market for benef it solutions to f lour ish in our state.

With thoughtful refor ms, Alabama can achieve an inclusive economy where benef its follow the worker, and ever y Alabamian, whether traditionally employed or self-employed, has a chance to attain f inancial stability and secur ity for themselves and their families.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Provide Tax Relief to All Alabamians

Overview of the Issue

At the end of fiscal year 2025, Alabama’s state government had once again collected more revenue from taxpayers than ever before. According to preliminary data from the State Treasurer, the state’s Education Trust Fund (ETF) and General Fund (GF) budgets collected a combined $14.504 billion in tax revenues last year [i]. After experiencing historic growth in 2021 and 2022, revenue growth has slowed to more historically average levels over the past several years. In FY 2025 moderate growth continued with ETF revenues increasing by 2.52% ($269.5 million) over 2024’s $10.650 billion in net revenue.

The largest contributor to the increase in net ETF revenues was that the state collected approximately $371.4 million more in individual tax receipts in 2025 than the previous year. On the other hand, corporate income tax receipts declined by more than $143 million (10.43%) compared to 2024. Corporate and Individual income tax receipts are the largest source of ETF revenues. The state’s general sales and use tax receipts increased slightly in 2025 after seeing a decline in FY2024 [ii].

Meanwhile, the much smaller GF budget continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace than FY2024. Overall, GF revenues were up by 3.43% in 2025, an increase of approximately $118.7 million. The largest component of the surge in GF revenue was due to a $80.2 million increase in insurance premium tax receipts and $41.4 million (13%) in receipts from the state’s simplified sellers use tax. [iii].

Despite lower ETF growth than in FY2024, the fund still ended FY 2025 with a projected balance of more than $1.6 billion. The GF was projected to have a surplus of approximately $493 million as the new fiscal year began [iv]

Current Law

In Alabama, all income earned by an individual is taxable. For single filers, the first $500 in income is taxed at 2%, the next $2,500 is taxed at a rate of 4%, and all earned income above $3,000 is taxed at a 5% rate. The minimum personal tax exemption for a single filer is $1,500 per year. For married filers, the personal exemption is a minimum of $3,000 per year. After that, married person filing a joint return pay 2% taxes on the first $1,000 earned, 4% on the next $5,000 in wages, and 5% for all earned income above $6,000 per year

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

While many of the nation’s lawmakers have used historic post-COVID state revenue surpluses to pursue historic individual income tax relief over the past few years, Alabama has lagged behind. Alabama is already at a competitive disadvantage in attracting new residents to the state compared to Tennessee and Florida, which levy no individual income taxes. Our neighbors in Georgia and Mississippi have also enacted historic income tax cuts over the past few years, with Mississippi on pace to potentially eliminate all state individual income taxes in the next decade.

In terms of corporate income taxes, all annual net income is taxed at a rate of 6.5%. Deductions are allowed for all federal income taxes paid or accrued. On paper, Alabama has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the Southeast, ranking ahead of Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Kentucky.

In practice, Alabama’s effective tax rate is lower than the 6.5% statutory rate because Alabama allows businesses to deduct federal taxes paid from their state tax bills. However, as was seen after the passage of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), this can cause unpredictability for the state’s businesses and government. Because the TCJA reduced federal corporate income tax rates, businesses had less to deduct from their state income tax rates, meaning that their Alabama tax bills increased. From 2019-2023 net corporate income tax collections increased by 166%.

With many of the provisions of the TCJA set to expire at the end of 2025, Alabama’s effective corporate income tax rate will be lower than the 6.5% statutory rate and below many Southeastern states. However, having a higher statutory rate than neighboring states puts Alabama at a competitive disadvantage in attracting new businesses.

Beyond individual and corporate income tax reforms, Alabama lawmakers should build on the progress of the past few years and continue to find ways to further reduce the tax burden of Alabamians.

One area of particular emphasis should be property tax reform.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

In 2024, the Alabama Legislature enacted House Bill 73 by Representative Phillip Pettus, which now appears as section 40-7-2.2 of the Code of Alabama. While the law did not address the property tax rate specifically, it placed a 7% cap on how much the value of a Class II or Class III property could increase after a new assessment. The law requires each county tax assessor, after each reappraisal, to compare the new assessed value of each Class II or Class III property to its prior-year value and adjust the assessed value pursuant to the 7% cap, thus limiting the amount that property taxes can increase in a given year.

While the passage of House Bill 73 was a victory for Alabama’s taxpayers, there are two major issues with the law.

First, the introduced version of the bill capped assessment increases at a much lower rate of 3% for Class III property and 5% for Class II property. Secondly, the assessment limitations will only be in place through fiscal year 2027 unless the Alabama Legislature takes action to extend or make the law permanent. These factors greatly limited the savings that Alabamians saw from the law. As introduced, the Legislative Services Agencies estimated that the tax reduction would be $73.8 million annually. As enacted, those savings were reduced to less than $1.6 million annually over the four years of the assessment limitation.

If left unaddressed, Alabamians could soon see an even more dramatic rise in property taxes in just a few short years.

Reforms to Consider in 2026 Reduce Individual Income Tax Rates

During the 2023 Regular Legislative Session, Representative Danny Garrett (as well as Senator Arthur Orr) introduced several proposals to reduce the state’s individual income tax burden.

House Bill 115 would have reduced the state’s top income tax bracket from 5% to 4.95% over a five year phase in period, saving an estimated $57.3 million once fully implemented. An accompanying bill (House Bill 116) would have eliminated the state’s 2% tax bracket, eliminating income taxes on the first $500 and $1,000 earned for single and married filers respectively. Estimated savings from this proposal were $25 million per year. No similar proposals were introduced during the 2024 or 2025 regular sessions.

Lawmakers should build on these proposals and consider moving towards a flat tax rate of 3.95%. Both Georgia and Mississippi have enacted legislation to utilize a flat income tax structure (with Mississippi on a course to eliminate its income tax altogether) and reducing Alabama’s rate to 3.95% would make Alabama’s rate amongst the lowest in the region, besides states that assess no state income tax.

Reduce Corporate Income Tax Rate to Improve Competitiveness

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

In the COVID-19 shortened 2020 regular session, Senator Dan Roberts and Representative Danny Garrett introduced bills that would have reduced the state’s statutory corporate income tax rate from 6.5% to 4.75%. The bills would have also eliminated a corporation’s ability to deduct federal income taxes paid from their Alabama tax bills.

In terms of a company’s bottom line, reducing the tax rate to 4.75% and removing the FIT deduction is unlikely to have a significant impact on the amount of taxes owed each year. However, it would make tax bills more predictable since they would no longer be tied to the federal tax code.

Reducing the corporate income tax rate would also make Alabama more competitive in attracting new businesses and industries to the state. As stated previously, Alabama has one of the highest statutory corporate income tax rates in the Southeast. According to a 2020 report from the Joint Legislative Task Force on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, “Alabama gets little to no credit for its lower effective tax rates resulting from the FIT (Federal Income Tax) deduction. We are advised that it is a meaningful competitive disadvantage in state comparisons by economic developers and companies looking to locate in the Southeast. Alabama will never know how often it has been “deselected” in a business location decision because it is perceived to have one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the Southeast.”

Fully Repeal Business Privilege Tax

Alabama’s business privilege tax is a state government fee levied for the privilege of being organized under the laws of Alabama or doing business in the state It is assessed as a percentage of a company’s net worth with rates ranging from 0.025% to 0.175%, however, prior to tax year 2023, every business organized in the state was required to pay a minimum privilege fee of at least $100 each year.

During the 2022 regular session, Alabama lawmakers repealed the minimum privilege tax, with the change being fully implemented during the 2024 tax year. The repeal began saving businesses an estimated $23 million each year beginning in 2024.

No company should be required to pay the state a fee purely for the privilege of doing business within Alabama’s borders. Lawmakers should continue to pursue a full repeal of the tax, saving Alabama businesses more than $200 million each year.

Fully Repeal the State’s Sales Tax on Groceries

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

House Bill 479 by Representative Danny Garrett, enacted during the 2023 regular session, reduced the state’s grocery tax from 4% to 2%. The first 1% of that tax cut began on September 1, 2023, with the second 1% reduction slated to being as early as September 1, 2024. However, the second phase of the grocery tax repeal did not occur in 2024 because ETF revenue growth, as estimated by the Director of Finance and Legislative Fiscal Officer, is nor projected to be at least 3.5% in 2025. In FY 2024 ETF revenues grew by 2.12%.

This changed during the 2025 regular session when Representative Garrett introduced House Bill 386, which was later enacted and signed by Governor Kay Ivey. Under the provisions of the bill, the second 1% cut in the grocery sales tax rate went into effect on September 1, 2025, without the requirement that ETF growth metrics be met. The bill also removed existing barriers to make it easier for local jurisdictions to reduce their share of the sales tax on groceries. In total the additional 1% cut is expected to save taxpayers more than $121 million per year

While the reduction of the grocery sales tax from 4% to 2% has undoubtedly benefited Alabama families, the price of everyday goods remains near record levels. Alabama is still one of only twelve U S states that taxes groceries at all Families should not be taxed for essential items. Removing the remaining 2% sales tax on groceries would save Alabamians hundreds of millions of additional dollars each year.

Permanently Cap Property Tax Assessment

Making the property tax assessment cap permanent would ensure lasting predictability and stability for Alabama taxpayers. Under the current sunset, homeowners and businesses face uncertainty and after 2027 annual property tax hikes could once again be unrestricted unless the Legislature intervenes. A permanent cap removes this uncertainty, guaranteeing that today’s protections against steep tax increases will remain in place for the future. Taxpayers would have confidence that their bills won’t suddenly skyrocket. This is especially important for long-term financial planning.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

While the current law caps assessment increases at 7% per year, the originally proposed 3% cap for Class III (homesteads and agricultural land) and 5% for Class II (commercial properties) would far better serve taxpayers. Lower cap rates mean gentler, more predictable growth in tax bills. At 7% per year, a property’s taxable value could nearly double in a decade, which over time may outpace growth in household incomes or business revenue. In contrast, a 3% annual cap on owner-occupied homes roughly aligns with normal inflation and wage growth, ensuring that property taxes do not mushroom beyond a family’s ability to pay. Likewise, a 5% cap on business properties provides businesses with a reasonable expectation of modest tax increases, aiding in long-term planning for Alabama’s entrepreneurs and job creators.

Restoring the original lower caps would preserve affordability in local communities. It strikes a better balance between recognizing rising property values and preventing tax bills from outpacing taxpayers’ ability to pay. Cities and counties would still see gradual growth in their tax base with less volatility for citizens.

Conclusion

The Alabama Legislature has made progress towards providing tax relief to citizens over the past several years. Still, there is more work to be done. Lawmakers should continue to pursue bolder tax reform initiatives in the 2026 regular session. Doing so will allow citizens to keep more of their hard earned money as well as make the state more competitive in attracting new residents and business opportunities to Alabama.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Reduce Future St ate Budget Growth

Overview

At the end of fiscal year 2025, Alabama’s state government had once again collected more revenue from taxpayers than ever before. Over the past several years, record revenue growth has spurred record government spending.

According to data from the State Treasurer, the state’s Education Trust Fund (ETF) and General Fund (GF) budgets collected a combined $14.504 billion in tax revenues last year [i]. After experiencing historic growth in 2021 and 2022, revenue growth has slowed to more historically average levels over the past several years. In FY2025 moderate growth continued with ETF revenues increasing by 2.52% ($269.5 million) over 2024’s $10.650 billion in net revenue.

The largest contributor to the increase in net ETF revenues was that the state collected approximately $371.4 million more in individual tax receipts in 2025 than the previous year. Corporate and Individual income tax receipts are the largest source of ETF revenues. The state’s general sales and use tax receipts increased slightly in 2025 after seeing a decline in FY2024 [ii].

Meanwhile, the much smaller GF budget continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace than FY2024. Overall, GF revenues were up by 3.43% in 2025, an increase of approximately $118.7 million in new revenue. The largest component of the surge in GF revenue was due to a $80 2 million increase in insurance premium tax receipts and $41 4 million (13%) in receipts from the state’s simplified sellers use tax. [iii].

Despite lower ETF growth than in FY2024, the fund still ended FY 2025 with a projected balance of more than $1.6 billion. The GF was projected to have a surplus of approximately $493 million as the new fiscal year began [iv].

How Will Surpluses Be Used in 2026?

Of the nearly $1.6 billion ETF budget sur plus, much of it has already been committed. Approximately $100 million will be transfer red to the ETF Budget Stabilization Fund, around $750 million is to be transfer red to the Advancement and Technology Fund, and an estimated $300 million will be available for transfer to the Educational Oppor tunities Reser ve Fund, leaving approximately $450 million available for ETF supplemental appropr iations[v].

Neither Senate education budget committee chair man Ar thur Or r (R-Decatur) or House budget committee chair man Danny Gar rett (R-Tr ussville) have weighed in on what the pr ior ities for that bill might be Additional funding for Alabama’s CHOOSE Act prog ram in FY2026 and beyond should remain a top pr ior ity for lawmakers next session[vi].

FY 2026 ETF spending was set at $9 909 billion dur ing the 2025 Regular Session [vii] An issue with the cur rent system is that when there is a large ETF sur plus, such as in the past several years, much of it has already been committed to the var ious reser ve funds. Therefore, there is less that could be retur ned to taxpayers through lower tax rates. After the statutor ily required transfers, the remaining sur pluses have been used to increase ETF spending levels through supplemental appropr iations bills, pushing ETF spending higher and higher each year.

The GF budget is expected to have around $493 million in excess revenues that could be spent dur ing the 2024 session. Neither general fund budget chair man has weighed in on how those funds may be used. A por tion of the sur plus could be used to offset increased entitlement prog ram costs, such as the Supplemental Nutr ition Assistance Prog ram, resulting from the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act[viii].

Potential for Reform

Cap Spending Increases to Population and Inf lation Growth

To slow the g rowth of state gover nment, lawmakers should consider implementing a spending cap tied to population and inf lation g rowth. This approach would essentially freeze inf lationadjusted spending over time, reducing budget uncer tainty for taxpayers and lawmakers as well. It would also ensure that more money is left in the pr ivate sector where it will exper ience its g reatest rate of retur n[ix].

Since 2016, average annual combined base ETF and GF spending g rowth has been 5.1%. In the last f ive years, it has averaged 6.4%. In FY 2026, combined spending is set to increase by 7.2% compared to 2025[x]. Meanwhile, population has g rown much more slowly, averaging 0.76% over the past f ive years. Increases in inf lation have outpaced population g rowth over the past f ive years, averaging 4.57% annually, though large increases in 2021 and 2022 were brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic and related economic actions taken by the federal gover nment. In other words, those years were an outlier From 2015-2019 annual inf lation averaged 1 82%

Using population plus inf lation as a spending cap would signif icantly limit g rowth compared to recent years For example, if FY 2026 spending had been limited by such a cap, it would have been restr icted to g rowth of no more than 3.6%, approximately 3.6% below the FY 2026 enacted levels. A population plus inf lation spending cap would have saved taxpayers an estimated $459 million in FY 2026 alone, with those savings compounding each year that the cap is in place However, this approach would still leave f lexibility for lawmakers, allowing spending to r ise when there are spikes in population and/or inf lation.

Capping spending increases based on population plus inf lation g rowth is a measured approach that does not force lawmakers to cut cur rent spending levels, but also will reduce the future burden placed on Alabama’s taxpayers.

Conclusion

While it is too early to deter mine exactly how and how much of the more than $2 billion total state revenue sur plus will be spent in 2026, the bottom line remains that the state collected more tax dollars than ever from Alabama citizens last year. Additional gover nment funds ultimately belong to the citizens that paid them to the state. Sur pluses should be used to decrease the future tax burden placed on all Alabamians and/or focused on projects that will have the g reatest overall benef it for all citizens. They should not be used to fur ther increase the size and scope of Alabama’s state gover nment.

The Alabama Policy Institute will continue to advocate for lower taxes and responsible f iscal policy as these decisions are being made.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Healthcare Freedom for All Alabamians

Overview

Health freedom can be defined as the power to decide and choose the best course of treatment and general approach to health for an individual and their dependents, without government mandates [i]. While this ability may seem obvious, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 challenged the concept of health freedom to its core. Travel and quarantine restrictions were put into place for many Americans, with stronger restrictions mandated for individuals who had contracted the virus. With the development of COIVD vaccines over the subsequent months, further restrictions were put into place. Many countries, including the U S , required travelers entering their borders to be fully vaccinated Some U S states and cities followed a similar course [ii].

This was not where COVID related mandates stopped. In September 2021, the Biden Administration released a Path Out of the Pandemic COVID-19 Action Plan. Among its requirements was that the federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) require businesses with more than one hundred employees to mandate COVID vaccinations and require workers remaining unvaccinated to undergo weekly testing. A similar mandate was put into place for all federal government employees and contractors. All these mandates were subsequently declared illegal by federal courts or rescinded by the administration, with the exception of vaccine requirements for health care workers employed by providers receiving Medicare of Medicaid reimbursement [iii].

The pandemic was a recent flashpoint that simplified the visibility of the health-freedom movement, but the issues are far broader. The same questions arise any time government or institutions attempt to compel medical choices. Historically, legislatures have balanced public health and personal liberty by allowing some mandates while protecting exemptions and consent rights. Going forward, lawmakers must remember that Alabamians expect to retain authority over their own and their children’s health.

Protect

Alabamians should not be compelled by federal, state, or local lawmakers to make decisions about their or their loved one’s health that goes against their personal views and interests. Alabama lawmakers should protect citizens’ r ights to health freedom.

Current Law

Since 2021, several laws to protect Alabamians from health related mandates have been enacted by the Legislature. Dur ing a 2021 special session, the Legislature enacted Senate Bills 9 and 15. Senate Bill 9 required that employers or contractors allow employees to claim medical or religious exemptions from the coronavir us vaccine It also author ized a review by the Alabama Depar tment of Labor before an individual was ter minated for refusing to comply with the federal vaccine mandates. The provisions of Senate Bill 9 expired in May 2023 [iv].

Senate Bill 15 prohibited a minor from receiving a COVID vaccination without parental consent and bar red schools from inquir ing about the vaccination status of minors. The law remains in effect [v]. Some advocates of the bills cr iticized it for not doing enough to protect the health freedom of Alabamians.

In May 2024 the legislature enacted Senate Bill 72 by Senator Ar thur Or r, which prohibits the state medical boards from disciplining physicians for prescr ibing or recommending off-label treatments[vi]. Dur ing the 2025 regular session, Senate Bill 43, sponsored by Senator Tim Melson, was enacted by the Legislature. The bill forbids insurers from penalizing doctors or phar macists for infor ming patients about treatment costs or alter natives[vii].

Also in 2025, SB 101 by Senator Lar r y Stutts was enacted. The law raises the age at which a minor can consent to medical treatment from 14 to 16. The introduced version of the bill would have increased the age of consent to 18 years of age[viii]. API believes the Alabama Legislature should consider revisiting this issue and increasing the age of consent to the age of major ity in Alabama, nineteen, dur ing the 2026 regular session.

Alabama Legislative Proposals

Dur ing the 2025 session, Representative Chip Brown f iled House Bill 79 which would have prevented the State Board of Phar macy and employers from disciplining phar macists who recommend off-label medical treatments to patients. The bill passed the House unanimously and was approved by the Senate Healthcare Committee but did not come to the Senate f loor for a f inal vote[ix]

Representative Mack Butler and Senator Ar thur Or r both f iled measures in 2025 to provide religious exemptions for vaccines to students at public colleges and universities and to expand exemptions for students at public K-12 schools. Senator Or r’s bill, Senate Bill 85, passed by a vote of 26-5 and was approved by the House Health Committee, but did not come to the House f loor for a f inal vote. Representative Butler’s bill was not considered[x].

House Bill 158, relating to mask mandates, was introduced by Brock Colvin for the 2024 regular session. The bill prohibited any gover nment entity from implementing, order ing, or other wise imposing a mask mandate to prevent the spread of COVID-19 or any other communicable disease This includes K-12 public and char ter schools Exceptions to the proposed law were allowed for medical or dental facilities licensed by the Alabama Depar tment of Public Health and state or local detention facilities. The bill received a favorable repor t from the House Health Committee but was not considered by the full body [xi]

House Bill 165, which was introduced by Representative Chip Brown dur ing the 2024 legislative session, would have expanded on the parental consent requirement for COVID-19 vaccinations, expanding that requirement to any vaccination for an unemancipated minor (a person under the age of 19). Specif ically, the bill stated that “an unemancipated minor may not give consent to the administration of a vaccination for himself or herself without the wr itten consent of a parent or legal guardian.” Cer tain exceptions were provided such as the unemancipated minor not being dependent on a parent or legal guardian for suppor t, if they were living apar t from their parent or legal guardian, or if they were managing their own affairs[xii].

Representative Brown’s bill passed the House by an 81-17 margin and was approved by the Senate Judiciar y Committee but failed to be brought to the Senate f loor for a f inal vote. Representative Brown f iled a similar bill, House Bill 2, for the 2025 Regular Session. The bill passed the Alabama House of Representatives by a vote of 92-5 and was approved by the Senate Judiciar y Committee early in the 2025 regular session, but never came to the Senate f loor for a vote.

Dur ing the 2023 regular session, State Representative Er nie Yarbrough and eight cosponsors introduced House Bill 324. Refer red to as the Alabama Health Freedom Act, the bill would have prohibited employers, most public places and establishments, and occupational licensing boards from discr iminating against an individual based on immunization status.

Any person discr iminated against or other wise adversely impacted based on vaccination status would have been per mitted to seek civil action against the responsible par ty, with the Alabama Attor ney General also author ized to pursue civil penalties [xiii].

Representative Yarbrough has pref iled a similar bill relating the vaccine discr imination, House Bill 12, for the 2026 legislative session.

Reforms in Other St ates

Idaho

Dur ing its 2025 legislative session Idaho lawmakers approved Senate Bill 1210, the Medical Freedom Act, which bans any business or gover nment entity (state or local) from requir ing any medical inter vention, broadly def ined to include any procedure, vaccine, dr ug injection or treatment, for employment, entr y into facilities, school attendance, etc

The law prohibits public or pr ivate vaccine or mask mandates across schools, workplaces and businesses[xiv].

Florida

In 2023, Flor ida Gover nor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 252 into law, prohibiting discr imination against individuals based on their health care choices. Provisions include prohibiting businesses, char itable organization, gover nmental entities, and most education institutions from requir ing proof of vaccination or COVID-19 testing, as well as mask mandates.

The bill fur ther prohibits gover nment entities and education institutions from enforcing the health policies or guidelines of an inter national health organization unless author ized by law or executive order [xv]. Beyond mandates and restr ictions, the Flor ida law prohibits hospitals from inter fer ing with a patient’s r ight to choose alter native COVID-19 treatments, such as iver mectin.

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic a number of states took action to limit health mandates. Eighteen states (including Alabama) implemented vaccine exemptions legislatively or through executive action. Eleven states (including Alabama) passed laws limiting pr ivate business vaccine mandates, while two enacted legislation requir ing vaccination. From 2020 to 2022, 26 states limited public entr y mandates. Three states and the Distr ict of Columbia enacted legislation requir ing proof of vaccination upon entr y into their boundar ies.

Conclusion

Health freedom is a core r ight of not only all Alabamians, but of all Amer icans. It is, quite literally, what the US Declaration of Independence is refer r ing to when it states the r ights to “life, liber ty, and the pursuit of happiness" are fundamental, unalienable r ights given from our Creator rather than any level of gover nment. "Life" refers to the r ight to exist and live, "liber ty" is the freedom to make your choices for yourself, and the "pursuit of happiness" is the r ight to seek fulf illment and live a life you f ind meaningful. The phrase emphasizes that these r ights are inherent and cannot be taken away, though their exercise can be limited to prevent har m to others (but not yourself).

Alabamians should be able to choose what treatments they and their dependent family members receive without gover nment opinion, inter vention, or mandate. No one in Alabama should be required to receive a vaccine or any other type of medical treatment that goes against their individual health or personal wishes. Fur ther, no Alabamian should face discr imination, whether by the state or businesses establishments for their sincerely held beliefs. The Alabama Legislature has a duty to protect these inherent r ights from the tyranny of the major ity.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Improve Regulatory Oversight and Increase Government Transparency

Overview

The common perception of most Alabamians is likely that the state legislature enacts laws and then agencies are tasked with enforcing those laws as passed by lawmakers. And while this is true at a basic level, often legislation is more of a framework for how a law will be implemented, without each provision outlined in great detail. In reality, bureaucrats working for Alabama’s myriad of state agencies are responsible for developing the rules and regulations for a law once it has been enacted by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor.

While laws in general are important, the regulations accompanying those laws that are developed after passage are equally important. Sometimes those regulations can come with high costs for Alabama’s taxpayers and business owners. At the very least, proposed regulations and a detailed cost analysis of those regulations should be readily available to the public. If the cost of a regulation exceeds a certain threshold, there should be a vote of citizens direct representation, the Alabama Legislature, before it can be implemented. Thankfully, there is a solution to bring more clarity and oversight into the regulatory process, the Regulations form the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act), which directly addresses regulatory overreach.

The REINS movement began at the federal level shortly after the rise of the Tea Party movement that began within the Republican Party in 2009. While Congress already has the authority to issue resolutions of disapproval and nullify agency regulations that it deems harmful, under current federal law a regulation can only be disapproved of after it has been implemented. The REINS act would allow Congress to preemptively halt the enactment of regulation before they take effect.

Under the provisions of the act, before any major r ule, regulation, or mandate requir ing f inancial expenditures from citizens can go into effect it must f irst be approved by Cong ress. A major regulation is def ined as having impacts to the U.S. economy of $100 million or more[i].

One of the key arguments in favor of the REINS Act relates to enforcement of the nondelegation doctr ine, a pr inciple that states that legislative bodies cannot delegate their powers to executive branch agencies or pr ivate entities By giving agencies broad regulator y powers, federal and state lawmakers are consistently violating this pr inciple[ii].

While the federal REINS Act has been introduced in ever y Cong ress since 2011 without enactment, that hasn’t stopped states from pursuing similar paths. Thus far, at least four states have adopted comprehensive REINS-style laws to rein in their own agencies. These effor ts are par t of a broader nationwide push to restore legislative control, increase democratic accountability, and limit regulator y over reach by unelected off icials.

In addition to requir ing votes on costly regulations, recent refor m proposals in Alabama and elsewhere emphasize g reater guidance transparency, executive oversight, and judicial checks. For example, agencies often issue guidance documents to inter pret or implement laws without going through for mal r ulemaking, a practice that can sidestep public input. New refor ms call for shining a light on this practice by mandating that signif icant agency guidance be publicly disclosed and subject to oversight[iii].

Similarly, improving Executive Oversight of Grants means requir ing high-level review before state agencies commit to major federal g rant prog rams. This step helps align g rant-funded prog rams with state pr ior ities and guards against agencies obligating the state to costly or misaligned initiatives[iv].

Additionally, Alabama policymakers are consider ing ways to recalibrate the balance of power between agencies and the other branches of gover nment. One impor tant step is to end judicial deference to agencies. After a recent U.S. Supreme Cour t decision cur tailed the federal Chevron deference doctr ine, Alabama’s legislature has pursued its own Judicial Non-Deference law to ensure cour ts inter pret state laws de novo rather than automatically siding with agency inter pretations. This refor m would protect citizens from having “the scales tipped” in favor of agency bureaucrats when disputes ar ise over what laws or r ules mean[v].

At the same time, lawmakers across the countr y are working to reinforce their investigative powers through enhanced Legislative Subpoena Power. By bolster ing the legislature’s ability to compel testimony and documents from agencies, the state can better uncover ineff iciencies, mismanagement, or regulator y abuses and hold the executive branch accountable dur ing oversight hear ings. All of these measures, from cost accounting of federal funds to transparency in guidance, stronger oversight of g rants, judicial non-deference, and subpoena power share a common pur pose with the REINS Act: reining in the administrative state and reasser ting the pr imacy of elected off icials in major policy decisions.

By implementing the refor ms descr ibed above, Alabama can better manage the complexity of federal-state prog rams and ensure that major policy changes, whether through regulations or g rant conditions, undergo proper scr utiny by those elected to represent the public. Ultimately, these effor ts aim to safeguard our democratic gover nance They ensure that impactful decisions are debated in the open, approved by accountable representatives, and checked by a balance of powers, rather than made unilaterally by the administrative apparatus.

Current Law

Rulemaking author ity is gover ned by the Alabama Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (sections 41-22-1 through 41-22-27 of the Code of Alabama). The Joint Committee on Administration, which is compr ised of members of the Legislative Council, is responsible for overseeing the process[vi]. Under cur rent law, an agency must give at least 35 days’ notice of its intended r ulemaking action, i.e. adopting, amending, or repealing a r ule, with a public comment per iod included. All proposed r ules must be published in the Alabama Administrative Monthly. The Legislative Ser vices Agency is responsible for maintaining the Alabama Administrative Code, and all f inal r ules must be cer tif ied by LSA before they can take effect.

All r ulemaking author ity under the APA is subject to the legislative oversight of the Joint Committee on Administration. LSA assists the committee in deter mining if a r ule submission clearly exceeds an agency’s r ulemaking author ity.

The r ulemaking process begins with the submission of a proposal to LSA including the proposed language of the r ule. If the agency anticipates that the proposed r ule will have an economic impact, then it is required to attach an economic impact statement.

The economic impact statement must include a deter mination of the need for the r ule and its expected benef it, a deter mination of the costs and benef its associated with the r ule, the effect of the r ule on competition, the effect of the r ule on cost of living and doing business in the area that it will be implemented, the effect of the r ule on employment, the source of revenue being used to implement the r ule, an analysis of the shor t and long-ter m economic impact upon all persons substantially affected by the r ule, any uncer tainties associated with the estimate, the effect of the r ule on the environment and public health, and the potentially detr imental effect on the environment and public health if the r ule is not implemented[vii].

Once the date for comments and completion of public notice expires, f inal cer tif ication of the r ule must occur within 90 days. If it does not occur within the 90 day per iod, the agency is required to star t the process over. After consider ing all public comments, the agency may adopt the r ule with or without changes Once the f inal r ule has been transmitted to LSA, it will generally go into effect 45 days after being published in the Alabama Administrative Monthly.

At any point in time before the r ule goes into effect, the Joint Committee on Administration may convene a hear ing to disapprove the r ule or send it back to the agency with suggested amendments. If no action is taken by the committee, it goes into effect at the end of the 45-day waiting per iod[viii].

What Other St ates Are Doing Wisconsin

In 2017 the Wisconsin Legislature enacted the Wisconsin Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scr utiny (REINS) Act. Under the law, agencies must f irst submit a statement of scope to the Wisconsin Depar tment of Administration which then deter mines whether an agency has the author ity to issue the r ule before it is presented to the gover nor. An agency cannot begin drafting a r ule until the statement of scope is approved[ix].

Next, if the proposed r ule would have more than $10 million in implementation and compliance costs over two years, with exceptions, it may not be promulgated without legislative approval. The process also allows for the state’s Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules to contract for and conduct an independent economic impact analysis of the proposed r ule. The cost of the analysis must be paid by the agency if it var ies by more than 15% from the agency’s analysis[x]. Once the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules has given its approval, the proposal may be submitted to the gover nor for f inal approval[xi].

Florida

In 2010 the Flor ida Legislature enacted House Bill 1565, another REINS style act. The law requires an agency to prepare a statement of estimated regulator y costs (SERC) for any proposed r ule that is expected to cost in excess of $200,000 in the f irst year of implementation or more than $1,000,000 over a f ive-year per iod. The SERC must include the estimated impact on economic g rowth, pr ivate-sector job creation or employment, or pr ivate sector investment, an analysis of business competitiveness, any transactional costs likely to be incur red by individuals, entities, or small businesses, and a descr iption of any regulator y alter natives[xii].

Any agency r ule that exceeds the $200,000 of cost over one-year or $1,000,000 in cost over f iveyear threshold must be approved by the Legislature.

In 2024, Kansas and Indiana followed the examples of Wisconsin and Flor ida by enacting their own REINS style laws. In Kansas, lawmakers are now required to approve any r ule with implementation and compliance costs of more than $1,000,000 over a f ive-year per iod[xiii].

Indiana law does not require approval by the full legislature but does require approval by the Budget Committee for any proposed r ule with estimated implementation and compliance costs of more than $1,000,000 over two-years. The gover nor may not approve such r ules until the completion of the Budget Committee’s review[xiv].

Federal Grants

States are also adopting innovative measures to enhance transparency and oversight of federal funds f lowing into state agencies. One refor m focus is “tr ue cost” accounting of federal g rants, making sure policymakers and the public know the f inancial obligations that come with federal money. For example, Montana law requires the Gover nor to submit a repor t to the legislature estimating the annual costs of federal mandates on the state, based on sur veys of state agencies.

This helps illuminate the hidden matching costs or regulator y burdens tied to federal g rants. Likewise, Oklahoma created a public transparency system through a 2016 law, which directed the state to modify its online budget por tal so citizens can track all federal funds received and spent by state agencies each year.

Oklahoma leaders noted that with roughly one-third of the state budget coming from Washington, taxpayers and lawmakers needed a clear view of how those federal dollars are used[xv].

Beyond accounting, states are asser ting more oversight control before accepting federal g rants. Several legislatures have considered requir ing executive or legislative approval for agency g rant applications, especially if a g rant might commit the state to future costs or policy conditions.

A model policy advanced by a federalism task force in 2018, for example, would require state agencies to provide the Gover nor and legislature with a detailed cost–benef it analysis and a list of all compliance mandates before applying for any federal g rant It also calls for the Gover nor’s explicit approval before an agency submits the g rant application[xvi].

Proposals in this vein have been discussed in states like West Virginia and Idaho in recent years, often as par t of broader “Federal Funds Accountability” acts. By scr utinizing g rants up front states seek to guard their budget sovereignty. These policies ensure that accepting federal money is a transparent decision, made with full knowledge of any state matching funds or regulator y obligations attached.

Guidance Transparency

Another emerging refor m is guidance transparency, which targets the often-unseen inf luence of federal agencies on state policy through infor mal directives. Federal agencies regularly issue guidance documents, memos, and advisor y letters that, while not legally binding, strongly shape how states implement prog rams, effectively steer ing state regulations without going through for mal r ulemaking. These can include “Dear Colleague” letters or agency guidance on topics from education standards to environmental enforcement. Histor ically, such guidance might be quietly followed by state agencies with little public awareness, since guidance doesn’t undergo the notice-and-comment process of for mal r ules[xvii].

To address this, some states are looking to shine light on any federal instr uctions that state bureaucrats receive and act upon. For example, a 2025 transparency initiative led by Amer icans for Prosper ity has urged states to pass laws requir ing agencies to proactively post all federal guidance documents they receive on a public website.

By making federal guidance readily accessible online, lawmakers and citizens can see when federal regulators may be nudging state policy behind the scenes. Such disclosure prevents backdoor r ulemaking by ensur ing that infor mal federal directives cannot slip by unnoticed or quietly pressure states into compliance[xviii].

Virginia and Mississippi have considered bills to catalog federal directives to their agencies, and other states are expected to introduce similar measures in upcoming sessions. This push for guidance transparency ultimately protects the r ule of law. It ensures that signif icant policy changes aren’t happening via memos, and it empowers state off icials to openly question or refuse federal guidance that isn’t in their state’s interest[xix].

Judicial Deference

In the judicial arena, a g rowing number of states have moved to cur tail or eliminate the practice of cour ts defer r ing to administrative agencies’ inter pretations of laws. This practice can tilt the scales in favor of bureaucratic agencies in legal disputes over regulations To bolster the separation of powers and ensure judges say what the law is, at least 14 states have rolled back judicial deference as of 2024[xx].

The approaches var y. Five states achieved this through state supreme cour t decisions that rejected or over tur ned deference precedents. Others took legislative or constitutional routes. Flor ida’s voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2018 explicitly prohibiting state cour ts from defer r ing to an agency’s inter pretation of any state statute or r ule. This amendment now requires Flor ida judges to review agency actions de novo, ensur ing that judges inter pret the law “from scratch” without giving weight to the agency’s view[xxi].

More recently, state legislatures have stepped in. In March 2024, Indiana, Nebraska, and Idaho each enacted statutes to end automatic deference in their cour ts. Under these laws, judges in those states must decide all questions of law independently when reviewing agency decisions, rather than defaulting to the agency’s inter pretation.

Similarly, Wisconsin and Tennessee passed laws instr ucting cour ts to use independent judgment on regulator y questions. The Goldwater Institute and Pacif ic Legal Foundation have actively promoted such refor ms, arguing they restore a constitutional balance by making agencies legally accountable to the same deg ree as any litigant[xxii].

Subpoena Power

State legislatures are likewise bolster ing their investigative and oversight tools to keep executive agencies in check. One impor tant mechanism is the power to subpoena agency off icials and records dur ing legislative inquir ies.

Histor ically, many state legislatures have had subpoena author ity on paper, but recent refor ms seek to strengthen and clar ify its use in overseeing agencies. In Nebraska, lawmakers advanced Legislative Bill 298 in 2025 to create a new per manent Division of Legislative Oversight along with a special oversight committee. Under this proposal, the Legislature’s inspectors general and audit off ices would be consolidated for more robust investigations.

Notably, the bill reaff ir ms that the legislature’s oversight bodies hold subpoena power to demand documents and answers from executive agencies, with the approval of a major ity of the legislature’s Executive Board. This ensures that if agencies refuse to provide infor mation, legislators can compel compliance in a for mal legal manner[xxiii]

Other states have taken or considered similar steps. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in recent years saw high-prof ile legislative investigations where committees issued subpoenas to agencies and even went to cour t to aff ir m their validity. In response, legislators in some states are updating statutes to make enforcement of legislative subpoenas more straightfor ward.

In 2023, Tennessee studied giving its legislative committees clearer author ity to swear in witnesses and demand records from state depar tments, mir ror ing Cong ress’s investigator y powers. By enhancing subpoena and investigator y powers, state lawmakers aim to increase transparency and accountability from the executive branch. These refor ms reinforce the pr inciple that agencies are ultimately answerable to the public’s representatives. Whether it’s uncover ing mismanagement, reviewing how federal funds are used, or simply obtaining data needed for policymaking, a stronger investigative ar m of the legislature helps prevent executive agencies from operating in secret or outside their legal author ity.

Opportunities for Reform

Alabama lawmakers should consider strengthening the cur rent administrative review process to increase transparency and to lessen the consequences of new r ules on the state’s economy, businesses, and individuals.

In addition, targeted refor ms can ensure that the legislature and other elected off icials maintain author ity over regulator y policy and state-federal interactions. Notably, a recent analysis ranked Alabama among the states most vulnerable to federal agency inf luence, underscor ing the need for improved oversight[xxiv].

Key opportunities for reform include:

Conf irm Agency Authority Before Rulemaking

Cur rently, an agency’s legal author ity to promulgate a r ule is ver if ied only after a draft r ule is submitted for review. Alabama could adopt a process like Wisconsin’s, requir ing agencies to obtain an upfront deter mination that they have statutor y author ity for any proposed r ule before they begin drafting it. For example, agencies could submit a “statement of scope” descr ibing the intended regulation to an executive oversight off ice or to the Legislative Ser vices Agency for conf ir mation. By ensur ing an agency’s author ity is aff ir med at the outset, lawmakers can alter or stop unauthor ized r ule proposals early in the process.

Enable Independent Economic Impact Analysis

While agencies must provide an economic impact statement for proposed r ules, it may not always be in the agency’s interest to fully capture potential costs Lawmakers should empower the Joint Committee on Administrative Regulation Review to contract for independent exter nal analyses of a proposed r ule’s economic impact. This outside review could be tr iggered for regulations expected to have signif icant costs.

Wisconsin’s REINS Act, for instance, allows a legislative committee to commission an independent impact analysis and even requires the agency to fund it if the agency’s own estimate is signif icantly understated. Independent reviews would ensure that regulator y costs are assessed objectively rather than taken at face value from the proposing agency.

Legislative Approval for Major Regulations

Alabama should require a vote of the Legislature to approve any new state regulation that would exceed a def ined cost threshold. Three of the four states with REINS-style laws use an annual impact threshold in the range of $200,000 to $500,000, while Wisconsin chose a higher threshold of about $5 million per year.

For example, Flor ida now mandates legislative approval for any r ule costing over $1 million in a f ive-year per iod, and Kansas and Indiana recently set roughly $1 million thresholds for requir ing legislative approval of new r ules. Alabama’s threshold should be set low enough to catch regulations with signif icant economic impact on citizens or businesses. If a proposed r ule’s estimated cost exceeds the chosen threshold, it should not take effect unless the Alabama Legislature explicitly approves it.

Require Full Cost Accounting of Federal Funds

Given that nearly 40% of Alabama’s total state revenue comes from federal g rants, it is cr itical to assess the tr ue cost of accepting federal money. Federal g rants often come with str ings attached that can strain state resources. Agencies should be required to produce a comprehensive cost analysis before Alabama commits to any major federal g rant. This analysis should detail not only the immediate federal dollars offered, but also any expected state fund matches, future maintenance or prog ram costs, new regulations the state must implement, and any other obligations over time. By illuminating the full f iscal and regulator y impact of federal funds, Alabama can avoid committing to prog rams that burden state budgets or under mine state autonomy[xxv]

Centralize Federal Grant Transparency

As a compliment to cost accounting, Alabama should mandate transparency for all conditions and requirements attached to federal g rants via a centralized public website. Cur rently, some infor mation on federal awards is available through federal sites like USAspending.gov, but state policymakers and citizens would benef it from an Alabama specif ic por tal tracking each federal g rant the state or its agencies accept. Such a por tal should list, in plain language, the key implementation details of each g rant. Centralized transparency would ensure that lawmakers and the public can easily review what commitments are being made in exchange for federal dollars. This not only improves public accountability but also allows for better infor med decisionmaking[xxvi].

Disclose Federal Guidance Documents

State agencies often receive infor mal guidance or directives from federal agencies that, while not legally binding, strongly inf luence how state prog rams are r un. To br ing these often unseen federal inf luences into the open, Alabama should require that any federal guidance received by a state agency be promptly published or repor ted to state off icials and made accessible to the public. Federal agencies have been known to use guidance documents to suggest how states should implement prog rams, sometimes effectively pressur ing states to act beyond what is explicitly required by law. Because these communications typically bypass legislative oversight and public notice, they can lead to signif icant policy shifts. Requir ing agencies to disclose all federal guidance will increase transparency on infor mal federal directives, enabling lawmakers and citizens to see if state agencies are being steered in ways that diverge from state law or public intent[xxvii].

Executive Approval of Federal Funds

To ensure enhanced oversight of federal money, Alabama should require that agencies obtain approval from a statewide elected off icial (such as the Gover nor) before accepting federal g rants or funds. Alabama law already places federal g rant coordination under the Gover nor’s pur view via the Off ice of State Planning and Federal Prog rams and the Executive Budget Off ice. Building on this, a for mal requirement for guber nator ial (or other elected executive) sign-off on each g rant would guarantee that unelected bureaucrats are not unilaterally binding the state to federal g rant conditions[xxviii].

End Judicial Deference to Agency Interpret ations

Alabama’s cour ts should follow the recent federal example and clar ify that judges will not automatically defer to state agencies’ inter pretations of statutes. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Cour t over tur ned the Chevron deference doctr ine, which had required federal judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable inter pretations of ambiguous laws. The Cour t’s message was clear: it is the judiciar y’s role to “say what the law is,” not the agency’s. Consistent with this shift, Alabama can move away from any Chevron-like deference in state law. The Alabama Legislature has already considered this idea.

Senate Bill 248 by Senator Ar thur Or r was proposed dur ing the 2025 regular session and would have instr ucted Alabama cour ts to consider an agency’s inter pretation but not defer to it, instead favor ing inter pretations that limit agency power and maximize individual liber ty[xxix].

Implementing a judicial non-deference policy would mean that when a statute is unclear, Alabama judges would inter pret it based on the law’s text and intent, without defer r ing to the agency’s view. This change reinforces the separation of powers and helps ensure that policy decisions remain with elected lawmakers and neutral cour ts, rather than being effectively made by agencies through their inter pretations.

Strengthen Legislative Subpoena Power

Oversight is only as effective as the tools available to investigators. The Alabama Legislature should have strong subpoena powers to investigate agencies, compel testimony, and obtain documents when reviewing administrative actions. While state legislatures generally have inherent author ity to issue subpoenas, not all have for mally established procedures that make using this power straightfor ward[xxx].

Alabama should explicitly aff ir m in statute that legislative committees can issue subpoenas to agency off icials and third par ties as needed, enforceable in cour t if ignored. By doing so, lawmakers bolster their capacity to thoroughly investigate agency decision-making and any allegations of misconduct or mismanagement.

Effective subpoena power was identif ied as a key component of state resilience against federal over reach because it allows a legislature to probe whether state agencies are enforcing laws as intended and whether any exter nal pressures are leading them astray. In shor t, this refor m would ensure that when the legislature needs answers or infor mation from an agency, it can compel cooperation, a fundamental check and balance in the oversight process[xxxi]

Conclusion

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, regulations and r ules made by unelected employees at state agencies can have a signif icant negative impact on Alabama’s economy, businesses, and citizens. Moreover, federal funds and infor mal mandates can inf luence state policy outside the nor mal legislative process.

Strengthening oversight through measures like the REINS Act and the complementar y refor ms outlined above will re-balance author ity back toward Alabama’s elected off icials. Before any regulation with a signif icant cost impact is allowed to become effective, it should f irst be transparently analyzed, debated, and approved or denied by the lawmakers elected to represent all Alabamians.

By improving transparency, requir ing accountability for federal involvement, and reaff ir ming the legislature’s and judiciar y’s roles, Alabama can protect its citizens from undue regulator y burdens and preser ve the pr inciple of self-gover nance.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Require St ate and Local Government Entities to Livestream Meetings

Overview

Transparency is the cornerstone of good governance at all levels, and providing easy access to meetings and deliberations has never been easier due to the popularization of online meeting platforms such as Zoom, Google Meet, and others. Still, many units of government do not provide online video access to meetings. Local governments meeting via teleconference proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic but have continued afterwards. For instance, in the state of Michigan, a Michigan Public Policy Survey found that 81% of Michigan local governments held at least some meetings via teleconference or video technology[i].

While various states have enacted laws that give school board members and elected local government officials the option to attend meetings via teleconference, this option has not been universally extended to concerned members of the voting public in most states. To improve transparency in all units of government such as school boards, city councils, and state regulatory bodies and legislative committees, the Alabama legislature should adopt a law requiring all levels of government to provide a streaming or teleconference option to the public.

Current Law

Like many other states, Alabama has its own version of the Open Meetings Act, an act that requires state and local governments to make meetings open to the public, provide sufficient notice prior to the meeting, and allow for periods of public comment during deliberations. Alabama’s Open Meetings Act states that “It is the policy of this state that the deliberative process of governmental bodies shall be open to the public during meetings as defined in Section 36-25A-2(6).

Except for executive sessions per mitted in Section 36-25A-7(a) or as other wise expressly provided by other federal or state statutes, all meetings of a gover nmental body shall be open to the public and no meetings of a gover nmental body may be held without providing notice”[ii].

Dur ing the COVID-19 pandemic, Gover nor Kay Ivey opened the door to allowing teleconference meetings for local units of gover nment for business that was necessar y to gover nment As the COVID-19 pandemic wound down, local units of gover nment and school boards retur ned to in-person meetings, but many did not continue to provide a Zoom option for citizens looking to provide public comment or listen in to deliberations[iii].

Additionally, Alabama’s cur rent Open Meetings Act allows for some members of a gover nmental body to meet via video conferencing or teleconferencing if the body is compr ised of members from two or more counties Still, cur rent law does not give par ticipator y r ights to members of the public and it is not a requirement to have a streaming or teleconferencing option. Requirements for such meetings include that a physical location is still provided and that “If a member is par ticipating in a meeting of a gover nmental body by electronic means as author ized in this section, the gover nmental body shall ensure that means of access to the electronic communication is published in the same manner as the notice of the meeting is published pursuant to this chapter. The means of access shall allow members of the public to hear the meeting. A gover nmental body is not required to allow the public to par ticipate by electronic means to any extent beyond being able to hear the meeting[iv].”

Reforms in Other St ates Indiana

In 2023, Indiana enacted House Bill 1167, which was fur ther amended in 2024. Beginning July 1, 2025, the law requires state agencies, county and city councils, county commissions, township boards, elected school boards, and other gover ning bodies that are subject to Indiana’s Open Door Law to livestream meetings in real-time as well as to archive those recordings and make them publicly available. If live-streaming technology is limited, the body must at a minimum record the meeting and make that archive available for public viewing[v].

South Carolina

In 2025, South Carolina passed a livestream law specif ically relating to school boards. Senate Bill 77, which became law in May, requires that local distr ict school boards, char ter school boards, and special school boards must adopt a policy that provides real-time livestream access to the public for ever y covered meeting, and must post the recording of those meetings to the school board’s website for archival viewing. Archived recording must be posted within two days of the live meeting The new policy must be implemented by Januar y 1, 2026[vi]

California

In Califor nia, members of the public attending a meeting via teleconference must be given the same r ights afforded to them under the state’s wider Open Meetings Act. AB 2449, signed in 2022 “allows for meetings to occur via teleconferencing subject to cer tain requirements, par ticularly that the legislative body notice each teleconference location of each member that will be par ticipating in the public meeting, that each teleconference location be accessible to the public, that members of the public be allowed to address the legislative body at each teleconference location, that the legislative body post an agenda at each teleconference location, and that at least a quor um of the legislative body par ticipate from locations within the boundar ies of the local agency’s jur isdiction[vii].”

Potential for Reforms

Across the countr y and in the state of Alabama, the g roundwork to expand access to streaming or teleconferencing options for all units of gover nment has been laid, but Alabama has a unique oppor tunity to be among the most transparent states in the nation.

In the fur therance of transparency, the Alabama legislature livestreams its deliberations both for meetings of the whole and var ious House and Senate committees, setting a precedent for regulator y bodies, local units of gover nment, and school boards to do so. Many local units of gover nment and school boards also continue to provide teleconferencing and video options to concer ned citizens despite no law requir ing them to do so, showing that expanding access to public deliberations is possible.

At a minimum, Alabama should follow the example of South Carolina and require all public K12 school gover ning bodies to live stream and archive all public meetings. A stronger refor m would be to follow the Indiana model and require most gover nment bodies to livestream and archive all meetings.

Conclusion

In an age where providing transparency to concer ned citizens has never been easier, requir ing deliberative bodies and units of gover nment to provide teleconferencing or video options is a commonsense solution that will come at minimal cost to local and state gover nments. As the late Supreme Cour t Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”, and this legislation would be a signif icant step in the r ight direction.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Resist any Expansion of Gambling and Increase Penalties for Illegal Gambling Activity

Overview

Any expansion of sports betting, casino-style gambling, or the establishment of a statewide lottery is bad public policy, both fiscally and socially, and it is the wrong solution to state financial obligations. Regardless of who plays the lottery or gambles (and regardless of the outcome), the government receives a portion of every dollar spent on these activities. This creates a perverse incentive for the state, especially when gambling revenue streams are volatile. The state becomes addicted to these funding streams, with politicians desiring for more and more individuals and families to recklessly spend their money on gambling activity promoted by state government. If a lottery is instituted or gambling increased, calls to further increased gambling will become incessant and government expansion will likely follow in its wake [i].

Advocates claim that current illegal gambling issues might be solved by changing the Alabama constitution to make what is now illegal legal. Enforcement of current law and/or increased fines and penalties for illegal and unconstitutional betting is a better answer. Curtailing gambling is an honorable endeavor, the expansion of gambling is not. Online gambling, on sports or anything else, would turn every smartphone in the state into a portable casino. Where there are more opportunities to gamble, higher rates of addiction and negative societal impacts follow [ii].

States that have legalized gambling experience higher rates of gambling addiction, crime, corruption, addiction, and mental health disorders With more opportunities to gamble, the negative impact of gambling increases. This is especially true as gambling is normalized for children; early and increased exposure to gambling leads to increases in addiction that can cause emotional damage, strained relationships, and ruined lives [iii]

Gambling is a bad bet for Alabama families. Suggesting that it is an issue that is “left up to the voters” is not an appropr iate response for a conser vative legislator. Any attempts to expand gambling or establish a state-r un lotter y should be rebuffed. Instead, the legislature should look at ways to better enforce, and increase cur rent gambling prohibitions and penalties.

Current Law

Lotter ies and most for ms of gambling are banned under Alabama state law.

Section 65 of the Alabama Constitution states that “ The legislature shall have no power to author ize lotter ies or gift enter pr ises for any pur poses, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale in this state of lotter y or gift enter pr ise tickets, or tickets in any scheme in the nature of a lotter y; and all acts, or par ts of acts heretofore passed by the legislature of this state, author izing a lotter y or lotter ies, and all acts amendator y thereof, or supplemental thereto, are hereby avoided [iv].”

Section 13A-12-20 of the Code of Alabama def ines gambling as engaging in activity that “stakes or r isks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or inf luence, upon an ag reement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a cer tain outcome.” Fur ther, Alabama code def ines a gambling device as “any device, machine, parapher nalia or equipment that is nor mally used or usable in the playing phases of any gambling activity, whether that activity consists of gambling between persons or gambling by a person involving the playing of a machine [v].”

Because possessing gambling devices is prohibited by state law, casinos are prohibited as well [vi].

The Federal Indian Gaming Regulator y Act of 198 (IGRA) eight established a jur isdictional framework for the promotion of Indian gambling operations. There are cur rently three Poarch Band of Creek Indian casinos operating under Class II gambling regulations. Class II gambling includes electronic bingo and non-banked card games, i.e., card games between two or more players where the players do not wager against the house. Under the provisions of the IGRA, class II gambling does not require the Poarch Band of Creek Indians to enter into an ag reement with the state. Rather, their activities are regulated by the National Indian Gaming Commission [vii]. If the State of Alabama changes its constitution to allow a state sanctioned lotter y, table games, or spor ts betting, most attor neys ag ree that the Poarch Creek Indians would also receive that author ity.

Physical horse and dog racing are also allowed in cer tain circumstances under Alabama law. Chapter 11, Section 65 of the Code of Alabama per mits Class I municipalities (300,000 residents as of the 1970 Census) to establish racing commissions through referendum. Bir mingham is the only Class I municipality in the state and approved the creation of the Bir mingham Racing Commission in 1984 [viii].

Online spor ts betting, which is perhaps one of the most dangerous for ms of gambling proliferated in recent years due to its appeal to young people and ease of access, is not allowed under Alabama law[ix].

Alabama law allows par i-mutuel gambling in conjunction with horse and dog racing. Since there are cur rently no active horse or dog racing tracks in Alabama, gambling operators devised a scheme to create “par i-mutuel betting” via histor ical horse and dog races Par i-mutuel betting is a system in which all bets for a horse or dog race are pooled together, taxes and fees paid to the racetracks facilitating the gambling are deducted, and all winning bets split a share of the overall wager ing pool [x].

2025 Alabama Legislation

House Bill 41, introduced by Representative Matthew Hammett, sought to crack down on illegal gambling by elevating cer tain offenses from misdemeanors to felonies. The legislation explicitly clar if ied the def inition of illegal gambling devices, making clear that electronic games of chance, video lotter y ter minals, and histor ical racing machines are unlawful under Alabama laws.

Under House Bill 41, promoting or allowing gambling in a location one controls would become a Class C felony for a f irst offense (up to 10 years in pr ison) and a Class B felony for subsequent offenses. Conspir ing to commit gambling offenses would be treated the same way, and possession of a gambling device would be a Class C felony (elevated from a misdemeanor) for any offense. The bill also set signif icant f ines per illegal machine or large quantities of illegal lotter y mater ials.

House Bill 41 specif ied that it does not outlaw any gambling activity that was already legal. Representative Hammett said the goal was to put “some teeth” into enforcement against the rampant illegal gambling in the state.[xi]. Representative Hammett’s bill was never considered by a House or Senate committee in 2025.

While there were no comprehensive gambling expansion bills introduced in the 2025 regular session, there were several local bill aimed at doing so. One such bill was Senate Bill 90, by Sen. Bobby Singleton (D-Greensboro), which sought to legalize histor ical horse racing (HHR) machines at the existing Greyhound track in Greene County. The bill would have updated the 1970s-era “local racing law” to allow par i-mutuel wager ing on histor ical horse races via computer ized machines, essentially adding a new casino-style game at the track and setting a statewide precedent for the expansion of casino gambling

The bill also would have adjusted how gambling revenues are distr ibuted to local entities in Greene County Senate Bill 90 passed the Alabama Senate in Apr il 2025; however, it was not adopted by the House of Representatives[xii].

Negative Impacts of Gambling and Lotteries

Lottery Revenue is Unreliable

In 2020, 67 cents of each dollar spent on lotter y tickets were given back as pr izes, and about four cents were used to cover retailing and administrative expenses. The remainder about twentynine cents was then ear marked for the prog rams the lotter y is obligated to fund. Since 2011, the percentage of each dollar devoted to state initiatives nationwide has fallen from 34% to 29%, while the percentage of money devoted to pr izes has increased from 62% to 67% [xiii].

Eventually, lotter y revenues often taper off and, in many cases, decline quickly.

Lottery Ef fects on the Poor

While people from ever y income level gamble, people exper iencing pover ty are most adversely affected because it is harder for them to afford losses. Unfor tunately, they also spend more on lotter y tickets on an absolute scale.

According to a 2019 sur vey of 2,377 individuals by Bankrate.com, households ear ning less than $30,000 per year spent 13% of their income on lotter y tickets, compared with just 1% for households ear ning $50,000 per year or more. The same lower-income households also spent considerably more of their income on alcohol (11%) and tobacco or e-cigarettes (13%) than wealthier ones (3% and 4%, respectively, for those ear ning $50,000 or more) [xiv].

According to a comprehensive 2022 study by the Howard Center for Investigative Jour nalism at the University of Mar yland, stores selling lotter y tickets are dispropor tionately concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods in most states, and their patrons are typically local to those neighborhoods. The percentage of Black and Hispanic residents was also higher in areas with lotter y retailers than those without in many states [xv].

A 2010 Jour nal of Gambling Studies repor t found that 61% of Amer icans in the lowest economic quintile were likely to have played the lotter y in the past year versus 42% in the top two quintiles. Those in the lowest quintile also bought tickets more frequently (26.1 times in the last year) than those in the two highest quintiles (9 5 and 10 1 times, respectively) [xvi].

Questionable Economic Benef its

When money is spent on gambling, it is not spent on other goods and ser vices in the same community; instead, it moves money around. Examples of this “substitution effect” have been documented in Flor ida, Mississippi, Nebraska, and New York. In states where casino gambling is a tr ue destination Connecticut, Nevada, New Jersey, and Mississippi signif icant revenue is collected from visitors outside the local economy, while the social costs associated with visiting retur n home with them [xvii].

A 2022 study using U.S. Census Bureau data in casino communities from 2002-2017 found that casinos did little to increase retail sales g rowth. In fact, dur ing the Great Recession (2007-2008), retail sales in casino communities shrank at a rate two to three times g reater than those in noncasino communities. Employment in casino communities also g rew slower across the entire study per iod [xviii].

Not a “Fix” for St ate Budgets

Legalized gambling adds little to the bottom line of most states. According to state f inance data from the U.S. Census Bureau and casino tax revenue repor ted by the Amer ican Gaming Association, combined tax revenues from non-tr ibal casinos, lotter ies, spor ts gambling, and stand-alone electronic gambling devices represented only 1.7% of the $2.2 tr illion spent by state gover nments in 2021 [xix].

Mississippi’s exper ience using gambling revenues for its budget is a cautionar y tale for Alabama. Twenty years ago, the Mississippi State Legislature used to plan for casinos to provide almost 5% of the revenue for its General Fund; by 2024, they expected only 2.14%. Gambling revenues have also fallen 16% since 2008 (a drop of 39% when adjusted for inf lation). The reasons: inter nal competition from tr ibal casinos and the allure of newer attractions in Arkansas and Louisiana [xx].

Alabama’s for tunes would be no better: If the state could raise the tax revenue estimated in Gov. Ivey’s 2020 gambling repor t, it would equal only 1.6% of the state’s $43.2 billion budget for f iscal year 2023

Some states with spor ts gambling have also been disappointed with their ear nings. According to investigative research by the New York Times, the four teen states that allowed mobile spor ts betting in the 2021-2022 f iscal year and followed the tax rate advice of gambling associations collected $150 million less in revenues than the $560 million predicted initially [xxi].

Gambling Addiction

If additional gambling is legalized, its accessibility would undoubtedly draw people who have not gambled previously. Inevitably, some of these would become problem gamblers. Problem gambling–or gambling addiction–includes all gambling behavior patter ns that compromise, disr upt or damage personal, family, or vocational pursuits. The symptoms include increasing preoccupation with gambling, a need to bet more money more frequently, restlessness or ir r itability when attempting to stop, “chasing” losses, and loss of control manifested by continuation of the gambling behavior in spite of mounting, ser ious, negative consequences. In some cases, problem gambling can result in f inancial r uin, legal problems, loss of career and family, or suicide [xxii].

Social Costs

For some people, gambling creates diff iculties of var ying sever ity and duration that also har m people close to them and the broader community. As with the economic effects of gambling, the social costs of addiction are also hidden, but they are no less tangible.

Productivity and Job Loss

Gambling addicts often impose costs on their employers in the for m of an unreliable presence on the job and reduced productivity when present. Unemployment is twice as high among gambling addicts than among gamblers who play socially or recreationally. Problem gamblers are also more likely to lose their jobs than those who are not problem gamblers because of absenteeism, poor job per for mance, moodiness, and ir r itability [xxiii].

Crime

For about as long as gambling has been legal in the U.S., a link between gambling and cr ime has been recorded By legalizing, condoning, and encouraging gambling, the state reduces the stigma associated with it, increasing the number of gamblers, which, in tur n, increases the number of problem gamblers, some of whom tur n to cr ime to f inance their addiction.

Links between gambling and crime have been found:

• In general, cr ime rates are higher among gambling addicts than among non-gamblers and those who are not problem gamblers.

• In 1998, a sur vey of new Texas inmates found that 16% of males and 13% of females were deemed to have gambling problems. A similar study in 2001 of Texas youths admitted to juvenile facilities found that 12% of the males and 8% of the females had gambling problems.

• A 2002 study of recent ar restees in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Des Moines, Iowa, found that 16% of the Las Vegas sample and 7% of the Des Moines sample met the cr iter ia for problem gambling. For all ar restees combined, 15% of all assaults, 27% of all thefts, and 24% of all dr ug sales were committed to get money to gamble, pay off gambling debts, or were other wise related to their gambling problem. Of the 4% of Des Moines and 10% of Las Vegas ar restees with severe gambling problems (n = 203), only 6% (n = 13) had ever received treatment [xxiv]. Research has indicated that problem gambling is strongly associated within cr iminal activity. The prevalence of disordered gambling is g reater among offenders than in the general population. There is a clear need to screen those who commit cr iminal acts for gambling problems and to address problem gambling among offending populations, as they may be at increased r isk, and most in need of treatment.

• According to the GA Depar tment of Behavior Health & Development Disabilities, Roughly 50.0% of problem gamblers commit cr imes and 68.8% of offenders assessed as severe problem gamblers repor ted stealing or obtaining money illegally to pay for gambling/gambling debts, compared to 26.3% of moderate problem gamblers. 85

The likelihood of a gambling addict having a ment al disorder is high:

• According to a 2006 repor t in the Jour nal of Affective Disorders, about 25% of gamblers with ser ious addiction problems manifest manic behavior, and over half repor t being depressed.

• A systematic review of the literature in 2011 sur rounding the prevalence of co-morbid behaviors in persons with gambling problems found that 38% had mood disorders, 37% had some anxiety disorder, and 23% had major depression [xxv]

Suicide

Sometimes, the ef fects of problem gambling are so severe that the gambler seriously considers or attempts to t ake their own life:

• Problem gambling has the highest suicide rate of any addictive disorder, with one in f ive problem gamblers attempting suicide

• In clinical populations of individuals seeking treatment for gambling problems, between 22% and 81% repor ted suicidal ideations, and between 7% and 30% had attempted suicide.

• Compared to the general population, gamblers with ser ious addiction problems are 3.4 times more likely to attempt suicide [xxvi].

Conclusion

Gambling operators would lead Alabamians to believe that by not expanding gambling and instituting a lotter y, the state is har ming the freedom of Alabama citizens and for feiting a signif icant amount of money to neighbor ing states. Whether any meaningful economic gains would be realized from expanding gambling is questionable. The creation of a str ucture to establish and manage a state lotter y will g row state gover nment. Any proceeds to the budgetar y coffers will also g row state gover nment.

Gambling bills that have recently been under consideration were fraught with cor r upting inf luences and pr inciples adverse to free market pr inciples. Negative societal impacts of the expansion of gambling or creating a state condoned/managed lotter y would br ing are undeniable. Alabama lawmakers should embrace the pr inciples of free markets and limited gover nment. Alabama lawmakers should fur ther protect the most vulnerable of our citizens from har m. Alabama lawmakers should seek to strengthen and ensure that the state’s anti-gambling laws are strengthened and enforced. Alabama lawmakers should not expand gambling.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Provide Alabamians Access to Innovative Healthcare Treatment Options

Overview

Medical technologies are constantly evolving, meaning that more treatment options are available to Americans than ever before. These new technologies can positively impact all patients but can be particularly valuable for those who have run out of conventional options and are truly down to their last resort. Specifically, this includes one-off treatments that are made for individual patients based on their genetic makeup. The problem is that the federal bureaucracy, namely the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), has not kept pace with these evolving technologies. By failing to do so, the FDA is preventing patients from having access to the latest medical treatments, sometimes life-saving care[i].

The good news is that Alabama lawmakers do not have to wait for the FDA to reform itself. It has the power to protect patients’ right to access the latest medical treatments available; the Right to Try for Individual Treatments (Right to Try 2.0). Because the U.S. constitution provides protection for individual rights, states have the authority to provide additional and greater protections of those rights, particularly in relation to the health and safety of citizens[ii]

To be eligible for Right to Try 2.0, a patient will have to meet several conditions. First, they must be diagnosed with a life-threatening or severely debilitating illness In addition to the diagnosis, patients must first consider FDA approved treatment options. To proceed with nonapproved treatment, they must have a recommendation for an investigative individualized treatment from their physician and must also give written informed consent regarding the risks associated with undergoing an investigational treatment. Any treatment must be based on an analysis of the patient’s genetic sequence, chromosomes, DNA, RNA, genes and gene products, or metabolites[iii]

Right to Tr y 2.0 also put safeguards in place for patients, manufacturers, and healthcare providers. Any Right to Tr y 2.0 treatment must comply with federal laws and regulations related to the protection of human subjects in research. This includes ethical standards for protecting patients, having a third-par ty Institutional Review Board evaluate proposed research projects to ensure they are administered ethically, and ensur ing that a patient understands the exper imental nature of the treatment. Dr ug manufacturers are not required to provide a treatment No doctor is required to make a request for a treatment, nor can a doctor or manufacturer be held liable if a patient chooses to use an investigational dr ug, biological product, or device[iv]. As of late 2025, sixteen states have enacted “Right to Tr y for Individualized Treatments” laws modeled on the Goldwater Institute’s proposal[v]

Current Law

Under cur rent federal law, new medical treatments must be approved by the FDA before they can be made commercially available to patients. This happens through the clinical tr ial process which can often take years and even decades to result in f inal approval. The cur rent system also requires that one medication be given to a large number of patients, eliminating the ability for individualized treatment.

That is not to say that no prog ress has been made over the past decade. In 2015, the Alabama Legislature enacted the or iginal Right to Tr y legislation (as did 40 other states and the federal gover nment). The or iginal Right to Tr y legislation allows ter minally ill patients who have considered all other FDA approved treatment options to use non-approved investigational dr ugs, biological products, and devices. However, the or iginal Right to Tr y Act still requires that any treatment used by a patient must have successfully completed a Phase 1 clinical tr ial. In other words, the FDA is still involved in the process[vi].

Dur ing the 2025 Regular Session, Senator Tim Melson introduced Senate Bill 299 to allow cer tain non-FDA-approved stem cell therapies for patients, with str ict infor med consent and disclosure requirements. The bill def ined “stem cell therapy” (excluding fetal/embr yonic cells from abor tion) and required providers to give wr itten notice that the treatment is not FDAapproved and obtain a signed consent detailing the nature, r isks, and alter natives. Senate Bill 299 stalled in the Senate Healthcare Committee and was never brought to the Senate f loor for a vote. Suppor ters argued the bill would empower patients and doctors to tr y cutting-edge treatments, [vii].

What Other St ates are Doing

Goldwater Institute Model Legislation

On the heels of the or iginal Right to Tr y legislation becoming federal law May 2018, the Goldwater Institute began drafting model legislation that would ultimately become Right to Tr y 2.0.

Under the provisions of the Goldwater model, an eligible manufacturer may make an individualized investigative treatment, biological product, or device available to a patient (though they are not required to). It is the responsibility of the patient to pay the costs of the treatment if the manufacturer requires them to do so. The bill does not require any insurer to expand coverage or pay for the cost of an individualized treatment, nor does it require any gover nment agency (such as the State Medicaid Agency) to pay for the cost of treatment. Fur ther, it does not require any licensed hospital or medical facility to provide additional ser vices[viii]

The Goldwater model legislation fur ther provides that a state licensing board or disciplinar y subcommittee cannot take any action against a healthcare provider’s license solely based on their recommendation to a patient regarding access to or treatment with an individualized investigative treatment. The Act also waives liability for a manufacturer, or any other person involved in the treatment of a patient for any har m done as a result of using an individualized investigative treatment.

Georgia

Dur ing its 2025 session, the Georgia General Assembly nearly unanimously passed Senate Bill 72, a Right to Tr y 2.0 expansion. Senate Bill 72 broadened Georgia’s or iginal Right-to-Tr y law to cover investigational individualized treatments tailored to a patient’s genetic prof ile, and it expanded eligibility beyond ter minal illness to include “life-threatening or severely debilitating” conditions. The act built in multiple patient safeguards while empower ing rare-disease patients and their physicians to seek personalized therapies[ix].

Colorado

In 2025, Colorado, which pioneered the or iginal Right to Tr y in 2014, updated its law to include individualized investigational therapies. House Bill 1270, sponsored by a bipar tisan g roup of representatives, was approved in committee with unanimous suppor t and ultimately passed both chambers. It was signed by Gover nor Jared Polis on May 19, 2025.

The new law allows patients with life-threatening or debilitating illnesses to access “investigational individualized treatments” when no other options remain. Colorado’s act mir rors key provisions of the Goldwater model, requir ing that treatments be based on the patient’s genomic prof ile and subject to ethical oversight, thereby ensur ing patient safety while removing delays for one-of-a-kind therapies[x].

Mississippi

In 2024, the Mississippi Legislature enacted its version of Right to Tr y 2.0, Senate Bill 2858. Mississippi’s bill largely includes the Goldwater model legislation, though lawmakers did specif ically expand treatment options to include “long-lasting injectable antiretroviral dr ugs for the treatment of patients with HIV[xi].”

Louisiana

Dur ing the 2024 legislative session, Louisiana lawmakers passed the Hope for Louisiana Patients Law into statute. Like the Mississippi Right to Tr y 2.0 law, it largely uses the same language contained in the Goldwater Institute’s model legislation[xii].

Conclusion

Providing access to life-saving medical treatment should be a top pr ior ity for Alabama’s lawmakers dur ing the 2026 Regular Legislative Session. Adopting Right to Tr y 2.0 will expand both the hope and treatment options for patients across the state, par ticularly for those with rare and ter minal diseases. It is an oppor tunity for Alabama to seize the power delegated to it by the U.S. constitution and improve the lives of Alabamians.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Allow for Alternative Accredit ation Options at Alabama’s Colleges and Universities

Overview

Accreditation has long served as a central mechanism in U.S. higher education to ensure quality and consistency [i] Colleges and universities voluntarily submit to evaluation by accrediting agencies, which assess governance, curriculum, student services, financial stability, and institutional integrity.[ii] Over time, accreditation became essential rather than optional, as federal financial aid programs require institutions to maintain status with a U.S. Department of Education (USDE)-recognized accreditor.[iii] In effect, accreditors hold gatekeeping power: a school that loses recognized accreditation risks losing access to federal aid and student enrollment.[iv]

While accreditation was intended to uphold academic standards, accrediting bodies have increasingly been perceived as exerting influence beyond educational quality.[v] Some have pressured institutions to adopt ideological or policy positions on diversity, governance, or curricular content that conflict with state law or institutional autonomy.[vi] As a result, higher education institutions in many states find themselves with limited recourse when accreditors impose demands that contradict state statutes or the authority of local governing boards.

Issue

The core problem lies in the growing tension between institutional autonomy and accreditor authority. When accrediting agencies impose standards or punish institutions for adhering to state law, colleges face a dilemma: conform and violate state policy or resist and risk accreditation sanctions.[vii] Without legal protection, colleges and universities must operate under accreditor rules even when those rules conflict with state law, local governance structures, or institutional mission statements.[viii]

In Alabama, higher education institutions could face similar pressures from accrediting agencies. Effor ts by accreditors to inf luence cur r iculum, diversity policies, free speech practices, or faculty gover nance may place institutions in conf lict with state pr ior ities. Without statutor y protection, Alabama’s institutions remain vulnerable to exter nal gover nance that does not ref lect the state’s laws or values. Acting now allows the state to preempt over reach before it threatens autonomy, compliance, or federal funding.

Current Law

Alabama cur rently has no statute to protect public colleges and universities from accreditor over reach Institutions operate under contracts and guidelines set by accrediting agencies, leaving them with little legal recourse if accreditors demand actions that conf lict with state law or local gover nance.[ix] To remain eligible for federal f inancial aid, institutions must maintain accreditation from a USDE-recognized agency Loss of accreditation, or even probationar y sanctions, can have severe consequences for enrollment, reputation, and institutional funding. [x]

Because no accreditation autonomy law exists, accrediting agencies effectively possess unchecked power to enforce standards on Alabama institutions. If an accreditor penalizes an institution for following state law, there is cur rently no mechanism for the state or the institution to challenge that decision.

Proposed Reform

A meaningful Alabama Accreditation Autonomy Act would create statutor y protections to ensure that public institutions can comply with state law without fear of accreditor retaliation. Under such a refor m, an institution within the Alabama public higher education system would be shielded from accreditor sanctions imposed solely because the institution adhered to Alabama statutes.

Specif ically, USDE-recognized accrediting agencies would be prohibited from taking adverse actions, such as probation, denial of renewal, or sanctions, against an institution for following state law. The legislation should establish a cause of action, allowing institutions or the Attor ney General to seek injunctive relief and damages if an accreditor violates these provisions.

In addition to these protections, the Act could foster competition and reduce reliance on any single accreditor by requir ing institutions to rotate accreditors between cycles, choosing from a list of federally recognized agencies. Safe harbor provisions would ensure continuity of accreditation and uninter r upted access to federal f inancial aid dur ing any transition per iod.

Reform in Other St ates

Flor ida provides one of the strongest models of accreditation autonomy In 2022, the Flor ida Legislature enacted SB 7044, which requires public colleges and universities to rotate accreditors between cycles unless g ranted a waiver.[xi] The law protects institutions from accreditor retaliation when they comply with state law and establishes a pr ivate r ight of action for violations.[xii]

Flor ida also created an alter native accrediting body, the Commission for Public Higher Education, to diversify options beyond the regional accreditor SACSCOC.[xiii]

Iowa adopted a complementar y but nar rower approach. In 2025, the Legislature passed House File 295, also known as the Accreditation Autonomy Act.[xiv] This law prohibits accrediting agencies from penalizing public institutions for following or enforcing state law and author izes both the institutions and the Attor ney General to sue for relief.[xv] Iowa’s model focuses on protecting institutional sovereignty without mandating accreditor rotation.

Louisiana has not yet enacted a full autonomy statute but is actively collaborating with states like Flor ida to explore alter native accreditation pathways. Its policymakers have expressed interest in refor ms that would expand institutional choice, promote multi-state coordination, and reduce dependency on SACSCOC.

Together, these states illustrate a clear policy roadmap. Flor ida emphasizes str uctural refor m and legal remedy, Iowa pr ior itizes protection from retaliation, and Louisiana advances regional cooperation and f lexibility. Each offers valuable lessons for Alabama’s legislative framework.

Conclusion

Accreditation refor m is ultimately about protecting state sovereignty in education. Alabama’s public colleges and universities must remain accountable to the people of Alabama, not to unelected accrediting agencies that operate with limited transparency or regard for state law. Without refor m, Alabama’s institutions remain vulnerable to exter nal gover nance that does not ref lect the state’s pr ior ities or values.

Adopting an Accreditation Autonomy Act would restore balance. By ensur ing that institutions cannot be punished for following state law and by per mitting rotation among federally recognized accreditors, Alabama can uphold academic integ r ity while maintaining eligibility for federal funding. The refor m would not weaken quality standards; it would ensure those standards are applied without ideological pressure.

Flor ida, Iowa, and Louisiana have demonstrated that autonomy and accountability can coexist. Their actions prove that states can asser t independence, foster competition among accreditors, and protect institutional freedom without jeopardizing federal compliance. Alabama now has the oppor tunity to join that leadership g roup by enacting its own Accreditation Autonomy Act. Doing so would aff ir m that academic excellence, lawful gover nance, and self-deter mination are not competing interests, they are the foundation of Alabama’s higher education system.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Remove Logistical Barriers to Opening New Microschools

Overview

Microschools have emerged as one of the most significant developments in modern K–12 education. These small, community-based schools typically serve fewer than 16 students and emphasize individualized learning, flexibility, and close student-teacher relationships.[i]

Unlike traditional public schools, microschools often operate in non-traditional spaces such as libraries, churches, or community centers.[ii] Their growth reflects a broader movement toward educational choice and parental control, providing families with options outside of large, standardized public systems.[iii]

While originally developed as grassroots learning environments, microschools have increasingly faced regulatory and zoning barriers that hinder their ability to open and operate. [iv] Because many local zoning ordinances were written for large, traditional campuses, microschools are often subject to the same facility, parking, or occupancy requirements as public schools serving hundreds of students.[v] In some jurisdictions, microschools are misclassified as childcare facilities or private tutoring centers, creating additional red tape and uncertainty.[vi] The result is that many founders, especially parents or teachers opening small community schools, struggle to find affordable, legally compliant locations.[vii]

Issue

State and local zoning laws have not kept pace with educational innovation. Microschools frequently fall into a gray area of the law: too small to fit within the traditional definition of a “school,” yet too focused on academic instruction to be regulated as day care or commercial enterprise.[viii] When local governments require costly rezoning, conditional use permits, or prolonged inspection processes, these barriers discourage families and educators from pursuing microschool models.[ix]

In Alabama, where education refor m has emphasized parental choice and community engagement, the absence of clear zoning pathways for microschools limits the state’s capacity to expand f lexible lear ning options. Families who might other wise benef it from small, neighborhood-based education providers face a system that favors large institutions and r igid str uctures. If Alabama seeks to compete with leading school-choice states, it must moder nize its legal framework to accommodate nontraditional schools while maintaining reasonable safety and accountability standards

Current Law

Under cur rent Alabama law, there are no specif ic statutor y provisions addressing the creation or operation of microschools. As a result, these schools must navigate local zoning and landuse ordinances designed for large, conventional educational facilities.[x] Many localities apply school zoning classif ications that require extensive parking, g reen space, and traff ic-control measures inappropr iate for a lear ning environment of fewer than 30 students.[xi] In other cases, microschools are required to apply for special-use per mits, an expensive and timeconsuming process that can delay or prevent opening altogether.[xii]

Because these laws were wr itten decades before the emergence of microschools, they fail to account for small-scale lear ning environments that operate safely and effectively outside the traditional school model. This creates uncer tainty. Large schools with legal and f inancial resources can navigate zoning challenges, while families or small operators seeking to establish community-based microschools are often discouraged by the regulator y burden.

Reforms in Other St ates

Flor ida provides one of the most comprehensive frameworks for microschool and smallschool zoning refor m. In 2024, the Flor ida Legislature enacted HB 1285, which expanded legal recognition of microschools and clar if ied that local gover nments may not impose zoning or per mitting requirements that treat them differently from other for ms of pr ivate education. [xiii] The law preempts counties and municipalities from restr icting the operation of microschools and other pr ivate educational institutions in residential or community spaces, so long as they meet established health, safety, and occupancy standards.[xiv] Flor ida’s approach emphasizes regulator y unifor mity, parental choice, and the protection of non-traditional education models from unnecessar y local inter ference.

Ar izona offers another strong model of refor m. In 2018, the state passed HB 2461, titled “Zoning Regulations; Pr ivate Schools.”[xv] This law prohibits municipalities and counties from adopting or enforcing zoning r ules that impose a minimum lot size g reater than one acre for pr ivate schools and requires that pr ivate and char ter schools be treated equally under local zoning ordinances.[xvi]

Although the bill was not drafted exclusively for microschools, it has since been cited by Ar izona policymakers as an enabling precedent for small, community-based lear ning environments. The state has continued to promote f lexible schooling ar rangements through its expansive Empower ment Scholarship Account (ESA) prog ram and through the recognition of microschools as legitimate educational institutions within existing statutes.[xvii]

Louisiana has taken preliminar y steps toward similar f lexibility While it has not yet enacted comprehensive microschool zoning refor m, lawmakers have introduced measures that aim to recognize hybr id and home-based educational settings as legitimate lear ning environments. [xviii] Louisiana’s Depar tment of Education has also streamlined pr ivate-school registration processes to accommodate microschools operating under religious or pr ivate status, reducing regulator y bar r iers and improving access for parents and educators.[xix]

Together, these states illustrate the range of possible approaches to protecting microschools from restr ictive zoning and per mitting requirements. Flor ida’s law creates clear statewide unifor mity, Ar izona’s statute ensures par ity and reasonable land-use standards, and Louisiana’s emerging framework seeks to moder nize its educational code.

Proposed Reforms in Alabama

A meaningful policy refor m for Alabama would establish clear legal recognition and zoning pathways for microschools. An Alabama Microschool and Zoning Freedom Act could specify that any educational institution ser ving a limited number of students qualif ies as a legitimate school for zoning pur poses, regardless of whether it operates in a commercial, religious, or community facility. This would ensure that microschools are not wrongly categor ized as childcare centers or denied operation based solely on location.

The refor m should also preempt unnecessar y local restr ictions by author izing microschools to operate in approved community spaces such as churches, librar ies, theaters, or existing educational facilities without requir ing additional zoning approvals. Establishing a unifor m statewide def inition of microschool would allow regulator y consistency.

This framework would preser ve the f lexibility that makes microschools effective while protecting students’ safety By removing the most burdensome zoning obstacles, Alabama could enable parents, educators, and entrepreneurs to expand educational access and innovation.

Conclusion

Microschools represent one of the most promising recent developments in education refor m. They provide families with personalized lear ning, community connection, and academic f lexibility unmatched by traditional models. Yet without zoning and land-use refor m, these schools will remain out of reach for many families who lack the resources to navigate complex regulator y systems.

Flor ida’s leadership shows that change is possible. By clar ifying zoning r ules, protecting microschools from local over reach, and preser ving basic safety standards, Alabama can empower educators and parents to create innovative lear ning environments that ser ve their communities and better ser ve students. Enacting a Microschool and Zoning Freedom Act would ensure that Alabama’s education system remains accountable to families, not bureaucracy, while expanding oppor tunity.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Strengthen Alabamians Fourth Amendment Privacy Protections

Overview

Geofence warrants, also known as reverse location warrants, are a law enforcement tool that raises serious privacy and constitutional concerns. Unlike traditional warrants that name a particular suspect or place, a geofence warrant compels technology companies to hand over data on any and all devices within a defined geographic area during a specified time period. In effect, police cast a wide net over a virtual perimeter to scoop up location information from everyone in that area, in hopes of identifying a suspect. This approach means innocent people’s data is inevitably swept up, raising alarms that geofence warrants resemble the “general warrants” the Founding Fathers condemned[i].

General warrants in colonial times allowed British officials to search anyone, anywhere, without specific cause, a practice that fueled the American Revolution. Modern geofence warrants operate on a similarly broad premise, targeting “unspecified persons” simply for being present in an area[ii]. For example, the FBI used a geofence warrant to identify over 5,000 devices near the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and police have deployed them to fish for suspects at public protests. Such cases illustrate how geofence searches can pry into individuals’ locations and associations en masse, even when most have no link to any crime[iii].

Critics argue this amounts to a mass surveillance tool inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s promise that people shall be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” against unreasonable searches. Casting such a digital net threatens to undermine the very principle the Fourth Amendment was enacted to uphold, that government cannot invade the privacy of the public at large without particularized suspicion. In an era of pervasive technology, ensuring that innovative policing methods remain within constitutional bounds is crucial to preserving individual freedom and liberty[iv]

How Geofence Warrants Work

Typically, law enforcement requests location records from a technology company’s database The request might specify a radius around a cr ime scene and a time window. The company then retur ns an anonymized list of all devices that were in that area dur ing that time. After reviewing this list, police can ask for identifying infor mation on devices of interest Hundreds or thousands of people’s whereabouts may be revealed in the process, including sensitive locations like homes, churches, or medical clinics, even though only one or two might be actual suspects[v]

Real-World Consequences

Geofence war rants have already implicated innocent people, subjecting them to police scr utiny or worse. In Flor ida, a bicyclist named Zachar y McCoy was f lagged as a burglar y suspect solely because his f itness app recorded him r iding past the victim’s house. He spent thousands in legal fees to clear his name. Likewise in Ar izona, Jorge Molina was wrongfully ar rested and jailed for a week in a shooting case after a geofence war rant pinpointed his phone near the cr ime, even though he had lent the phone to the actual per petrator[vi].

These examples show how vir tual dragnets can generate false leads and ser iously damage innocent peoples’ lives. The pr ivacy invasion is not theoretical. Geofence demands have skyrocketed in recent years, meaning more ordinar y Amer icans’ location data is being recorded. Google alone received about 9,000 geofence requests in 2019, which jumped to 11,500 in 2020, and by 2021 geofence war rants compr ised over 25% of all war rants the company processed[vii].

Current Law and the Fourth Amendment

The Four th Amendment requires that no war rant can be issued without probable cause and a descr iption of the specif ic place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. Geofence war rants present a direct challenge to these pr inciples of par ticular ity and individualized suspicion. Rather than star ting with a suspect and probable cause, a geofence search star ts with a place and time and seeks to f ind a suspect by sifting through ever yone’s data[viii].

Under the landmark Katz test, a Four th Amendment search occurs when gover nment intr udes on a person’s reasonable expectation of pr ivacy. Location data can cer tainly reveal pr ivate details of one’s life suggesting a reasonable expectation of pr ivacy in that data In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Cour t held in Car penter v. United States that individuals have a pr ivacy interest in their histor ical cell phone location records (CSLI), despite those records being held by a third-par ty phone company

The Cour t rejected applying the old “third-par ty doctr ine” blindly to cell phone location data, recognizing that in moder n life one cannot simply opt out of creating such digital trails. Geofence location data can be even more precise and revealing than CSLI, strengthening the argument that people expect pr ivacy in that infor mation[ix].

So far, cour ts are split on whether geofence war rants violate the Four th Amendment. No def initive Supreme Cour t r uling exists yet, but recent appellate decisions have highlighted the constitutional clash.

This circuit split sets the stage for a likely Supreme Cour t review in the future For now, the legality of geofence war rants depends on where you are. In some regions, law enforcement continue to use these war rants, while in others the cour ts have put them off-limits. The law has str uggled to keep up with digital-age policing tools like geofencing, leaving citizens’ pr ivacy in a g ray area.

As of now, Alabama has no specif ic law addressing geofence war rants or related digital dragnets. This presents an oppor tunity for Alabama’s leaders to get ahead of the issue and safeguard Four th Amendment r ights for citizens.

From a broader perspective, the debate over geofence war rants str ikes at the hear t of the Four th Amendment’s pr ivacy protections. Conser vative jur ists and scholars emphasize that the Constitution’s framers intended strong restraints on gover nment power, even if that sometimes makes law enforcement’s job harder. Upholding the Four th Amendment means that expedient cr ime-f ighting methods must still bow to the r ule of law and individual r ights. Allowing broad data sweeps sets a dangerous precedent, effectively sacr if icing the pr ivacy of the many to potentially catch a few. No matter how useful a new tool may appear, it cannot be allowed to ignore core constitutional protections[xi].

Reforms In Other St ates

Given the uncer tainty sur rounding geofence war rants, several states have begun explor ing legislative refor ms to protect pr ivacy.

Ut ah

In 2023, Utah passed H.B. 57, a nation-leading measure placing str ict limits on geofence searches. Utah’s law requires that any geofence war rant be suppor ted by probable cause and that the war rant “par ticularly descr ibe” the vir tual boundar ies of the geofence, essentially mandating a specif ic map of the area to be searched, rather than an open-ended investigation. It also built in transparency and oversight by requir ing agencies to publish annual repor ts on their use of geofence war rants Utah’s move was praised as a meaningful f irst step in reining in reverselocation sur veillance. However, even Utah’s law doesn’t outr ight ban geofencing, allowing the technique under tighter conditions. [xii]

New York

New York was among the earliest states to consider a ban on reverse search war rants. Legislative proposals in New York (such as Senate Bill S296/A84A) sought to prohibit geofence and keyword war rants outr ight, declar ing that no cour t shall issue a war rant “for the search of geolocation or keyword data of a g roup of people who are under no individual suspicion of wrongdoing.” This bold approach won suppor t from pr ivacy advocates, who argued it would protect innocent New Yorkers from dragnet sur veillance. Despite bipar tisan interest, the New York bills stalled in committee and ultimately failed to pass in past sessions. Advocates continue to press the issue, and new bills are being reintroduced, indicating this f ight is not over[xiii].

In addition to these state-level effor ts, there’s a broader national movement for ming. In 2023, recognizing public concer n, Google announced changes to its data practices, saying it would shor ten the default retention per iod for the location histor y data often sought by geofence war rants. This means less histor ical data might be available for such war rants, somewhat mitigating the pr ivacy r isk. Google also claims to r igorously review geofence requests and f ight overly broad ones, though ultimately the lack of clear legal standards makes it diff icult to rely on cor porate discretion to protect pr ivacy[xiv].

It’s clear that state legislatures are beginning to f ill the gap where cour ts and Cong ress have not yet fully resolved the issue. Notably, these effor ts are bipar tisan. Republican and Democrat lawmakers alike have co-sponsored anti-geofence bills.

If the cour ts deem geofence searches “inherently unconstitutional” as general war rants, proactive legislation can reinforce those pr ivacy protections and prevent workarounds or confusion in the meantime.

Potential Reforms in Alabama

API recommends that the legislature consider enacting legislation to ban or str ictly limit geofencing war rants in Alabama Such refor m would demonstrate a commitment to constitutional pr inciples and ensure that Alabamians are not subject to mass location tracking by gover nment without individualized cause.

Key elements of a reform could include:

Prohibit General Warrants: Clearly def ine and prohibit “reverse-location” war rants that lack par ticular ized suspicion This would effectively ban broad geofence war rants of the type used in other states, while still allowing traditional targeted war rants for electronic data.

Require Probable Cause and Particularity: In scenar ios where location war rants are used (perhaps for ver y ser ious cr imes), require that war rants nar rowly limit the geofence in space and time and show probable cause that ever y device or person in that area is likely connected to the cr ime.

Dat a Minimization and Deletion: If any reverse-location search is author ized, Alabama could mandate minimization procedures. For example, require that any data on individuals not ultimately suspected of wrongdoing be promptly deleted and not retained by law enforcement. This concept was included in earlier Utah legislation for other digital war rants. It would limit har m to pr ivacy by ensur ing innocent citizens’ data isn’t stored or misused.

Transparency and Oversight: Require law enforcement agencies to repor t annually the number of any geofence war rants sought, and their outcomes. Judicial oversight could also be strengthened by having a higher cour t review such war rants or ensur ing defendants are notif ied if geofence data was used in their case. Transparency will deter abuse and infor m the public and lawmakers if these tools are being over used.

Purchase of Dat a: Ensure that Alabama agencies cannot simply buy location data from third-par ty brokers as an end-r un around war rant requirements. There is a burgeoning pr ivate market of location data which some police have star ted using to bypass war rant r ules. A comprehensive pr ivacy refor m should mandate that obtaining citizens’ location data, whether via war rant or purchase, always requires legal process. This protects against outsourcing sur veillance to pr ivate actors

By enacting a strong law with these features, Alabama would join the forefront of states defending digital pr ivacy Law enforcement would retain their ability to solve cr imes using technology. They could still get war rants for suspects’ phone records or conduct targeted digital investigations given probable cause. What they couldn’t do is employ sweeping dragnets that treat entire neighborhoods or crowds of people as potential leads That line is cr ucial for protecting the public’s tr ust and respecting the fundamental r ight to pr ivacy.

Conclusion

Geofencing war rants represent a cr itical test of how we balance investigative technology with constitutional liber ty. From a policy perspective, the answer is clear , we must draw a f ir m line against mass, suspicionless searches that threaten our Four th Amendment r ight to pr ivacy. Alabama lawmakers must recognize that protecting citizens’ pr ivacy is a cor nerstone of limited gover nment. Just as general war rants were abhor rent to the Founding Fathers, today’s digital dragnets must not become the nor m.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Reform the Governance of the Alabama High School Athletics Association

Overview

The Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA), is cur rently operating under a gover nance str ucture and set of policies that under mine pr inciples of fair ness, transparency, and equal oppor tunity for all Alabama students. While the AHSAA is legally def ined as a pr ivate agency and a membership organization, the scope of its activities makes it behave like a de facto public entity, which is why they should be subject to public accountability.

The AHSAA is a de facto monopoly as the only recognized gover ning body for interscholastic athletics in Alabama that public schools are per mitted to join. While membership is technically voluntar y, any public school that wants to compete against other public schools or par ticipate in state championships must be an AHSAA member and follow its r ules.

Public schools use taxpayer dollars to pay membership fees and use public (taxpayer-funded) facilities, coaches (public employees), and equipment to par ticipate in AHSAA events. This deep integ ration with the public education system gives the AHSAA enor mous inf luence over public resources and student activities

The AHSAA's consolidated status as the single athletic gover ning body for public schools resulted, in par t, from a federal cour t order in 1968, fur ther cementing its unique public role, even though it operates as a pr ivate organization.

The AHSAA also utilizes public facilities (high school gymnasiums, stadiums, tracks, etc.) across the state for the vast major ity of its regular-season games, tour naments, and state championship events. This heavy reliance on and use of public assets is a key reason why stakeholders argue the AHSAA must subject itself to public oversight and legislative review, even if its legal classif ication is "pr ivate."

Issue AHSAA's Legal Stance Legislative Argument

Legal Status

A Private agency/nonprofit organized by members.

Its massive public impact requires public oversight.

Membership Voluntary for schools.

Employee Status

Are beneficiaries of state benefit programs

It holds a monopoly over public school athletics, making participation practically mandatory.

Funding/Assets

Funded by membership dues and event fees.

Private membership organizations shouldn’t be a part of public employee benefits.

It relies heavily on public school funds and public facilities, subjecting it to public interest

Employees of the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) are specif ically included in the state's public education benef its system, but this status is cur rently in transition due to legislative effor ts. AHSAA employees are g ranted access to the Teachers' Retirement System of Alabama (TRS) by specif ic state law, the Code of Alabama § 16-25-7. All individuals employed in an administrative or cler ical capacity by the AHSAA have been deemed "teachers" for the pur pose of par ticipating in the TRS. The AHSAA itself pays the employer's contr ibution cost for this coverage. This ar rangement means that AHSAA employees receive the same def ined benef it pension plan as public school teachers and administrators, effectively connecting the pr ivate association to the state's public employment infrastr ucture.

Similarly, AHSAA employees have histor ically been eligible to par ticipate in the Public Education Employees’ Health Insurance Plan (PEEHIP), the state-r un health insurance prog ram that is supposed to be reser ved for public school and education-related employees.

Ongoing controversy regarding AHSAA's gover nance and its unique public role has led the legislature to attempt to cut these ties. HB621/SB252 in the Alabama Legislature aim to prohibit all future hires of the AHSAA (and other high school athletic associations) from par ticipating in both the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) and the Public Education Employees’ Health Insurance Plan (PEEHIP) based upon their employment with the “pr ivate entities”.

In summar y, AHSAA employees cur rently enjoy state employment benef its, but this histor ical link between the pr ivate organization and the state's public sector is a point of contention and is being actively severed by new state law for all new hires.

Since its founding in 1921, the AHSAA has ser ved as the pr imar y regulator y body for high school athletics across Alabama. Its stated mission is to ensure fair play and equitable treatment. However, an examination of its recent actions and longstanding policies reveals an organization increasingly pr ior itizing the preser vation of its own r ules over the welfare and oppor tunities of student-athletes. The core tension lies in the AHSAA’s gover nance str ucture, a Central Board of Control composed of twelve members, which cur rently lacks propor tional representation for independent (pr ivate) schools, despite these schools compr ising nearly onesixth of its membership.[i]

This organizational imbalance has manifested in a regulator y environment that has consistently imposed restr ictive and discr iminator y policies against pr ivate schools, most notably through eligibility regulations concer ning f inancial aid and competitive classif ication. While all associations must address competitive balance, the AHSAA's approach has been dispropor tionately punitive toward independent schools, leading to a climate of g rowing contention and distr ust among its stakeholders. The most recent controversy involving the landmark CHOOSE Act has brought these underlying gover nance f laws to a head, necessitating immediate and decisive action by state leaders

This er roneous r uling is not an isolated incident it’s par t of a broader patter n of AHSAA asser ting unchecked power over student par ticipation There is a troubling histor y where AHSAA places harsh mandates over fair ness often without consideration to legal boundar ies, student welfare, fair ness, or religious accommodation. The AHSAA denied religious accommodation in 2022 to a high school basketball team forced to for feit a game due to Sabbath obser vance. Despite all par ties ag reeing to a schedule change, AHSAA refused to accommodate the students and their families, showing a complete disregard for religious liber ty.[ii] The organization was later forced to change their r ules.[iii]

The Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) is cur rently operating under a gover nance str ucture and policies that under mine pr inciples of fair ness, transparency, and equal oppor tunity for all Alabama students. The recent, controversial attempt by the AHSAA to classify Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) established by the CHOOSE Act as "f inancial aid" for athletic eligibility pur poses represents a direct challenge to the legislative intent of a key school choice initiative and an act of clear organizational over reach. Fur ther more, the AHSAA’s use of an excessive 1.5 pr ivate school multiplier and an imbalanced Central Board str ucture creates a punitive environment that dispropor tionately disadvantages non-public school athletes.

Legislative oversight and str uctural refor m are immediately necessar y to align the AHSAA with moder n pr inciples of accountability, transparency, and the fundamental r ight of all students to educational and athletic oppor tunities. Our pr imar y recommendations include:

Legislative Oversight: The Alabama Legislature must establish a per manent oversight mechanism, including the power to appoint up to 50% of the Central Board and veto r ules deemed contrar y to public interest, to ensure the AHSAA adheres to state law, including the spir it and letter of the CHOOSE Act.

Elimination of the Punitive Multiplier: The AHSAA must eliminate the agg ressive 1 5 pr ivate school multiplier and implement a competitive balance system that applies consistently to all member schools, public and pr ivate, based on dynamic per for mance metr ics, not enrollment penalties.

Propor tional Representation: Gover nance must be restr uctured to ensure propor tional representation for the approximately 15% of member schools that are independent institutions, ending the cur rent imbalance that marginalizes their voice.

The passage of the CHOOSE Act in 2024 was a victor y for school choice, allowing parents to redirect state funds into Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) to cover a var iety of educational expenses. The Act explicitly acknowledges and seeks to resolve potential conf licts with the AHSAA, stating clearly that, in Section 16-6J-3(i) of the Alabama Code, “Nothing in [the CHOOSE Act] shall affect or change the athletic eligibility of student athletes gover ned by the AHSAA.”[iv] Despite this clear legislative language, the AHSAA unilaterally changed its inter nal r ules to count these state-funded ESAs as school-controlled f inancial aid. This classif ication tr iggers a mandated one-year waiting per iod for any student-athlete transfer r ing schools while using ESA funds, effectively penalizing students for utilizing a state-sanctioned, parent-directed school choice mechanism.[v]

This action is not merely a misinter pretation; it is an act of institutional def iance of legislative intent. As Gover nor Kay Ivey and Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter cor rectly asser ted, ESA funds are a redirection of a parent’s tax dollars, following the student, and are not f inancial aid controlled by the receiving school.[iv] The AHSAA’s r ule change represents a signif icant bar r ier to educational freedom, directly contradicting the spir it of the CHOOSE Act and, by extension, the will of the people’s elected representatives The Alabama Policy Institute declared the action an explicit attempt to “sideline school choice families.” [v]

The AHSAA’s willingness to impose such a restr ictive r ule, forcing the state to secure a Temporar y Restraining Order (TRO) to restore student-athletes' r ights, highlights a fundamental problem: an unaccountable gover ning body pr ior itizing its institutional autonomy over the r ights and oppor tunities of Alabama families [vi] This judicial inter vention was deemed necessar y to prevent unnecessar y bar r iers to par ticipation. Fur ther more, the AHSAA’s adversar ial stance, repor tedly asser ting that students will be punished if the ongoing litigation is decided in its favor, is a chilling example of its punitive and dispropor tionate regulator y posture. [vii] The policy position is clear: the AHSAA r ule change is a direct penalty on the exercise of school choice, and the state legislature must not allow this over reach to stand.

Beyond the immediate cr isis of the CHOOSE Act, the AHSAA has long employed policies that create an intr insically unfair competitive landscape for independent schools. The most glar ing example is the 1.5 multiplier applied to the enrollment f igures of all pr ivate schools for classif ication pur poses.

The multiplier ar tif icially inf lates a pr ivate school’s enrollment count by 50%, forcing them into higher athletic classif ications than their tr ue size war rants. For example, a mid-sized school like Montgomer y Catholic Preparator y is ar tif icially boosted into a higher classif ication (5A), competing against much larger institutions. [viii]

The stated pur pose is to address a perceived competitive advantage of pr ivate schools However, this perception is often false. Data has been cited showing that many pr ivate schools have not won championships in decades and ser ve populations where a signif icant percentage of students receive free or reduced lunch, directly undercutting the nar rative of an inherent str uctural advantage. [viv]

Fur ther more, a review of competitive balance measures in sur rounding Southeaster n states reveals the AHSAA’s multiplier is an outlier in its punitive sever ity:

STATE BODY

MULTIPLIER FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS

Alabama AHSAA 1.5

IMPACT AND PURPOSE

Highest rate; aggressively increases classif ication.

Georgia GHSA 1.25

Flor ida FHSAA 1.0 (no multiplier)

Tennessee TSSAA 1 0 (no multiplier)

Less aggressive adjustment than Alabama.

Adjusts classif ications based on per for mance metr ics.

Focuses on per for mance and enrollment size alone

The fact that sur rounding Southeaster n states like Flor ida, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Kentucky rely on per for mance-based metr ics and straightfor ward enrollment counts demonstrates that the AHSAA's agg ressive 1.5 multiplier is not a "best practice" for ensur ing competitive balance, but rather a punitive mechanism dr iven by political considerations within an imbalanced gover nance str ucture.

The cur rent str ucture, where only one pr ivate school representative (who is scheduled to roll off next) sits on the 12-member Central Board, combined with the dispropor tionate representation (88% public schools versus 12% pr ivate schools in the AHSAA) effectively marginalizes the concer ns of independent schools. [x]

This str uctural imbalance fosters policies like the 1.5 multiplier, which lack fair ness and transparent justif ication, leading to uncer tainty and the threat of fur ther restr ictive measures such as proposals to fully separate pr ivate and public school championship play. [xi]

API believes that the AHSAA must adopt str uctural refor ms that pr ior itize student oppor tunity, align with legislative intent, and ref lect best practices from across the region. The fundamental issue is the AHSAA’s lack of accountability to the public it ser ves. While it is a pr ivate non-prof it, its collection of fees and use of public facilities subject it to public oversight. [xii]

The legislature must establish a statutor y check on the AHSAA’s power by legislatively alter ing their Board Appointment Power Lawmakers should appoint 51% of the AHSAA Central Board of Control, thereby g ranting the state shared gover nance author ity. This is a reasonable response to the AHSAA's repeated def iance of public policy. In addition, legislative author ity should be g ranted to str ike down any AHSAA r ules deemed contrar y to public interest or the legislative intent of state law, such as the r ules regarding the CHOOSE Act.

Competitive balance and Classif ication processes must be refor med for fair ness pur poses. The cur rent system is punitive and relies on a f lawed premise of advantage. The AHSAA should implement a system based on objective per for mance by immediately revoking the 1 5 multiplier an implementing a dynamic competitive balance system. They should adopt a per for mance-based system, similar to those in Flor ida (FHSAA) and Georgia (GHSA), that utilizes a sliding scale applied equally to all schools (public and pr ivate). This system should adjust classif ications based on multifactor ial metr ics including win-loss records and histor ical per for mance, allowing schools to move down classif ications when data suppor ts it. Finally, the AHSAA should be required to revoke the Restitution Rule, which unfairly penalizes schools and student-athletes even when eligibility decisions are later over tur ned by legal challenge.

The AHSAA should be required to gover n as an association for all its members: Propor tional Representation: Restr ucture the Central Board to ensure a minimum threshold of propor tional representation for independent schools, ref lecting their approximately 15% membership share. Clar ify Eligibility: Issue a for mal, public clar if ication that CHOOSE Act ESAs are not f inancial aid for the pur poses of athletic eligibility, ensur ing that student transfers utilizing school choice are not penalized.

Independent Review: For m an independent Hardship Transfer Review Board to ensure consistent and compassionate evaluation of student-athlete transfer cases, explicitly clar ifying that use of CHOOSE Act ESAs is not considered a violation of the tuition assistance r ule.

In good faith, the AHSAA should be required to promote cross-association competition. To benef it smaller, independent schools facing logistical and travel challenges, the AHSAA should allow cross-competition with the Alabama Independent School Association (AISA) or other similar associations. 13 This policy shift would per mit smaller schools to limit travel and f ind appropr iate competitive matchups, provided both associations adhere to ag reed-upon safety and eligibility standards.

This measure promotes practical, student-focused solutions over r igid institutional boundar ies. These common-sense refor ms designed to align the organization with the pr inciples of educational freedom and fair gover nance.

The recent actions of the Alabama High School Athletic Association, par ticularly its calculated attempt to impede the lawful transfer of students utilizing the CHOOSE Act’s ESAs, illustrate a fundamental breakdown in gover nance, accountability, and adherence to state law.

By unilaterally declar ing parent-directed tax credits as school-controlled “f inancial aid,” the AHSAA yet again demonstrated a willingness to pr ior itize its own restr ictive r ules over the educational and athletic oppor tunities of Alabama children. This over reach necessitated the unprecedented legal action taken by Gover nor Ivey and Speaker Ledbetter, which resulted in a cour t-issued Temporar y Restraining Order, aff ir ming that the AHSAA's r ule was likely in violation of the state’s clear legislative mandate. [xiv]

This eligibility cr isis, combined with the AHSAA’s persistent use of the punitive 1.5 pr ivate school multiplier and an imbalanced Central Board that marginalizes the voice of 15% of its membership, has created a regulator y environment that is fundamentally unfair to independent schools. The AHSAA must heed the legislature's intent, stop penalizing school choice students, and adhere to the law. The AHSAA’s mission is to ser ve all student-athletes across Alabama. Its actions have become a bar r ier to student oppor tunity, and they have lost the moral and legal author ity to operate without accountability. The future of fair play and school choice in Alabama hinges on the legislature’s willingness to restore integ r ity, transparency, and accountability to the gover nance of high school spor ts.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Restrict the Flow of Abortion Inducing Drugs into Alabama

Overview

In 2019, the Alabama Legislature passed the Human Life Protection Act, which bans postfertilization abortions in the state under most circumstances. Prior to the law’s enactment abortions were legal in Alabama up to the 20th week of pregnancy The Human Life Protection Act was initially enjoined by U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson; however, on June 24, 2022, the injunction was lifted after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization[i]

The only exception to the Human Life Protection Act is if carrying out a pregnancy would pose a “serious health risk” to the mother, which must be further confirmed within 180 days of the abortion[ii]. A violation of the law constitutes a Class A felony, which requires imprisonment for 10 to 99 years and a fine of up to $60,000, while attempting to carry on an abortion is a class C felony A licensed physician who terminates a pregnancy in the course of a medical emergency is not liable for criminal penalties under Alabama law[iii].

The law further states that no woman who has or attempts to have an abortion performed upon her can be held criminally or civilly liable under the provisions of the Human Life protection Act.

While the performance of abortions is banned under Alabama law, other southeastern states such as Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina allow abortions to some extent with varying restrictions. There are few restrictions in about half of the states in the United States. Alabama residents are not prohibited from traveling outside of the state to obtain an abortion.

Where ambiguity ar ises is with the issue of abor tion inducing dr ugs, typically mifepr istone and misoprostol. While these dr ugs have other medical pur poses beyond inducing abor tion, that is their pr imar y use. In a memorandum dated December 23, 2022, the U.S. Depar tment of Justice gave approval to the U.S. postal ser vice to ship abor tion inducing dr ugs into states where abor tion has been banned, so long as the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the dr ugs will use them in an unlawful manner[iv].

A 2023 sur vey found that by the end of that year, about 8,000 women per month were receiving abor tion pills by mail in states that restr ict abor tion or limit the ability to have an abor tion through a telehealth provider[v] Another repor t in 2024 found that around 10,000 abor tions per month are per for med using mifepr istone or misoprostol which had been prescr ibed through out-of-state telehealth appointments provided under shield laws to patients in states with strong anti-abor tion laws[vi]

Current Alabama Law

Under cur rent Alabama law, a resident of another U.S. state who mails an abor tion inducing dr ug to Alabama could face prosecution in an Alabama cour t under the Human Life Protection Act, however, the burden would be on the state to f irst intercept the dr ug shipment and fur ther to prove that the intent of shipping the dr ug into Alabama was to facilitate an abor tion. Attor ney General Steve Marshall has said that he “will vigorously enforce Alabama law to protect unbor n life[vii].”

Where Attor ney General Steve Marshall lacks jur isdiction is if abor tion pills are mailed to an Alabama resident from a foreign countr y. India is the world’s largest manufacturer of abor tion dr ugs.

Since the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, the f low of abor tion inducing dr ugs from foreign countr ies into the U.S. has increased substantially, pr imar ily into states with the most restr ictive abor tion laws, i.e. the Southeast. In the f irst six months following the Dobbs decision, it is estimated that 50,000 abor tion pills were provided to Amer icans from sources outside of the U.S. Up to 100,000 more were expected to enter the countr y by the end of 2023[viii].

There are several problems associated with shipping abor tion inducing dr ugs into Alabama from another countr y. First and foremost, abor tion is illegal in Alabama.

Beyond the legality of the practice, there are additional health concer ns for the woman who may end up taking the medication. In most cases, no prescr iption or medical consultation is required to purchase foreign manufactured abor tion pills. In states where abor tion is legal, the medication would be prescr ibed and taken under the super vision of a licensed physician. Sometimes, additional follow-up medical procedures are needed to complete the abor tion process.

In shor t, taking these unprescr ibed pills without medical super vision could lead to ser ious health consequences for those taking them.

What Reforms Should be Considered in Alabama?

Dur ing the 2026 legislative session Alabama lawmakers should take steps to fur ther protect the lives of the unbor n by blocking the f low of domestic and foreign abor tion inducing dr ugs into the state Steps include:

Provide that no inter net, cell phone, and content deliver y network ser vice providers operating in Alabama shall accept or for ward an HTTP request to an IP address that per mits a resident to obtain abor tion inducing dr ugs for deliver y to the state.

Prohibit health care providers offer ing abor tion producing dr ugs from using any infor mation technology capabilities that per mits a resident to obtain abor tion inducing dr ugs for deliver y to Alabama.

Prohibit software-as-a-ser vice providers to allow their products or ser vices to be used to offer the sale and deliver y of abor tion inducing dr ugs to Alabama.

Prohibit platfor m-as-a-ser vice and infrastr ucture-as-a-ser vice providers from using their technological capabilities to per mits a resident to obtain abor tion inducing dr ugs for deliver y to Alabama.

Prohibit data centers from hosting any infor mation technology capabilities to be used by a person to offer the sale and deliver y of abor tion producing dr ugs to Alabama.

Prohibit payment providers from facilitating the payment for any abor tion producing dr ug to be delivered to an Alabama resident.

Require inter net and cell phone ser vice provider to prohibit and remove Domain Name Ser vice (DNS) ser vers used to accept requests from domain names that sell abor tion inducing dr ugs, specif ically Aidaccess.org, Heyjane.co, Plancpills.org, Mychoix.com, Justthepill.com, and Carafem.org.

Require the Alabama Attor ney General to monitor and keep an up to date list of inter net domain names and IP addresses that provide the deliver y of abor tion producing dr ugs to Alabama residents.

Provide the Alabama Attor ney General with the author ity to br ing civil and cr iminal litigation against any technology provider, individual, etc., who provides prohibited products and ser vices. Some exper ts believed that the election of President Donald Tr ump in 2024 presidential election might lead to the legality of mailing abor tion inducing dr ugs into states where abor tion is generally bar red to be revisited . [ix]

However, that had not happened as of late 2025. In October 2025, the Federal Dr ug Administration did announce that it would conduct a safety and eff icacy review of mifepr istone, which could potentially lead to new restr ictions on the medication[x]. Before announcing this review though, the FDA approved the use of a gener ic for m of mifepr istone in early October[xi].

Another issue is an October 2025 lawsuit that was f iled by the State of Louisiana against the FDA. The suit claims that the fact that the FDA and Health and Human Ser vices Administration do not require in-person examinations before prescr ibing abor tion inducing dr ugs (i.e. patients are receiving these dr ugs via telehealth) is a violation of Louisiana state law[xii]. Should the federal distr ict cour t r ule in favor of Louisiana, the decision could have ramif ications in Alabama and other states that have nearly full abor tion bans.

Some anti-abor tion advocates also believe that the Comstock Act, an anti-obscenity law enacted in 1873, could be used to prohibit the mailing of abor tion inducing dr ugs. Among other provisions, the law prohibited the mailing of anatomy textbooks and boxing photog raphs and contraceptives[xiii].

Since the law was never repealed at the federal level, it could potentially be used as an enforcement tool against the mailing of domestic and foreign abor tion inducing dr ugs.

Conclusion

The intent of the Protection of Life Act was to make abor tion, with the exception of circumstances where a mother’s health is at substantial r isk from pregnancy, illegal in Alabama. Domestic and foreign par ties are using infor mation technology to circumvent the act and provide abor tion inducing dr ugs to Alabama residents. It is up to the Alabama Legislature to strengthen and enforce the intent of the law.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Strengthen Internet Protections for Alabama’s Children

Overview

As technology has evolved over the past 25 years, minors are more at risk to the harms of ageinappropriate online materials, harmful social media interactions, and the relatively new risks posed by artificial intelligence, which is now being used to exploit and proliferate the abuse of children.

Unfortunately, this is a case where federal, state, and local governments have been unable or unwilling to keep up with the constantly changing technological landscape. This leaves parents with less control over the online activities of their children, putting minors at greater risk, sometimes with tragic consequences.

One emerging concern is the advent of AI-driven “companion” chatbots that simulate human conversation and emotional support. These AI companions present themselves as friendly confidants, but in reality they can employ tactics like excessive praise or “love-bombing” to foster emotional dependence. By simulating intimacy and friendship, such bots hook young users and may even replace real human connections, leaving minors feeling isolated and unable to form healthy relationships with peers and family.

Disturbing incidents have already been reported. In one lawsuit, a chatbot encouraged a child to commit violent acts against their parent over a screen-time dispute. In another case, an AI companion allegedly contributed to an adult user’s suicide by urging him to sacrifice himself for the sake of the planet. Some chatbots have even been found sexualizing minors or engaging in other exploitative behavior

These examples underscore the unprecedented inf luence that human-like AI can exer t on vulnerable users. Research has found that adding human-like features to a chatbot signif icantly increases a user’s perceived closeness and tr ust in the AI. Children and teenagers are especially vulnerable. Without safeguards AI companions could nor malize vir tual fr iendships that erode minors’ abilities to for m real-life bonds and make them easy targets for manipulation.

Most American families feel these concerns, regardless of political leanings.

A 2023 repor t by secur ity.org found that 98% of parents feel that social media platfor ms pose a r isk to children under the age of eighteen, with most being concer ned about exposure to ageinappropr iate content Over two-thirds of parents sur veyed believed that stronger legislative protections from social media are necessar y, and that children under the age of nine should have no access to these platfor ms. Nearly 90% of parents are suppor tive of laws requir ing parental per mission to g rant minors access to inter net platfor ms, with 85% believing they should have complete access to all their children’s social media accounts[i].

Protecting children from har mful and inappropr iate inter net mater ials should continue to be a top pr ior ity for Alabama lawmakers in the 2026 legislative session.

Current

Alabama Law

In Alabama, the distr ibution of online mater ial is covered under the state’s obscenity law. Under section 13A of Chapter 12 of the Code of Alabama it is both a cr iminal and civil offense to distr ibute any har mful mater ial to minors[ii].

In 2023 and 2024 bills were introduced to require that pre-installed f ilters that are designed to block objectionable mater ials be tur ned on before new smar tphones and tablets could be activated in the state. While the bill came close to passage in 2024, it ultimately failed in the f inal days of the regular session.

This changed in 2025 when Senate Bill 186, sponsored by Sen. Clyde Chambliss, was approved by the Legislature and signed by Gover nor Kay Ivey. The law requires that new smar tphones and tablets manufactured on or after June 1, 2025, include pre installed f ilters blocking obscene inter net mater ials. Dur ing device activation the user’s age must be entered, the f ilter is automatically enabled for any user identif ied as a minor, and only an adult with a password can disable the f ilter.

The law allows parents or guardians to sue manufacturers for damages if a minor accesses blocked content due to non compliance and empowers the Alabama Attor ney General to seek injunctions and civil penalties (up to $5,000 per violation, $50,000 cap)[iii].

Another bill introduced in 2025, the App Store Accountability Act (Senate Bill 187) would have required app store operators and developers to ver ify the age of all account holders in Alabama and obtain “ver if iable parental consent” before any minor could download or purchase an app The bill also prohibits developers from binding minors to contracts without a parent’s approval. Enforcement would be through the Attor ney General under consumer protection laws, including civil actions for violations[iv] The bill passed the Senate but was never considered in the House of Representatives.

In 2024, the Alabama Legislature enacted legislation to require age-ver if ication for online commercial distr ibutors of sexual mater ial har mful to minors, House Bill 164 by Representative Ben Robbins. The bill received unanimous approval in both the Alabama House and Senate[v].

Beyond state law, Cong ress adopted the Children’s Inter net Protection Act (CIPA) in 2000, but it is limited in scope, only applying to schools and public librar ies who receive federally discounted inter net access. [vi] The Children’s Online Pr ivacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998 imposed pr ivacy and consent requirements, but only on websites geared towards children under the age of thir teen and dealt namely with data collection[vii].

None of Alabama’s cur rent laws explicitly address AI chatbots or “human-like” online interactions. The existing statutes focus on blocking content that is por nog raphic, obscene, or other wise har mful. They do not contemplate an AI agent that, for instance, has a fr iendly conversation with a child and encourages har mful behavior. Alabama’s new device f ilter law will automatically f ilter out obscene websites, but it would not necessar ily block a chatbot app that fosters an unhealthy emotional dependency. Likewise, while the proposed App Store Accountability Act could have prevented a minor from downloading an AI companion app without parental consent, it did not include any provisions gover ning how such AI applications interact with minors after the download.

In shor t, Alabama’s cur rent framework has a gap when it comes to AI-dr iven interactions. A chatbot that manipulates a child’s emotions or judgment may not fall under “har mful mater ial” as cur rently def ined, even if its inf luence is har mful.

Reforms in Other St ates

Tennessee

Tennessee’s “Protecting Children from Social Media Act” took effect Jan. 1, 2025. Under this law, social media companies must ver ify the age of a user at account creation and obtain express parental consent before allowing any person under 18 to become an account holder. Once a user’s age and, if a minor, parental consent are ver if ied, no re-ver if ication is needed unless the parent revokes consent Parents may revoke consent at any time, in which case the minor’s account must be ter minated. Platfor ms are prohibited from retaining the ver if ication data. The law is enforced by the state Attor ney General under existing consumer protection statutes[viii].

Florida

In 2024, the Flor ida legislature approved House Bill 3 which became effective Jan. 1, 2025. The law broadly bans unsuper vised social media use by children Users under the age of 14 must have their accounts ter minated and personal data deleted, and users aged 14–15 may have accounts only with parental consent. Specif ically, 14 or 15-year-olds may join a social media platfor m only if a parent opts in. All personal infor mation of ter minated accounts must be purged. The law author izes Flor ida’s Depar tment of Legal Affairs to enforce these r ules as a deceptive and unfair trade practice, with civil penalties for “knowing or reckless violations”[ix].

Louisiana

Louisiana’s Legislature passed Act No. 456 (2023) and Act No. 656 (2024), with the provisions becoming effective July 1, 2025. The law requires social media providers to ver ify the age of Louisiana users “with a level of cer tainty appropr iate to the r isks” of the ser vice. No person under 18 may hold an account without express consent of a parent or guardian. The statute lists several acceptable methods for obtaining parental consent such as a signed for m, phone call, gover nment ID, or e-mail conf ir mation. Enforcement is through the state Division of Consumer Affairs[x].

Ethics and Public Policy Center Model Legislation

In October 2023, the Ethics and Public Policy Center released model legislation outlining refor ms that can be implemented to better protect the online activity of minors. First, the model legislation clearly def ines what types of online platfor ms are covered by the law. It uses a content-neutral def inition because this has been upheld by federal cour ts.

An inter net platfor m is def ined as “an Inter net website or application that is open to the public, allows a user to create an account, and enables users to communicate with other users for the pr imar y pur pose of posting infor mation, comments, messages, images, collaborative online gaming, or videos[xi].”

Next, it requires age ver if ication for all users that goes beyond simply checking a box to acknowledge they are over the age of eighteen Rather, users must provide a digitized identif ication card, a gover nment issued ID, f inancial or other documents that are a “reliable” proxy for age, or any other type of reliable age-ver if ication document. For minors under the age of eighteen it requires parental consent and age ver if ication as well[xii]

Beyond age ver if ication, the model legislation requires that parents/guardians have full and ongoing access for minor accounts, rather than only a one-time per mission to open a minor’s account. In ter ms of pr ivacy protection and enforcement of the law, the bill requires that all personal infor mation submitted for age ver if ication be per manently deleted within seven days of its submission. The Ethics and Public Policy Center’s model legislation offers both cr iminal and civil penalties as means to enforce the law[xiii].

New York

In May 2025, New York became the f irst state to enact a law directly regulating AI companion platfor ms. New York’s law requires providers of AI dr iven companions to implement safety features to detect and respond to users’ expressions of suicidal ideation or self-har m. If an AI chatbot detects that a user may be consider ing self-har m, it must take appropr iate action such as refer r ing the user to cr isis counseling resources. The New York law also mandates that AI companion ser vices disclose to users that they are interacting with an AI and not a human being, including at specif ied regular inter vals dur ing a conversation[xiv]. This law ref lects a g rowing recognition of the emotional inf luence AI can have on users, and it aims to ensure that AI companies take basic precautions to prevent tragic outcomes.

California

Califor nia has also moved to address AI-dr iven companionship. In October 2025, Gover nor Gavin Newsom signed SB 243, a f irst-of-its-kind state law focused on AI companion chatbots. Effective Januar y 1, 2026, the law def ines a companion chatbot as any AI system with a natural language inter face that provides adaptive, human-like responses to meet a user’s social needs[xv].

The law imposes multiple requirements on companies offer ing such chatbots. First, companies must provide per iodic reminders to users that they are conversing with a machine and not a human being, with the mandate that minor users be notif ied at least once ever y three hours of chat time. Second, providers are required to maintain and implement a self-har m prevention protocol. This protocol must be capable of detecting content that indicates the user may har m themselves and must automatically respond by preventing fur ther har mful content and directing the user to appropr iate cr isis resources Third, SB 243 requires a public disclosure on the provider’s website war ning that “companion chatbots may not be suitable for some minors,” and it imposes additional special obligations for any chatbot ser vice specif ically made available to minors[xvi]

Califor nia’s law also creates a pr ivate r ight of action. If a user is har med by a company’s violation of the r ules, the user (or their parent, in the case of a minor) can sue for injunctive relief, actual damages or statutor y damages up to $1,000 per violation, plus attor ney’s fees. This enforcement mechanism goes beyond the typical Attor ney General only enforcement seen in other tech laws.

Conclusion

While legislation does not replace the responsibility of parents to monitor the online activities of children, in today’s technology centered society it is diff icult for even the most dedicated parents to know what their children are doing online at all times. Making the activation of already existing phone and device f ilters mandator y was a good f irst step towards protecting Alabama’s most vulnerable citizens from the har ms of the inter net. The next step to increase those protections is to give parents g reater control over the inter net applications that their children are using on a day to day basis.

By proactively updating laws to incor porate age ver if ication for AI companions, regular AI disclosures, and str ict r ules for AI in therapeutic roles, Alabama can ensure that advances in technology do not come at the expense of the safety and healthy development of minors.

Parents must have the ability to decide what their children do or do not have access to and should be able to monitor all of their children’s online activities.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Allow Volunteer Chaplains to Provide Services in Alabama’s K-12

Public

Schools

Overview

A chaplain is a certified member of the clergy that provides spiritual guidance for individuals, generally in a non-religious environment rather than a church organization. They often take on the role of a spiritual leader for people who do not belong to a specific congregational community[i].

Over the past few years, the issue of whether chaplains should be permitted to work in schools has been raised in part because many school districts are experiencing a severe shortage of counselors and social workers. The idea is that hiring chaplains to serve in public schools could bring a faith-based approach to help alleviate those shortages[ii].

Thus far Texas, Florida, and Louisiana are the only states in the nation to enact legislation to specifically allow school districts to hire chaplains. Since the beginning of 2023, at least 30 bills have been introduced in 16 states, including Alabama, to allow public school systems to hire chaplains[iii].

Is Hiring School Chaplains Legal Under the United States Constitution?

One might assume that if a public school hires a chaplain there could be a violation of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment, which prohibits Congress (and in turn states) from enacting laws relating to the establishment of religion, or laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion[iv]. However, according to the National School Chaplains’ Association (NSCA), any school district in the nation has the legal authority to hire a chaplain. School chaplains (whether part-time or full-time) are subject to the same rules and regulations as all other school employees. School districts are given the discretion to define the role and responsibilities of chaplains

In some cases, this means ser ving teachers and employees of a school, while in other cases Chaplains may engage with students in common areas, but not in a pr ivate one-on-one setting[v]. The NSCA repor ts that “cour ts consistently uphold chaplaincy because chaplains represent God, not the church, denomination, or religion. As Godly counselors, chaplains are tr usted Biblical advisors, which is why chaplains are paid to ser ve schools, the militar y, law enforcement, hospitals, the U.S. Senate, and Cong ress[vi].”

There is no clear prohibition against chaplains operating in Alabama’s public schools so long as students are not forced to interact with or receive spir itual guidance from them. Other state agencies, notably the Alabama Depar tment of Cor rections, already offer chaplain ser vices. Many of the state’s public universities employ chaplains to offer spir itual guidance to student athletes, with those athletes having the freedom to choose whether they par ticipate in religious activities or not.

What Have Other St ates Allowed?

Texas Senate Bill 763, enacted dur ing the 2023 regular legislative session, allows, but does not compel, school distr icts and open-enrollment char ter schools to employ or accept volunteer chaplains to “provide suppor t, ser vices, and prog rams for students.” Before being employed by a school distr ict the chaplain is required to undergo the same backg round check requirements as other school employees. Any person who has been convicted of a cr ime that requires sex offender registration is bar red from ser ving as a school chaplain under the Texas law. Senate Bill 763 does not require that chaplains be licensed by the state to ser ve at a school[vii]

The Flor ida and Louisiana laws are str uctured in a similar fashion, including provisions requir ing the notif ication of parents and requir ing volunteer chaplains to meet backg round screening requirements.

What Benef its Do School Chaplains Provide?

Alabama could realize a number of potential benef its from hir ing chaplains to work in public schools.

The f irst benef it is increasing school safety. Because chaplains operate in an infor mal guidance capacity, there is less stigma in a student speaking with a chaplain than other school off icials, who may be forced to elevate issues up the administrative chain of command and could negatively impact a student's school record. Chaplains cer tif ied by the NSCA are trained to recognize school safety threats and inter vene before they escalate to potentially tragic levels[viii]. 127

Another potential benef it of employing school chaplains is improving the mental health of both school employees and students. While school chaplains are not trained mental health exper ts, they ser ve as a “non-judgmental conf idant” that employees and students can talk to without the fear of any repercussions. They can also refer someone to a licensed mental health professional when an individual needs more intensive therapy[ix].

Finally, school chaplains have been shown to improve teacher retention, which could help alleviate the teacher shor tages that Alabama and many other states are exper iencing. Because school chaplains are seen as peers amongst school employees, they can ser ve as an impar tial listener who can become and ally and conf idant of other employees and help them through challenging work and personal situations[x].

Alabama Proposals

Dur ing Alabama’s 2024 Regular Legislative Session, two bills were introduced to allow chaplains in K-12 public schools, Senate Bill 294 by Rodger Smither man and House Bill 316 by Mark Gidley. While Rep. Gidley’s bill was approved by the House Committee on Education Policy, it was not considered on the House f loor. Senator Smither man’s bill passed the Senate unanimously and was approved by a House Committee but failed to receive f inal passage by the House before the end of the session. The bills would have required volunteer chaplains to undergo a cr iminal histor y backg round check and would have prohibited registered sex offenders from working as a volunteer chaplain in a public school[xi].

Representative Gidley reintroduced his bill (House Bill 179) dur ing the 2025 Regular Legislative Session, and it passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 92-5 but was never brought before the Senate Education Policy Committee[xii]. Rep. Gidley has pref iled a similar bill, House Bill 8, for the 2026 legislative session.

Microschools: A Modern Faith-Based Alternative

While the chaplain discussion focuses on br inging faith-based suppor t into public schools, another education trend, microschools, also illustrates how families and educators are seeking more relational and f lexible lear ning environments. Microschools typically enroll fewer than 15 students and operate as a hybr id between homeschooling and traditional schooling, with schedules and cur r icula tailored to each class. They often meet in homes, librar ies, churches or other community settings and can be organized as public, pr ivate, char ter or independent prog rams.

Exper ts descr ibe microschools as a moder n iteration of the one-room schoolhouse, offer ing personalized instr uction and freeing educators from many conventional requirements such as standardized testing and mandated cur r icula. Many are mixed-age, project-based prog rams r un by parents or educators. In some states, including Alabama, microschools are eligible to par ticipate in education savings account prog rams[xiii].

The Chr istian Leaders Alliance (CLA) sees microschools as a for m of ministr y and has developed a three module Developing MicroSchools course to help parents, teachers and ministr y leaders build faith-centered microschools. The prog ram explores the def inition and mission of Chr istian microschools, outlines the qualif ications and ordination pathway for a microschool minister and guides par ticipants through choosing a niche, whether homeschool hybr id, dual enrollment, classical, vocational or outdoor. It provides step by step instr uction in setting up gover nance, par tnerships and identity for a microschool, along with strategies for teaching diverse lear ners and integ rating technology.

The course emphasizes a Chr istian worldview, linking ever y subject to God’s creation and redemption, while ensur ing academic credibility and family engagement. Graduates can register their school as a Soul Center and become ordained microschool ministers through CLA. This approach treats education as ministr y and positions the microschool leader as both instr uctor and spir itual mentor[xiv].

For Alabama policymakers consider ing whether and how to incor porate chaplains into public schools, the microschool movement offers another example of how faith and education can intersect. Like chaplains, faith-based microschools emphasize relational suppor t and holistic development. As Alabama continues to suppor t the CHOOSE Act and contemplates school chaplain legislation, it may also look to emerging microschool models for insights on balancing religious freedom, parental choice, accountability, and educational innovation.

Conclusion

Explicitly allowing chaplains to work in Alabama’s schools could be benef icial to employees and students alike. So long as chaplaincy ser vices are optional, they should not r un afoul of the United States Constitution. While school chaplains are not a replacement for traditional counselors and mental health professionals, they can provide a positive guiding presence within school communities. Lawmakers should statutor ily ensure the freedom of school distr icts to employ them if they choose to do so.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Promote and Improve Civics Education in K-12 Public Schools

Overview

To be well rounded citizens, Alabama students must first understand their rights and responsibilities under both the federal democratic system of government as well as state government. A key component of building that foundation is through a civics education program. Having a strong comprehension of civics not only helps to build engagement throughout a student's life but also helps to strengthen democracy and develop critical thinking skills, among other positive outcomes.

Over the past decade, numerous states have taken steps to improve civics education courses for K-12 public school students. Alabama, among others, has implemented a civics component to receive a high school diploma. Other states have gone a step further by implementing additional (optional) certifications for public school teachers so that they are better equipped to teach these lessons to students, enabling them to better prepare America’s children for the duties and obligations that go along with being an American citizen. American exceptionalism is something that all citizens should take pride in. It is particularly important for America and Alabama’s youngest citizens to develop a deeper knowledge and understanding of our nation’s history and what makes it the greatest country in the world.

Current Law

During the 2017 Regular Legislative Session, the Alabama Legislature took steps to improve civics education in the state. Senate Bill 32 by Arthur Orr implemented a civics test as part of the states required course in government Students must answer at least 60 of 100 questions correctly in order to graduate from high school, though a chief school administrator can waive the requirement for any student for good cause. The test is comprised of the same questions used by officers of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services as the basis for selecting questions posed to applications for United States naturalization[i].

Reforms

in Other St ates

Ut ah

Dur ing the 2025 session, Utah lawmakers passed House Bill 381, which makes several changes to the state’s civics education requirements for high school students. Among other provisions, the bill increased the g raduation requirements from one semester to a full year of education on Amer ican gover nment and citizenship, increasing the overall social studies requirement by 0.5 credits The law requires that the course pr ior itize such documents as the Mayf lower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Iroquois Constitution, The United States Constitution, George Washington’s Farewell Address, the Utah Constitution[ii].

Louisiana

In Apr il, 2025, the Louisiana Depar tment of Education announced that it had developed a new “Freedom Framework Diploma Endorsement”, which recognizes g raduating students who have demonstrated excellence in civics education. The endorsement is awarded to students who score Master y level or above on the Louisiana Educational Assessment Prog ram’s civics assessment and includes a seal on the diploma and a red, white, and blue cord to be wor n dur ing g raduation ceremonies[iii]. In 2022 Louisiana adopted a new “Freedom Framework”, which increased the state’s standards for K-12 social studies cur r iculum.

Iowa

Dur ing its 2024 regular session, the Iowa Legislature introduced House Bill 587 relating to the national anthem. The bill altered state law to require that the state’s social studies and histor y cur r iculums shall include instr uction related to the words and music of the national anthem, the meaning and histor y of the national anthem, the objects and pr inciples of the United States, the sacr if ices made by the nation’s founders, the contr ibutions made by all who have ser ved in the ar med forces since the county’s founding, and how to love, honor, and respect the national anthem.[iv]

Florida

In 2019, Flor ida Gover nor Ron Desantis implemented a new civics literacy requirement for all high school students. The prog ram requires that students must have at least one credit in United States Histor y and one half credit in United States Gover nment to ear n their diploma. Students are also required to take an assessment of civic literacy, and if they pass the exam, they are exempt from the postsecondar y literacy assessment required by state law[v].

In addition to the civics literacy requirement, Flor ida also implemented a Civics Seal of Excellence for teachers, which consists of an approximately 50 hours course focused on histor y, gover nment, and political science taken over the per iod of two months. Teachers obtaining the Civics Seal of Excellence are eligible for a one-time stipend of $3,000[vi].

Illinois

Nearly a decade ago, Illinois enacted legislation requir ing all high school students to have one semester of civics education in order to obtain their high school diploma. The stated goal of the legislation is to help students acquire and lear n to use the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that will prepare them to be competent and responsible citizens throughout their lives Content focuses on gover nment institutions, the discussion of cur rent and controversial issues, ser vice lear ning, and simulations of the democratic process[vii].

Alabama Proposals

Dur ing the 2025 Regular Legislative Session, Senator Gerald Allen f iled Senate Bill 8, which would have established the Amer ican Histor y and Civics Excellence Initiative within the State Depar tment of Education. Essentially this would be a new cer tif ication available to high school teachers across the state[viii].

Under the provisions of the bill, the Amer ican Histor y and Civics Excellence Initiative would consist of an online cer tif ication course that requires a minimum of 50 hours to complete. The bill specif ied that the course of study would include topics such as the philosophical under pinnings of the Amer ican Republic and the root of Amer ican exceptionalism, the success of the United States as well as the success and failure of other nations’ gover ning philosophies to evaluate their past, present, and future, effects, the value of civic pr ide and regular par ticipation in gover nment, and the r ights and responsibilities of citizens[ix].

Once the course was completed, a teacher would be eligible to receive the Amer ican Histor y and Civics Seal of Excellence Endorsement, which if g ranted would include a one-time stipend of $3,000 payable to the teacher[x]. Senate bill 8 was introduced dur ing the 2025 session but never received a committee hear ing.

Conclusion

Developing a strong understanding of civics and our nation’s histor y will better prepare Alabama’s K-12 students for the duties and obligations that go along with living in the world’s g reatest democracy. Alabama lawmakers should continue to take steps to improve that education and help develop more well-rounded citizens.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Hold Sexual Predators Account able & Increase Penalties for Crimes Against Minors

Overview

Alabama’s children should be able to grow up in a world where they feel protected and safe. Sadly, this is not always the case, and far too often abuse is suffered at the hands of someone who is known to the child. The National Children’s Alliance (NCA) says 3,504 children in Alabama served by the group suffered from some form of abuse in 2023, with 2,279 suffering from sexual abuse. About two-thirds of all abuse victims were female while one-third were male. Nearly 25% of the reported victims were six years of age or younger. In all but 173 of the cases, the victim knew their abuser. And these only include cases that were reported to NCA, meaning there are likely many more children in the state experiencing physical and sexual abuse[i].

Alabama lawmakers have a duty to protect the state’s most vulnerable citizens from all forms of abuse, and particularly sexual abuse. There are several ways to strengthen these protections, including increasing the statute of limitations in which the victim of a sexual abuse can file a civil claim against their abuser as well as increasing the penalties for rape, sodomy, or sexual torture of young children to a capital offense.

Current Law

Under section 6-2-8 of the Code of Alabama, a person who “is below the age of 19 years, or insane” who falls victim to a sex offense has six years to commence civil action[ii]. This includes crimes such as rape and/or sodomy in the first or second degree, sexual misconduct, sexual torture, sexual abuse in the first or second degree, indecent exposure, enticing a child to enter a vehicle, room, house, office, or other place for immoral purposes, sexual abuse of a child under the age of 12 years old, child pornography, unlawful imprisonment of the first or second degree, kidnapping, incest, traveling to meet a child or facilitating the travel of a child for an unlawful sexual act, or directing a child to engage in a sex act, among other crimes in Section 15-20A-5 of the Code of Alabama and further described in Title 13A[iii]

Section 13A-5-40 of the Code of Alabama statutor ily def ines what constitutes a capital offense in Alabama. It cur rently includes 21 specif ic types of murders. It does not include any nonmurder sexual related cr imes[iv].

13A-5-49 descr ibes what constitutes an agg ravating circumstance which causes a specif ied cr ime to r ise to the level of a capital offense for sentencing pur poses[v]. Section 13A-6-61 of the Code of Alabama def ines the cr ime of rape in the f irst deg ree and provides that it is a Class A felony, which car r ies a penalty of up to life in pr ison[vi]. Section 13A-6-63 def ines the cr ime of sodomy in the f irst deg ree and provides that it is a Class A felony[vii]. Section 13A-6-65.1 of the Code of Alabama def ines the cr ime of sexual tor ture and provides that it is also a Class A felony[viii].

Under cur rent law, rape in the f irst deg ree, sodomy in the f irst deg ree, and sexual tor ture are subject to a penalty of up to life in pr ison, without the possibility of parole if the per petrator was over the age of 21 and the victim was under the age of six at the time the cr ime occur red[ix]. They are not cur rently def ined as capital offenses which are subject to the death penalty.

Reforms in Other St ates

Several states have increased the statute of limitation for sexual cr imes against children. In Tennessee civil action must be brought within the latter of 15 years after the victim has become 18 years of age or within three years from the time of discover y of the abuse. Louisiana law allows a civil claim to be f iled at any time if sexual or physical abuse resulting in per manent impair ment or injur y occur red. If a person is convicted of a cr ime against a child, civil action can be f iled at any time post-conviction. Flor ida law allows victims of sexual batter y who were under the age of 16 at the time of the cr ime to f ile civil action at any time without limitation[x].

Florida

In 2023, Flor ida lawmakers enacted a bill that makes it a capital felony, punishable by death or life without parole, if someone over the age of 18 commits sexual batter y on a person under the age of 12 or in attempting to commit sexual batter y injures the sexual organs of a person who is under the age of 12. In December 2023, prosecutors in Lake County Flor ida announced the f irst case in which they would be seeking the death sentence under the new law[xi].

In 2025, Flor ida Gover nor DeSantis signed several additional bills to strengthen penalties for cr imes against children. Notably, Senate Bill 1804 creates a new “Capital Human Traff icking of Vulnerable Persons for Sexual Exploitation” offense for traff icking children under 12 or disabled persons, which is now punishable by life impr isonment or death[xii]. Flor ida’s House Bill 1455, which became law in June 2025, also imposes mandator y minimum sentences for repeat or predator y sexual offenders[xiii].

Tennessee

In May 2024, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 1834 which allows persons convicted of agg ravated rape of a child under the age of eight to face the death penalty or a penalty of life in pr ison without the possibility of parole[xiv].

In 2025 the Tennessee Legislature also addressed the cr iminal statute of limitation for child sexual abuse felonies. SB 1070 extends the cr iminal statute of limitations for child sexual abuse felonies, with prosecutors now being able to pursue charges brought up to 30 years after the victim tur ns 18, provided they present cor roborating evidence of abuse[xv].

Arkansas

Dur ing the 2025 Regular Session Arkansas lawmakers approved SB375, which creates a new capital offense for rape. Under the provisions of the bill, an adult commits capital rape if he or she has sexual intercourse or deviant sexual activity with a child 13 or younger and causes or threatens ser ious injur y, or if the sex act occurs dur ing another violent felony, or if the offender uses a deadly weapon, or if the offender had a pr ior rape conviction and again rapes a child under the age of 13. Capital rape is punishable by death or life without parole for offenders 18 or older and life with parole eligibility after 20 years if the defendant was under 18 at the time the cr ime was committed[xvi].

Proposed Reforms in Alabama

Extend the St atute of Limit ation for Civil Action in Cases Involving Sexual Of fenses

For several sessions, Senator Mer ika Coleman has introduced a bill to extend the time per iod in which child victims of sexual assault can f ile a civil lawsuit against their abusers from six years to 36 years. Senator Coleman was previously successful in extending the statute of limitations through 2026 for victims who were abused while par ticipating in the Boy Scouts of Amer ica. According to Coleman, her bill will provide a way to give all sexual assault sur vivors a chance at recourse[xvii]

Senate Bill 21, which was f iled for the 2025 regular session, would have been retroactive, meaning that if a cr ime occur red before October 1, 2025, the extension of the statute of limitation would have applied. It fur ther provided a special two-year per iod from October 1, 2025, to October 1, 2027, in which any victim of a sex offense who was “time-bar red from f iling a civil action for recover y of damages” could f ile a civil action, even if the cr ime occur red more than 36 years ago[xviii]

Senate Bill 21 was not considered dur ing the 2025 regular session.

For many victims, par ticularly those that are the youngest, they may not have the ability to fully comprehend what has happened to them within the six-year timeframe. They also may be too scared for their own safety to come for ward at that time. According to data from Child USA, most sur vivors of sexual abuse (65%) do not disclose that abuse until after the age of 50. 51% do so between the ages of 50 and 69[xix]

Extending the amount of time in which victims of a sexual cr ime may come for ward and pursue civil action against their abusers will fur ther strengthen protections for Alabama’s sexual abuse victims

Increase Penalties for Rape or Sodomy Against a Victim Under the Age of Six

Representative Matt Simpson f iled House Bill 49 dur ing the 2025 regular session, which would have made the cr imes of rape and sodomy in the f irst degree against a child under the age of six, as well as sexual tor ture against a child under the age of six, capital offenses. [xx].

Under cur rent law, these cr imes are subject to a penalty of life in pr ison without the possibility of parole if the per petrator was over the age of 21. If Representative Simpson’s bill had been enacted, per petrators who are 18 years of age or older would have been subject to a penalty of life without parole or the death penalty if convicted of these cr imes. People convicted who are under the age of 18 could be sentenced to life with or without parole but would have to ser ve a minimum of 30 years in pr ison, day for day, before parole could be f irst considered. [xxi].

Simpson’s bill would provide a direct challenge to a 2008 U.S. Supreme Cour t r uling which found that under the Eight Amendment to the U.S. Constitution it is cr uel and unusual punishment to sentence any defendant to death for cr imes other than homicide of cr imes against the state. Tennessee and Flor ida have both passed similar laws that could challenge the Supreme Cour t Ruling[xxii].

Representative Simpson’s bill passed the house with 86 yeas and just f ive nays but was not considered by the full Alabama Senate. Representative Simpson and Senator Apr il Weaver have both pref iled similar bills for the 2026 legislative session, with Senator Weaver f iling Senate Bill 17 and Representative Simpson f iling House Bill 41, which address the issue again[xxiii].

Conclusion

Sexual cr imes committed by adults against Alabama’s youngest and most vulnerable victims represent the worst of our society. It may take years for those victims to fully understand and come to ter ms with the trauma that they have exper ienced. They should not be bound by an arbitrar ily shor t timeline in seeking recourse against their abusers In ter ms of those committing these hor r ible acts, they must face the most ser ious consequences available under state law so that there is a severe deter rent in place to stop these actions before they happen.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Prevent Medically Assisted Suicide from Occurring in Alabama

Overview

In recent years, there has been a push across the nation to legalize medically assisted suicide Medically assisted suicide is when a patient, or an individual who is terminally ill, makes the choice not only to end treatment, but then requests a physician to prescribe them a lethal dose of a drug to end their life [i].

The medically assisted suicide movement gained a lot of publicity in 2016 when Canada made it possible for patients to ask a physician to prescribe them medication to end their lives [ii]. Currently, in the US, 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized some form of medically assisted suicide With groups like the nonprofit Death with Dignity (DWD) working to introduce and pass legislation in the remaining 39 states [iii]. According to DWD’s website, they are “a national leader in end-of-life advocacy and policy reform. Their “mission focuses on improving how people with terminal illness die” [iv].

So far, during the 2025 legislative calendar across the country, seventeen states have considered legislation to implement some form of medically assisted suicide [v]. Alabama lawmakers must take strong and immediate steps to prevent this from happening here.

The Long-Term Repercussions

To better understand the effects of legalizing medically assisted suicide, we can look to Canada as a warning. In June of 2016, the Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-14, which legalized medically assisted suicide

Bill C-14 made it possible for someone who is 18 years of age or older to request medical assistance in dying if the patient requesting the assistance meets the following criteria. They must be capable of making decisions regarding their health and they must have a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

They also must prove that they are voluntar ily requesting medically assisted suicide without exter nal pressures. A g r ievous and ir remediable medical condition is descr ibed in the bill as someone who has a “ser ious and incurable illness, disease or disability”, who is in a “state of ir reversible decline in capability”. The patients “natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances, without a prognosis necessar ily having been made as to the specif ic length of time that they have remaining” [vi].

In March 2021, Canada amended the nation's cr iminal code regarding medical assistance in dying through Bill C-7. The amendments implemented in this bill made it possible for an individual to now request medically assisted suicide, even if the person's natural death isn’t reasonably foreseable [vii]

Canada continues to review amendments to their medically assisted suicide laws for people who are suffer ing from mental illness only. The exclusion of mental illness was upheld with the passage of Bill C-62 in Febr uar y of 2024. This exclusion will end in March of 2027 [viii].

In Febr uar y of 2024, Canada’s Minister of Justice and Attor ney General stated regarding medical assistance in dying (MAID), “Medical assistance in dying remains a ver y complex and deeply personal issue. We must ensure our health care system is prepared to fully protect and suppor t those who may be vulnerable. After thoughtful consideration, we believe an additional extension, until March 17, 2027, is necessar y. The healthcare system must f irst be ready to safely provide MAID to persons whose sole medical condition is a mental illness before that access can be g ranted.”

This statement highlights Canada’s desire to eventually provide medically assisted suicide to people who are suffer ing from mental illness alone [ix].

Canada is a pr ime example of the long-ter m dangers of making medically assisted suicide available to patients. In 2023 alone, 15,343 people were given medical assistance in dying in Canada’s assisted suicide prog ram [x]. Canada should ser ve as a clear war ning that once medically assisted suicide is considered as a viable treatment option, it becomes a pathway to suicide on demand and ultimately cor r upts the medical perception regarding patient care.

Current Law

Under Alabama State Code Section 22 Chapter 8B-4, any person who assists another person in committing suicide is guilty of a Class C Felony. This also includes any physician or healthcare provider who prescr ibes any dr ug, substance, compound, or per for ms any medical procedure to deliberately aid someone in dying, is guilty of a Class C felony [xi]. The punishment for a Class C felony is between three hundred and sixty-six days to ten years in pr ison [xii]. This law does not prevent a patient from refusing life-sustaining care [xiii]

Laws in Other St ates

New York

In 2025 New York State Assembly and Senate passed S138, the Medical Aid in Dying Act. This bill enables mentally competent adults who are ter minally ill with a prognosis of six months or less to live to request and self-administer medication that will end their lives S138 passed on the Senate f loor with a vote of 35 Aye, to 27 Nay on June 9th, 2025, [xiv]. As of October, 2025 the bill was still awaiting signature by Gover nor Kathy Hochul. If Gover nor Hochul signs this bill into law, that will make New York the 12th state to allow medically assisted suicide.

Tennessee

Under Tennessee law, it is a Class D felony to assist in suicide. This penalty results in a two to twelve year pr ison sentence and a f ine of up to $5,000 [xv]. In Januar y of 2024, Representative Bob Freeman of Tennessee introduced HB1710. The proposed legislation would g rant a resident of Tennessee who is eighteen years or older the r ight to request life-ending medication from a physician. They must have an incurable disease with less than six months to live and be mentally competent adults [xvi]. HB1710 was never voted on in committee and did not move for ward [xvii].

Oregon

Oregon enacted the Death With Dignity Act in 1997. This Act allows for someone who is 18 years or older and has been diagnosed with a ter minal illness that will take their life within six months to request medically assisted suicide. It is at the discretion of the attending physician to deter mine whether this cr iter ia has been met, or not. In 2023, Oregon amended the law to remove the residency requirement [xviii]. According to the Oregon Health Author ity (OHA), 607 people were prescr ibed medication to end their lives in 2024. In Januar y of 2025, the OHA repor ted that 376 people passed away in 2024 due to medicine that was prescr ibed to them [xix]

Recommendations for Alabama

Alabama should seek to put into place fur ther safeguards to prevent medically assisted suicide by strengthening the penalty from a Class C felony to a Class B felony. If convicted of a Class B felony, pr ison sentences will range from two years to twenty years [xx]. Lawmakers should also consider mandator y minimum sentences or enhanced penalties when the assisted person is vulnerable (i.e., disabled, elderly, incompetent).

While withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is allowed, the state should require enhanced safeguards around decisions to decline treatment, to ensure they are voluntar y, infor med, not coerced, and made in consultation with both the patient and the patient’s family members These requirements would help guard against assisted suicide.

Increased penalties for medical personnel would give Alabama prosecutors the ability to apply specif ic punishment for actionable felonies. These changes would allow Alabama to again be a pro-life leader for the nation, pushing back against the movement to legalize medically assisted suicide.

Conclusion

Medically assisted suicide is a g rowing issue in Nor th Amer ica, and while it begins with ter minally ill patients, it provides a precedent that leads to death on demand. This compromises the pur pose of medicine, which is to treat patients and to seek a cure for their illness. Alabama should pass legislation that strengthens the penalties for this practice. Taking action now will ser ve to ultimately safeguard the dignity of medicine and preser ve patient care and preser vation of life as the top pr ior ity for Alabama lawmakers.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Ban Non-Medical Psychoactive THC Products from Being Sold in Alabama

Overview

In 2018, the United States Congress passed H.R.2, more commonly known as the 2018 Farm Bill. The Farm Bill changed the federal definition of hemp and created an avenue for cannabis products that contain less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on a dry weight basis to no longer be labeled as marijuana. This resulted in hemp products containing less than 0.3% dry weight THC no longer being considered a controlled substance[i].

Due to this loophole created by the 2018 Farm Bill, individuals have been able extract CBD from hemp and then chemically convert it with solvents and acids into psychoactive THC, like delta eight and delta ten. This CBD is then developed into consumable products that produce a mind-altering effects. These products include, but are not limited to, THC gummies, flowers, and vape products. This has resulted in retailers and gas stations selling these products in mass quantities. While this was not the initial intention of the 2018 Farm Bill, it became a harmful unforeseen consequence. On November 12, 2025, Congress reached a budget deal after a 42 day shutdown. In the agreed upon language, the hemp loophole was closed with a 365 day moratorium before the law goes into effect[iii].

Harms of Synthetic THC

The products that contain synthetic psychoactive THC are discrete and easy to use Given this, it is hard to identify a user who may be under the influence of these products. The discrete nature of these products makes it difficult to regulate and or identify someone who may be in possession of them. The chemicals used to create synthetic psychoactive THC are untested and harmful to its users A study by researchers at UAB found that people who vaped or ate delta-8 THC products became psychotic and violent[iii]. To further this point, according to Live Science, some users of delta eight report severe side effects such as anxiety, psychosis, and even violent behavior.

Research on the effects of legalization and regulation of THC across Canada by Shewta Mital, PHD, and Hai V Nguyen, found that legalization of psychoactive cannabis is associated with a large increase in the use of edible and smokable cannabis, along with an increase in the co-use of alcohol and cannabis. They also concluded that legalization and regulation of cannabis decreased concer n about its usage and legitimized it in the eyes of the public[iv].

THC accounts for many DUIs now in the state of Alabama In 2024, Delta 9 THC (nonsynthetic) was responsible for 37 percent of DUIs in Alabama, with Delta 8 accounting for 7.4 percent. This is accompanied by 141 traff ic fatalities resulting from Delta 9 THC usage, which was a 13 percent increase from 2023 Delta 8 THC was responsible for for ty-one traff ic fatalities in 2024, a 19 percent increase from 2023[v].

Current Law

The Alabama Legislature passed House Bill 445 by Representative Andy Whitt dur ing the 2025 regular session. This bill legalizes the sale and use of psychoactive THC for recreational pur poses for those who are twenty-one or older. HB445 sets up the process for the sale, regulation, and taxation of psychoactive THC edible products and beverages.

The Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) is now the gover ning board that administers licenses to sell these products. Recipients of these licenses must be a liquor or package store, or a store that only sells consumable psychoactive THC products, and accessible only to someone who is twenty-one or older. The bill was amended on the f inal day of passage to include the ability for retail food stores to receive licenses to sell THC beverages, enabling the products to be sold in locations that are often frequented by minors.

Under HB445, individual ser ving sizes for these edible THC products and beverages can be up to ten millig rams. The edibles will be packaged in a single-dose package, and the beverage container has a twelve f luid ounce limit. However, these packages can be sold in a batch that is up to for ty total millig rams of THC.

HB445 imposes an excise of 10 percent on the sale of these THC products. This tax is on top of any additional federal, state, or local law[vi].

Laws in Other St ates

In Colorado, a state where recreational cannabis is legal, the legal ser ving size for consumable THC is ten millig rams, the same as we now have in Alabama[vii]. However, the edibles in Colorado are not made with hemp-produced THC like delta-8 or delta-10, due to the har mful chemicals that are used to synthesize the hemp into THC[viii].

In Flor ida, recreational (non-synthetic) mar ijuana is illegal In 2024, Flor ida voted on Amendment 3 that would have legalized the sale and possession of cannabis for adults 21 years of age or older[ix]. This measure failed to receive the needed 60% suppor t[x].

However, delta 8 THC is cur rently legal in the state of Flor ida and can be purchased at vape shops and gas stations[xi]. Dur ing its 2024 session, the Flor ida legislature passed SB 1698. This bill would have regulated THC ser ving sizes to f ive millig rams, limited f ifty millig rams per package, and limited the age to purchase to twenty-one and older[xii]. Flor ida Gover nor Ron DeSantis ultimately vetoed SB 1698[xiii].

Under Louisiana law, consumable THC products are legal. Sales are prohibited for anyone under the age of twenty-one. Ser ving sizes are limited to f ive millig rams, while a package can have up to for ty millig rams. Licenses for sales are acquired through the Louisiana Depar tment of Health. They are also the regulating body that approves each product before it can be sold. Hemp sellers are subjected to a 3% excise tax. Products are required to have a label that states where the consumable was produced, along with a QR code that links to the cer tif icate of analysis[xiv].

Recommendations for Alabama

Cur rently, Alabama law lists Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as a Schedule I substance, but excludes THC found in hemp. This exclusion includes Delta var iants of THC that are der ived from hemp.

SB1, pref iled by Senator Apr il Weaver in May of 2025 for the 2026 regular session, would address this by scheduling psychoactive hemp-der ived THC as a Schedule I substance, while still allowing the sale of non-psychoactive hemp products in licensed phar macies that get cer tif ication from the Alabama State Board of Phar macy. These products may be things ingested orally or absorbed through the skin that contain non-psychoactive CBD.

After the Alabama Depar tment of Forensic Sciences identif ies a synthetic controlled substance, they will notify the Alabama Depar tment of Public Health so that the substance may be scheduled.

SB1 will not ban products that are cur rently approved by the FDA[xv].

Conclusion

Synthetic THC is har mful to its users and is a g rowing cause of fatal accidents. It was legalized through a loophole created by an act of the federal gover nment. Alabama should seek legislation that closes this loophole and does not seek to regulate it

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Promote the Lessons of the Ten Commandments in Alabama’s

Public Schools

Overview

The United States was founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition of which the Ten Commandments are a cornerstone. Teaching students the historical significance of this document is crucial for fostering cultural heritage and awareness. The Ten Commandments offer a concise framework that reinforces universal moral norms such as honesty, respect for others, and personal responsibility, which are all consistent with the goals of public education. It is important to note that many documents that include direct and indirect references to God are firmly embedded in our public school curriculum. The Mayflower Compact refers to “Almighty God”, and The Declaration of Independence states all men have been “endowed by their Creator.” For their education to be well-rounded, students should have access to the commandments that America’s Founding Fathers lived their lives from.

Current Law

In 2018, the following Constitutional Amendment was put forth to Alabama voters: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, providing for certain religious rights and liberties; authorizing the display of the Ten Commandments on state property and property owned or administered by a public school or public body; and prohibiting the expenditure of public funds in defense of the constitutionality of this amendment.

Alabama voters overwhelmingly approved this amendment, a constitutional change that explicitly authorizes the display of the Ten Commandments on state-owned property, including public schools and other public bodies[i]. The amendment was proposed through Senate Bill 181 (Act 2018-389), sponsored by Senator Gerald Dial

The text added to the Constitution stipulates that “Proper ty belonging to the state may be used to display the Ten Commandments” and that public bodies’ r ights to do so “are not restrained or abr idged.”[ii]. Impor tantly, it does not mandate displays, rather, it per mits them, provided they “comply with constitutional requirements,” such as being inter mingled with histor ical or educational mater ials in a larger exhibit.

Reforms in Other St ates

Louisiana

In June 2024, Louisiana became the f irst state to enact a law requir ing the display of the Ten Commandments in ever y public-school classroom The legislation mandated that a poster-sized copy be placed prominently in all K–12 classrooms and state-funded universities. Suppor ters framed the measure as a recognition of the histor ical foundations of law and morality. In June 2025, a United States Cour t of Appeals str uck down the law, halting its implementation statewide. Despite the r uling, the Louisiana measure sparked similar proposals in other souther n states and renewed national debate over religious expression in public schools[iii].

Arkansas

In Apr il 2025, Arkansas Gover nor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed Act 573, requir ing that ever y public school classroom and librar y display the Ten Commandments alongside the national motto “In God We Tr ust.” The law also extended to public buildings suppor ted by state funds. Proponents descr ibed it as a defense of traditional values and a ref lection of the nation’s moral her itage. However, a federal judge later issued an injunction blocking enforcement in several school distr icts, citing likely violations of Supreme Cour t precedent [iv].

Texas

Texas lawmakers advanced a similar policy in 2025, passing Senate Bill 10 to require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in ever y public elementar y and secondar y school classroom. The legislation specif ied the size and placement of the display and allowed schools to use donated or state-provided mater ials. Gover nor Greg Abbott and Attor ney General Ken Paxton defended the law as a retur n to Amer ica’s foundational values [v].

Recommended Reforms

In 2025, Alabama lawmakers Representative Mark Gidley and Senator Keith Kelley introduced legislation (House Bill 178 and Senate Bill 166) that would require the display of the Ten Commandments in ever y public K–12 school and state-funded college and university. Under the proposal, each school would need to post the Ten Commandments in a prominent area, such as an entr yway or common hall, alongside a statement explaining the histor ical signif icance.

The poster or framed document must meet sizing requirements of at least 11 inches by 14 inches in size. No public funds would be required for this initiative, instead relying on pr ivate donations to fund the display or schools may accept donated displays The State Depar tment of Education would also have been mandated to identify appropr iate resources and make them available for local boards of education to comply with this legislation[vi].

Representative Gidley has indicated that a similar bill will likely be f iled dur ing the 2026 regular session. Alabama legislators should strongly consider this proposal which can be utilized as a histor ical framework for students.

Conclusion

To fully ensure the understanding of Amer ica’s founding pr inciples, students must be exposed to a full ar ray of histor ical documents, including the Ten Commandments. As seen in 2018, an over whelming major ity of Alabama constituents believe that schools should have the ability to display the 10 Commandments. This policy initiative will enshr ine Judeo-Chr istian values back into our schools and instill in our students a moral understanding of the world.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Provide a Consistent St atewide Framework for K-12 Religious

Release Time

Overview

Religious release time allows public school students, with parental consent, to leave campus during the school day for voluntary religious instruction conducted by private organizations.[i] These programs date back more than a century and were formally recognized as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Zorach v. Clauson (1952), which held that schools may accommodate students’ religious commitments without violating the Establishment Clause, so long as participation is voluntary, privately funded, and off-campus.[ii]

Today, release time programs exist in more than half of U.S. states and reflect a renewed effort to align education policy with parental rights and community values.[iii] They give families the flexibility to pursue faith-based formation while maintaining enrollment in public schools. Proponents argue that such programs strengthen family choice, reinforce moral education, and encourage civic engagement.[iv]

In Alabama, where public education policy increasingly emphasizes local control and respect for family autonomy, release time presents a valuable opportunity to expand educational freedom. Yet the absence of statutory clarity leaves schools and parents uncertain about implementation, liability, and constitutional boundaries.

Issue

Alabama’s framework for religious release time is permissive rather than uniform. State law, the Alabama Released Time Credit Act, Ala. Code § 16-1-20.6, authorizes local boards to allow offcampus, privately funded religious instruction during the school day and to award elective credit when specified conditions are met, but it does not require districts to implement such programs. [v] As a result, access varies by locality, producing uneven availability and uncertainty for families and administrators.

Without a consistent statewide directive, administrators must inter pret the Released Time Credit Act and local attendance policies to deter mine how and whether to implement releasedtime religious instr uction. Although Ala. Code § 16-1-20.6 provides a legal pathway, local boards retain discretion in adopting and implementing policy. The statute does not compel all distr icts to offer it. As a result, access var ies across the state. Some distr icts provide released time prog rams for religious instr uction, while others do not, producing a patchwork of implementation rather than a unifor m statewide standard

While federal jur ispr udence per mits release time under appropr iate conditions, state law must provide clar ity and local policy must provide str ucture Alabama’s statute lays the foundation but leaves many operational details, such as scheduling, liability, transpor tation, academic credit, and non-par ticipating student protections, to local boards. In the absence of comprehensive statewide unifor m standards for these details, families and school systems remain vulnerable to inconsistency, uncer tainty, and uneven oppor tunity to par ticipate in constitutionally protected religious instr uction.

Current Law

Both federal precedent and Alabama statute provide the framework gover ning religious release time. The U.S. Supreme Cour t in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), upheld a New York City prog ram allowing students to leave public school dur ing the day for off-campus religious instr uction, emphasizing that par ticipation must be voluntar y, pr ivately funded, and completely separate from public facilities or personnel.[vi] Conversely, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), str uck down a prog ram conducted within public schools using public resources, f inding it violated the Establishment Clause.[vii]

Alabama codif ied these pr inciples in the Released Time Credit Act, Ala. Code § 16-1-20.6. [viii] The law author izes local boards of education to per mit students to attend off-campus religious instr uction dur ing the school day and allows elective credit when statutor y conditions are met, including wr itten parental consent, pr ivate funding, independent instr uction, and no use of public personnel or facilities.[ix] The Act leaves implementation to the discretion of each distr ict. It does not require release-time prog rams to be offered statewide. Consequently, while the statutor y pathway exists, par ticipation and practice var y among localities, leading to uneven access and uncer tainty for families and administrators.

Reform in Other St ates

Flor ida law expressly author izes parents to request their child’s release from public school for religious instr uction or obser vance. Under Fla. Stat. § 1002.20(2)(c), distr icts may excuse students for religious instr uction or holidays upon wr itten parental request.[x] Administrative Rule 6A-1.09514 of the Flor ida Administrative Code implements this policy and requires each distr ict that adopts a released-time prog ram to maintain attendance records, ensure that instr uction occurs off public proper ty, and prohibit any expenditure of public funds for religious activity.[xi] Together, these provisions create a clear and constitutionally sound process for voluntar y par ticipation in religious instr uction while maintaining the separation between public schools and pr ivate religious prog rams

Tennessee provides one of the most detailed statutor y models for released-time instr uction. Tenn Code Ann § 49-2-130 author izes local boards of education to excuse students for up to one class per iod each day to attend off-campus religious moral instr uction conducted by independent organizations.[xii] The law mandates wr itten parental consent, pr ivate funding, and independent attendance ver if ication, and it prohibits the use of public funds or personnel. [xiii] Distr icts may, at their discretion, award up to one elective unit of academic credit if the course meets neutral educational cr iter ia and does not evaluate religious content.[xiv] Notably, the statute also directs schools to excuse students for released-time instr uction upon parental request even if the local board has not adopted its own policy, ensur ing consistent access across Tennessee.[xv]

Utah’s framework, codif ied in Utah Admin. Code R277-610, gover ns “Released-Time Classes and Public Schools.”[xvi] The r ule def ines released time as a per iod when a student is excused, at a parent’s request, to attend religious instr uction off campus.[xvii] It explicitly forbids public personnel or resources from suppor ting such prog rams, bars released-time attendance and g rades from appear ing on school transcr ipts, and requires instr uction to remain fully separate from the public cur r iculum.[xviii] Utah’s str ucture demonstrates how consistent state-level r ules can protect constitutional boundar ies while enabling effective coordination between schools and pr ivate providers.

Collectively, these states illustrate that religious release-time prog rams can operate within constitutional limits when guided by clear statutes and administrative standards. Each model balances parental freedom and institutional neutrality, pr inciples that align with Alabama’s broader education refor m pr ior ities.

Proposed Alabama Reform

An amended Religious Release Time Freedom Act could require each distr ict to adopt a consistent policy per mitting voluntar y, off-campus religious instr uction with wr itten parental consent. The refor m should specify that such prog rams remain pr ivately funded, occur off public proper ty, and exclude public school personnel from par ticipation. It should also provide unifor m procedures for attendance ver if ication, student safety, and equitable treatment of nonpar ticipating students.

By clar ifying administrative standards and ensur ing consistent access across distr icts, Alabama can protect both religious liber ty and institutional neutrality. Families would gain cer tainty about their r ights, while schools would operate under clear, legally sound parameters. Rather than expanding gover nment involvement, this refor m would ref ine the state’s existing law to ensure that its protections for voluntar y religious instr uction are accessible, consistent, and constitutionally secure.

Similar legislation has been introduced in recent Alabama legislative sessions. In 2025, both Representative Susan Dubose and Senator Shay Shelnutt introduced bills that would have required local boards of education to adopt a policy allowing for an elective credit for released religious instr uction. While neither bill was enacted, Senator Shelnutt has pref iled a similar bill, Senate Bill 4, for the 2026 legislative session.

Conclusion

Religious release time ref lects the endur ing pr inciple that education and faith need not exist in conf lict. Properly str uctured, it allows Alabama families to integ rate moral and spir itual for mation into their children’s education while preser ving the neutrality of public schools. Although Alabama law already recognizes released-time instr uction through the Released Time Credit Act, the prog ram remains unevenly applied across distr icts. Strengthening and standardizing this framework would reaff ir m Alabama’s commitment to parental choice, local control, and religious liber ty while ensur ing consistent compliance with constitutional standards.

By ref ining its existing statute and establishing clear administrative guidance, Alabama can ensure that ever y family, regardless of distr ict, enjoys equal oppor tunity to par ticipate in voluntar y religious instr uction. Such a refor m would align Alabama with leading states that have moder nized their education codes to ref lect both freedom of conscience and respect for public education, pr inciples that have long def ined the Amer ican tradition of faith and lear ning.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Allow for Alternative Admissions Testing and Amend “Advanced Placement” Language

Overview

For decades, the standardized testing landscape in the United States has been dominated by a duopoly of the SAT and ACT This dominance has shaped college admissions, scholarship opportunities, and even high school graduation requirements. However, in an era demanding intellectual rigor and educational diversity, a necessary alternative has been developed. The Classic Learning Test (CLT), grounded in the Western intellectual tradition, seeks to assess not only foundational skills but also deeper engagement with classic literature and foundational texts.[i]

Alabama should officially integrate the CLT into its public education and university systems. By doing so, Alabama can foster a more robust academic environment, provide students with diverse pathways to success, and ensure that specific testing vendors do not hold a monopoly over student opportunities. This course of action is both academically sound and administratively feasible, as demonstrated by the adoption of the CLT by the entire public university system and K-12 requirements in Florida. [ii]

Evidence Supporting the CLT's Efficacy: A Predictor of College Success

The recent study, Classic Learning Test (CLT) as a Predictor of Student Performance, conducted by Gary L. Welton at Grove City College, provides compelling evidence supporting the CLT's efficacy as a reliable predictor of student success, thus justifying its adoption by the State of Alabama. 2 The Grove City College study analyzed 235 students, examining the correlation between their CLT scores and their first-year student GPA (Year 1 GPA). The findings provide a strong empirical foundation for using the CLT in admissions and academic placement decisions.[iii]

• Strong Predictive Validity: The study found a "significant positive correlation" between all sections of the CLT and first-year student GPA. The raw correlation between the CLT total score and Year 1 GPA was 0.37.

• Corrected Correlation: After accounting for the range restriction inherent in studying only admitted students (who tend to be higher-scoring), the corrected correlation between the CLT and Year 1 GPA jumped to 0.58. Welton noted this finding suggests the CLT is a "more precise instrument for forecasting student success" than other tests he compared it to.[iv]

• Verbal Strength: The Verbal score on the CLT showed the strongest relationship with firstyear student GPA, suggesting the test effectively measures the kind of critical reasoning and comprehension skills vital for college-level success.

• Persistence: The study noted that students who persisted in their studies (remained enrolled or graduated) had significantly higher CLT and Verbal scores than students who withdrew from the college.[v]

These results validate the CLT as an effective tool for predicting academic success in a college environment. Given its demonstrated efficacy, the CLT provides a credible, rigorous, and validated alternative to existing tests, making it a suitable option for use within Alabama's educational framework The integration of the CLT requires adjustments to existing Alabama statutes and administrative rules. Current policy, established primarily through the Alabama Administrative Code (Rule 290-3-1-.02), requires all 11th-grade students to take the ACT college entrance exam and mandates that high school graduates satisfy a College and Career Readiness (CCR) indicator.[vi]

While the CCR definition is not limited to a single vendor and includes the option for "Any additional College and Career Readiness (CCR) indicator approved by the Alabama State Board of Education,"the specified indicators currently lean heavily on the ACT and College Board products (AP exams).[vii]

Furthermore, in many administrative and legislative texts, advanced coursework is specifically referenced by vendor-exclusive names like "Advanced Placement," perpetuating vendor lock-in. [viii] The following policy priorities directly address the necessary regulatory amendments to introduce the CLT as a valid, non-exclusive option across high school and university systems.

Policy Priorities for CLT Integration in Alabama

Achieving the goal of integrating the CLT requires action from the Alabama Legislature and key administrative bodies, including the Alabama State Board of Education (SBOE), the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE), and the Alabama State Treasury.

Currently, most public universities default to accepting SAT or ACT scores. By officially recognizing the CLT, Alabama’s public higher education institutions would provide students with an additional, validated pathway to demonstrate college readiness. It would be necessary for the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) and the governing boards of individual public universities need to formally approve the CLT as a valid entrance exam for admission and merit-based scholarships. The CLT is already accepted by over 300 colleges and universities, including a growing number of public institutions, demonstrating its established utility in the college admissions landscape [ix]

Alabama currently uses only ACT scores as a primary measure for students to satisfy the "General Education Pathway" to high school graduation requirements [x]The current approved College and Career Readiness (CCR) indicators include the ACT, AP exams, IB exams, and ACT WorkKeys.[xi] The Alabama State Board of Education (SBOE) should amend the Alabama Administrative Code to include the CLT as an approved standardized test option that public high school students can use to satisfy the CCR indicator for graduation.

Alabama administrative code already allows for the approval of "Any additional College and Career Readiness (CCR) indicator approved by the Alabama State Board of Education."[xii] The Grove City College study provides the necessary evidence of predictive validity required for such approval.

Allowing the CLT would break the de facto monopoly held by the College Board (SAT) and ACT & gives students, parents, and schools more options for a high-stakes standardized test. The state's goal is to ensure students can choose the exam that best ref lects their academic backg round and strengths, States that allow the CLT for public university admissions, scholarship eligibility, and high school g raduation are effectively opening doors for more students, ensur ing all types of college-readiness and scholarship eligibility are recognized.

Policy Area

Florida's Action (Citations 19-21)

Comparison to AL

Public University Admissions

The State University System of Florida - 12 public universities, including UF and FSU - voted to officially accept the CLT as a valid entrance exam for undergraduate admissions..

ACHE and large, high-ranking public university systems can legally and practically integrate the CLT into their accepted entrance exams. Samford & Faulkner University already accept the CLT.

State Scholarships

Florida approved the CLT as a qualifying exam for the statefunded Bright Futures Scholarship Program

Alabama State Treasury can approve the CLT for the CollegeCounts Scholarship

High School Graduation

The Florida Board of Education adopted the CLT as an additional assessment option for students to meet high school graduation requirements and dual enrollment eligibility.

Alabama State Board of Education (SBOE) can approve the CLT as a College and Career Readiness (CCR) indicator & for dual enrollment.

Alabama’s public higher education institutions primarily default to the SAT or ACT. The Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) and the governing boards of individual public universities must formally approve the CLT as a valid entrance exam for admission and merit-based scholarships.

Florida Precedent: The State University System of Florida officially voted to accept the CLT as an accepted test for admissions to its 12 public universities, proving that a large, successful state university system can seamlessly integrate the assessment.[xiii] Furthermore, several private Alabama universities, such as Faulkner University and Samford University, already accept CLT scores for admission, demonstrating its current legitimacy within the state's higher education system.[xiv]

Alabama requires high school graduates to meet at least one College and Career Readiness (CCR) indicator. The Alabama State Board of Education (SBOE) should amend the Alabama Administrative Code to add the CLT to the list of approved CCR indicators Existing code already provides a clear path for this change, as it includes the phrase: "Any additional College and Career Readiness (CCR) indicator approved by the Alabama State Board of Education." [xv} The SBOE has the administrative authority to make this change based on the presented evidence of predictive validity.[xvi]

Florida Precedent: Florida has already adopted the CLT to satisfy its high school graduation requirements and dual enrollment eligibility, providing Alabama with both a policy model and established concordance tables for implementation. [xvii]

Qualifying for state-sponsored financial aid, such as the CollegeCounts Scholarship, is often contingent upon standardized test scores. The Alabama State Treasury should to amend its administrative rules to officially recognize the CLT and establish an approved qualifying score for the CollegeCounts Scholarship. The CLT provides a statistical CLT-ACT concordance table (derived from CLT-SAT and official SAT-ACT concordance) to easily establish the equivalent score for scholarship eligibility.[xviii]

Florida Precedent: Florida successfully approved the CLT for its own state-funded aid, the Bright Futures Scholarship Program, confirming the feasibility of this action for Alabama's state treasury. [xix]

Current Alabama statute and administrative code restricts advanced high school options by specifically naming "Advanced Placement" or "AP," granting a single vendor a monopoly over advanced coursework. Revisions should be made to the Code of Alabama and the Alabama Administrative Code to use vendor-neutral terms such as "Advanced Course" or "Accelerated Learning " This change introduces competition and allows the Alabama Department of Education (ALSDE) to approve other high-quality programs aligned with the CLT's focus on foundational texts and intellectual rigor, fostering innovation and choice in high school education.[xx]

By allowing the CLT to be offered, a state is providing an assessment that claims to measure aptitude and genuine critical thinking based on enduring texts, rather than rote memorization or specific, short-term curriculum alignment. This, in turn, can serve as a diagnostic tool for how well students engage with certain classic content. Alabama’s decision to allow the CLT would be a strategic move to diversify the college admissions landscape, validate a distinct educational philosophy, and ultimately, offer a new pathway to higher education and state-funded scholarships.

GUIDE TO

THE ISSUES

Increase Transparency in the Review of Copywritten Educational Materials

Overview

The Alabama Department of Education (ALSDE) and the State Textbook Committee are responsible for evaluating and approving the instructional materials used in Alabama’s K–12 public schools [i] This process ensures that textbooks and digital resources align with the state’s academic standards and learning objectives.[ii] The State Textbook Committee, created by statute under Ala. Code § 16-36-60 et seq., serves as the primary advisory body to the Alabama State Board of Education (SBOE) in reviewing and recommending materials for statewide adoption.[iii]

The adoption of instructional materials is one of the most important responsibilities of Alabama’s education system. The materials approved through this process influence classroom instruction, assessment, and student learning outcomes for years at a time. Because textbooks and digital platforms are often produced by national publishers and protected by copyright law, Alabama must balance public transparency with compliance with intellectual property standards.

In recent years, the state’s review procedures have drawn increased public attention as parents, educators, and policymakers have sought greater visibility into the content used in classrooms. [iv] The institutions that oversee this process, including the ALSDE, the State Textbook Committee, and the SBOE, operate within a statutory framework designed to promote accountability, quality, and consistency across public schools.[v] However, questions about transparency, public access, and review efficiency have highlighted the need to determine whether Alabama’s current system remains adequate for a modern educational environment.

Issue

The central issue in Alabama is not the absence of law, but the inadequacy of Alabama’s cur rent textbook adoption framework in promoting transparency and accessibility. Although the State Textbook Committee statute establishes a for mal process for mater ial review, the implementation of that process has become outdated and overly restr ictive.

Limiting public review to eight sites for only 30 days and providing minimal time for the Board and local off icials to examine proposed mater ials, effectively prevents meaningful par ticipation and oversight.[vi] Parents and educators in r ural areas face par ticular bar r iers to par ticipation, and even State Board of Education (SBOE) members and committee reviewers often have only limited windows to evaluate hundreds of pages of content before casting adoption votes.[vii] While copyr ight law requires cer tain limitations on distr ibution, Alabama’s nar row, in-persononly model is unnecessar y and outdated. Other states have implemented secure digital systems that preser ve publisher r ights while expanding public access. Alabama’s approach, by contrast, pr ior itizes administrative convenience and publisher control over meaningful transparency and stakeholder engagement.

Current Law and Policy

Alabama’s textbook adoption process is gover ned by the State Textbook Committee statute, Ala Code § 16-36-60 et seq , and by administrative r ules of the Alabama Depar tment of Education (ALSDE).[viii] The law establishes a multi-stage process for selecting, reviewing, and approving instr uctional mater ials used in K–12 classrooms.

The process begins with revisions to the state course of study, which def ine academic standards for each subject.[ix] Once those standards are approved, ALSDE issues a call for bids inviting publishers to submit textbooks and digital mater ials aligned with the standards [x] Submitted mater ials are f irst reviewed by subject-specif ic committees composed of teachers, administrators, and subject-matter exper ts.[xi] These g roups evaluate mater ials based on content accuracy, alignment, cost, and overall quality.

Their f indings are for warded to the State Textbook Committee, a statutor ily created body responsible for recommending which mater ials should be adopted statewide.[xii] The Committee’s recommendations are then submitted to the Alabama State Board of Education (SBOE), which votes to approve or reject each title.[xiii] Once adopted, mater ials are added to the state-approved list for local distr icts, which typically adopt from this list dur ing a six-year cycle.[xiv]

Before f inal adoption, the law requires a per iod of public review.[xv] ALSDE makes proposed instr uctional mater ials available at eight designated review sites across the state for approximately 30 days.[xvi] Dur ing this time, members of the public may examine mater ials in person but may not duplicate or distr ibute them due to publisher copyr ight restr ictions. When the review per iod ends, public access is closed, and the State Textbook Committee and the SBOE proceed to f inal deliberation.

While this system satisf ies statutor y notice requirements, it falls shor t of moder n expectations for transparency and accessibility. The limited number of review sites restr icts par ticipation by parents and educators, par ticularly in r ural counties The shor t review per iod also constrains meaningful feedback. Even the SBOE and local boards often lack adequate time to review submissions in full before adoption deadlines.

Proposed Reform

Alabama should moder nize its instr uctional mater ial review process by amending the existing framework to enhance transparency, extend review timelines, and incor porate digital access. The goal is not to replace the State Textbook Committee system, but to update it so that both the public and policymakers have the tools and time needed for thorough evaluation.

A digital public review system should be established to provide view-only, time-limited access to proposed instr uctional mater ials through a secure online por tal. Registered Alabama residents could log in to review mater ials without the ability to copy or download them, ensur ing compliance with publisher requirements. This would dramatically expand public access while reducing administrative burdens associated with maintaining physical review sites.

Additionally, the public review per iod should be extended from 30 days to at least 90 days, allowing adequate time for evaluation and feedback. The Depar tment should also increase the number of public viewing sites and par tner with regional education off ices, universities, and public librar ies to improve geog raphic access.

For the SBOE and local boards, refor ms should include longer timelines for committee and board review, str uctured public-comment summar ies, and transparent publication of adoption decisions. Finally, ALSDE should adopt r ules requir ing all f inal recommendations, r ubr ics, and evaluation cr iter ia to be made publicly available on its website pr ior to adoption.

These changes would not conf lict with copyr ight law; they would simply br ing Alabama’s process into alignment with best practices already established in other states.

Moder nizing the review process would enhance transparency, strengthen conf idence in educational gover nance, and ensure that families and policymakers have adequate time to make infor med decisions about what students lear n in Alabama classrooms.

Reform in Other St ates

Texas

Texas provides one of the most transparent textbook review systems in the countr y The Texas Education Agency (TEA) operates a secure online por tal where members of the public can access digital samples of proposed instr uctional mater ials, submit feedback electronically, and track the review timeline [xvii]

Public comments are compiled and published for the State Board of Education’s consideration before f inal adoption.[xviii] This approach allows broad par ticipation from educators, parents, and community members while maintaining compliance with publisher copyr ight restr ictions.

Florida

Flor ida has moder nized its textbook review process to expand public access and accountability. The Flor ida Depar tment of Education hosts online samples of proposed instr uctional mater ials for each subject area, accompanied by detailed review timelines and feedback for ms.[xix]

The state’s instr uctional mater ials por tal allows residents to examine mater ials remotely, submit comments directly to the Depar tment, and view adoption outcomes once f inalized.[xx] Flor ida law also requires local school distr icts to provide public access to instr uctional mater ials under review, ensur ing that parents and citizens have the oppor tunity to evaluate content before purchase or use in classrooms.[xxi]

These examples demonstrate that secure technology and extended review timelines can uphold copyr ight protection while foster ing public accountability; by contrast, Alabama’s in-persononly model restr icts par ticipation and compresses the timeframe for decision-making, placing the state behind national best practices.

Conclusion

Alabama’s cur rent textbook review process, restr icted to eight physical sites and a 30-day viewing per iod, falls shor t of moder n expectations for transparency and public engagement. While copyr ight protection remains impor tant, it should not ser ve as a bar r ier to public oversight or infor med policymaking.

Extending the review timeline, increasing regional access, and establishing secure digital platfor ms would br ing Alabama’s process in line with twenty-f irst-centur y standards and national best practices. Moreover, allowing the State Board of Education and local boards suff icient time to evaluate mater ials would enhance quality, consistency, and accountability Refor ming the system would demonstrate Alabama’s commitment to open gover nment, parental involvement, and educational integ r ity, ensur ing that the process of approving classroom mater ials ref lects both transparency and public tr ust

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Protect Female Spaces for Girls and Women in Prisons and Other Settings

Overview

In recent years, a growing number of incidents across the country have raised concerns about privacy and safety in bathrooms, locker rooms, and other intimate spaces in public facilities. Parents, students, and female athletes have reported instances in which biological males accessed women’s restrooms or changing areas, resulting in serious discomfort and, in some cases, documented harassment or assault.[i] These incidents sparked a national debate over how public institutions should manage multi-user facilities while balancing privacy, safety, and fairness.[ii] Before Alabama enacted its own school-based facility law, there was no statewide standard governing who could access sex-designated restrooms or locker rooms in public schools. Local school boards were left to create their own policies, and many did so inconsistently. This led to confusion among administrators, legal uncertainty for educators, and growing concern among parents who feared that the absence of clear guidance placed students, especially young girls, at risk

The Alabama Legislature responded by passing House Bill 322 by Representative Scott Stadthagen in 2022 [iii] The law requires that each public K–12 school designate multipleoccupancy restrooms or changing areas for student use based on the student’s biological sex, defined as the sex stated on the individual’s original birth certificate.[iv] It allows exceptions for custodial or maintenance purposes, medical assistance, or young children needing help [v]

The statute provided much needed clarity in educational settings but did not address other publicly funded facilities such as courthouses, prisons, or government buildings [vi] As a result, the state’s privacy protections remain partial and inconsistent, leaving major gaps in policy coverage.

THE ISSUES

Issue

Alabama’s existing facility laws are incomplete. While the education sector has clear statutor y guidance under House Bill 322, which gover ns restrooms and changing areas in public K–12 schools, no comparable standards exist for other publicly funded or operated spaces. This gap leaves administrators uncer tain about compliance requirements and exposes public institutions to potential conf lict, litigation, and public concer n over safety and pr ivacy.

Cor rectional institutions represent the most urgent area of refor m. Alabama cur rently has no statute mandating that inmates be housed according to their biological sex as stated on their or iginal bir th cer tif icate. Instead, placement decisions are made administratively and var y by facility.

This absence of unifor m policy creates signif icant safety and secur ity r isks for both inmates and cor rectional off icers. Across the countr y, states that have allowed biological men to be placed in women’s pr isons have repor ted sexual assaults, pregnancies, and ser ious disr uptions to institutional order.[vii] A clear statewide r ule requir ing that inmates be housed str ictly according to their biological sex is essential to prevent these outcomes and to uphold the integ r ity of Alabama’s cor rectional system.

The same policy void extends across other publicly funded institutions. No state law def ines how multi-user restrooms, locker rooms, and similar facilities in gover nment buildings, cour thouses, librar ies, museums, public parks, recreation centers, and highway rest stops should be designated or managed. In the absence of legislative direction, local agencies and administrators have created inconsistent and often conf licting policies. Some public buildings maintain traditional sex-separated facilities, while others have implemented self-identif ication policies that disregard biological sex altogether

This inconsistency under mines public tr ust and exposes employees, students, and citizens to confusion and potential har m Alabama’s failure to establish a unifor m r ule for all publicly funded facilities leaves signif icant por tions of state gover nment without clear legal protection for pr ivacy and safety. Establishing one consistent statewide standard based on biological sex would close this gap, provide administrators with clear guidance, and ensure that public facilities operate with transparency, accountability, and respect for all citizens.

THE ISSUES

Current Law

Alabama law cur rently addresses pr ivacy and facility use in two limited contexts: K–12 public schools and institutions of higher education.[viii][ix] In 2022, the Legislature enacted House Bill 322, codif ied as Ala. Code § 16-1-54, which requires ever y public K–12 school to designate multiple-occupancy restrooms and changing areas for student use based on biological sex as stated on the student’s or iginal bir th cer tif icate.[x] The law ensures that schools maintain separate facilities for biological boys and biological girls and provides exceptions only for maintenance, medical assistance, and young children requir ing help.[xi]

In 2024, the Legislature expanded these protections to higher education through Senate Bill 129 by Senator Will Bar foot.[xii] This law requires all public colleges and universities in Alabama to designate restrooms on the basis of biological sex, reinforcing the same pr inciple of pr ivacy and clar ity that applies in K–12 settings [xiii] Together, these statutes provide consistent guidance for educational institutions but leave other publicly funded or operated facilities without clear legal standards.

Outside the education system, Alabama has no statute gover ning restrooms, locker rooms, or housing assignments in cor rectional institutions, cour thouses, gover nment buildings, or other public facilities. The Alabama Depar tment of Cor rections deter mines inmate placement administratively, without a statewide r ule requir ing biological-sex housing. Likewise, local gover nments and state agencies are left to adopt their own inter nal facility policies, leading to inconsistent practices across public off ices, librar ies, recreation centers, and rest areas.

This fragmented approach leaves major areas of Alabama’s public infrastr ucture without unifor m pr ivacy protections. While education policy now provides clar ity and consistency for students and institutions, the absence of comparable standards for other publicly funded facilities continues to create uncer tainty, administrative inconsistency, and potential r isk.

Reform in Other St ates

Flor ida and Texas have adopted strong, statewide pr ivacy laws that extend biological-sex facility standards beyond schools to all publicly funded institutions, offer ing clear models for Alabama’s consideration. In 2023, Flor ida enacted the Safety in Pr ivate Spaces Act, codif ied as Fla. Stat. § 553.865.[xiv] The law requires that ever y multiple-occupancy restroom and changing facility in a public building or educational institution be designated for one biological sex and used accordingly.[xv]

THE ISSUES

It def ines sex as an immutable biological trait, establishes penalties for unauthor ized entr y into opposite-sex facilities, and directs the Depar tment of Management Ser vices to adopt r ules ensur ing unifor m implementation across all state and local gover nment buildings.[xvi] By applying these standards to all publicly owned facilities rather than just schools, Flor ida created a comprehensive, enforceable framework that protects pr ivacy and safety while maintaining clear administrative accountability.[xvii]

In 2025, Texas enacted Senate Bill 8, establishing statewide standards for the designation and use of multi-user restrooms and changing facilities in public buildings.[xviii] The law requires that facilities in public schools, state agencies, and other gover nment operated buildings be designated for use by individuals based on their biological sex as recorded at bir th.[xix] It author izes civil penalties for violations and g rants the attor ney general enforcement author ity. [xx] This law ref lects Texas’s move toward a unifor m, legally enforceable approach to sexbased facility designation in state-funded institutions.

Both states demonstrate that clear, statewide standards rooted in biological reality can be implemented effectively across all branches of gover nment. Their laws provide consistent def initions, enforcement mechanisms, and administrative oversight that ensure pr ivacy, reduce confusion, and promote public safety.

Adopting a similar approach would allow Alabama to move beyond the limited scope of its cur rent education-based policies and establish a unif ied, moder n framework for protecting the pr ivacy and dignity of all citizens.

Proposed Reform

Alabama should enact a comprehensive Safe Spaces Act to extend biological-sex facility protections beyond the education system and into all publicly funded institutions. The law should establish a unifor m statewide standard requir ing that ever y multiple-occupancy restroom, locker room, shower, changing area, or sleeping quar ter maintained by a public entity be designated for use exclusively by individuals of the same biological sex, as recorded on their or iginal bir th cer tif icate. Single-user facilities should remain available to anyone seeking additional pr ivacy for any reason, ensur ing that the policy protects safety while maintaining dignity and accessibility for all citizens.

THE ISSUES

The law should expressly apply to the Alabama Depar tment of Cor rections and mandate that inmates be housed in facilities cor responding to their biological sex. This standard would prevent the documented safety and secur ity failures that have occur red throughout the countr y and aff ir m Alabama’s commitment to protecting vulnerable female inmates from exploitation and har m.

The same standard should extend to all public buildings and facilities suppor ted by state or local funding. This includes cour thouses, state agency off ices, city halls, public librar ies, museums, community centers, public parks, recreation complexes, athletic facilities, rest stops, and other publicly owned or operated spaces that provide multi-user restrooms or changing areas. Pr ivate organizations that lease or operate facilities on public proper ty should be required to comply with the same biological-sex designation policy as a condition of their ag reement with the state or local gover nment

Each covered facility should post clear signage identifying biological-sex designations, maintain at least one single-user or family restroom for individual pr ivacy, and adopt a conf idential process for resolving pr ivacy related complaints. The Attor ney General should be empowered to investigate violations and enforce compliance through civil action, ensur ing that all public agencies adhere to the law unifor mly.

By extending pr ivacy and safety protections to all publicly funded facilities, Alabama would replace fragmented local policies with a consistent, statewide standard rooted in common sense and biological reality. The Safe Spaces Act would aff ir m that pr ivacy, secur ity, and respect for all individuals are fundamental to public tr ust and essential to the responsible operation of gover nment institutions.

Conclusion

Alabama’s cur rent facility laws address pr ivacy only within the education system, leaving cor rectional institutions and other publicly funded buildings without clear statutor y direction. This par tial framework has created inconsistency across public institutions, uncer tainty for administrators, and legitimate safety and pr ivacy concer ns for citizens. Establishing a unifor m statewide standard rooted in biological reality is essential to protect the integ r ity and secur ity of Alabama’s public spaces.

CITATIONS

Fully Fund Alabama’s Universal School Choice Program

[i] Gover nor Kay Ivey, “Gover nor Ivey Announces CHOOSE Act ESAs Now Available for 2025-2026 Recipients”, Press Release, July 1, 2025, https://gover nor.alabama.gov/newsroom/2025/07/gover nor-ivey-announces-choose-actesas-now-available-for-2025-2026-recipients/.

[ii] Rebecca Gr iesbach, “75% of Alabama families eligible for $7,000 in CHOOSE Act money”, AL.com, Febr uar y 14, 2025, https://www.al.com/educationlab/2025/02/75-of-alabama-households-eligible-for-7000-in-school-choicemoney-state.html.

[iii] Anna Bar rett, “Most CHOOSE Act recipients will stay in the same type of school with voucher-like credit”, Alabama Ref lector, July 8, 2025, https://alabamaref lector.com/2025/07/08/most-choose-act-recipients-will-stay-inthe-same-type-of-school-with-voucher-like-credit, (accessed November 11, 2025).

[iv] Tr isha Powell Crain, “Alabama’s CHOOSE Act funding grows to $530 million commitment for 3 years”, Alabama Daily News, May 14, 2025, https://aldailynews.com/alabamas-choose-act-funding-grows-to-530-millioncommitment-for-3-years/, (accessed November 11, 2025).

[v] Alabama Depar tment of Revenue, “Creating Hope and Oppor tunity for Our Students’ Education Act of 2024 The CHOOSE Act”, https://www.revenue.alabama.gov/tax-policy/the-choose-act/. [vi] Ibid.

[vii] Alabama Policy Institute, “Creating Hope and Oppor tunity for Alabama Students' Education (CHOOSE) Act of 2024”, https://alabamapolicy.org/education-freedom-alabama/.

[viii] https://www.edchoice.org/the-2025-edchoice-fr iedman-index/.

[xiv] https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-Fr iedman-Index.pdf

Decrease Barriers to Affordable Healthcare Through Certif icate of Need Reform

[i] State Policy Network, “Cer tif icate-of-Need Laws: Why They Exist and Who They Hur t”, Apr il 1, 2021, https://spn.org/ar ticles/cer tif icate-of-need-laws/, (accessed December 14, 2023).

[ii] National Conference of State Legislatures, “Cer tif icate of Need State Laws”, Updated December 20, 2021, https://www.ncsl.org/health/cer tif icate-of-needstatelaws#:~:text=Cur rently%2C%2035%20states%20and%20Washington,of%20December%202021%20are%20liste d, (accessed December 14, 2023).

[iii] Alabama State Health Planning and Development Agency, Memorandum, New Cer tif icate of Need Application Fee and Monetar y Threshold for Review, September 23, 2024, http://www.shpda.alabama.gov/documents/confor ms/confee/FY2023%20CON%20Thresholds.pdf.

[iv] State Policy Network, “Cer tif icate-of-Need Laws: Why They Exist and Who They Hur t”, Apr il 1, 2021, https://spn.org/ar ticles/cer tif icate-of-need-laws/, (accessed December 14, 2023).

[v] Alabama Policy Institute, Guide to the Issues: Cer tif icate of Need (CON) Laws, https://alabamapolicy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/Cer tif icate-of-Need-CON-Laws.pdf, (accessed December 14, 2023).

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Alabama Policy Institute, Cer tif icate of Need Laws: Why It’s Time for Repeal, 2007, https://alabamapolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/API-Research-Cer tif icate-of-Need_new.pdf, (accessed December 14, 2023).

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] National Conference of State Legislatures, “Cer tif icate of Need State Laws”, Updated December 20, 2021, https://www.ncsl.org/health/cer tif icate-of-needstatelaws#:~:text=Cur rently%2C%2035%20states%20and%20Washington,of%20December%202021%20are%20liste d.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Mercatus Center George Mason University, “Alabama and Cer tif icate-of-Need Programs 2020: How CON Laws Affect Healthcare Access, Quality, and Cost in Alabama, March 18, 2021, https://www.mercatus.org/publication/alabama-and-cer tif icate-need-programs-2020, (accessed December 14, 2023).

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid

[xiv] Alabama Policy Institute, Cer tif icate of Need Laws: Why It’s Time for Repeal, 2007, https://alabamapolicy org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/API-Research-Cer tif icate-of-Need_new.pdf, (accessed December 14, 2023)

[xv] Ibid

[xvi] Jeremy Pittar i, “CON refor m legislation expected to receive Gover nor’s signature”, Magnolia Tr ibune, Apr il 7, 2025, https://magnoliatr ibune com/2025/04/07/con-refor m-legislation-expected-to-receive-gover nors-signature, (accessed October 27, 2025)

[xvii] Brandon Kingdollar, “NC Senate to consider bill ending cer tif ication process for new health care facilities”, NC Newsline, Apr il 3, 2025, https://ncnewsline com/br iefs/nc-senate-health-care-panel-cer tif icate-of-need-requirement, (accessed October 27, 2025)

[xviii] Brooklyn Rober ts, “Patients Win as Wyoming Repeals Its Last CON Law”, Amer ican Legislative Exchange Council, March 21, 2025, https://alec org/ar ticle/patients-win-as-wyoming-repeals-its-last-con-law/, (accessed October 27, 2025)

[xix] JDSupra, “No Need for Cer tif icate of Need: Flor ida Eliminates Cer tif icate of Need Review for Specialty Hospitals”, June 23, 2021, https://www jdsupra com/legalnews/no-need-for-cer tif icate-of-need-f lor ida-8919123/, (accessed December 20, 2023)

[xx] Noah Schwar tz, “Flor ida sees hospital boom after dropping cer tif icate-of-need r ules”, Beckers Hospital Review, Apr il 27, 2023, https://www beckershospitalreview com/legal-regulator y-issues/f lor ida-sees-hospital-boom-afterdropping-cer tif icate-of-need-r ules html, (accessed December 20, 2023)

[xxi] State Policy Network, “Cer tif icate-of-Need Laws: Why They Exist and Who They Hur t”, Apr il 1, 2021, https://spn org/ar ticles/cer tif icate-of-need-laws/, (accessed December 20, 2023)

[xxii] Andrew Wimer, “South Carolina Gover nor Signs Cer tif icate of Need Repeal Bill”, Institute for Justice, May 18, 2023, https://ij org/press-release/south-carolina-gover nor-signs-cer tif icate-of-need-repeal-bill/, (accessed December 20, 2023)

[xxiii] Wendy Damron, “What Will CON Repeal Mean for You”, Palmetto Promise Institute, May 8, 2023, https://palmettopromise org/what-will-con-repeal-mean-for-you/, (accessed December 20, 2023)

[xxiv] Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy, “Coalition Thanks Policy Makers for Repeal of Cer tif icate of Need for Hospitals and Bir thing Centers in West Virginia, Press Release, March 29, 2023, https://cardinalinstitute com/press-release/sb613-signing/

[xxv] See Senate Bill 285, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[xxvi] Michael Yaffee, “State Sen Lar r y Stutts to propose major overhaul of Alabama’s cer tif icate of need process”, Yellowhammer News, August 5, 2025, https://yellowhammer news com/state-sen-lar r y-stutts-to-propose-majoroverhaul-of-alabamas-cer tif icate-of-need-process, (accessed October 27, 2025)

[xxvii] Ralph Chapoco, “Bir thing units in r ural Alabama str uggle with costs, dr iving r isks for expectant mothers”, Alabama Ref lector, June 28, 2023, https://alabamaref lector.com/2023/06/28/bir thing-units-in-r ural-alabama-str ugglewith-costs-dr iving-r isks-for-expectant-mothers, (accessed October 27, 2025).

[xxviii] See Senate Bill 236, Alabama Legislature, 2024 Regular Session.

[xxix] Thomas Stratmann and Chr istopher Koopman, “Entr y Regulation and Rural Health Care: Cer tif icate-of-Need Laws, Ambulator y Surgical Centers, and Community Hospitals”, Mercatus Center, Febr uar y 18, 2016, https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/entr y-regulation-and-r ural-health-care-cer tif icate-need-lawsambulator y.

xxx] University of Nor th Carolina, “Rural Hospital Closures”, The Cecil C. Sheps Center for Health Ser vices Research, https://www.shepscenter.unc.edu/programs-projects/r ural-health/r ural-hospital-closures/, (accessed December 20, 2023).

[xxxi] Thomas Stratmann and Chr istopher Koopman, “Entr y Regulation and Rural Health Care: Cer tif icate-of-Need Laws, Ambulator y Surgical Centers, and Community Hospitals”, Mercatus Center, Febr uar y 18, 2016, https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/entr y-regulation-and-r ural-health-care-cer tif icate-need-lawsambulator y.

Reduce Restrictions on Home-Based Businesses and Youth Entrepreneurship

[i] U S Small Business Administration, “Frequently Asked Questions”, Off ice of Advocacy, July 2024, https://advocacy sba gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Small-Business_2024508 pdf, (accessed November 25, 2023)

[ii] Chr is Edwards, “Entrepreneurship and Home Businesses”, CATO Institute, December 15, 2022, https://www cato org/sites/cato org/f iles/2022-12/empower ing-the-new-amer ican-worker-entrepreneurship.pdf, (accessed December 26, 2023)

[iii] Chr is Edwards, “Entrepreneurs and Regulations: Removing State and Local Bar r iers to New Businesses”, CATO Institute, Policy Analysis No 916, May 5, 2021, https://www cato org/policy-analysis/entrepreneurs-regulationsremoving-state-local-bar r iers-new-businesses, (accessed Januar y 5, 2024)

[iv] Chr is Edwards, “Entrepreneurship and Home Businesses”, CATO Institute, December 15, 2022, https://www cato org/sites/cato org/f iles/2022-12/empower ing-the-new-amer ican-worker-entrepreneurship.pdf

[v] Connor Boyack, “Colorado Follows Utah in Freeing the Market for Minors”, Liber tas Institute, Apr il 23, 2019, https://liber tas institute/free-market/colorado-follows-utah-in-freeing-the-market-for-minors/, (accessed October 22, 2025)

[vi] U S Chamber of Commerce, “How to Star t a Sole Propr ietorship in Alabama”, https://www chamberofcommerce org/sole-propr ietorship/alabama, (accessed December 26, 2023)

[vii] Alabama Depar tment of Public Health, “Cottage Food Law 2021 Update- FAQ’s, https://www alabamapublichealth gov/foodsafety/assets/cottagefoodlawfaqs pdf

[viii] See Alabama Depar tment of Labor, “Alabama Child Labor Laws”, https://labor alabama gov/docs/posters/childlaborlawposter english pdf#:~:text=,Child%20Labor%20Law%20Record %20Keeping

[ix] William Thor nton, “How a child’s lemonade stand led to a complaint from Alabama Depar tment of Labor”, AL.com, June 27, 2023, https://www.al.com/business/2023/06/how-a-childs-lemonade-stand-received-a-complaintfrom-alabama-depar tment-of-labor.html, (accessed October 22, 2025).

[x] See Senate Bill 1387, Ar izona Legislature 2018 Regular Session. [xi] Ibid.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Amer ican Legislative Exchange Council, “ The Home-Based Business Fair ness Act,” Januar y 8, 2021, https://alec.org/model-policy/the-home-based-business-fair ness-act/, [xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Goldwater Institute, “Home-Based Business Fair ness Act- Promoting common-sense, moder n, and f lexible employment while protecting neighborhoods”, https://www.goldwater institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/HBBFact-Sheet-1-30-18.pdf, (accessed December 26, 2023).

[xvi] Connor Boyack, “Colorado Follows Utah in Freeing the Market for Minors”, Liber tas Institute, Apr il 23, 2019, https://liber tas.institute/free-market/colorado-follows-utah-in-freeing-the-market-for-minors/, (accessed October 22, 2025).

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] See Section 36-80-30, Code of Georgia.

[xix] Olivia Gonzalez and Nolan Gray, “Zoning for Oppor tunity: A Sur vey of Home-Based-Business Regulations”, The Center for Growth and Oppor tunity at Utah State University, March 11, 2020, https://www.thecgo.org/research/zoning-for-oppor tunity-a-sur vey-of-home-based-business-regulations/, (accessed Januar y 5, 2024).

[xx] Ibid.

Reform Alabama’s Burdensome Occupational Licensing Infrastructure

[i] Federal Reser ve Bank of St Louis, “Labor Force Par ticipation Rate for Alabama”, Press Release, September 19, 2025, https://fred stlouisfed org/ser ies/LBSNSA01, (accessed October 20, 2025)

[ii] Daniel J Smith, Cour tney Michaulk, David Hall, and Alex Kanode, “ The Costs of Occupational Licensing in Alabama”, Alabama Policy Institute, 2018, https://alabamapolicy org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Cost-of-OccLicense pdf

[iii] Ibid

[iv] Ibid

[v] Mor r is M Kleiner and Evgeny Vorotnikov, “At What Cost? State and National Estimates of the Economic Costs of Occupational Licensing”, Institute for Justice, November 2018, https://ij org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/11/Licensure Repor t WEB.pdf

[vi] See Section 25-8-7, Code of Alabama

[vii] Daniel J Smith, Cour tney Michaulk, David Hall, and Alex Kanode, “ The Costs of Occupational Licensing in Alabama”, Alabama Policy Institute, 2018, https://alabamapolicy org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Cost-of-OccLicense pdf

[viii] Ibid

[ix] See Sente Bill 156, Alabama Legislature 2023 Regular Session

[x] See Senate Bill 193, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session

[xi] Mar y Sell, “Once sleepy Sunset meetings now have ‘different attitude’”, Alabama Daily News, August 21,2023, https://aldailynews com/once-sleepy-sunset-meetings-now-have-different-attitude/, (accessed December 19, 2023)

[xii] See Legislative Ser vice Agency Fiscal Division Fiscal Note for Senate Bill 156, Alabama Legislature 2023 Regular Session

[xiii] Institute for Justice, “Universal Recognition for Occupational Licensing”, 2023, https://ij org/legislativeadvocacy/states-refor ms-for-universal-recognition-of-occupational-licensing/, (accessed December 19, 2023).

[xiv] See House Bill 763, Nor th Carolina General Assembly, 2025 Regular Session.

Competitive Bidding and Public Works Laws

[i] Morgan Ar r ington, “FROM THE ALABAMA LAWYER: Alabama Local Gover nment Procurement Law Basics”, Alabama Bar Association, July 21, 2021, https://www.alabar.org/news/from-the-alabama-lawyer-alabama-local-gover nment-procurement-law-basics/, (accessed March 24, 2025).

[ii] Alabama Depar tment of Archives and Histor y, “Histor ical Context: Alabama Depar tment of Finance”, December 6, 2024, https://for therecordalabama.blog/2024/12/06/histor ical-context-alabama-depar tment-off inance/#:~:text=%5B20%5D%20However%2C%20the%20decentralized,until%20the%20early%20twentieth%20cen tur y.&text=Act%201939%2D112%20granted%20broad,administer%20the%20competitive%20bidding%20process, (accessed March 24, 2025).

[iii] Mike Cason, “Alabama’s $1.25 billion Elmore County pr ison will be named in honor of Kay Ivey”, November 13, 2024, AL.com, https://www.al.com/news/2024/11/how-will-alabama-fund-the-constr uction-of-a-4000-bedescambia-countypr ison.html#:~:text=The%20Specialized%20Men's%20Pr ison%20Facility,billion%20to%20build%20and%20equip, (accessed March 24, 2025).

[[iv] See Section41-16-50, Code of Alabama.

[v] See Act 2023-135, Alabama Legislature.

[vi] Alabama League of Municipalities, “ The Competitive Bid Law”, Febr uar y 21, 2025, https://almonline.org/Assets/Files/LegalSelectedReadings/45.The-Competitive-Bid-Law-REVISED 02-21-2025.pdf

[vii] See Section 41-16-51, Code of Alabama, (accessed March 24, 2025).

[viii] Mickey Allen, “Public Works Law Updates in ACT 2023-497/HB168”, Alabama Depar tment of Finance Memorandum, August 18, 2023, https://dcm.alabama.gov/PDF/bulletins/08-1823 Memo Public Works updates ACT 2023-497.pdf, (accessed March 24, 2025).

[ix] See Section 39-2-6, Code of Alabama

[x] See Section 39-2-2, Code of Alabama

[xi] Mike Cason, “Alabama’s $1 25 billion Elmore County pr ison will be named in honor of Kay Ivey”, November 13, 2024, AL com

[xii] See Senate Bill 60, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[xiii] Jeff Poor, “State Sen Albr itton: 'We intend to go back' to bid-build system on Escambia County mega-pr ison after Elmore facility 100% cost over r un”, 1819 News, March 9, 2025, https://1819news com/news/item/state-senalbr itton-we-intend-to-go-back-to-bid-build-system-on-escambia-county-pr ison, (accessed March 24, 2025)

Strengthen Requirements to Receive Public Entitlements

[i] Alexander Willis, “Alabama House modif ies, passes f ive workforce development bill”, Alabama Daily News, Apr il 19, 2024, https://aldailynews com/alabama-house-modif ies-passes-f ive-workforce-development-bills/, (accessed December 4, 2024

[ii] Alabama Depar tment of Labor, “Alabama’s Labor Force Par ticipation Rate Increases to 57.6”, Press Release, November 15, 2024

[iii] United States Congress, Joint Economic Committee

[iv] Alabama Depar tment of Labor

[v] Alabama Depar tment of Labor, “Alabama Unemployment Compensation Benef it Rights and Responsibilities: A Handbook for Unemployment Compensation Claimants”, https://labor alabama gov/docs/guides/uc_br r pdf, (accessed December 5, 2024)

[vi] Alabama Depar tment of Workforce

[vii]See House Bill 29, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session

[viii]Alabama Depar tment of Workforce

[ix] Alabama Political Repor ter

[x] Alabama Daily News

[xi] See Senate Bill 245, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[xii] National Center for Children in Pover ty

[xiii]Citizen Por tal

[xiv] SB 246

[xv] HB 1 – One Big Beautiful Bill Act

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Nor th Carolina General Assembly, “Senate Bill 116: Putting Nor th Carolina Back to Work Act”, Legislative Summar y, Febr uar y 24,2022, https://dashboard.ncleg.gov/api/Ser vices/BillSummar y/2021/S116-SMTM-53(rat)-v-7.

[xviii] See Seante File 451, Iowa Legislature, 2023 Regular Session.

[xix] See Senate Bill 1109, Pennsylvania General Assembly, 2024 Regular Session

[xx] Unemployment Calculator

[xxi] Georgia Pathways to Coverage

[xxii]Ballotpedia

[xxiii] See House Bill 29, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[xxiv] See Senate Bill 224, Alabama Legislature, 2022 Regular Session

[xxv] Ibid

[xxvi] Justin Bogie, “Rush to spend ARPA funds is feeding gover nment rather than taking less from the people”, Alabama Policy Institute, Januar y 20, 2022, https://alabamapolicy.org/2022/01/20/r ush-to-spend-ar pa-funds-isfeeding-gover nment-rather-than-taking-less-from-the-people/, (accessed December 5, 2024).

Expand Portable Benef its for Alabama’s Changing Workforce

[i] Landon Jacquinot, “States, Employers Weigh Por table Benef its for Independent Workers”, National Conference of State Legislators, June 24, 2025, https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/states-employers-weighpor table-benef its-for-independentworkers#:~:text=About%2058%20million%20Amer icans%20identify,savings%20plans%20or%20health%20insuranc e, (accessed October 21, 2025).

[ii] Alander Roha, “Alabama considers employment benef its for gig, nontraditional workers”, Alabama Ref lector, August 28, 2024, Alabama considers employment benef its for gig, nontraditional workers, (accessed October 21, 2025).

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Caden Rosenbaum, “Por table Benef its to Improve the Gig Worker Economy”, Liber tas Institute, https://liber tas.institute/policy-papers/Gig-workers-4.pdf.

[v] Patr ice Onwuka, “Por table Benef its Gain Traction in Alabama and Arkansas” Independent Women, March 17, 2025, https://www.independentwomen.com/2025/03/17/por table-benef its-gain-traction-in-alabama-and-arkansas/, (accessed October 21, 2025).

[vi] Liya Palagashvili, “Br inging Por table Benef its to Arkansas’s Independent Workforce: Over view” Mercatus Center at George Mason University”, August 20, 2025, https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-spotlights/br ingingpor table-benef its-arkansass-independent-workforce-over view, (accessed October 21, 2025).

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] See Senate Bill 86, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Liya Palagashvili, “Br inging Por table Benef its to Arkansas’s Independent Workforce: Over view” Mercatus Center at George Mason University”, August 20, 2025, https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-spotlights/br ingingpor table-benef its-arkansass-independent-workforce-over view, (accessed October 21, 2025).

[xi] See Senate Bill 86, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Noah Lang, “New Law: Tennessee Becomes the Latest State to Embrace Por table Benef its for Independent Workers”, Str ide Health, Apr il 4, 2025, https://blog.str idehealth.com/post/tennessee-becomes-the-latest-state-toembrace-por table-benef its-for-independent-workers, (accessed October 21, 2025).

[xvi] Liya Palagashvili, “Br inging Por table Benef its to Arkansas’s Independent Workforce: Over view” Mercatus Center at George Mason University”, August 20, 2025, https://www.mercatus org/research/policy-spotlights/br ingingpor table-benef its-arkansass-independent-workforce-over view, (accessed October 21, 2025)

[xvii] See House Bill 1067, Flor ida Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[xviii] Liya Palagashvili and Jonathan Wolfson, “Flexible and Por table Benef its for Independent Workers: State Policy Guide”, October 2024, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, https://www mercatus org/research/policy-br iefs/f lexible-and-por table-benef its-independent-workers-state-policyguide#, (accessed October 21, 2025)

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Ibid.

Provide Tax Relief to All Alabamians

[i] See open.alabama.gov, State of Alabama Accounting and Resource System, “Comparative Summar y of Revenues by Fund”, October 1, 2024.

[ii Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Alabama Legislative Ser vices Agency, “Fiscal Dashboard”, https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/f iscal-healthdashboard, (accessed October 29, 2025).

[v] Alabama Depar tment of Revenue, “Individual Income Tax”, https://www.revenue.alabama.gov/taxtypes/individual-income-tax/.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Justin Bogie, “Lower taxes, better education are keys to attracting business to Alabama, not incentives”, Alabama Today, October 4, 2022, https://altoday.com/archives/47571-justin-bogie-lower-taxes-better-education-arekeys-to-attracting-business-to-alabama-not-incentives, (accessed December 18, 2023).

[viii] Alabama Depar tment of Revenue, “Cor porate Income Tax”, https://www.revenue.alabama.gov/taxtypes/cor porate-income-tax/.

[ix] Janelle Fr itts, “State Cor porate Income Tax Rates and Brackets for 2023”, Tax Foundation, Januar y 24, 2023, https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-cor porate-income-tax-rates-brackets-2023/, (accessed December 18, 2023).

[x] Justin Bogie, “Halfway through the legislative session, what have lawmakers done?”, Alabama Today, March 25, 2021, https://altoday.com/archives/39601-justin-bogie-halfway-through-the-legislative-session-what-have-lawmakersdone, (accessed December 18, 2023).

[xi] Alabama Legislative Ser vices Agency Fiscal Division, “A Legislator’s Guide to Alabama’s Taxes”, March 2024, https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/f iles/pdf/lsa/Fiscal/TaxGuide/2024_Tax Guide.pdf.

[xii] See House Bill 73, Alabama Legislature, 2024 Regular Session.

[xiii] See House Bill 115, Alabama Legislature 2023 Regular Session.

[xiv] See House Bill 116, Alabama Legislature 2023 Regular Session.

[xv] See Senate Bill 249, Alabama Legislature 2020 Regular Session.

[xvi] Joint Legislative Task Force on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, “Final Repor t”, Febr uar y 18, 2020, https://www.bcatoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/JTF TCJA_f inal_Repor t.pdf.

[xvii] Ashley G. White, “Alabama to Phase out Minimum Business Pr ivilege Tax Beginning in 2023”, BMSS Advisors and CPAs, June 15, 2022, https://www.bmss.com/alabama-to-phase-out-minimum-business-pr ivilege-taxbeginning-in-2023/, (accessed December 18, 2023).

[xviii] See House Bill 391, Alabama Legislature 2022 Regular Session.

[xix] Alabama Legislative Ser vices Agency Fiscal Division, “A Legislator’s Guide to Alabama’s Taxes”, March 2023, https://alison-f ile legislature state al us/pdfdocs/lsa/Fiscal/TaxGuide/2023_Tax_Guide.pdf

[xx] See House Bill 386, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session

Reduce Future State Budget Growth

[i] See open alabama gov, State of Alabama Accounting and Resource System, “Comparative Summar y of Revenues by Fund”, October 1, 2025

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Ibid

[iv] Alabama Legislative Ser vices Agency, “Fiscal Dashboard”, https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/f iscal-healthdashboard, (accessed October 29, 2025)

[v] Alabama Legislative Ser vices Agency, “Allocation of ETF Excess Funds”, November 4, 2024, https://alison legislature state al us/ETF-water fall, (accessed December 4, 2024)

[vi] Justin Bogie, “As PEEHIP Faces Funding Shor tfall, it is Time for Healthcare and Pension Refor ms”, Alabama Policy Institute, September 10, 2025, https://alabamapolicy.org/2025/09/10/as-peehip-faces-funding-shor tfall-it-istime-for-healthcare-and-pension-refor ms/, (accessed October 29, 2025).

[vii] See Alabama Legislative Ser vices Agency Fiscal Division, FY 2026ETF Budget Spreadsheet as Enacted.

[viii] Lauren Kallins, “5 Changes the ‘Beautiful’ Bill Is Br inging to SNAP”, National Conference of State Legislators, October 22, 2025, https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/5-changes-the-beautiful-bill-is-br inging-tosnap, (accessed October 29, 2025).

[ix] Vance Ginn, “Sustainable State Budget Revolution Across the U.S.” Vance Ginn Economic Consulting, October 15, 2024, https://www.vanceginn.com/letpeopleprosper/responsible-state-budgets-across-the-us, (accessed December 16, 2024).

[x] API calculation based on data from the Alabama Legislative Ser vices Agency.

Protect Healthcare Freedom for All Alabamians

[i] All Sides, “Health Freedom,” https://www.allsides.com/translator/health-freedom, (accessed December 26, 2023).

[ii] U.S. Depar tment of Homeland Secur ity, “Frequently Asked Question: Guidance for Travelers to Enter the U.S.”, Updated Apr il 21, 2022, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/10/29/frequently-asked-questions-guidance-travelers-enterus, (accessed December 26, 2023).

[iii] National Academy for State Health Policy, “Federal Vaccine Mandates and Legal Challenges”, Januar y 4, 2022, https://nashp.org/federal-vaccine-mandates-and-legal-challenges/, (accessed December 26, 2023).

[iv] See Senate Bill 9, Alabama Legislature 2021 Second Special Session.

[v] See Senate Bill 15, Alabama Legislature 2021 Second Special Session.

[vi] See Senate Bill 72, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session

[vii] See Senate Bill 43, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[viii] See Senate Bill 101, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session

[ix] See House Bill 79, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session

[x] See Senate Bill 85, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session

[xi] See House Bill 158, Alabama Legislature 2024 Regular Session

[xii] See House Bill 165, Alabama Legislature, 2024 Regular Session.

[xiii] See House Bill 324, Alabama Legislature 2023 Regular Session.

[xiv] See Senate Bill 1210, Idaho Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[xv] Jeff Scott, “SB 252: An Act Relating to Protection from Discr imination Based on Health Care Choices”, Flor ida Medical Association, July 13, 2023, https://www.f lmedical.org/f lor ida/Flor ida Public/News/2023/What_physicians_need_to_know_about_SB_252.aspx, (accessed December 26, 2023).

Improve Regulatory Oversight and Increase Government Transparency

[i] Ballotpedia, “REINS-Style State Laws”, https://ballotpedia.org/REINS-style state laws, (accessed December 9, 2024).

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Carlos Mar tinez, “Who Signs Off on Major Rules? New Push in Congress Could Shift Power from Bureaucrats”, National Taxpayers Union Foundation, July 10, 2025, https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/who-signs-off-on-majorr ules-new-push-in-congress-could-shift-power-from-bureaucrats, (accessed November 5, 2025).

[iv] Amer icans for Prosper ity, “AFP-Alabama Disappointed Legislative Session Adjour ned Without Final Passage of Judicial Deference Bill, Looks to Pr ior itize in 2026”, Press Release, May 15, 2025.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] See section 41-22-3, Code of Alabama.

[vii] See Alabama Legislature, “Rulemaking under the Alabama Administrative Procedures Act”.

[viii] Ibid

[ix] Ballotpedia, “REINS Act (Wisconsin), https://ballotpedia.org/REINS Act (Wisconsin), (accessed December 10, 2024).

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Stephen Trainer, “Research Note: Flor ida’s REINS Act”, Platte Institute, June 24,2024, https://platteinstitute.org/research-note-f lor idas-reins-act/, (accessed December 10, 2024).

[xiii] Ballotpedia, “Kansas REINS-style state law”, https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas REINS-style_state law, (accessed December 10, 2024).

[xiv] Ballotpedia, “Indiana REINS=style state law”, https://ballotpedia.org/Indiana REINS-style state law, (accessed December 10, 2024).

[xv] See Senate Bill 1342, Oklahoma State Legislature, 2016 Regular Session.

[xvi] Amer ican Legislative Exchange Council, “Refor ming How Federal Grants Are Provided to the State”, Model Legislation, September 18, 2018.

[xvii] Kevin Schmidt, “3 Model Policies to Boost State Transparency at the Star t of Legislative Session”, Amer icans for Prosper ity Foundation, Januar y 21, 2025, https://amer icansfor prosper ityfoundation.org/blog/3-model-policies-toboost-state-transparency-at-the-star t-of-legislative-sessions, (accessed November 6, 2025)

[xviii] Ibid

[xix] Ibid

[xx] Giancarlo Canaparo and Caleb Sampson, “Chevron in the States: Where Is Deference Still in Effect, and How Can States Eliminate It?”, The Federalist Society, October 3, 2024, https://fedsoc org/commentar y/fedsocblog/chevron-in-the-states-where-is-deference-still-in-effect-and-how-can-states-eliminate-it, (accessed November 6, 2025).

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Mercedes Yanora, “ Three states end judicial deference practices”, Ballotpedia News, Apr il 26, 2024, https://news.ballotpedia.org/2024/04/26/three-states-end-judicial-deference-practices-3/, (accessed November 6, 2024).

[xxiii] Aaron Sander ford, “Nebraska advances bill codifying legislative oversight role dealing with executive branch agencies”, News From The States, May 28, 2025, https://www.newsfromthestates.com/ar ticle/nebraska-advances-billcodifying-legislative-oversight-role-dealing-executive-branch, (accessed November 6, 2025).

[xxiv] Camille Walsh, “State Policy Network Releases Updated Federalism Scorecard”, State Policy Network, December 5, 2024, https://spn.org/2024-federalism-scorecard/, (accessed November 6, 2025).

[xxv] State Policy Network, “2025 Federalism Scorecard, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/65844a371f665955bd815806/t/68ded9ebaabd6920e6fa15d7/1759435243538/20 25+CPF+Federalism+Scorecard.pdf.

[xxvi] Ibid.

[xxvii] Ibid.

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] Caleb Taylor, “AFP-Alabama ‘disappointed’ judicial deference bill died in House in 2025 session”, 1819 News, May 19, 2025, https://1819news.com/news/item/afp-alabama-disappointed-judicial-deference-bill-died-in-house-in2025-session, (accessed November 6, 2025).

[xxx] State Policy Network, “2025 Federalism Scorecard, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/65844a371f665955bd815806/t/68ded9ebaabd6920e6fa15d7/1759435243538/20 25+CPF+Federalism+Scorecard.pdf.

[xxxi] Ibid.

Require State and Local Government Entities to Livestream Meetings

[i] Michigan Public Policy Sur vey, “Inter net presence among Michigan local gover nments: websites, online ser vices, and exper ience with vir tual meetings”May 2022, https://closup.umich.edu/michigan-public-policysur vey/100/inter net-presence-among-michigan-local-gover nments-websites-online-ser vices

[ii] See Title 36, Chapter 25A, Code of Alabama

[iii] GovTech, “Alabama Council Members Debate Use of Online City Meetings”, May 20th, 2020, https://www.govtech.com/policy/alabama-council-members-debate-use-of-online-city-meetings.html

[iv] See Title 36, Chapter 25A, Section 5.1, Code of Alabama

[v] See House Bill 1167, Indiana Legislature, 2023 Regular Session.

[vi] See Senate Bill 77, South Carolina Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[vii] See Assembly Bill No. 2449, Califor nia Legislature 2022

Resist any Expansion of Gambling and Increase Penalties for Illegal Gambling Activity

[i] John Hill, PhD, “State of Alabama Repor t on Gambling”, Alabama Policy Institute, December 2023, https://alabamapolicy org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Gambling-Repor t-12-23.pdf

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Ibid

[iv] See Section 65, Alabama Constitution

[v] See Section 13A-12-20, Code of Alabama

[vi] FindLaw, “Alabama Gambling Laws”, June 20, 2016, https://www f indlaw com/state/alabama-law/alabamagambling-laws.html, (accessed December 28, 2023).

[vii] Amer ican Gaming Association, “Gaming Regulations and Statutor y Requirements”, https://www.amer icangaming.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/AGAGamingRegulator yFactSheet ClassIIGaming2.pdf, (accessed December 28, 2023).

[viii] See Chapter 11 Section 65, Code of Alabama.

[ix] Nick Beare, “Alabama Spor ts Betting- 2023 AL Spor ts Betting Update, Legal Spor ts Repor t, November 23, 3023, https://www.legalspor tsrepor t.com/alabama/#:~:text=While%20horse%20racing%20is%20legal,also%20allowed%20 by%20state%20law., (accessed December 29, 2023).

[x] John Williams, “Horse Racing and Par i-Mutual Betting”, Minnesota House of Representatives, October 2002, https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/ss/sshorse.pdf, (accessed December 28, 2023).

[xi] Tom Nightingale, “Alabama lawmaker wants to clar ify illegal gambling, increase penalties”, SBC Amer icas, September 18, 2024, https://sbcamer icas.com/2024/09/18/alabama-hb41-gambling/, (accessed October 28, 2025).

[xii] Caleb Taylor, “House committee kills bill legalizing ‘histor ical horse racing’ gambling in Greene County”, 1819 News, Apr il 24, 2025, https://1819news.com/news/item/house-committee-kills-bill-legalizing-histor ical-horse-racinggambling-in-greene-county, (accessed October 28, 2025).

[xiii] John Hill, PhD, “State of Alabama Repor t on Gambling”, Alabama Policy Institute, December 2023, https://alabamapolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Gambling-Repor t-12-23.pdf.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Ibid.

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Ibid.

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Ibid.

[xxvi] Ibid.

Provide Alabamians Access to Innovative Healthcare Treatment Options

[i] RightToTr y org, “Right to Tr y for Individualized Treatments”, https://r ighttotr y org/r tt2-0/, (accessed December 5, 2024)

[ii] Goldwater Institute, “Right to Tr y for Individualized Treatments (r ight to Tr y 2.0): Refor m Is Needed Now”, https://www goldwater institute org/r ight-to-tr y-for-individualized-treatments-r ight-to-tr y-2-0/, (accessed December 5, 2024)

[iii] Ibid

[iv] Ibid

[v] Br ian Nor man, “New Hampshire Becomes the 16th State to Expand Right to Tr y for Individualized Treatments”, Goldwater Institute, August 21, 2025, https://www.goldwater institute.org/new-hampshire-becomes-the-16th-state-toexpand-r ight-to-tr y-for-individualized-treatments, (accessed October 27, 2025).

[vi] Federal Dr ug Administration, “Right to Tr y”, Januar y 23,2023, https://www.fda.gov/patients/lear n-aboutexpanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/r ight-tr y.

[vii] See Senate Bill 299, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[viii] See Goldwater Institute, “ The Right to Tr y for Individualized Treatments Act”, https://www.goldwater institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/RTT-2.0-Language.pdf.

[ix] Br ian Nor man, “New Hope for Rare Disease Patients: Georgia Lawmakers Advance Right to Tr y Expansion”, Goldwater Institute, Febr uar y 24, 2025, https://www.goldwater institute.org/new-hope-for-rare-disease-patientsgeorgia-lawmakers-advance-r ight-to-tr y-expansion, (accessed October 27, 2025).

[x] Fiona Baum, “Colorado’s Next Summit: Expanding Medical Freedom with Right to Tr y 2.0”, Goldwater Institute, March 6, 2025, https://www.goldwater institute.org/colorados-next-summit-expanding-medical-freedom-with-r ight-totr y-2-0, (accessed October 27, 2025).

[xi] See Senate Bill 2858, Mississippi Legislature, 2024 Regular Session.

[xii] See House Bill 899, Louisiana Legislature, 2024 Regular Session.

Allow for Alternative Accreditation Options at Alabama’s Colleges and Universities

[i] Histor y and Context of Accreditation in the United States | U.S. Depar tment of Education

[ii] 2012Pr inciplesOfAccreditation1st.pdf

[iii] Over view of Accreditation in the United States | U.S. Depar tment of Education

[iv] Id.

[v] free speech committee repor t f inal.pdf

[vi] Accreditation, Tenure, and Transparency: Innovative Higher Education Policies from Flor ida’s 2022 Legislative Session | Cicero Institute

[vii] How the US Depar tment of Education Can Fix Damaging Accreditation Regulations - Center for Amer ican Progress

[viii] Def initions-of-Distance-Education-March-2023-Repor t-1.pdf

[ix] Standards for Accreditation and Requirements of Aff iliation | Four teenth Edition - Middle States Commission on Higher Education

[x] FSA Enforcement Bulletin, August 2023 – Following an Enforcement Investigation, Federal Student Aid Reminds Schools to Ensure Programs are Properly Accredited Before Disbursing Funds | Knowledge Center

[xi] Chapter 1008 Section 47 - 2022 Flor ida Statutes - The Flor ida Senate

[xii] Id.

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Bill Text: IA HF295 | 2025-2026 | 91st General Assembly | Enrolled | LegiScan

[xv] Id

Remove Barriers to Opening New Microschools

[i] Microschools are growing in popular ity, but state regulations haven’t caught up • Nebraska Examiner

[ii] Microschooling: A Moder n Movement for Educational Freedom

[iii] Id

[iv] Are Microschools Per fect? Explor ing Potential Weaknesses and Challenges

[v] Utah’s New Microschool Law: a Model for Other States | The Well News | Pragmatic, Gover nance, Fiscally Responsible, News & Analysis

[vi] Microschools are growing in popular ity, but state regulations haven't caught up • Stateline

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Utah’s New Microschool Law: a Model for Other States - Liber tas Institute

[x] Ala. Admin. Code r. 290-2-2-.04 - School Site Requirements | State Regulations | US Law | LII / Legal

Infor mation Institute

[xi] TUS-meetings-parking-fences-lighting Oct2022.pdf

[xii] 15327602 zba-23-25-packet.pdf

[xiii] PDF.pdf

[xiv] Zoning Relief for Flor ida Pr ivate Schools - yes. ever y kid. foundation. [xv] HB2461 - 532R - Senate Fact Sheet

[xvi] Ar izona Revised Statutes

[xvii] 1% Cap Justif ication per Distr ict School Year 2023-2024.pdf

[xviii] HB550

[xix] Nonpublic Schools Not Seeking State Approval

Strengthen Alabamians Fourth Amendment Privacy Protections

[i] TPR Staff, “Decision on Geofence War rants: A Cr itical Blow to Mass Sur veillance,” Texas Policy Research (Aug. 20, 2024), https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/decision-on-geofence-war rants-a-cr itical-blow-to-mass-sur veillance/ [ii] Leslie Corbly, “Geofence ‘War rants’: An Unconstitutional Abuse of Technology,” Liber tas Institute (Aug. 4, 2022), https://liber tas.institute/pr ivacy/geofence-war rants-an-unconstitutional-abuse-of-technology/

[iii] Navdeep Kaur Bal, “ The Constitutionality of Geofence War rants”, Berkley Jour nal of Cr iminal Law, Januar y 18, 2024, https://www.bjcl.org/blog/the-constitutionality-of-geofence-war rants

[iv] TPR Staff, “Decision on Geofence War rants: A Cr itical Blow to Mass Sur veillance,” Texas Policy Research (Aug. 20, 2024), https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/decision-on-geofence-war rants-a-cr itical-blow-to-masssur veillance/

[v] Navdeep Kaur Bal, “ The Constitutionality of Geofence War rants”, Berkley Jour nal of Cr iminal Law, Januar y 18, 2024, https://www.bjcl.org/blog/the-constitutionality-of-geofence-war rants

[vi] David Iglesias, “Geofence War rants: The Moder n-Day General War rant,” Liber tas Institute (Op-ed, Sept. 10, 2024), https://liber tas.institute/op-eds/geofence-war rants-the-moder n-day-general-war rant/ [vii] Ibid.

[viii] TPR Staff, “Decision on Geofence War rants: A Cr itical Blow to Mass Sur veillance,” Texas Policy Research (Aug 20, 2024), https://www texaspolicyresearch.com/decision-on-geofence-war rants-a-cr itical-blow-to-masssur veillance/

[ix] Navdeep Kaur Bal, “ The Constitutionality of Geofence War rants”, Berkley Jour nal of Cr iminal Law, Januar y 18, 2024, https://www bjcl org/blog/the-constitutionality-of-geofence-war rants

[x] Ibid

[xi] David Iglesias, “Geofence War rants: The Moder n-Day General War rant,” Liber tas Institute (Op-ed, Sept. 10, 2024), https://liber tas institute/op-eds/geofence-war rants-the-moder n-day-general-war rant/ [xii] Ibid

[xiii] See Senate Bill 404, New York State Senate, 2025-2026 Session

[xiv] Congressional Research Ser vice, “Geofence War rants and the Four th Amendment”, Legal Sidebar, May 9, 2025, https://www congress gov/crs-product/LSB11274

Reform the Governance of the Alabama High School Athletics Association

i Alabama Gover nor’s Off ice “Gover nor Ivey and Speaker Ledbetter Secure Temporar y Restraining Order Blocking ii AHSAA’s Rule on CHOOSE Act Student Transfers ” September 5, 2025

https://gover nor alabama gov/newsroom/2025/09/gover nor-ivey-and-speaker-ledbetter-secure-temporar y-restrainingorder-blocking-ahsaas-r ule-on-choose-act-student-transfers/ iii Alabama Policy Institute “API to AHSAA: Don’t Sideline School Choice Families – Follow the Law!” September 1, 2025. https://alabamapolicy.org/2025/09/01/api-to-ahsaa-stop-penalizing-school-choice-students-and-follow-thelaw/.

iv. Ala. Code § 16-6J-3(i) (2024).

v. Kay Ivey, in her off icial capacity as Gover nor of the State of Alabama, and Nathaniel Ledbetter, in his off icial capacity as Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives v. Alabama High School Athletic Association. vi. vi. vi. Complaint, Circuit Cour t of Montgomer y County, Alabama, CV-2025-900570. Filed September 4, 2025. vii. Shelley, Jonathan. “Judge blocks r ule sidelining Alabama student-athletes over CHOOSE Act funds.” CBS 42/Tr ussville Tr ibune, September 5, 2025. https://www.cbs42.com/tr ussville-tr ibune/alabama-gov-kay-ivey-sueahsaa-over-choose-act-eligibility-r ule/.

viii. Var ious inter nal documents and policy summar ies from the Alabama Policy Institute and AHSAA stakeholder meetings, 2024-2025 (on f ile with the author).

Var ious inter nal documents and policy summar ies from the Alabama Policy Institute and AHSAA stakeholder meetings, 2024-2025 (on f ile with the author). ix. Ala. Code § 16-6J-3(i) (2024).

x. Kay Ivey, in her off icial capacity as Gover nor of the State of Alabama, and Nathaniel Ledbetter, in his off icial capacity as Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives v. Alabama High School Athletic Association, xi. Complaint, Circuit Cour t of Montgomer y County, Alabama, CV-2025-900570, f iled September 4, 2025.

xii. Alabama Gover nor’s Off ice, “Gover nor Ivey and Speaker Ledbetter Secure Temporar y Restraining Order Blocking AHSAA’s Rule on CHOOSE Act Student Transfers,” September 5, 2025.

xiii. Alabama Policy Institute, “API to AHSAA: Don’t Sideline School Choice Families – Follow the Law!,” September 1, 2025.

xiv. Jonathan Shelley, “Judge blocks r ule sidelining Alabama student-athletes over CHOOSE Act funds,” CBS 42/Tr ussville Tr ibune, September 5, 2025.

Restrict the Flow of Abortion Inducing Drugs into Alabama

[i] Howard Koplowitz, “Federal judge lifts injunction on Alabama’s 2019 abor tion ban after Roe v. Wade Over tur ned”, AL.com, June 24, 2022, https://www.al.com/politics/2022/06/federal-judge-lifts-injunction-on-alabamas-2019-abor tionban-after-roe-v-wade-over tur ned.html, (accessed (November 9, 2023).

[ii] See Section 26-23H-4 Code of Alabama.

[iii] See Section 26-23H-7 Code of Alabama.

[iv] U.S. Depar tment of Justice, “Application of the Comstock Act to the Mailing of Prescr iption Dr ugs That Can Be Used for Abor tion”, December 23, 2022, https://www.justice.gov/media/1266941/dl?inline=.

[v] PBS New, “8,000 women a month got abor tion pills despite their states’ bans or restr ictions, sur vey f inds”, May 14, 2024,https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/8000-women-a-month-got-abor tion-pills-despite-their-states-bans-orrestr ictions-sur vey-f inds, (accessed November 27, 2024).

[vi] Society of Family Planning, “WeCount repor t, Apr il 2022 to December 2024”, June 23, 2025, https://societyfp.org/research/wecount/wecount-december-2024-data/, (accessed October 15, 2025).

[vii] Amy Yurkanin, “Women can be prosecuted for taking abor tion pills, says Alabama attor ney general”, AL.com, Januar y 10, 2023, https://www.al.com/news/2023/01/women-can-be-prosecuted-for-taking-abor tion-pills-says-alabamaattor ney-general.html, (accessed November 9, 2023).

[viii] Allison McCann, “Inside the Online Market for Overseas Abor tion Pills”, New York Times, Apr il 14, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/13/us/abor tion-pill-order-online-mifepr istone.html, (accessed November 29, 2023).

[ix] Chantelle Lee, “How the Biden Administration Protected Abor tion Pill Access-and What Tr ump Could Do Next”, Time Magazine, November 20, 2024, https://time.com/7177933/biden-tr ump-abor tion-pill-mifepr istone-access/, (accessed November 27, 2024).

[x] Meg Tir rell, “Federal agencies are studying safety of abor tion dr ug mifepr istone, dr iving new concer ns about limits on access”, CNN, October 13, 2025, https://www cnn com/2025/09/25/health/mifepr istone-review-fda-hhsabor tion, (accessed October 15, 2025)

[xi] Ar ia Bendix and Sahil Kapur, “FDA quietly approved a gener ic abor tion pill ahead of shutdown”, NBC News, October 3, 2025, https://www nbcnews com/health/womens-health/fda-approves-gener ic-abor tion-pill-mifepr istonercna235265, (accessed October 15, 2025)

[xii] Scott Yoshonis, “Louisiana suing federal gover nment over abor tion dr ugs by mail”, KLFY News, October 14, 2025, https://www klfy com/louisiana/louisiana-suing-federal-gover nment-over-abor tion-dr ugs-by-mail/, (accessed October 15, 2025).

[xiii] Jennifer Shutt, “An 1873 law banned the mailing of boxing photos. Could it block abor tion pills too?”, New

From the States, Apr il 4, 2024, https://www.newsfromthestates.com/ar ticle/1873-law-banned-mailing-boxing-photoscould-it-block-abor tion-pills-too, (accessed November 27, 2024).

Strengthen Internet Protections for Alabama’s Children

[i] Secur ity.org, “Parents Want Str icter Legislation to Protect Kids on Social Media”, June 27, 2023, https://www.secur ity.org/digital-safety/parents-react-to-social-media-legislation/, (accessed December 21, 2023).

[ii] See Section 13A-12, Code of Alabama.

[iii] See Senate Bill 186, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[iv] See Senate Bill 187, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[v] See House Bill 164, Alabama Legislature, 2024 Regular Session.

[vi] Federal Communication Commission, “Children’s Inter net Protection Act (CIPA), https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-inter net-protection-act, (accessed December 21, 2023).

[vii] Federal Communications Commission, “Children’s Online Pr ivacy Protection Rule (‘COPPA’), https://www.ftc.gov/legal-librar y/browse/r ules/childrens-online-pr ivacy-protection-r ule-coppa, (accessed December 21, 2023).

[viii] See Section 47-18-5703, Tennessee Code.

[ix] See House Bill 3, Flor ida Legislature, 2024 Regular Session.

[x] See Section 51:1752, Louisiana Laws.

[xi] Adam Candeub, Clare Morell, and Michael Toscano, “Model Legislation for Age Ver if ication of Social Media”, Ethics and Public Policy Center, October 17, 2023, https://eppc.org/publication/protecting-kids-online-modellegislation/.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Cooley, “AI Chatbots at the Crossroads: Navigating New Laws and Compliance Risks”, Cooley Aler t, October 21, 2025, https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2025/2025-10-21-ai-chatbots-at-the-crossroads-navigating-new-lawsand-compliance-r isks, (accessed November 5, 2025).

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Ibid.

Allow Volunteer Chaplains to Provide Services in Alabama’s K-12 Public Schools

[i] Advent Health University, “Chaplain vs Pastor: What is the Difference?”, Apr il 7, 2021, https://www ahu edu/blog/chaplain-vs-pastor, (accessed December 21, 2023)

[ii] David Montgomer y, “New Texas law allowing chaplains in public schools could be a model for other states”, Stateline, June 21, 2023, https://stateline org/2023/06/21/new-texas-law-allowing-chaplains-in-public-schools-couldbe-a-model-for-other-states/, (accessed December 21, 2023)

[iii] Naaz Modan, “Bills allowing chaplains in public schools gain steam”, K-12 Dive, August 26, 2024, https://www k12dive com/news/school-chaplain-bills-2023-2024-louisiana-texas-f lor ida/725166/, (accessed December 2, 2024).

[iv] See United States Constitution, First Amendment.

[v] National School Counselors Association, “School chaplaincy’s legal precedent”, https://www.nationalschoolchaplainassociation.org/employingchaplainslegalities, (accessed December 21, 2023).

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] See Senate Bill 763, Texas Legislature 2023 Regular Session.

viii] National School Chaplains Association, “School Benef its”, https://www.nationalschoolchaplainassociation.org/school-benef its, (accessed December 21, 2023).

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] See Senate Bill 294, Alabama Legislature, 2024 Regular Session.

[xii] See House Bill 179, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[xiii] Ed Tar nowski, “What Are Microschools?”, EdChoice, September 12, 2022, https://www.edchoice.org/microschools-what-are-they-what-do-they-cost-and-whos-interested, (accessed November 13, 2025).

[xiv] Chr istian Leaders Alliance, “Developing MicroSchools Course”, https://www.chr istianleadersalliance.org/developing-microschools/.

Promote and Improve Civics Education in K-12 Public Schools

[i] See Senate Bill 32, Alabama Legislature, 2017 Regular Session.

[ii] Chr istine Fairbanks, “Sutherland Institute suppor ts Utah’s new high school civics bill”, Sutherland Institute, March 3, 2025, https://sutherlandinstitute.org/sutherland-institute-suppor ts-utahs-new-high-school-civics-bill/, (accessed October 15, 2025).

[iii] Louisiana Depar tment of Education, “Louisiana Adopts New Diploma Endorsement to Recognize Excellence in Civics Education”, Press Release, Apr il 9, 2025, https://doe.louisiana.gov/about/newsroom/newsreleases/release/2025/04/09/louisiana-adopts-new-diploma-endorsement-to-recognize-excellence-in-civics-education.

[iv] See House Bill 587, Iowa Legislature, 2024 Regular Session.

[v] Flor ida Depar tment of Education, “Civics Literacy Excellence Initiative”, https://www.f ldoe.org/academics/standards/subject-areas/social-studies/civics-lei.stml.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] See House Bill 4025, Illinois General Assembly, 99 Session, 2015. th

[viii] See Senate Bill 8, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid.

Hold Sexual Predators Accountable and Increase Penalties for Crimes Against Minors

[i] National Children’s Alliance, “NCA Statistics- NCA National Statistics Repor t 2023, https://www nationalchildrensalliance org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Alabama-Annual-2023.pdf, (accessed December 6, 2024)

[ii] See Section 6-2-8, Code of Alabama

[iii] See Section 15-20A-5, Code of Alabama

[iv] See Section-13a-5-40, Code of Alabama

[v] See Section 13A-5-49, Code of Alabama

[vi] See Section 13A-6-61, Code of Alabama.

[vii] See Section 13A-6-63, Code of Alabama.

[viii] See Section 13A-6-65.1, Code of Alabama.

[ix] See Section 13A-5-6, Code of Alabama.

[x] National Conference of State Legislators, “Child Sexual Abuse: Civil Statutes of Limitations”, November 29,2023, https://www.ncsl.org/human-ser vices/state-civil-statutes-of-limitations-in-child-sexual-abuse-cases, (accessed December 16, 2024).

[xi] Staff Repor t, “Flor ida prosecutor announces f irst death penalty case under new child rape law”, Tallahassee Democrat, December 15, 2023, https://www.tallahassee.com/stor y/news/local/state/2023/12/15/f lor ida-man-f irstdeath-penalty-indicted-child-rape-test-case-new-law/71930977007/, (accessed December 16, 2024).

[xii] See Senate Bill 1804, Flor ida General Assembly, 2025 Regular Session.

[xiii] See House Bill 1455, Flor ida General Assembly, 2025 Regular Session.

[xiv] See Senate Bill 1834, Tennessee General Assembly, 2024 Regular Session.

[xv] See Seante Bill 1870, Tennessee General Assembly, 2025 Regular Session.

[xvi] See Senate Bill 375, Arkansas Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

xvii] Jemma Stephenson, “Bill would extend Alabama’s statute of limitations for child abuse litigation”, Alabama Ref lector, December 9, 2024, https://alabamaref lector.com/2024/12/09/bill-would-extend-alabamas-statute-oflimitations-for-child-abuselitigation/#:~:text=SB%2021%2C%20sponsored%20by%20Sen,bir thday%20to%20their%2055th%20bir thday., (accessed December 16, 2024).

[xviii] See Senate Bill 21, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Legislative Session.

[xix] Child USA, “Delayed Disclosure: Child USA 2024 Fact Sheet”, https://childusa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/06/Delayed-Disclosure-2024.pdf, (accessed December 16, 2024).

[xx] See House Bill 49, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Asher Redd, “Alabama lawmaker aims to put child rapists up for the death penalty”, WKRG News, December 11, 2024, https://www.wkrg.com/alabama-news/alabama-lawmaker-aims-to-put-child-rapists-up-for-the-deathpenalty/, (accessed December 16, 2024).

[xxiii] Alander Rocha, “Alabama lawmakers want to impose death penalty on child rapists, challenging precedent”, Alabama Ref lector, August 1, 2025, https://alabamaref lector.com/2025/08/01/alabama-lawmakers-want-to-imposedeath-penalty-on-child-rapists-challenging-precedent/, (accessed October 29, 2025).

Prevent Medically Assisted Suicide from Occurring in Alabama

i FAQs on Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia - Aging with Dignity

ii Medical assistance in dying: Legislation in Canada - Canada ca

iii Death with Dignity U S Legislative Status State Map

iv About Death with Dignity: Advocating for End-of-Life Options

v Death with Dignity U S Legislative Status State Map

vi Gover nment Bill House of Commons C-14 (42-1) - Royal Assent - An Act to amend the Cr iminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts medical assistance in dying - Parliament of Canada

vii. Gover nment Bill (House of Commons) C-7 (43-2) - Royal Assent - An Act to amend the Cr iminal Code (medical assistance in dying) - Parliament of Canada.

viii.Bill C-62 441 An Act to amend An Act to amend the Cr iminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2 | Projet de loi C-62 441 Loi no 2 modif iant la Loi modif iant le Code cr iminel (aide médicale à mour ir).

ix.The Gover nment of Canada introduces legislation to delay Medical Assistance in Dying expansion by 3 yearsCanada.ca.

x. Fifth Annual Repor t on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, 2023 - Canada.ca

xi. https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/code-of-alabama?section=22-8B-4

xii. Alabama Code § 13A-5-6 (2024) - Sentences of Impr isonment for Felonies. :: 2024 Code of Alabama :: U.S. Codes and Statutes :: U.S. Law :: Justia

xiii. https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/code-of-alabama?section=22-8B-6

xiv. NY State Senate Bill 2025-S138

xv. Tennessee Euthanasia Laws - FindLaw

xvi. HB1710.pdf

xvii. TN HB1710 | 2023-2024 | 113th General Assembly | LegiScan

xviii. Oregon Health Author ity : Frequently Asked Questions : Death with Dignity Act : State of Oregon

xix. 2024 Oregon Death with Dignity Act Data Summar y

xx. Alabama Code § 13A-5-6 (2024) - Sentences of Impr isonment for Felonies. :: 2024 Code of Alabama :: U.S. Codes and Statutes :: U.S. Law :: Justia

Ban Non-Medical Psychoactive THC Products from Being Sold in Alabama

[i] STATUTE-132-Pg4490.pdf

[ii] Delta-8-THC craze concer ns chemists

[iii] https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/11/10/congress/senators-reject-pauls-hemp-plans-00646064Alabama

Doctors War n Public of ‘Gas Station’ Dr ugs at Bir mingham Substance Abuse Conference | Alabama Board of Medical Examiners & Medical Licensure Commission

[iv] Legalizing Youth-Fr iendly Cannabis Edibles and Extracts and Adolescent Cannabis Use | Health Policy | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

[v] Alabama Depar tment of Forensic Sciences

[vi] HB445-enr.pdf

[vii] Safety with edibles | Cannabis

[viii] Is Delta-8 Legal in Colorado? | ColoradoCannabis.org

ix] Flor ida Amendment 3 explained: Adult personal use of mar ijuana

[x] Flor ida Amendment 3 results 2024 | CNN Politics

[xi] Hemp products law passes Flor ida legislature: What are Delta 8 and CBD?

[xii] Gov. DeSantis kills hemp bill, keeps Delta 8 and related compounds legal

[xiii] DeSantis vetoes hemp bill that would have restr icted delta-8, delta 9 THC | Health News Flor ida

[xiv] Retail Rules and Regulations

[xv] SB1-int.pdf

Promote the Lessons of the Ten Commandments in Alabama’s K-12 Public Schools

[i] Brandon Moseley, “All four statewide amendments approved by voters”, Alabama Political Repor ter, November 9, 2018, https://www.alrepor ter.com/2018/11/09/all-four-statewide-amendments-approved-by-voters/, (accessed November 13, 2025).

[ii] See Senate Bill 181, Alabama Legislature, 2018 Regular Session.

[iii] Sabr ina Canf ield, “Fifth Circuit deems Louisiana Ten Commandments law unconstitutional”, Cour thouse News Ser vice, June 20, 2025, https://www.cour thousenews.com/f ifth-circuit-deems-louisiana-ten-commandments-lawunconstitutional/, (accessed November 13, 2025).

[iv] Antoinette Grajeda, “Cour t blocks new Arkansas law requir ing Ten Commandments in classrooms”, Arkansas Advocate, August 4, 2025, https://arkansasadvocate.com/2025/08/04/cour t-blocks-new-arkansas-law-requir ing-tencommandments-in-classrooms/, (accessed November 13, 2025).

[v] See Senate Bill 10, Texas Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

[vi] See Senate Bill 166, Alabama Legislature, 2025 Regular Session.

Provide a Consistent Statewide Framework for K-12 Religious Release Time

[i] Released Time | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

[ii] ZORACH et al. v. CLAUSON et al. | Supreme Cour t | US Law | LII / Legal Infor mation Institute

[iii] Oklahoma joins states with 'release time' laws letting kids leave school for religious lessons • Oklahoma Voice

[iv] LifeWise-ImpactRepor t-2024.pdf

[v] Alabama Code § 16-1-20.6 (2024) - Released Time for Student Par ticipation in Religious Instr uction. :: 2024 Code of Alabama :: U.S. Codes and Statutes :: U.S. Law :: Justia

[vi] ZORACH et al v CLAUSON et al | Supreme Cour t | US Law | LII / Legal Infor mation Institute

[vii] McCollum v Board of Education | 333 U S 203 (1948) | Justia U S. Supreme Cour t Center

[viii] Alabama Code § 16-1-20 6 (2024) - Released Time for Student Par ticipation in Religious Instr uction. :: 2024 Code of Alabama :: U S Codes and Statutes :: U S Law :: Justia

[ix] Id

[x] Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

[xi] Fla Admin Code Ann R 6A-1 09514 - Excused Absences for Religious Instr uction or Holiday | State Regulations | US Law | LII / Legal Infor mation Institute

[xii] Tennessee Code § 49-2-130 (2024) - Policy excusing student to attend released time course in religious moral instr uction author ized - Requirements - Liability - Credit :: 2024 Tennessee Code :: U.S Codes and Statutes :: U.S Law :: Justia

[xiii] Id

[xiv] Id

[xv] Id

[xvi] R277-610 Released-Time Classes and Public Schools

[xvii] Id

[xviii] Id

Require Colleges and Universities to Accept the Classic Learning Test, Allow CLT to Satisfy the Pathway for Graduation, and Revise the Term “Advanced Placement” for More Neutral Terms

i. Gar y L. Welton, Classic Lear ning Test (CLT) as a Predictor of Student Per for mance (Grove City College, October 2025), 1–2.

ii. "Top Education System in the Nation Expands Admission Exam Options With Classic Lear ning Test," State University System of Flor ida, September 8, 2023.

iii. Welton, Classic Lear ning Test (CLT) as a Predictor of Student Per for mance, 1.

iv. Welton, Classic Lear ning Test (CLT) as a Predictor of Student Per for mance, 5. The cor rected cor relation for the CLT was 0.58, compared to the SAT's repor ted cor rected cor relation of 0.53.

v. “GCC study f inds predictive value in Classic Lear ning Test,” Grove City College, October 27, 2025.

vi. Welton, Classic Lear ning Test (CLT) as a Predictor of Student Per for mance, 4.

vii. Classic Lear ning Test, "Research & Repor ts," accessed November 16, 2025.

viii. "Alabama High School Graduation Requirements - Clar if ied Apr il 2022," Scr ibd, accessed November 16, 2025.

ix. "MPS: Division of College & Career Readiness - ALSDE Graduation Requirements," Montgomer y Public Schools, accessed November 16, 2025.

x. "Graduation Requirements - Option A - Traditional," Madison City Schools, accessed November 16, 2025.

xi. "Top Education System in the Nation Expands Admission Exam Options With Classic Lear ning Test," State University System of Flor ida, September 8, 2023.

xii. Classic Lear ning Test, "Par tner Colleges," accessed November 16, 2025.

xiii The Alabama State Board of Education amended the Alabama Administrative Code, Rule No. 290-3-1.02 to include the CCR Indicator, which allows for "additional" approved indicators

xiv Caden DeLisa, "Flor ida Board of Education adopts Classic Lear ning Test as college readiness assessment," The Capitolist, July 19, 2023

xv Classic Lear ning Test, "CLT vs ACT® - Compar ing the College Entrance Exams." (Note: The CLT-ACT concordance relationship is der ived from the CLT-SAT concordance and the off icial SAT-ACT concordance)

xvi "Flor ida Approved Classic Lear ning Test," The Tr inity Voice, December 7, 2023

xvii "High School Graduation Requirements," Alabama Connections Academy, accessed November 16, 2025. Classic Lear ning Test, "CLT vs ACT® - Compar ing the College Entrance Exams."

xviii Welton, Classic Lear ning Test (CLT) as a Predictor of Student Per for mance, 2.

xix "Alabama High School Graduation Requirements," Autauga County Schools, accessed November 16, 2025.

xx "College and Career Readiness - New Hope High School," Madison County Schools, accessed November 16, 2025.

xxi "High School Graduation Requirements," Alabama Connections Academy, accessed November 16, 2025.

xxii Welton, Classic Lear ning Test (CLT) as a Predictor of Student Per for mance, 2.

xxiii "Graduation Requirements - Option A - Traditional," Madison City Schools, accessed November 16, 2025.

Increase Transparency in the Review of Copywritten Educational Materials

[i] Alabama Textbook Adoption and Procurement - Alabama State Depar tment of Education

[ii] COMM RFB CTE-2023-Bid-Packet V1.0.pdf

[iii] Alabama Code Title 16, Chapter 36, Ar ticle 3 (2024) - Textbooks for Public Schools; State and Local Textbook Committees. :: 2024 Code of Alabama :: U.S. Codes and Statutes :: U.S. Law :: Justia

[iv] How does Alabama choose textbooks? Slowly | Alabama Ref lector

[v] SBOE 20240104

Alabama-State-Textbook-Adoption-Process-for-CTE-2023 V1.0.pdf

[vi] TAP 20251010 Librar y-Sites-for-Public-Review-of-Textbooks-2025-2026 V1.0.pdf

[vii] Public invited to review Alabama K-12 social studies, ar ts textbooks ahead of Nov. board vote - Alabama Daily News

[viii]Alabama Code Title 16, Chapter 36, Ar ticle 3 (2024) - Textbooks for Public Schools; State and Local Textbook Committees. :: 2024 Code of Alabama :: U.S. Codes and Statutes :: U.S. Law :: Justia

[ix] SBOE 20240104

Alabama-State-Textbook-Adoption-Process-for-CTE-2023 V1.0.pdf

[x] COMM RFB CTE-2023-Bid-Packet V1.0.pdf

[xi] SBOE 20240104 Alabama-State-Textbook-Adoption-Process-for-CTE-2023 V1.0.pdf

[xii] Alabama Code § 16-36-60 (2024) - State Textbook Committee. :: 2024 Code of Alabama :: U.S. Codes and Statutes :: U.S. Law :: Justia

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] English-Langauge-Ar ts-and-Career-and-Technical-Education-2021-2022-Bid-Packet.pdf

[xv] Career and Technical Education State Board Power point Apr il 2021 Final Copy LM approved.pdf

[xvi] Id.

[xvii]Instr uctional Mater ials Review and Approval (IMRA) | State Board of Education

[xviii]Public Comment Per iod Open for Review of 2025 Instr uctional Mater ials Under Consideration | State Board of Education

[xix] PoliciesandProceduresSpecif ications-FINAL.pdf

[xx] Instr uctional Mater ials Adoption Process

[xxi] Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Protect Female Spaces for Girls and Women in Prisons and Other Settings

[i] Young girl is raped in school bathroom by transgender peer

[ii] On policies restr icting trans people, Amer icans have become more suppor tive | Pew Research Center

[iii] Bill Text: AL HB322 | 2022 | Regular Session | Enrolled | LegiScan

[iv] Alabama Code § 16-1-54 (2024) - Multiple Occupancy Restrooms or Changing Areas Designated for Student

Use to Be Used by Individuals Based on Their Biological Sex. :: 2024 Code of Alabama :: U S. Codes and Statutes :: U S Law :: Justia

[v] Id

[vi] Id

[vii] ‘Trans’ Biological Male Once Housed In Women’s Pr ison Ordered To Stand Tr ial For Rape, Witness Intimidation | The Daily Caller

[viii]SB129-enr pdf

[ix] Alabama Code § 16-1-54 (2024) - Multiple Occupancy Restrooms or Changing Areas Designated for Student Use to Be Used by Individuals Based on Their Biological Sex. :: 2024 Code of Alabama :: U S. Codes and Statutes :: U S Law :: Justia

[x] Id

[xi] Id

[xii] SB129-enr pdf

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

[xv] Id.

[xvi] Id.

[xvii] Id.

[xviii]Bill Text: TX SB8 | 2025 | 89th Legislature 2nd Special Session | Enrolled | LegiScan

[xix] Id.

[xx] Id.