Limited Govt

STRONG FAMILIES

BLUEPRINT 2026

BLUEPRINT

BUILDING A STRONGER ALABAMA

2026

1 Full Funding for Alabama’s Universal School Choice Program

Table of Contents

Reform the Governance of the Alabama High School Athletics Association Free Markets

2. Decrease Barriers to Affordable Healthcare Through Certificate of Need Reform

3. Reduce Restrictions on Home-Based Businesses and Youth Entrepreneurship

4 Reform Alabama’s Burdensome Occupational Licensing Infrastructure

5 Strengthen Competitive Bidding and Public Works Laws

6. Increase Requirements to Receive Public Welfare

7. Expand Portable Benefits for Alabama’s Changing Workforce

8. Provide Tax Relief to All Alabamians 9. Reduce Future State Budget Growth 10 Protect Healthcare Freedom for All Alabamians

Improve Regulatory 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 Activity 14. Provide Alabamians Access to Innovative Healthcare Treatment Options 15. Allow for Alternative Accreditation Options at Alabama’s Colleges and Universities

Remove Logistical Barriers to Opening New Micro-schools

Government Strong Families 19. Restrict the Flow of Abortion Inducing Drugs into Alabama

Strengthen Alabamians Fourth Amendment Privacy Protections

Strengthen Internet Protections for Alabama’s Children 21. Allow Volunteer Chaplains in Alabama’s K-12 Public Schools

22. Promote and Improve Civics Education in K-12 Public Schools 23. Hold Sexual Predators Accountable and Increase Penalties for Crimes Against Minors 24 Prevent Medically Assisted Suicide from Occurring in Alabama 25. Ban Non-Medical Psychoactive THC Products from Being Sold in Alabama 26. Promote the Lessons of the Ten Commandments in Alabama’s K-12 Public Schools 27. Provide a Consistent Statewide Framework for K-12 Religious Release Time

Allow for Alternative Testing and Amend “Advanced Placement” Language 29. Increase Transparency in the Review of Copy-written Educational Materials

30. Protect Female Spaces for Girls and Women in Prisons and Other Settings

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 State 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 surplus, much of it has already been committed. Approximately $100 million will be transferred to the ETF Budget Stabilization Fund, around $750 million is to be transferred to the Advancement and Technology Fund, and an estimated $300 million will be available for transfer to the Educational Opportunities Reserve Fund, leaving approximately $450 million available for ETF supplemental appropriations[v].

Neither Senate education budget committee chairman Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) or House budget committee chairman Danny Garrett (R-Trussville) have weighed in on what the priorities for that bill might be. Additional funding for Alabama’s CHOOSE Act program in FY2026 and beyond should remain a top priority for lawmakers next session[vi]

FY 2026 ETF spending was set at $9.909 billion during the 2025 Regular Session [vii]. An issue with the current system is that when there is a large ETF surplus, such as in the past several years, much of it has already been committed to the various reserve funds. Therefore, there is less that could be returned to taxpayers through lower tax rates. After the statutorily required transfers, the remaining surpluses have been used to increase ETF spending levels through supplemental appropriations 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 during the 2024 session. Neither general fund budget chairman has weighed in on how those funds may be used. A portion of the surplus could be used to offset increased entitlement program costs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, resulting from the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act[viii].

Potential for Reform

Cap Spending Increases to Population and Inflation Growth

To slow the growth of state government, lawmakers should consider implementing a spending cap tied to population and inflation growth. This approach would essentially freeze inflationadjusted spending over time, reducing budget uncertainty for taxpayers and lawmakers as well. It would also ensure that more money is left in the private sector where it will experience its greatest rate of return[ix].

Since 2016, average annual combined base ETF and GF spending growth has been 5.1%. In the last five 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 grown much more slowly, averaging 0.76% over the past five years. Increases in inflation have outpaced population growth over the past five 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 government. In other words, those years were an outlier. From 2015-2019 annual inflation averaged 1.82%.

Using population plus inflation as a spending cap would significantly limit growth compared to recent years. For example, if FY 2026 spending had been limited by such a cap, it would have been restricted to growth of no more than 3 6%, approximately 3 6% below the FY 2026 enacted levels. A population plus inflation 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 flexibility for lawmakers, allowing spending to rise when there are spikes in population and/or inflation.

Capping spending increases based on population plus inflation growth is a measured approach that does not force lawmakers to cut current spending levels, but also will reduce the future burden placed on Alabama’s taxpayers

Conclusion

While it is too early to determine exactly how and how much of the more than $2 billion total state revenue surplus will be spent in 2026, the bottom line remains that the state collected more tax dollars than ever from Alabama citizens last year. Additional government funds ultimately belong to the citizens that paid them to the state. Surpluses should be used to decrease the future tax burden placed on all Alabamians and/or focused on projects that will have the greatest overall benefit for all citizens. They should not be used to further increase the size and scope of Alabama’s state government.

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

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Protect 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

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’ rights to health freedom.

Current Law

Since 2021, several laws to protect Alabamians from health related mandates have been enacted by the Legislature. During 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 coronavirus vaccine. It also authorized a review by the Alabama Department of Labor before an individual was terminated 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 barred schools from inquiring about the vaccination status of minors. The law remains in effect [v] Some advocates of the bills criticized it for not doing enough to protect the health freedom of Alabamians.

In May 2024 the legislature enacted Senate Bill 72 by Senator Arthur Orr, which prohibits the state medical boards from disciplining physicians for prescribing or recommending off-label treatments[vi]. During the 2025 regular session, Senate Bill43, sponsored by Senator Tim Melson, was enacted by the Legislature. The bill forbids insurers from penalizing doctors or pharmacists for informing patients about treatment costs or alternatives[vii].

Also in 2025, SB101 by Senator Larry 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 majority in Alabama, nineteen, during the 2026 regular session.

Alabama Legislative Proposals

During the 2025 session, Representative Chip Brown filed House Bill 79 which would have prevented the State Board of Pharmacy and employers from disciplining pharmacists 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 floor for a final vote[ix].

Representative Mack Butler and Senator Arthur Orr both filed 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 Orr’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 floor for a final 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 government entity from implementing, ordering, or otherwise imposing a mask mandate to prevent the spread of COVID-19 or any other communicable disease. This includes K-12 public and charter schools. Exceptions to the proposed law were allowed for medical or dental facilities licensed by the Alabama Department of Public Health and state or local detention facilities. The bill received a favorable report from the House Health Committee but was not considered by the full body [xi].

House Bill 165, which was introduced by Representative Chip Brown during 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). Specifically, the bill stated that “an unemancipated minor may not give consent to the administration of a vaccination for himself or herself without the written consent of a parent or legal guardian.” Certain exceptions were provided such as the unemancipated minor not being dependent on a parent or legal guardian for support, if they were living apart 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 Judiciary Committee but failed to be brought to the Senate floor for a final vote.

Representative Brown filed 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 Judiciary Committee early in the 2025 regular session, but never came to the Senate floor for a vote.

During the 2023 regular session, State Representative Ernie Yarbrough and eight cosponsors introduced House Bill 324. Referred to as the Alabama Health Freedom Act, the bill would have prohibited employers, most public places and establishments, and occupational licensing boards from discriminating against an individual based on immunization status.

Any person discriminated against or otherwise adversely impacted based on vaccination status would have been permitted to seek civil action against the responsible party, with the Alabama Attorney General also authorized to pursue civil penalties [xiii].

Representative Yarbrough has prefiled a similar bill relating the vaccine discrimination, House Bill 12, for the 2026 legislative session.

Reforms in Other States

Idaho

During its 2025 legislative session Idaho lawmakers approved Senate Bill 1210, the Medical Freedom Act, which bans any business or government entity (state or local) from requiring any medical intervention, broadly defined to include any procedure, vaccine, drug injection or treatment, for employment, entry into facilities, school attendance, etc.

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

Florida

In 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 252 into law, prohibiting discrimination against individuals based on their health care choices. Provisions include prohibiting businesses, charitable organization, governmental entities, and most education institutions from requiring proof of vaccination or COVID-19 testing, as well as mask mandates.

The bill further prohibits government entities and education institutions from enforcing the health policies or guidelines of an international health organization unless authorized by law or executive order [xv]. Beyond mandates and restrictions, the Florida law prohibits hospitals from interfering with a patient’s right to choose alternative COVID-19 treatments, such as ivermectin.

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 private business vaccine mandates, while two enacted legislation requiring vaccination. From 2020 to 2022, 26 states limited public entry mandates. Three states and the District of Columbia enacted legislation requiring proof of vaccination upon entry into their boundaries.

Conclusion

Health freedom is a core right of not only all Alabamians, but of all Americans. It is, quite literally, what the US Declaration of Independence is referring to when it states the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are fundamental, unalienable rights given from our Creator rather than any level of government. "Life" refers to the right to exist and live, "liberty" is the freedom to make your choices for yourself, and the "pursuit of happiness" is the right to seek fulfillment and live a life you find meaningful. The phrase emphasizes that these rights are inherent and cannot be taken away, though their exercise can be limited to prevent harm to others (but not yourself).

Alabamians should be able to choose what treatments they and their dependent family members receive without government opinion, intervention, 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. Further, no Alabamian should face discrimination, whether by the state or businesses establishments for their sincerely held beliefs. The Alabama Legislature has a duty to protect these inherent rights from the tyranny of the majority.

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 rule, regulation, or mandate requiring financial expenditures from citizens can go into effect it must first be approved by Congress. A major regulation is defined 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 doctrine, a principle that states that legislative bodies cannot delegate their powers to executive branch agencies or private entities. By giving agencies broad regulatory powers, federal and state lawmakers are consistently violating this principle[ii].

While the federal REINS Act has been introduced in every Congress 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 efforts are part of a broader nationwide push to restore legislative control, increase democratic accountability, and limit regulatory overreach by unelected officials.

In addition to requiring votes on costly regulations, recent reform proposals in Alabama and elsewhere emphasize greater guidance transparency, executive oversight, and judicial checks. For example, agencies often issue guidance documents to interpret or implement laws without going through formal rulemaking, a practice that can sidestep public input New reforms call for shining a light on this practice by mandating that significant agency guidance be publicly disclosed and subject to oversight[iii].

Similarly, improving Executive Oversight of Grants means requiring high-level review before state agencies commit to major federal grant programs. This step helps align grant-funded programs with state priorities and guards against agencies obligating the state to costly or misaligned initiatives[iv].

Additionally, Alabama policymakers are considering ways to recalibrate the balance of power between agencies and the other branches of government. One important step is to end judicial deference to agencies. After a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision curtailed the federal Chevron deference doctrine, Alabama’s legislature has pursued its own Judicial Non-Deference law to ensure courts interpret state laws de novo rather than automatically siding with agency interpretations. This reform would protect citizens from having “the scales tipped” in favor of agency bureaucrats when disputes arise over what laws or rules mean[v].

At the same time, lawmakers across the country are working to reinforce their investigative powers through enhanced Legislative Subpoena Power. By bolstering the legislature’s ability to compel testimony and documents from agencies, the state can better uncover inefficiencies, mismanagement, or regulatory abuses and hold the executive branch accountable during oversight hearings. All of these measures, from cost accounting of federal funds to transparency in guidance, stronger oversight of grants, judicial non-deference, and subpoena power share a common purpose with the REINS Act: reining in the administrative state and reasserting the primacy of elected officials in major policy decisions.

By implementing the reforms described above, Alabama can better manage the complexity of federal-state programs and ensure that major policy changes, whether through regulations or grant conditions, undergo proper scrutiny by those elected to represent the public. Ultimately, these efforts aim to safeguard our democratic governance. 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 authority is governed 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 comprised of members of the Legislative Council, is responsible for overseeing the process[vi]. Under current law, an agency must give at least 35 days’ notice of its intended rulemaking action, i.e. adopting, amending, or repealing a rule, with a public comment period included. All proposed rules must be published in the Alabama Administrative Monthly. The Legislative Services Agency is responsible for maintaining the Alabama Administrative Code, and all final rules must be certified by LSA before they can take effect.

All rulemaking authority under the APA is subject to the legislative oversight of the Joint Committee on Administration. LSA assists the committee in determining if a rule submission clearly exceeds an agency’s rulemaking authority.

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

The economic impact statement must include a determination of the need for the rule and its expected benefit, a determination of the costs and benefits associated with the rule, the effect of the rule on competition, the effect of the rule on cost of living and doing business in the area that it will be implemented, the effect of the rule on employment, the source of revenue being used to implement the rule, an analysis of the short and long-term economic impact upon all persons substantially affected by the rule, any uncertainties associated with the estimate, the effect of the rule on the environment and public health, and the potentially detrimental effect on the environment and public health if the rule is not implemented[vii].

Once the date for comments and completion of public notice expires, final certification of the rule must occur within 90 days If it does not occur within the 90 day period, the agency is required to start the process over. After considering all public comments, the agency may adopt the rule with or without changes. Once the final rule 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 rule goes into effect, the Joint Committee on Administration may convene a hearing to disapprove the rule 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 period[viii]

What Other States Are Doing Wisconsin

In 2017 the Wisconsin Legislature enacted the Wisconsin Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. Under the law, agencies must first submit a statement of scope to the Wisconsin Department of Administration which then determines whether an agency has the authority to issue the rule before it is presented to the governor. An agency cannot begin drafting a rule until the statement of scope is approved[ix].

Next, if the proposed rule 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 rule. The cost of the analysis must be paid by the agency if it varies 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 governor for final approval[xi].

Florida

In 2010 the Florida Legislature enacted House Bill 1565, another REINS style act. The law requires an agency to prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs (SERC) for any proposed rule that is expected to cost in excess of $200,000 in the first year of implementation or more than $1,000,000 over a five-year period. The SERC must include the estimated impact on economic growth, private-sector job creation or employment, or private sector investment, an analysis of business competitiveness, any transactional costs likely to be incurred by individuals, entities, or small businesses, and a description of any regulatory alternatives[xii].

Any agency rule that exceeds the $200,000 of cost over one-year or $1,000,000 in cost over fiveyear threshold must be approved by the Legislature

In 2024, Kansas and Indiana followed the examples of Wisconsin and Florida by enacting their own REINS style laws. In Kansas, lawmakers are now required to approve any rule with implementation and compliance costs of more than $1,000,000 over a five-year period[xiii].

Indiana law does not require approval by the full legislature but does require approval by the Budget Committee for any proposed rule with estimated implementation and compliance costs of more than $1,000,000 over two-years. The governor may not approve such rules 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 flowing into state agencies. One reform focus is “true cost” accounting of federal grants, making sure policymakers and the public know the financial obligations that come with federal money. For example, Montana law requires the Governor to submit a report to the legislature estimating the annual costs of federal mandates on the state, based on surveys of state agencies.

This helps illuminate the hidden matching costs or regulatory burdens tied to federal grants. Likewise, Oklahoma created a public transparency system through a 2016 law, which directed the state to modify its online budget portal 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 asserting more oversight control before accepting federal grants. Several legislatures have considered requiring executive or legislative approval for agency grant applications, especially if a grant 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 Governor and legislature with a detailed cost–benefit analysis and a list of all compliance mandates before applying for any federal grant. It also calls for the Governor’s explicit approval before an agency submits the grant application[xvi].

Proposals in this vein have been discussed in states like West Virginia and Idaho in recent years, often as part of broader “Federal Funds Accountability” acts By scrutinizing grants 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 regulatory obligations attached.

Guidance Transparency

Another emerging reform is guidance transparency, which targets the often-unseen influence of federal agencies on state policy through informal directives. Federal agencies regularly issue guidance documents, memos, and advisory letters that, while not legally binding, strongly shape how states implement programs, effectively steering state regulations without going through formal rulemaking. These can include “Dear Colleague” letters or agency guidance on topics from education standards to environmental enforcement. Historically, such guidance might be quietly followed by state agencies with little public awareness, since guidance doesn’t undergo the notice-and-comment process of formal rules[xvii].

To address this, some states are looking to shine light on any federal instructions that state bureaucrats receive and act upon. For example, a 2025 transparency initiative led by Americans for Prosperity has urged states to pass laws requiring 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 rulemaking by ensuring that informal 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 rule of law. It ensures that significant policy changes aren’t happening via memos, and it empowers state officials to openly question or refuse federal guidance that isn’t in their state’s interest[xix].

Judicial Deference

In the judicial arena, a growing number of states have moved to curtail or eliminate the practice of courts deferring to administrative agencies’ interpretations 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 vary. Five states achieved this through state supreme court decisions that rejected or overturned deference precedents. Others took legislative or constitutional routes. Florida’s voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2018 explicitly prohibiting state courts from deferring to an agency’s interpretation of any state statute or rule. This amendment now requires Florida judges to review agency actions de novo, ensuring that judges interpret 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 courts. 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 interpretation.

Similarly, Wisconsin and Tennessee passed laws instructing courts to use independent judgment on regulatory questions. The Goldwater Institute and Pacific Legal Foundation have actively promoted such reforms, arguing they restore a constitutional balance by making agencies legally accountable to the same degree as any litigant[xxii].

Subpoena Power

State legislatures are likewise bolstering their investigative and oversight tools to keep executive agencies in check. One important mechanism is the power to subpoena agency officials and records during legislative inquiries.

Historically, many state legislatures have had subpoena authority on paper, but recent reforms seek to strengthen and clarify its use in overseeing agencies. In Nebraska, lawmakers advanced Legislative Bill 298 in 2025 to create a new permanent Division of Legislative Oversight along with a special oversight committee. Under this proposal, the Legislature’s inspectors general and audit offices would be consolidated for more robust investigations.

Notably, the bill reaffirms that the legislature’s oversight bodies hold subpoena power to demand documents and answers from executive agencies, with the approval of a majority of the legislature’s Executive Board. This ensures that if agencies refuse to provide information, legislators can compel compliance in a formal legal manner[xxiii].

Other states have taken or considered similar steps. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in recent years saw high-profile legislative investigations where committees issued subpoenas to agencies and even went to court to affirm their validity. In response, legislators in some states are updating statutes to make enforcement of legislative subpoenas more straightforward.

In 2023, Tennessee studied giving its legislative committees clearer authority to swear in witnesses and demand records from state departments, mirroring Congress’s investigatory powers By enhancing subpoena and investigatory powers, state lawmakers aim to increase transparency and accountability from the executive branch. These reforms reinforce the principle that agencies are ultimately answerable to the public’s representatives. Whether it’s uncovering mismanagement, reviewing how federal funds are used, or simply obtaining data needed for policymaking, a stronger investigative arm of the legislature helps prevent executive agencies from operating in secret or outside their legal authority.

Opportunities for Reform

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

In addition, targeted reforms can ensure that the legislature and other elected officials maintain authority over regulatory policy and state-federal interactions. Notably, a recent analysis ranked Alabama among the states most vulnerable to federal agency influence, underscoring the need for improved oversight[xxiv].

Key opportunities for reform include:

Confirm Agency Authority Before Rulemaking

Currently, an agency’s legal authority to promulgate a rule is verified only after a draft rule is submitted for review. Alabama could adopt a process like Wisconsin’s, requiring agencies to obtain an upfront determination that they have statutory authority for any proposed rule before they begin drafting it. For example, agencies could submit a “statement of scope” describing the intended regulation to an executive oversight office or to the Legislative Services Agency for confirmation. By ensuring an agency’s authority is affirmed at the outset, lawmakers can alter or stop unauthorized rule proposals early in the process.

Enable Independent Economic Impact Analysis

While agencies must provide an economic impact statement for proposed rules, 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 external analyses of a proposed rule’s economic impact. This outside review could be triggered for regulations expected to have significant 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 significantly understated. Independent reviews would ensure that regulatory 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 defined 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, Florida now mandates legislative approval for any rule costing over $1 million in a five-year period, and Kansas and Indiana recently set roughly $1 million thresholds for requiring legislative approval of new rules. Alabama’s threshold should be set low enough to catch regulations with significant economic impact on citizens or businesses. If a proposed rule’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 grants, it is critical to assess the true cost of accepting federal money. Federal grants often come with strings attached that can strain state resources. Agencies should be required to produce a comprehensive cost analysis before Alabama commits to any major federal grant. This analysis should detail not only the immediate federal dollars offered, but also any expected state fund matches, future maintenance or program costs, new regulations the state must implement, and any other obligations over time. By illuminating the full fiscal and regulatory impact of federal funds, Alabama can avoid committing to programs that burden state budgets or undermine 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 grants via a centralized public website. Currently, some information on federal awards is available through federal sites like USAspending.gov, but state policymakers and citizens would benefit from an Alabama specific portal tracking each federal grant the state or its agencies accept. Such a portal should list, in plain language, the key implementation details of each grant. 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 informed decisionmaking[xxvi].

Disclose Federal Guidance Documents

State agencies often receive informal guidance or directives from federal agencies that, while not legally binding, strongly influence how state programs are run. To bring these often unseen federal influences into the open, Alabama should require that any federal guidance received by a state agency be promptly published or reported to state officials and made accessible to the public. Federal agencies have been known to use guidance documents to suggest how states should implement programs, sometimes effectively pressuring states to act beyond what is explicitly required by law. Because these communications typically bypass legislative oversight and public notice, they can lead to significant policy shifts. Requiring agencies to disclose all federal guidance will increase transparency on informal 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 official (such as the Governor) before accepting federal grants or funds. Alabama law already places federal grant coordination under the Governor’s purview via the Office of State Planning and Federal Programs and the Executive Budget Office. Building on this, a formal requirement for gubernatorial (or other elected executive) sign-off on each grant would guarantee that unelected bureaucrats are not unilaterally binding the state to federal grant conditions[xxviii].

End Judicial Deference to Agency Interpretations

Alabama’s courts should follow the recent federal example and clarify that judges will not automatically defer to state agencies’ interpretations of statutes. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, which had required federal judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws. The Court’s message was clear: it is the judiciary’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 Arthur Orr was proposed during the 2025 regular session and would have instructed Alabama courts to consider an agency’s interpretation but not defer to it, instead favoring interpretations that limit agency power and maximize individual liberty[xxix]. Implementing a judicial non-deference policy would mean that when a statute is unclear, Alabama judges would interpret it based on the law’s text and intent, without deferring to the agency’s view. This change reinforces the separation of powers and helps ensure that policy decisions remain with elected lawmakers and neutral courts, rather than being effectively made by agencies through their interpretations.

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 authority to issue subpoenas, not all have formally established procedures that make using this power straightforward[xxx].

Alabama should explicitly affirm in statute that legislative committees can issue subpoenas to agency officials and third parties as needed, enforceable in court 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 identified as a key component of state resilience against federal overreach because it allows a legislature to probe whether state agencies are enforcing laws as intended and whether any external pressures are leading them astray. In short, this reform would ensure that when the legislature needs answers or information from an agency, it can compel cooperation, a fundamental check and balance in the oversight process[xxxi].

Conclusion

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, regulations and rules made by unelected employees at state agencies can have a significant negative impact on Alabama’s economy, businesses, and citizens. Moreover, federal funds and informal mandates can influence state policy outside the normal legislative process.

Strengthening oversight through measures like the REINS Act and the complementary reforms outlined above will re-balance authority back toward Alabama’s elected officials Before any regulation with a significant cost impact is allowed to become effective, it should first be transparently analyzed, debated, and approved or denied by the lawmakers elected to represent all Alabamians.

By improving transparency, requiring accountability for federal involvement, and reaffirming the legislature’s and judiciary’s roles, Alabama can protect its citizens from undue regulatory burdens and preserve the principle of self-governance.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Require State 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 permitted in Section 36-25A-7(a) or as otherwise expressly provided by other federal or state statutes, all meetings of a governmental body shall be open to the public and no meetings of a governmental body may be held without providing notice”[ii].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Kay Ivey opened the door to allowing teleconference meetings for local units of government for business that was necessary to government. As the COVID-19 pandemic wound down, local units of government and school boards returned 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 current Open Meetings Act allows for some members of a governmental body to meet via video conferencing or teleconferencing if the body is comprised of members from two or more counties. Still, current law does not give participatory rights 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 participating in a meeting of a governmental body by electronic means as authorized in this section, the governmental 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 governmental body is not required to allow the public to participate by electronic means to any extent beyond being able to hear the meeting[iv].”

Reforms in Other States

Indiana

In 2023, Indiana enacted House Bill 1167, which was further 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 governing 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 specifically relating to school boards. Senate Bill 77, which became law in May, requires that local district school boards, charter school boards, and special school boards must adopt a policy that provides real-time livestream access to the public for every 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 January 1, 2026[vi].

California

In California, members of the public attending a meeting via teleconference must be given the same rights 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 certain requirements, particularly that the legislative body notice each teleconference location of each member that will be participating 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 quorum of the legislative body participate from locations within the boundaries of the local agency’s jurisdiction[vii].”

Potential for Reforms

Across the country and in the state of Alabama, the groundwork to expand access to streaming or teleconferencing options for all units of government has been laid, but Alabama has a unique opportunity to be among the most transparent states in the nation.

In the furtherance of transparency, the Alabama legislature livestreams its deliberations both for meetings of the whole and various House and Senate committees, setting a precedent for regulatory bodies, local units of government, and school boards to do so. Many local units of government and school boards also continue to provide teleconferencing and video options to concerned citizens despite no law requiring 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 governing bodies to live stream and archive all public meetings. A stronger reform would be to follow the Indiana model and require most government bodies to livestream and archive all meetings.

Conclusion

In an age where providing transparency to concerned citizens has never been easier, requiring deliberative bodies and units of government to provide teleconferencing or video options is a commonsense solution that will come at minimal cost to local and state governments. As the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”, and this legislation would be a significant step in the right 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 appropriate response for a conservative legislator. Any attempts to expand gambling or establish a state-run lottery should be rebuffed. Instead, the legislature should look at ways to better enforce, and increase current gambling prohibitions and penalties.

Current Law

Lotteries and most forms of gambling are banned under Alabama state law.

Section 65 of the Alabama Constitution states that “The legislature shall have no power to authorize lotteries or gift enterprises for any purposes, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale in this state of lottery or gift enterprise tickets, or tickets in any scheme in the nature of a lottery; and all acts, or parts of acts heretofore passed by the legislature of this state, authorizing a lottery or lotteries, and all acts amendatory thereof, or supplemental thereto, are hereby avoided [iv].”

Section 13A-12-20 of the Code of Alabama defines gambling as engaging in activity that “stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.” Further, Alabama code defines a gambling device as “any device, machine, paraphernalia or equipment that is normally 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 Regulatory Act of 198 (IGRA) eight established a jurisdictional framework for the promotion of Indian gambling operations. There are currently 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 agreement 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 lottery, table games, or sports betting, most attorneys agree that the Poarch Creek Indians would also receive that authority.

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

Online sports betting, which is perhaps one of the most dangerous forms 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 pari-mutuel gambling in conjunction with horse and dog racing Since there are currently no active horse or dog racing tracks in Alabama, gambling operators devised a scheme to create “pari-mutuel betting” via historical horse and dog races. Pari-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 wagering pool [x].

2025 Alabama Legislation

House Bill 41, introduced by Representative Matthew Hammett, sought to crack down on illegal gambling by elevating certain offenses from misdemeanors to felonies. The legislation explicitly clarified the definition of illegal gambling devices, making clear that electronic games of chance, video lottery terminals, and historical 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 first offense (up to 10 years in prison) and a Class B felony for subsequent offenses. Conspiring 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 significant fines per illegal machine or large quantities of illegal lottery materials.

House Bill 41 specified 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 historical 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 pari-mutuel wagering on historical horse races via computerized 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 distributed to local entities in Greene County. Senate Bill 90 passed the Alabama Senate in April 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 lottery tickets were given back as prizes, and about four cents were used to cover retailing and administrative expenses. The remainder about twentynine cents was then earmarked for the programs the lottery 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 prizes has increased from 62% to 67% [xiii]

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

Lottery Effects on the Poor

While people from every income level gamble, people experiencing poverty are most adversely affected because it is harder for them to afford losses. Unfortunately, they also spend more on lottery tickets on an absolute scale.

According to a 2019 survey of 2,377 individuals by Bankrate.com, households earning less than $30,000 per year spent 13% of their income on lottery tickets, compared with just 1% for households earning $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 earning $50,000 or more) [xiv].

According to a comprehensive 2022 study by the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism at the University of Maryland, stores selling lottery tickets are disproportionately 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 lottery retailers than those without in many states [xv].

A 2010 Journal of Gambling Studies report found that 61% of Americans in the lowest economic quintile were likely to have played the lottery 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 Benefits

When money is spent on gambling, it is not spent on other goods and services in the same community; instead, it moves money around. Examples of this “substitution effect” have been documented in Florida, Mississippi, Nebraska, and New York. In states where casino gambling is a true destination Connecticut, Nevada, New Jersey, and Mississippi significant revenue is collected from visitors outside the local economy, while the social costs associated with visiting return 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 growth. In fact, during the Great Recession (2007-2008), retail sales in casino communities shrank at a rate two to three times greater than those in noncasino communities. Employment in casino communities also grew slower across the entire study period [xviii].

Not a “Fix” for State Budgets

Legalized gambling adds little to the bottom line of most states. According to state finance data from the U.S. Census Bureau and casino tax revenue reported by the American Gaming Association, combined tax revenues from non-tribal casinos, lotteries, sports gambling, and stand-alone electronic gambling devices represented only 1.7% of the $2.2 trillion spent by state governments in 2021 [xix].

Mississippi’s experience using gambling revenues for its budget is a cautionary 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 inflation). The reasons: internal competition from tribal casinos and the allure of newer attractions in Arkansas and Louisiana [xx].

Alabama’s fortunes would be no better: If the state could raise the tax revenue estimated in Gov. Ivey’s 2020 gambling report, it would equal only 1.6% of the state’s $43.2 billion budget for fiscal year 2023.

Some states with sports gambling have also been disappointed with their earnings. According to investigative research by the New York Times, the fourteen states that allowed mobile sports betting in the 2021-2022 fiscal 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 patterns that compromise, disrupt or damage personal, family, or vocational pursuits. The symptoms include increasing preoccupation with gambling, a need to bet more money more frequently, restlessness or irritability when attempting to stop, “chasing” losses, and loss of control manifested by continuation of the gambling behavior in spite of mounting, serious, negative consequences. In some cases, problem gambling can result in financial ruin, legal problems, loss of career and family, or suicide [xxii].

Social Costs

For some people, gambling creates difficulties of varying severity and duration that also harm 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 form 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 performance, moodiness, and irritability [xxiii].

Crime

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

Links between gambling and crime have been found:

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

• In 1998, a survey 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 arrestees 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 criteria for problem gambling. For all arrestees combined, 15% of all assaults, 27% of all thefts, and 24% of all drug sales were committed to get money to gamble, pay off gambling debts, or were otherwise related to their gambling problem. Of the 4% of Des Moines and 10% of Las Vegas arrestees 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 criminal activity. The prevalence of disordered gambling is greater among offenders than in the general population. There is a clear need to screen those who commit criminal acts for gambling problems and to address problem gambling among offending populations, as they may be at increased risk, and most in need of treatment.

• According to the GA Department of Behavior Health & Development Disabilities, Roughly 50.0% of problem gamblers commit crimes and 68.8% of offenders assessed as severe problem gamblers reported 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 mental disorder is high:

• According to a 2006 report in the Journal of Affective Disorders, about 25% of gamblers with serious addiction problems manifest manic behavior, and over half report being depressed.

• A systematic review of the literature in 2011 surrounding 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 effects of problem gambling are so severe that the gambler seriously considers or attempts to take their own life:

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

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

• Compared to the general population, gamblers with serious 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 lottery, the state is harming the freedom of Alabama citizens and forfeiting a significant amount of money to neighboring states. Whether any meaningful economic gains would be realized from expanding gambling is questionable. The creation of a structure to establish and manage a state lottery will grow state government. Any proceeds to the budgetary coffers will also grow state government.

Gambling bills that have recently been under consideration were fraught with corrupting influences and principles adverse to free market principles. Negative societal impacts of the expansion of gambling or creating a state condoned/managed lottery would bring are undeniable. Alabama lawmakers should embrace the principles of free markets and limited government. Alabama lawmakers should further protect the most vulnerable of our citizens from harm. 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 Try 2.0 also put safeguards in place for patients, manufacturers, and healthcare providers. Any Right to Try 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-party Institutional Review Board evaluate proposed research projects to ensure they are administered ethically, and ensuring that a patient understands the experimental nature of the treatment. Drug 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 drug, biological product, or device[iv]. As of late 2025, sixteen states have enacted “Right to Try for Individualized Treatments” laws modeled on the Goldwater Institute’s proposal[v].

Current Law

Under current 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 trial process which can often take years and even decades to result in final approval. The current 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 progress has been made over the past decade In 2015, the Alabama Legislature enacted the original Right to Try legislation (as did 40 other states and the federal government). The original Right to Try legislation allows terminally ill patients who have considered all other FDA approved treatment options to use non-approved investigational drugs, biological products, and devices. However, the original Right to Try Act still requires that any treatment used by a patient must have successfully completed a Phase 1 clinical trial. In other words, the FDA is still involved in the process[vi].

During the 2025 Regular Session, Senator Tim Melson introduced Senate Bill 299 to allow certain non-FDA-approved stem cell therapies for patients, with strict informed consent and disclosure requirements. The bill defined “stem cell therapy” (excluding fetal/embryonic cells from abortion) and required providers to give written notice that the treatment is not FDAapproved and obtain a signed consent detailing the nature, risks, and alternatives. Senate Bill 299 stalled in the Senate Healthcare Committee and was never brought to the Senate floor for a vote. Supporters argued the bill would empower patients and doctors to try cutting-edge treatments, [vii].

What Other States are Doing

Goldwater Institute Model Legislation

On the heels of the original Right to Try legislation becoming federal law May 2018, the Goldwater Institute began drafting model legislation that would ultimately become Right to Try 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 government agency (such as the State Medicaid Agency) to pay for the cost of treatment. Further, it does not require any licensed hospital or medical facility to provide additional services[viii].

The Goldwater model legislation further provides that a state licensing board or disciplinary 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 harm done as a result of using an individualized investigative treatment.

Georgia

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

Colorado

In 2025, Colorado, which pioneered the original Right to Try in 2014, updated its law to include individualized investigational therapies. House Bill 1270, sponsored by a bipartisan group of representatives, was approved in committee with unanimous support and ultimately passed both chambers. It was signed by Governor 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 mirrors key provisions of the Goldwater model, requiring that treatments be based on the patient’s genomic profile and subject to ethical oversight, thereby ensuring patient safety while removing delays for one-of-a-kind therapies[x].

Mississippi

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

Louisiana

During the 2024 legislative session, Louisiana lawmakers passed the Hope for Louisiana Patients Law into statute. Like the Mississippi Right to Try 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 priority for Alabama’s lawmakers during the 2026 Regular Legislative Session. Adopting Right to Try 2.0 will expand both the hope and treatment options for patients across the state, particularly for those with rare and terminal diseases. It is an opportunity 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 Accreditation 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. Efforts by accreditors to influence curriculum, diversity policies, free speech practices, or faculty governance may place institutions in conflict with state priorities. Without statutory protection, Alabama’s institutions remain vulnerable to external governance that does not reflect the state’s laws or values. Acting now allows the state to preempt overreach before it threatens autonomy, compliance, or federal funding.

Current Law

Alabama currently has no statute to protect public colleges and universities from accreditor overreach. Institutions operate under contracts and guidelines set by accrediting agencies, leaving them with little legal recourse if accreditors demand actions that conflict with state law or local governance.[ix] To remain eligible for federal financial aid, institutions must maintain accreditation from a USDE-recognized agency. Loss of accreditation, or even probationary 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 currently no mechanism for the state or the institution to challenge that decision.

Proposed Reform

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

Specifically, 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 Attorney 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 requiring institutions to rotate accreditors between cycles, choosing from a list of federally recognized agencies. Safe harbor provisions would ensure continuity of accreditation and uninterrupted access to federal financial aid during any transition period.

Reform in Other States

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

Florida also created an alternative accrediting body, the Commission for Public Higher Education, to diversify options beyond the regional accreditor SACSCOC.[xiii]

Iowa adopted a complementary but narrower 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 authorizes both the institutions and the Attorney 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 Florida to explore alternative accreditation pathways. Its policymakers have expressed interest in reforms that would expand institutional choice, promote multi-state coordination, and reduce dependency on SACSCOC.

Together, these states illustrate a clear policy roadmap. Florida emphasizes structural reform and legal remedy, Iowa prioritizes protection from retaliation, and Louisiana advances regional cooperation and flexibility. Each offers valuable lessons for Alabama’s legislative framework.

Conclusion

Accreditation reform 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 reform, Alabama’s institutions remain vulnerable to external governance that does not reflect the state’s priorities or values.

Adopting an Accreditation Autonomy Act would restore balance. By ensuring that institutions cannot be punished for following state law and by permitting rotation among federally recognized accreditors, Alabama can uphold academic integrity while maintaining eligibility for federal funding The reform would not weaken quality standards; it would ensure those standards are applied without ideological pressure.

Florida, Iowa, and Louisiana have demonstrated that autonomy and accountability can coexist. Their actions prove that states can assert independence, foster competition among accreditors, and protect institutional freedom without jeopardizing federal compliance. Alabama now has the opportunity to join that leadership group by enacting its own Accreditation Autonomy Act. Doing so would affirm that academic excellence, lawful governance, and self-determination 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 reform has emphasized parental choice and community engagement, the absence of clear zoning pathways for microschools limits the state’s capacity to expand flexible learning options. Families who might otherwise benefit from small, neighborhood-based education providers face a system that favors large institutions and rigid structures. If Alabama seeks to compete with leading school-choice states, it must modernize its legal framework to accommodate nontraditional schools while maintaining reasonable safety and accountability standards.

Current Law

Under current Alabama law, there are no specific statutory 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 classifications that require extensive parking, green space, and traffic-control measures inappropriate for a learning environment of fewer than 30 students.[xi] In other cases, microschools are required to apply for special-use permits, an expensive and timeconsuming process that can delay or prevent opening altogether.[xii]

Because these laws were written decades before the emergence of microschools, they fail to account for small-scale learning environments that operate safely and effectively outside the traditional school model. This creates uncertainty. Large schools with legal and financial resources can navigate zoning challenges, while families or small operators seeking to establish community-based microschools are often discouraged by the regulatory burden.

Reforms in Other States

Florida provides one of the most comprehensive frameworks for microschool and smallschool zoning reform. In 2024, the Florida Legislature enacted HB 1285, which expanded legal recognition of microschools and clarified that local governments may not impose zoning or permitting requirements that treat them differently from other forms of private education. [xiii] The law preempts counties and municipalities from restricting the operation of microschools and other private educational institutions in residential or community spaces, so long as they meet established health, safety, and occupancy standards.[xiv] Florida’s approach emphasizes regulatory uniformity, parental choice, and the protection of non-traditional education models from unnecessary local interference.

Arizona offers another strong model of reform. In 2018, the state passed HB 2461, titled “Zoning Regulations; Private Schools.”[xv] This law prohibits municipalities and counties from adopting or enforcing zoning rules that impose a minimum lot size greater than one acre for private schools and requires that private and charter schools be treated equally under local zoning ordinances.[xvi]

Although the bill was not drafted exclusively for microschools, it has since been cited by Arizona policymakers as an enabling precedent for small, community-based learning environments. The state has continued to promote flexible schooling arrangements through its expansive Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program and through the recognition of microschools as legitimate educational institutions within existing statutes [xvii]

Louisiana has taken preliminary steps toward similar flexibility. While it has not yet enacted comprehensive microschool zoning reform, lawmakers have introduced measures that aim to recognize hybrid and home-based educational settings as legitimate learning environments. [xviii] Louisiana’s Department of Education has also streamlined private-school registration processes to accommodate microschools operating under religious or private status, reducing regulatory barriers and improving access for parents and educators.[xix]

Together, these states illustrate the range of possible approaches to protecting microschools from restrictive zoning and permitting requirements. Florida’s law creates clear statewide uniformity, Arizona’s statute ensures parity and reasonable land-use standards, and Louisiana’s emerging framework seeks to modernize its educational code.

Proposed Reforms in Alabama

A meaningful policy reform 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 serving a limited number of students qualifies as a legitimate school for zoning purposes, regardless of whether it operates in a commercial, religious, or community facility. This would ensure that microschools are not wrongly categorized as childcare centers or denied operation based solely on location.

The reform should also preempt unnecessary local restrictions by authorizing microschools to operate in approved community spaces such as churches, libraries, theaters, or existing educational facilities without requiring additional zoning approvals. Establishing a uniform statewide definition of microschool would allow regulatory consistency.

This framework would preserve the flexibility 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 reform. They provide families with personalized learning, community connection, and academic flexibility unmatched by traditional models. Yet without zoning and land-use reform, these schools will remain out of reach for many families who lack the resources to navigate complex regulatory systems.

Florida’s leadership shows that change is possible. By clarifying zoning rules, protecting microschools from local overreach, and preserving basic safety standards, Alabama can empower educators and parents to create innovative learning environments that serve their communities and better serve students. Enacting a Microschool and Zoning Freedom Act would ensure that Alabama’s education system remains accountable to families, not bureaucracy, while expanding opportunity.

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 crime scene and a time window. The company then returns an anonymized list of all devices that were in that area during that time. After reviewing this list, police can ask for identifying information 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 warrants have already implicated innocent people, subjecting them to police scrutiny or worse. In Florida, a bicyclist named Zachary McCoy was flagged as a burglary suspect solely because his fitness app recorded him riding past the victim’s house. He spent thousands in legal fees to clear his name. Likewise in Arizona, Jorge Molina was wrongfully arrested and jailed for a week in a shooting case after a geofence warrant pinpointed his phone near the crime, even though he had lent the phone to the actual perpetrator[vi].

These examples show how virtual dragnets can generate false leads and seriously damage innocent peoples’ lives. The privacy invasion is not theoretical. Geofence demands have skyrocketed in recent years, meaning more ordinary Americans’ 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 warrants comprised over 25% of all warrants the company processed[vii].

Current Law and the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment requires that no warrant can be issued without probable cause and a description of the specific place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. Geofence warrants present a direct challenge to these principles of particularity and individualized suspicion. Rather than starting with a suspect and probable cause, a geofence search starts with a place and time and seeks to find a suspect by sifting through everyone’s data[viii].

Under the landmark Katz test, a Fourth Amendment search occurs when government intrudes on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Location data can certainly reveal private details of one’s life suggesting a reasonable expectation of privacy in that data. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States that individuals have a privacy interest in their historical cell phone location records (CSLI), despite those records being held by a third-party phone company.

The Court rejected applying the old “third-party doctrine” blindly to cell phone location data, recognizing that in modern 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 privacy in that information[ix].

So far, courts are split on whether geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment. No definitive Supreme Court ruling exists yet, but recent appellate decisions have highlighted the constitutional clash.

This circuit split sets the stage for a likely Supreme Court review in the future. For now, the legality of geofence warrants depends on where you are In some regions, law enforcement continue to use these warrants, while in others the courts have put them off-limits. The law has struggled to keep up with digital-age policing tools like geofencing, leaving citizens’ privacy in a gray area.

As of now, Alabama has no specific law addressing geofence warrants or related digital dragnets. This presents an opportunity for Alabama’s leaders to get ahead of the issue and safeguard Fourth Amendment rights for citizens.

From a broader perspective, the debate over geofence warrants strikes at the heart of the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections. Conservative jurists and scholars emphasize that the Constitution’s framers intended strong restraints on government power, even if that sometimes makes law enforcement’s job harder. Upholding the Fourth Amendment means that expedient crime-fighting methods must still bow to the rule of law and individual rights. Allowing broad data sweeps sets a dangerous precedent, effectively sacrificing the privacy 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 States

Given the uncertainty surrounding geofence warrants, several states have begun exploring legislative reforms to protect privacy.

Utah

In 2023, Utah passed H.B. 57, a nation-leading measure placing strict limits on geofence searches. Utah’s law requires that any geofence warrant be supported by probable cause and that the warrant “particularly describe” the virtual boundaries of the geofence, essentially mandating a specific map of the area to be searched, rather than an open-ended investigation. It also built in transparency and oversight by requiring agencies to publish annual reports on their use of geofence warrants. Utah’s move was praised as a meaningful first step in reining in reverselocation surveillance. However, even Utah’s law doesn’t outright 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 warrants. Legislative proposals in New York (such as Senate Bill S296/A84A) sought to prohibit geofence and keyword warrants outright, declaring that no court shall issue a warrant “for the search of geolocation or keyword data of a group of people who are under no individual suspicion of wrongdoing.” This bold approach won support from privacy advocates, who argued it would protect innocent New Yorkers from dragnet surveillance. Despite bipartisan 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 fight is not over[xiii]

In addition to these state-level efforts, there’s a broader national movement forming. In 2023, recognizing public concern, Google announced changes to its data practices, saying it would shorten the default retention period for the location history data often sought by geofence warrants. This means less historical data might be available for such warrants, somewhat mitigating the privacy risk. Google also claims to rigorously review geofence requests and fight overly broad ones, though ultimately the lack of clear legal standards makes it difficult to rely on corporate discretion to protect privacy[xiv].

It’s clear that state legislatures are beginning to fill the gap where courts and Congress have not yet fully resolved the issue. Notably, these efforts are bipartisan. Republican and Democrat lawmakers alike have co-sponsored anti-geofence bills.

If the courts deem geofence searches “inherently unconstitutional” as general warrants, proactive legislation can reinforce those privacy protections and prevent workarounds or confusion in the meantime.

Potential Reforms in Alabama

API recommends that the legislature consider enacting legislation to ban or strictly limit geofencing warrants in Alabama. Such reform would demonstrate a commitment to constitutional principles and ensure that Alabamians are not subject to mass location tracking by government without individualized cause.

Key elements of a reform could include:

Prohibit General Warrants: Clearly define and prohibit “reverse-location” warrants that lack particularized suspicion. This would effectively ban broad geofence warrants of the type used in other states, while still allowing traditional targeted warrants for electronic data.

Require Probable Cause and Particularity: In scenarios where location warrants are used (perhaps for very serious crimes), require that warrants narrowly limit the geofence in space and time and show probable cause that every device or person in that area is likely connected to the crime

Data Minimization and Deletion: If any reverse-location search is authorized, 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 warrants. It would limit harm to privacy by ensuring innocent citizens’ data isn’t stored or misused.

Transparency and Oversight: Require law enforcement agencies to report annually the number of any geofence warrants sought, and their outcomes. Judicial oversight could also be strengthened by having a higher court review such warrants or ensuring defendants are notified if geofence data was used in their case. Transparency will deter abuse and inform the public and lawmakers if these tools are being overused.

Purchase of Data: Ensure that Alabama agencies cannot simply buy location data from third-party brokers as an end-run around warrant requirements. There is a burgeoning private market of location data which some police have started using to bypass warrant rules. A comprehensive privacy reform should mandate that obtaining citizens’ location data, whether via warrant or purchase, always requires legal process. This protects against outsourcing surveillance to private actors.

By enacting a strong law with these features, Alabama would join the forefront of states defending digital privacy. Law enforcement would retain their ability to solve crimes using technology They could still get warrants 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 crucial for protecting the public’s trust and respecting the fundamental right to privacy.

Conclusion

Geofencing warrants represent a critical test of how we balance investigative technology with constitutional liberty. From a policy perspective, the answer is clear , we must draw a firm line against mass, suspicionless searches that threaten our Fourth Amendment right to privacy Alabama lawmakers must recognize that protecting citizens’ privacy is a cornerstone of limited government. Just as general warrants were abhorrent to the Founding Fathers, today’s digital dragnets must not become the norm.

GUIDE TO THE ISSUES

Reform the Governance of the Alabama High School Athletics Association

Overview

The Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA), is currently operating under a governance structure and set of policies that undermine principles of fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity for all Alabama students. While the AHSAA is legally defined as a private 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 governing body for interscholastic athletics in Alabama that public schools are permitted to join. While membership is technically voluntary, any public school that wants to compete against other public schools or participate in state championships must be an AHSAA member and follow its rules.

Public schools use taxpayer dollars to pay membership fees and use public (taxpayer-funded) facilities, coaches (public employees), and equipment to participate in AHSAA events. This deep integration with the public education system gives the AHSAA enormous influence over public resources and student activities.

The AHSAA's consolidated status as the single athletic governing body for public schools resulted, in part, from a federal court order in 1968, further cementing its unique public role, even though it operates as a private organization.

The AHSAA also utilizes public facilities (high school gymnasiums, stadiums, tracks, etc.) across the state for the vast majority of its regular-season games, tournaments, 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 classification is "private."

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 specifically included in the state's public education benefits system, but this status is currently in transition due to legislative efforts. AHSAA employees are granted access to the Teachers' Retirement System of Alabama (TRS) by specific state law, the Code of Alabama § 16-25-7. All individuals employed in an administrative or clerical capacity by the AHSAA have been deemed "teachers" for the purpose of participating in the TRS. The AHSAA itself pays the employer's contribution cost for this coverage. This arrangement means that AHSAA employees receive the same defined benefit pension plan as public school teachers and administrators, effectively connecting the private association to the state's public employment infrastructure.

Similarly, AHSAA employees have historically been eligible to participate in the Public Education Employees’ Health Insurance Plan (PEEHIP), the state-run health insurance program that is supposed to be reserved for public school and education-related employees.

Ongoing controversy regarding AHSAA's governance 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 participating in both the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) and the Public Education Employees’ Health Insurance Plan (PEEHIP) based upon their employment with the “private entities”.

In summary, AHSAA employees currently enjoy state employment benefits, but this historical link between the private 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 served as the primary regulatory 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 prioritizing the preservation of its own rules over the welfare and opportunities of student-athletes. The core tension lies in the AHSAA’s governance structure, a Central Board of Control composed of twelve members, which currently lacks proportional representation for independent (private) schools, despite these schools comprising nearly onesixth of its membership.[i]

This organizational imbalance has manifested in a regulatory environment that has consistently imposed restrictive and discriminatory policies against private schools, most notably through eligibility regulations concerning financial aid and competitive classification. While all associations must address competitive balance, the AHSAA's approach has been disproportionately punitive toward independent schools, leading to a climate of growing contention and distrust among its stakeholders. The most recent controversy involving the landmark CHOOSE Act has brought these underlying governance flaws to a head, necessitating immediate and decisive action by state leaders.

This erroneous ruling is not an isolated incident it’s part of a broader pattern of AHSAA asserting unchecked power over student participation. There is a troubling history where AHSAA places harsh mandates over fairness often without consideration to legal boundaries, student welfare, fairness, or religious accommodation. The AHSAA denied religious accommodation in 2022 to a high school basketball team forced to forfeit a game due to Sabbath observance. Despite all parties agreeing to a schedule change, AHSAA refused to accommodate the students and their families, showing a complete disregard for religious liberty.[ii] The organization was later forced to change their rules.[iii]

The Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) is currently operating under a governance structure and policies that undermine principles of fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity for all Alabama students. The recent, controversial attempt by the AHSAA to classify Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) established by the CHOOSE Act as "financial aid" for athletic eligibility purposes represents a direct challenge to the legislative intent of a key school choice initiative and an act of clear organizational overreach. Furthermore, the AHSAA’s use of an excessive 1.5 private school multiplier and an imbalanced Central Board structure creates a punitive environment that disproportionately disadvantages non-public school athletes. Legislative oversight and structural reform are immediately necessary to align the AHSAA with modern principles of accountability, transparency, and the fundamental right of all students to educational and athletic opportunities. Our primary recommendations include:

Legislative Oversight: The Alabama Legislature must establish a permanent oversight mechanism, including the power to appoint up to 50% of the Central Board and veto rules deemed contrary to public interest, to ensure the AHSAA adheres to state law, including the spirit and letter of the CHOOSE Act.

Elimination of the Punitive Multiplier: The AHSAA must eliminate the aggressive 1.5 private school multiplier and implement a competitive balance system that applies consistently to all member schools, public and private, based on dynamic performance metrics, not enrollment penalties.

Proportional Representation: Governance must be restructured to ensure proportional representation for the approximately 15% of member schools that are independent institutions, ending the current imbalance that marginalizes their voice.

The passage of the CHOOSE Act in 2024 was a victory for school choice, allowing parents to redirect state funds into Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) to cover a variety of educational expenses. The Act explicitly acknowledges and seeks to resolve potential conflicts 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 governed by the AHSAA.”[iv] Despite this clear legislative language, the AHSAA unilaterally changed its internal rules to count these state-funded ESAs as school-controlled financial aid. This classification triggers a mandated one-year waiting period for any student-athlete transferring 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 misinterpretation; it is an act of institutional defiance of legislative intent. As Governor Kay Ivey and Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter correctly asserted, ESA funds are a redirection of a parent’s tax dollars, following the student, and are not financial aid controlled by the receiving school.[iv] The AHSAA’s rule change represents a significant barrier to educational freedom, directly contradicting the spirit 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 restrictive rule, forcing the state to secure a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to restore student-athletes' rights, highlights a fundamental problem: an unaccountable governing body prioritizing its institutional autonomy over the rights and opportunities of Alabama families.[vi] This judicial intervention was deemed necessary to prevent unnecessary barriers to participation. Furthermore, the AHSAA’s adversarial stance, reportedly asserting that students will be punished if the ongoing litigation is decided in its favor, is a chilling example of its punitive and disproportionate regulatory posture. [vii] The policy position is clear: the AHSAA rule change is a direct penalty on the exercise of school choice, and the state legislature must not allow this overreach to stand.

Beyond the immediate crisis of the CHOOSE Act, the AHSAA has long employed policies that create an intrinsically unfair competitive landscape for independent schools. The most glaring example is the 1.5 multiplier applied to the enrollment figures of all private schools for classification purposes.

The multiplier artificially inflates a private school’s enrollment count by 50%, forcing them into higher athletic classifications than their true size warrants. For example, a mid-sized school like Montgomery Catholic Preparatory is artificially boosted into a higher classification (5A), competing against much larger institutions. [viii]

The stated purpose is to address a perceived competitive advantage of private schools. However, this perception is often false. Data has been cited showing that many private schools have not won championships in decades and serve populations where a significant percentage of students receive free or reduced lunch, directly undercutting the narrative of an inherent structural advantage [viv]

Furthermore, a review of competitive balance measures in surrounding Southeastern states reveals the AHSAA’s multiplier is an outlier in its punitive severity:

STATE BODY

MULTIPLIER FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS

Alabama AHSAA 1.5

IMPACT AND PURPOSE

Highest rate; aggressively increases classification

Georgia GHSA 1 25 Less aggressive adjustment than Alabama

Florida FHSAA

1.0 (no multiplier)

Tennessee TSSAA 1.0 (no multiplier)

Adjusts classifications based on performance metrics.

Focuses on performance and enrollment size alone.

The fact that surrounding Southeastern states like Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Kentucky rely on performance-based metrics and straightforward enrollment counts demonstrates that the AHSAA's aggressive 1.5 multiplier is not a "best practice" for ensuring competitive balance, but rather a punitive mechanism driven by political considerations within an imbalanced governance structure.

The current structure, where only one private school representative (who is scheduled to roll off next) sits on the 12-member Central Board, combined with the disproportionate representation (88% public schools versus 12% private schools in the AHSAA) effectively marginalizes the concerns of independent schools. [x]

This structural imbalance fosters policies like the 1.5 multiplier, which lack fairness and transparent justification, leading to uncertainty and the threat of further restrictive measures such as proposals to fully separate private and public school championship play. [xi]

API believes that the AHSAA must adopt structural reforms that prioritize student opportunity, align with legislative intent, and reflect best practices from across the region. The fundamental issue is the AHSAA’s lack of accountability to the public it serves. While it is a private non-profit, its collection of fees and use of public facilities subject it to public oversight. [xii]

The legislature must establish a statutory check on the AHSAA’s power by legislatively altering their Board Appointment Power Lawmakers should appoint 51% of the AHSAA Central Board of Control, thereby granting the state shared governance authority. This is a reasonable response to the AHSAA's repeated defiance of public policy. In addition, legislative authority should be granted to strike down any AHSAA rules deemed contrary to public interest or the legislative intent of state law, such as the rules regarding the CHOOSE Act.

Competitive balance and Classification processes must be reformed for fairness purposes. The current system is punitive and relies on a flawed premise of advantage. The AHSAA should implement a system based on objective performance by immediately revoking the 1.5 multiplier an implementing a dynamic competitive balance system. They should adopt a performance-based system, similar to those in Florida (FHSAA) and Georgia (GHSA), that utilizes a sliding scale applied equally to all schools (public and private). This system should adjust classifications based on multifactorial metrics including win-loss records and historical performance, allowing schools to move down classifications when data supports 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 overturned by legal challenge.

The AHSAA should be required to govern as an association for all its members: Proportional Representation: Restructure the Central Board to ensure a minimum threshold of proportional representation for independent schools, reflecting their approximately 15% membership share.

Clarify Eligibility: Issue a formal, public clarification that CHOOSE Act ESAs are not financial aid for the purposes of athletic eligibility, ensuring that student transfers utilizing school choice are not penalized.

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

In good faith, the AHSAA should be required to promote cross-association competition. To benefit 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 permit smaller schools to limit travel and find appropriate competitive matchups, provided both associations adhere to agreed-upon safety and eligibility standards

This measure promotes practical, student-focused solutions over rigid institutional boundaries. These common-sense reforms designed to align the organization with the principles of educational freedom and fair governance.

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

By unilaterally declaring parent-directed tax credits as school-controlled “financial aid,” the AHSAA yet again demonstrated a willingness to prioritize its own restrictive rules over the educational and athletic opportunities of Alabama children. This overreach necessitated the unprecedented legal action taken by Governor Ivey and Speaker Ledbetter, which resulted in a court-issued Temporary Restraining Order, affirming that the AHSAA's rule was likely in violation of the state’s clear legislative mandate. [xiv]

This eligibility crisis, combined with the AHSAA’s persistent use of the punitive 1.5 private school multiplier and an imbalanced Central Board that marginalizes the voice of 15% of its membership, has created a regulatory 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 serve all student-athletes across Alabama. Its actions have become a barrier to student opportunity, and they have lost the moral and legal authority to operate without accountability. The future of fair play and school choice in Alabama hinges on the legislature’s willingness to restore integrity, transparency, and accountability to the governance of high school sports