It's no secret President-elect Donald Trump wants to fire thousands of federal workers.

But in a state like Maryland - home to the fourth-highest number of federal employees - they and their union are readying for a fight to protect their jobs.

Trump has said he wants to revive what's known as Schedule F - a policy that can strip civil servants of their protections and make them at-will employees, meaning they can be fired without cause.

Ottis Johnson, vice president of the American Federation of Government Employees District 14, said any drastic cuts to the federal workforce wouldn't just hurt union members.

He said Americans will feel the impact to services like Social Security and veterans' healthcare.

"You can't run the United States government the same way that you run Twitter," said Johnson. "We represent over 800,000 federal workers, and we can't remove 80% and still expect to be able to serve the American people with the same proficiency and knowledge that they have right now."

Trump has also picked billionaire Elon Musk and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to co-lead an informal effort to restructure the federal government.

The pair floated the idea of "large-scale firings" in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.

In 2020, Trump signed an executive order for Schedule F a few months before the end of his presidency. President Joe Biden then revoked it in his first month in office.

Johnson said the AFGE has reached out to the incoming administration to discuss the important work federal employees do, and has a legal team prepared to challenge firings.

He said a major reduction in the federal workforce would hurt efficiency.

"It will be affecting the American people as well," said Johnson. "How can you get your benefits when you don't have the people there that have been doing the work for all these years? And now you're down to a skeleton crew, which will not be able to put out the type of work that we have now with the workforce that is going forward."

More than 2 million people work for the federal government, and Maryland is home to more than 140,000 of those workers.

A bill in Olympia would further expand Washington state's automatic voter registration process.

Sen. Javier Valdez, D-Seattle, introduced Senate Bill 5077 to allow the governor to widen automatic voter registration to more government agencies. Proponents said nearly a million eligible voters in Washington are not registered.

Abigail Leong, communications manager for the Washington Voting Justice Coalition, testified Tuesday in support of the measure. She said the unregistered are typically new citizens, low-income, or people with convictions who are less likely to get enhanced driver's licenses, where they would be automatically registered.

"By automatically registering people to vote when they become citizens, apply for health care or return home from prison, we take the burden of registration off of potential voters," Leong asserted.

Leong argued the bill would also save the state time and money. One opponent of the bill testified the legislation would make the state's elections less secure. The bill is scheduled for an executive session tomorrow in the Senate Committee on State Government, Tribal Affairs and Elections.

Jacob Schmitt, founder and director of the nonprofit Just Us Solutions, was formerly incarcerated. He testified in support of the bill, saying people who are released from incarceration often struggle with technology.

"Anything that we can do to strategically set people up coming out of incarceration to be involved with the civic process is something that we should do," Schmitt contended. "I say we should do this because every barrier that we remove that would otherwise frustrate them or make them feel disenfranchised is something that makes them feel like they're part of the community."

Hailey Wu, community engagement coordinator for Asian Counseling and Referral Service, said expanded automatic voter registration would help immigrant communities in Washington state as well.

"Immigrant families face countless challenges, like discrimination, a long road to citizenship and language barrier that prevent them from fully connecting with their new community," Wu explained. "Sadly, many of our community, they don't receive enough voter outreach, so they need more support to register accurately and on time for Election Day."

A Montana District Court this week issued a preliminary injunction maintaining the public's right to know about legislative bills but the case will need to be revisited for a final decision.

The Montana Constitution protects the public's right to review bill draft files. Last year, the Legislative Services Division made a policy restricting the right, arguing legislators have the right to prevent the public from seeing those files.

Anne Hedges, policy and legislative director for the Montana Environmental Information Center, a plaintiff in the case, said the policy is counter to the state constitution, which was written to keep the public "front and center in our government."

"They are the ones that elected officials are supposed to be representing and working on behalf of," Hedges pointed out. "They have a right to know and a right to participate in government decision-making."

Hedges noted her organization won a case on similar grounds in 1995. The injunction this week will maintain the right to know through the current legislative session but litigation will likely be needed to reach a final decision.

Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, founder and executive director of Upper Seven Law, an attorney for the plaintiffs, noted access to bill drafts is important for the public but also for legislative staff, lobbyists and the press, who she said joined the lawsuit with separate representation.

"If you don't have access to the information that you need in a timely manner, it will impact your ability to participate effectively in the lawmaking process," Sommers-Flanagan contended.

She added the Montana Constitution, adopted in 1972, has some of the strongest protections for such rights in the country.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

The North Dakota Legislature isn't done trying to reshape approval requirements for future ballot questions that cover constitutional amendments. The latest attempt seeks to go beyond a "simple majority." Last fall, voters across the state rejected the idea of increasing the signature requirement for getting initiated measures on the ballot. That plan had also called for these measures to be successful in a primary and general election before becoming final. Despite the failure, there's now a plan to bump the approval threshold for a ballot question to 60%.

Amy Jacobson, executive director of the group Prairie Action, said a "super-majority" approach hurts grassroots level efforts.

"We really see it as kind of being designed to silence the voters by raising the voter threshold. It makes it much more difficult for everyday citizens to use something that is a protected right within our state constitution," she explained.

The Legislative sponsor and other supporters argue that compared with other states, North Dakota makes it too easy for constitutional amendments to cross the finish line. They also cite the influence of out-of-state interest groups. If the Legislature greenlights the proposal, North Dakota voters would then decide whether the higher threshold should become the standard.

Backers of the change often describe the state constitution as a "sacred" document.

Dustin Gawrylow, managing director of the North Dakota Watchdog Network, said at a recent committee hearing that lawmakers wanting this move are being selective in who should have a say when changes are involved.

"Is it all sacred or is it just some of it sacred? Because Article Three is the powers reserved to the people," he continued. "What does reserved mean? Does that mean unless the Legislature disagrees? Or, does it mean that they're truly reserved?"

Gawrylow would like to see reforms dealing with out-of-state interest groups spending money on ballot campaigns. But he thinks that should be dealt with separately. Other opponents say raising the threshold actually gives those entities a bigger voice over citizens.