Nebraska is one of four states with measures about state funding of private-school vouchers on the ballot this year. Referendum 435 asks voters to decide whether to repeal the school voucher program passed on the last day of the 2024 legislative session.

Backers of the law claim vouchers are needed by low-income families who can't otherwise afford to send their children to a private school. But studies show that in a number of states, most who benefit from school vouchers are not from low-income families.

Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, said this has been borne out in Iowa.

"In Iowa, for example, who just implemented their voucher system last year," he said, "the median income for the voucher recipients is roughly $120,000."

Iowa data also show that more than two-thirds of the students using vouchers had already been attending a private school.

Another of NSEA's objections is that the law doesn't benefit all of Nebraska, since more than half the counties have no private schools. Critics of the voucher programs say they siphon state funds away from the public school system.

Royers said choice is fine - as long as it's publicly accountable choice.

"As long as private schools can discriminate and deny certain children admission; as long as they don't have to follow the same testing and reporting requirement that we do, we just don't feel public tax dollars should go to those institutions," he said.

Arizona's private-school voucher program has ballooned in scope and cost, and contributed to the need for significant state budget cuts. Dave Wells, research director at the Grand Canyon Institute, a "centrist think tank" in Phoenix, says Arizona's voucher program means the state is essentially supporting two school systems - public and private.

"In Arizona, we can't afford to do that, and it's had really negative impacts," he said. "And I think it has especially negative impacts on rural areas where there aren't private schools even to pick from. And the people who benefit the most from this are people who can already afford to go to private schools, is what we've found in Arizona."

AARP says it's getting thousands of phone calls from seniors worried about getting through to Social Security, as program operations are dramatically overhauled by the Trump administration. The concern is being felt in North Dakota. From staffing cuts to pursuing the closure of nearly 50 regional field offices, the White House and top advisor Elon Musk are seeing backlash over these moves. There are reports of wait times stretching several hours. It comes amid a new requirement that says beneficiaries can no longer verify their identity by phone. They have to do it in person or online.

Josh Askvig, state director of AARP North Dakota, says that could be tough in a largely rural state.

"It would be possible that folks would have to drive three to four hours or more to get to a location. And if you're not comfortable working with apps on your iPhone or Android device, you're looking at potentially a full day of driving, and that's a significant barrier," he explained.

The national AARP says it's fighting to protect these services, so that monthly payments aren't disrupted. It also calls on the administration to scrap the new verification rule and restore the phone option.

The White House says it's trying to root out fraud while insisting benefits won't be cut. But Democrats argue these changes will lead to missed or late checks for beneficiaries.

Askvig said the chaos that's unfolding could lead to another problem lurking in the shadows.

"We're also concerned that this change will lead to scammers using the confusion the agency has created around this to potentially exploit and prey on Americans as well," he added.

AARP and other senior advocates hope their allies reach out to Congress to intervene. They say Social Security operations have been under-resourced for some time, and they hope their renewed calls for service improvements turn more heads amid public frustration. Nearly one in six North Dakota residents receive Social Security benefits.

A federal funding freeze affecting a broad swath of U.S. programs has left many organizations in limbo, with new fallout coming every day. Court challenges have so far stalled many impacts of the Trump administration's order to end or reduce government grants, loans and other assistance.

Isaiah Torres, statewide policy manager with the state's Center for Civic Policy, says New Mexico is fortunate to have a large Land Grant Permanent Fund and Early Childhood Trust Fund. He believes they give the state some maneuverability others may not have.

"Not relying so much on general-fund revenue - in categories such as education and health care - to allow us to make strategic decisions moving forward," he explained.

New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez joined a lawsuit with 22 other states to block Trump's order, which claims the president doesn't have the authority under the U.S. Constitution to take money away from the targeted programs. The White House said the freeze would give the administration time to review each agency program to determine the best use of funding.

Alissa Barnes, executive director with Progress Now New Mexico, says the freeze is nonetheless creating chaos and uncertainty. And not every program that receives federal funding is likely to get a reprieve.

"It is all encompassing for how New Mexico is able to support New Mexicans. And a lot of the dollars that the state puts up in their general allocation also relies on matching funds or grants from the federal government," she explained.

Barnes previously worked for the state's Roadrunner Food Bank - one of thousands across the country already affected by the government's halt in shipments of produce, poultry and other items distributed to needy residents.

"Not knowing if money is going to stop, not knowing when it might stop - not knowing any of those details makes it really hard to not only plan but to continue providing direct services," she continued.

Infrastructure projects funded by the Biden administration also are in jeopardy. New Mexico was awarded $156 million in grants last year for solar projects to help low-income, disadvantaged and tribal communities decrease energy costs by reducing household electric bills. Without federal funding, many won't go forward.

At the Ohio Statehouse, proposed budget cuts to the Fair School Funding Plan have sparked debate among lawmakers and educators.

Also known as the Cupp-Patterson plan, it is in its fourth year of a six-year implementation, designed to address disparities in school funding across the state. Backers are urging the full completion of its phase-in.

Rep. Matt Huffman, R-Lima, Speaker of the House, has suggested in recent weeks reducing the state's public education budget by at least $650 million, challenging the state's ability to continue the current funding model.

"Implementing of the Cupp-Patterson Plan that many believe is a fait accompli that we decided four years ago -- that in this budget we're going to do that -- in my estimation, is a fantasy," Huffman stated.

Critics of the proposed cuts argued reducing funding could exacerbate inequities, particularly in under-resourced districts. Huffman contended offering scholarships toward Ed-Choice vouchers for private schooling offers families more educational choices and can lead to taxpayer savings.

Scott DiMauro, president of the Ohio Education Association, pointed out the potential effect on public schools, which he said serve 95% of Ohio students.

"The governor has proposed a budget that would cut public schools by over $100 million, while at the same time increasing funding for vouchers for private schools and charter schools by $500 million," DiMauro stressed. "We know that is just absolutely unfair."

DiMauro worries such major shifts in funding could lead to larger class sizes and reduced services in public schools, placing additional burdens on local taxpayers to fill the gaps.

He emphasized now is the time for Ohioans who are concerned about the issue and how it might affect their communities to contact their representatives in Columbus.