The New American publishes the Freedom Index, which rates U.S. representatives and senators on their adherence to constitutional principles such as limited government and fiscal responsibility. Since 2022, we’ve expanded to include state Legislative Scorecards, rating state legislators across all 50 states. These Scorecards highlight the influence state legislators have on daily life, often more so than federal officials. Each year, 594 key votes are selected — six from the upper house and six from the lower house in each state, as well as from Nebraska’s unicameral chamber — reflecting legislators’ commitment to these principles. Higher scores indicate stronger adherence to the Constitution. Our research department reviewed every 2023 vote to identify the five best and worst pieces of legislation for the state Scorecards, in alignment with The John Birch Society’s action projects.

UN Agenda 2030 and Property Rights

Tennessee’s SB1147 deserves high praise. The bill counters the UN’s globalist Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, which aim to control economies and societies under the guise of “climate change” and the Covid-19 pandemic. These agendas, often framed as “Sustainable Development Goals,” include efforts to control the food supply and enforce leftist policies via Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards. SB1147 prohibits state and local policies that infringe on private-property rights without due process. This includes policies tied to Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the UN’s net-zero emission goals, as well as any international laws conflicting with the U.S. or state constitution. This model legislation should be replicated nationwide to push back against globalism.

Other states also acted against Agenda 2030 and globalist policies. As noted in our 2023 Scorecards, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, and West Virginia either banned or attempted to prohibit companies in the financial sector from implementing “social credit scores” to influence their customers’ purchases and business activities. These states also blocked or worked to block ESG criteria from being used in investment and contracting decisions for state and local governments. Meanwhile, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming had bills to protect property rights and prevent land grabs for projects such as carbon-capture pipelines. Conversely, Indiana and West Virginia supported carbon-sequestration initiatives.

The California Assembly passed AB408, the “Climate-resilient Farms, Sustainable Healthy Food Access, and Farmworker Protection Bond Act of 2024.” Though “2024” is in the title, the bill actually passed the Assembly in 2023. If approved, it will authorize $3.4 billion in bonds for various programs addressing “climate change,” “food insecurity,” and an “equitable economy.” This UN Agenda 2030-inspired measure threatens farmers and could lead to higher taxes for Californians to fund “woke” projects. Its socialist agenda relies on wealth redistribution, which is neither constitutional nor environmentally beneficial. California’s efforts reflect a broader trend across the United States, with many states adopting similar UN climate-change policies — such as environmental grants, EV charging mandates, and green tax credits. Illinois even mandated that investment managers annually disclose their integration of sustainability factors — embracing ESG and Agenda 2030.

Real Money

SB100 from Missouri is another standout bill from 2023. It mandates that the state treasurer maintain a gold and silver reserve of at least one percent of state funds, and allows gold and silver coinage to be used as legal tender at spot prices for debts. Public entities are also prohibited from mandating payment in central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Although the bill passed the state Senate, it did not progress further.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 has led to the near-total depreciation of the U.S. dollar, making SB100 a vital step toward restoring sound money and upholding the U.S. Constitution’s monetary provisions. This bill supports the restoration of constitutional money and the gold standard, while opposing dangerous CBDCs.

The real and the fake: Several states are taking steps to return to sound money and the gold standard — abandoned by the United States in the last century. Others are dangerously moving toward accepting a central bank digital currency, paving the way for even more government surveillance. (ravital/Adobe Stock)

Several states, including Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming, also advanced legislation promoting sound money by embracing gold and silver and taking steps toward returning to the gold standard. States such as Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, and Louisiana worked to ban CBDCs, preventing state agencies from accepting or testing them. Unfortunately, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, and South Dakota passed bills in at least one chamber or signed into law legislation embracing such digital currencies.

Additionally, legislation known as the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act gained traction. This act aims to close potential gun-tracking loopholes by prohibiting financial institutions from using unique merchant codes for purchases at firearm or ammunition retailers. States such as Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, and Texas embraced such measures, working to ensure that banks cannot flag or freeze cards due to firearm purchases.

Defend the Guard

New Hampshire, Arizona, and Montana embraced bills to nullify unconstitutional federal deployments of the National Guard unless a congressional declaration of war is issued, as required by the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11 and 15 grant only Congress the power to declare war. The last formal declaration of war under this article was against Japan on December 8, 1941, with subsequent declarations against Germany and Italy. All foreign conflicts since then have lacked constitutional legitimacy.

The Constitution’s Article VI provides a solution to federal overreach by affirming that only laws consistent with the Constitution are supreme, or valid, allowing for nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. Adherence to this principle could significantly reduce current federal spending and government size, as much of it is unconstitutional.

New Hampshire’s HB229 exemplifies this commitment to nullification. Although it did not pass the state Senate, it serves as a model for other states. Many other strong, modern-day examples of nullification exist. For example, Louisiana passed SCR21, affirming its right to nullify unconstitutional federal acts. In Wyoming, two major nullification bills were considered in the House — one against health mandates imposed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and World Health Organization, and another establishing committees to review federal actions for their constitutionality and impact on state sovereignty. Conversely, states such as New York are allowing more federal control by mandating adherence to CDC guidelines in nursing homes. Efforts such as Oklahoma’s and South Carolina’s bans on foreign land ownership reflect states’ attempts to protect their sovereignty.

Additionally, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, and Kentucky are working to nullify unconstitutional federal gun laws, targeting a wide range of firearm restrictions from past, present, and future federal mandates.

Ranked-choice Voting

Idaho’s H179, signed into law by Governor Brad Little in March 2023, is a key measure for ensuring election integrity by banning ranked-choice voting (RCV). RCV undermines the electorate’s ability to select the best candidate, favors moderate-to-leftist politicians, and complicates the ballot process — potentially delaying election outcomes.

In addition to Idaho, Arizona, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota introduced bills to prohibit RCV, and Utah proposed a ban on instant runoff voting in municipal elections. Conversely, states such as Oregon and Vermont took steps to implement RCV. Nevada passed a resolution to amend its constitution to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, potentially allocating all its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner during presidential elections, thus undermining our republican system of government. This proposal will be voted on again in 2025 before being put to Nevada voters in 2026. 

Challenges to election integrity emerged in other states. Michigan enacted a law requiring ballot drop boxes; Minnesota and Washington implemented automatic voter registration linked to driver’s license applications, raising concerns about voter fraud; and Rhode Island approved free ID cards for illegal immigrants.

On a positive note, several states strengthened election-integrity measures. Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi passed or proposed bills to restrict ballot harvesting and drop-box usage. Mississippi enhanced post-election audits, restricted voting to U.S. citizens, and improved voter-roll maintenance. Nebraska introduced a voter ID law, Texas increased penalties for illegal voting, and Idaho removed student IDs as valid voting identification.

Oklahoma and Texas withdrew from the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a program that lacks transparency and has data-management issues. ERIC, funded by George Soros, has been criticized for inflating voter rolls rather than cleaning them up.

Support Your Local Police

Montana’s HB604, although not passed by the House or voted on in the Senate, aimed to strengthen local law enforcement by requiring federal employees to obtain written permission from the county sheriff before conducting any “arrest, search, or seizure,” with certain exceptions. It also sought to invalidate any federal law granting federal employees sheriff-like authority.

This bill was grounded in the principle of preserving local law-enforcement authority, a core aspect of the U.S. Constitution’s federal system, which decentralizes power and protects state sovereignty. The 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the states by the Constitution, to the states or the people.

Local law enforcement is vital for community accountability, and federal involvement through grants and militarization can undermine this accountability, turning local police departments into extensions of federal power. Historically, nationalized police forces have been used to enforce tyranny; it is essential to keep law enforcement local and independent in order to safeguard freedom.

State-mandated Kindergarten

One of the most concerning bills of 2023 was Alabama’s HB43, which proposed requiring children to complete kindergarten or demonstrate readiness for first grade before entering first grade. The U.S. public education system, plagued by poor academic performance and harmful ideologies, represents a significant burden on taxpayers. HB43 would have mandated kindergarten for all children, encroaching on parental rights and further expanding the failing government-run school system. Thankfully, this bill did not pass in the Senate.

Similar troubling trends are evident in other states. Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont moved toward taxpayer-funded preschool programs. Idaho passed a bill creating childcare grants, while Indiana expanded its Minority Teacher Scholarship program, promoting racial bias. North Dakota’s “mandatory dyslexia screenings” legislation further illustrates government overreach in education. Legislation mandating the introduction or expansion of free school meals was pushed in states such as Delaware, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. Oklahoma’s and Pennsylvania’s bills requiring high-school students to complete a Free Application for Federal Student Aid infringe on personal financial choices and privacy.

On a positive note, states such as Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania introduced bills to protect parental rights and limit public-school authority over issues such as pronouns, medical services, and instructional content for sexual education. These bills aim to safeguard students and parents from government overreach.

Gun Control Con-Con

California’s SJR7, pushed by Governor Gavin Newsom, seeks to call an Article V constitutional convention to propose amendments on “firearms regulations and prohibitions.” This resolution is deeply concerning, as the potential for changes to the Constitution is a legitimate threat.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two methods for amendments — through Congress, or through a convention called by Congress upon application by two-thirds of the state legislatures. The latter method was designed to address constitutional deficiencies and is untested. The 1787 Philadelphia Convention, originally intended to revise the Articles of Confederation, ended up drafting an entirely new Constitution, which raises concerns that a modern convention could exceed its mandate and alter the Constitution. The absence of definitive rules for such conventions adds to the risk of changes. Instead of risking a convention, legislators should focus on nullifying unconstitutional federal laws and enforcing the Second Amendment. 

In 2023, several states — including Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming — considered resolutions calling for balanced budget amendments and term limits. If Congress adhered to the Constitution, a balanced budget amendment would be unnecessary, since spending money on only constitutionally authorized programs — as every U.S. representative and senator is required to do — would eliminate the fiscal crisis. And term limits, which would limit the franchise by denying the right to vote for term-limited politicians and also make the term-limited representatives “lame ducks,” were deliberately omitted by the framers. Fortunately, North Dakota and Oregon moved to rescind their convention applications last year.

Minnesota and Colorado passed resolutions advocating for an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution. The option to ratify the ERA, initially introduced in 1972, expired in 1982, with several states rescinding their ratifications.

Missouri’s HJR43 aimed to protect its constitution and uphold republican governance by proposing a supermajority requirement for future constitutional amendments. Ohio’s SJR2 also sought to increase the threshold for constitutional amendments to 60 percent of the vote.

Illegal Aliens as Law Enforcement

Illinois’ HB3751, signed into law by Governor J.B. Pritzker, is one of the most troubling bills of 2023. It allows individuals with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, status to apply for law-enforcement positions, such as police officer or deputy sheriff. This means noncitizens could potentially arrest American citizens, a significant departure from traditional law-enforcement practices.

Similar legislation was pursued in states such as California, Colorado, and Wisconsin. 

Rhode Island passed a law providing free ID cards to illegal immigrants, and a bill to reduce the maximum penalty for misdemeanors to 364 days, preventing illegal immigrants from being reported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, passed the Rhode Island Senate. New Mexico approved legislation allowing illegal aliens under 21 years old to apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile status, facilitating their path to permanent residence. Utah established a new health-insurance plan to extend benefits to noncitizens.

In contrast, New Hampshire’s SB132 aimed to prohibit sanctuary policies, but failed to pass. This bill would have prevented state and local governments from offering sanctuary to illegal immigrants.

Instead of adopting policies that undermine the rule of law and citizenship, states should use their 10th Amendment-specified powers to address illegal immigration and ensure public safety. Bills such as those listed above contribute to the broader issue of uncontrolled migration, which is part of a strategy to integrate the United States into  a North American Union and reshape its demographics, impeding assimilation and threatening American sovereignty.

Abortion and Gender-affirming Care

Oregon’s HB2002, signed into law, asserts that individuals have a “fundamental right” to “abortion,” “sterilization,” “contraception,” and “gender-affirming treatments.” This legislation, which merges abortion and gender-affirming care coverage, is among the worst bills of 2023. It violates the government’s duty to protect life as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, which affirms the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Both the Declaration and the U.S. Constitution uphold the fundamental right to life, and this includes the lives of the preborn and minors.

Many states weakened or tried to weaken abortion laws, with goals ranging from establishing abortion rights through legislation or constitutional amendments (e.g., Nevada, Virginia) to reducing penalties for providing abortions (e.g., Michigan, New Hampshire, South Dakota) and expanding abortion services (e.g., Colorado, New Jersey). Some states, such as Maine, Minnesota, New York, and South Carolina, considered bills supporting hormone therapy and “gender-reassignment surgery” for minors. California’s AB957, which was rightfully vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom, proposed using a parent’s affirmation of a child’s gender identity in custody decisions.

Other states embraced bills allowing pharmacists to dispense over-the-counter birth-control and revised definitions of sexual orientation to be more inclusive. Illinois’ SB1909 targeted pro-life pregnancy centers, accusing them of “unfair competition” and “deceptive practices,” while Maine, Maryland, and New Mexico pushed to mandate taxpayer funding for reproductive and “gender-affirming care.” West Virginia’s Senate tabled a strong pro-life bill that would have eliminated exceptions for rape and incest.

Amid these developments, several states took steps to protect life and restrict abortion. Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin either enacted laws or voted on bills to safeguard infants born alive and to protect minors from “gender-reassignment surgeries.” 

Attack on Free Speech in the Name of Civil Rights

Among the worst legislation of 2023, Maine’s LD868 stands out. This bill expands the Maine Civil Rights Act to include protections against actions that cause “emotional distress” or “fear of violence.” It allows the state attorney general to take legal action to uphold these rights, and empowers affected individuals to seek relief through civil lawsuits. This legislation poses a significant threat to First Amendment-protected rights, as pursuing legal action based on “emotional distress” or “fear of violence” could lead to infringements on free speech. The terms used in the bill are broad and vague, meaning interpretation will be subjective. Unfortunately, this bill was signed into law by Governor Janet Mills.

*   *   *

The Freedom Index and Legislative Scorecards highlight both positive and negative legislative actions. States such as Tennessee and Missouri advanced constitutional values and sound money, while California’s push for a constitutional convention and Illinois’ expansion of law-enforcement jobs to noncitizens will pose challenges to the Republic.

These Scorecards are vital for evaluating how well state legislators adhere to limited government, fiscal responsibility, and national sovereignty, and help citizens stay informed and hold elected officials accountable. Moving forward, it’s essential to advocate for policies that uphold the Constitution and reject those that undermine our rights. Publications such as The New American, through the Freedom Index, play a crucial role in preserving our nation’s core values. For more detailed information on the Scorecards, visit TheFreedomIndex.org. For more details on state Scorecards and how to utilize them, see the previous article in the magazine titled, “State Legislative Scorecards: Think Constitutionally, Act Locally!”