Watch "#motivation #changeyour #youtubeshorts #dothingsyoudontwanttodo #habitsthatchangeyourlife #relations" on YouTube

https://youtube.com/shorts/DSU1VmD-v-8?si=QRVgLPp7xgZEksKU

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Public records show others, like you (Henry McClure), have referenced his work in KORA requests for his past inquiries into GO Topeka board meetings.

Joseph Ledbetter: Background and Profile

Joseph Robert Ledbetter (commonly known as Joe Ledbetter) is a licensed attorney in Topeka, Kansas, with over 15 years of experience. He operates Ledbetter Law Office at 1734 SW Van Buren St., Topeka, KS 66612, specializing in areas like lobbying, legal research, budget analysis, and assisting neighborhood associations in navigating bureaucratic challenges. His practice emphasizes helping underserved communities "fight red tape to get things done." He is also involved in political and civic activism, including founding or leading Citizens for Accountability in Government (CAG) in Topeka, a group focused on promoting transparency and accountability in local government. Ledbetter has a history of pro se litigation, including a 2003 federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Topeka (Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183), where he alleged Fourth Amendment violations related to an arrest warrant and search; the case was dismissed on summary judgment, but it highlighted his willingness to challenge city officials.

Ledbetter is known locally as a vocal critic of Topeka's government, often using the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA, K.S.A. 45-215 et seq.) to request documents and expose perceived inefficiencies or lack of transparency. Examples include a 2012 KORA request revealing inconsistencies in city billing practices, which triggered a review, and multiple requests to the city for contracts and financial details. His activism extends to public comments at city council and county meetings, where he has advocated for better governance, such as suggesting a "readiness to serve" charge for utilities. Despite his critical stance, Ledbetter has transitioned into consulting roles with the entities he once challenged, including paid work for the City of Topeka and lobbying for the Greater Topeka Partnership (GTP).

Ledbetter's Challenges to Go Topeka and JEDO on KORA and Transparency

Ledbetter has repeatedly "put Go Topeka to the test" on open records and transparency, particularly regarding its use of public funds from the Joint Economic Development Organization (JEDO), which allocates about $5 million annually in sales tax revenue to Go Topeka for economic incentives. Go Topeka, as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit under the GTP, is not automatically subject to KORA like public bodies, but Ledbetter has argued that its receipt of substantial tax dollars should make its expenditures and records accessible under the act, citing precedents where "quasi-governmental" entities or those handling public functions must comply. He has described "battles" to obtain information, including denials of requests for salaries (e.g., GO Topeka President Doug Kinsinger's compensation), bonuses, board minutes, and details on fund transfers (e.g., $811,000 to the Chamber of Commerce not reflected in budgets).

Key Instances and Timeline

• 2010: In a letter to the editor, Ledbetter questioned whether GO Topeka's records were subject to KORA, referencing a conversation with Shawnee County Commissioner Ted Ensley who confirmed they were. He criticized potential secrecy around economic development deals, arguing public funds demand openness.
• 2011: During a JEDO meeting discussing GO Topeka transparency, the board adjourned without hearing public comments from Ledbetter and others, prompting criticism of the process.
• 2014 (Major Push): At the May 14 JEDO board meeting, Ledbetter provided extensive public comment on the RFP and contract renewal for GO Topeka's economic development services. He argued the RFP stated expenditures would be subject to KORA, but the proposed contract omitted this, potentially leading to costly court fights. He cited AG opinions, including one on Finney County economic development funds (where significant public money to private orgs triggers KORA) and another on nonprofits. Ledbetter proposed specific contract language: "This grant/contract is subject to Kansas Open Records Act, and all records of expenditures of this money shall be deposited with the City of Topeka Clerk every 30 days." He criticized GO Topeka's lack of responsiveness to his requests and emphasized transparency for public money, land purchases, and incentives (e.g., questioning a deal with Yantra Services). Despite support from Councilman John Campos II for adding KORA language, the board approved the contract without it after debate clarifying JEDO's oversight but not full public access. Ledbetter vowed to continue advocating and provided the AG opinion for the record.
• 2015: Ledbetter spoke at a March 25 JEDO meeting under public comment, highlighting a "disconnect" between small businesses and GO Topeka, questioning millions invested in projects amid transparency issues. He also addressed JEDO on selecting a consultant in April.
• 2017: At a March 29 JEDO meeting, he supported extending GO Topeka's contract but requested to review it before the vote, continuing his push for scrutiny.

No direct court cases were found where Ledbetter sued GO Topeka specifically over KORA, but his efforts align with AG opinions he cited, such as those on economic development orgs (e.g., AG Opin. on Finney County: public funds to private entities can be subject if they perform governmental functions or are under significant control). Outcomes have been mixed: While he hasn't forced GO Topeka to become fully subject to KORA, his advocacy contributed to discussions on transparency, and JEDO meetings became more public (e.g., televised). However, GO Topeka remains a nonprofit with limited automatic KORA obligations, relying on JEDO budget oversight instead.

Evolution from Critic to Insider

By 2022, Ledbetter's role shifted. Described as Topeka's "biggest critic," he was hired by then-GTP CEO Matt Pivarnik (despite backlash) to join the team, praising the organization's turnaround. He consulted for the City of Topeka on utility rates, KDOT talks, housing incentives, and economic development, earning $49,500 in 2022-2023 and more in subsequent contracts. As of 2025, he lobbies for GTP but faced a notification for failure to file required ethics forms. This transition has been noted positively in local media, with Ledbetter stating Topeka has "turned the corner" under new leadership.

Connections to Your Query and Broader Context

Your interest aligns with Ledbetter's history of KORA challenges to GO Topeka, which mirrors concerns about transparency in nonprofits handling tax dollars. Public records show others, like you (Henry McClure), have referenced his work in KORA requests for his past inquiries into GO Topeka board meetings. No recent (post-2017) direct challenges from Ledbetter to GO Topeka on KORA were found, possibly due to his consulting role. For the latest, consider filing a KORA request to JEDO or the AG's office for any unresolved complaints, or check CAG Topeka's YouTube for videos of his speeches. If "Quora" refers to the Q&A site rather than a typo for KORA, no connections were found—Ledbetter has no visible presence there.

File a KORA Request: Submit to Go Topeka/Greater Topeka Partnership for minutes, agendas, financials. If denied, appeal to AG (ag.ks.gov/file-a-complaint/koma-kora-violations).

Applicability of Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA) and Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) to Nonprofits Like Go Topeka

Go Topeka, as the economic development division of the Greater Topeka Partnership (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit), receives public funds through mechanisms like the Joint Economic Development Organization (JEDO), which allocates sales tax revenue (approximately $5 million annually in recent years for economic incentives and projects). This raises questions about whether it qualifies as a "public body" or "quasi-governmental entity" subject to KOMA (K.S.A. 75-4317 et seq., requiring open meetings) and KORA (K.S.A. 45-215 et seq., requiring open records). Kansas law does not automatically reclassify a 501(c)(3) as a government organization based solely on public funding or board composition, but certain factors can trigger applicability.

Key Legal Tests for Nonprofits Becoming Subject to KOMA/KORA

Kansas courts and the Attorney General's Office use a multi-factor analysis to determine if a nonprofit is a "public agency" (for KORA) or "public body" (for KOMA). These acts apply to entities that:

1. Receive or expend public funds (e.g., tax dollars).
2. Are subject to control by a governmental unit (e.g., through board appointments, oversight, or statutory creation).
3. Act as a governmental agency by performing public functions (e.g., economic development traditionally handled by government) or have independent authority to make governmental decisions.

• Public Funds Alone Are Insufficient: Mere receipt of tax dollars (even substantial amounts) does not trigger KOMA/KORA if the entity is otherwise private. For example, vendors or service providers paid with public funds are exempt.
• Quasi-Governmental Status: A nonprofit becomes "quasi-governmental" when it effectively acts as an extension of government. This is fact-specific and often requires a court or AG opinion. Subordinate groups (e.g., committees created by public bodies) are explicitly covered if a majority discusses business.
• Application to Go Topeka: Based on available governance documents and AG precedents, Go Topeka likely does not fully meet the threshold for automatic KOMA/KORA coverage. It operates independently as a nonprofit, with a mix of private and ex officio public members (e.g., mayor, county commissioner). However, its role in administering public incentives and having government officials on the board could argue for coverage under the "control" and "governmental function" prongs. No specific court ruling or AG opinion directly addresses Go Topeka, but similar entities (e.g., chambers of commerce or economic development commissions) have been deemed not subject. If meetings are closed and minutes unpublished, this could violate KOMA if deemed applicable, but transparency can still be demanded via KORA requests for records (e.g., board agendas, financials).

Relevant Legal Precedents

• Memorial Hospital Ass'n v. Knutson, 239 Kan. 663 (1986): A nonprofit hospital leasing county facilities and receiving public mill levy funds (~$228,000/year) was not subject to KOMA. The court emphasized limited government control and no independent decision-making authority, despite public funding. This precedent suggests entities like Go Topeka—receiving funds but operating autonomously—may avoid coverage.
• State v. Great Plains of Kiowa County, Inc., 294 Kan. 220 (2012): A nonprofit hospital was an "instrumentality" under KORA due to its creation by voter initiative and role in fulfilling public healthcare needs. The court focused on the entity's purpose as an extension of government will, making records accessible. This could apply if Go Topeka is seen as fulfilling a core government function (economic development).
• Kansas One-Call Sys., Inc. v. State, 294 Kan. 220 (2012): Mere receipt of public funds was insufficient to subject a nonprofit utility locator to KOMA. The entity lacked government control.
• AG Opinions (Non-Binding but Influential):
• Opin. 87-143: A nonprofit economic development org (Three Rivers, Inc.) was subject to KOMA due to public funding, government creation, and service provision.
• Opin. 94-42: K-10 Corridor Development, Inc. (economic dev) was not subject, as it was privately formed with limited control.
• Opin. 99-64: Prairie Village Economic Development Commission not subject, despite public ties.

No direct precedents label such setups as "corrupt," but lack of transparency can lead to AG investigations or lawsuits if KOMA/KORA applies.

Conflicts of Interest for Elected Officials on Nonprofit Boards

Kansas law allows elected officials to serve on nonprofit boards (e.g., as ex officio members on Go Topeka), but requires disclosure and recusal in certain cases to avoid conflicts.

Key Laws

• Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission (K.S.A. 46-215 et seq.): Oversees conflicts for state/local officials. Officials must file Statements of Substantial Interests (SSI) annually, disclosing interests exceeding 5% or $5,000 in businesses/nonprofits.
• K.S.A. 46-233: Prohibits officials from having a substantial interest in contracts funded by laws they helped pass. Disclosure is required; voting may be barred if interest is direct.
• K.S.A. 75-4304 (Local Conflicts): Local officials must disclose interests in contracts/decisions. No outright ban on board service, but recusal if conflict arises (e.g., real estate agent voting on incentives benefiting their clients).
• Recent Developments: Senate Bill 66 (2025) proposes banning local officials from voting on development projects with "substantial interest" (e.g., financial gain), highlighting ongoing concerns.

Precedents and AG Opinions

• AG Opin. 2005-17: A county commissioner could serve on a nonprofit science center board, as long as interests are disclosed and no direct contract benefit.
• AG Opin. 2001-25: City council member on 501(c)(3) board could vote on city contracts with the org, absent substantial interest.
• Sedgwick County Case (2021): Commissioners failed to disclose nonprofit board ties, violating SSI laws, leading to fines/scrutiny.
• No specific Go Topeka conflicts found in public records, but the presence of a real estate agent (e.g., representing developers) could trigger recusal if board actions benefit their business.

Violations can result in civil penalties ($500+), ouster, or invalidation of actions.

Legal Ramifications and Enforcement

• If KOMA Applies: Closed meetings/no minutes could lead to AG investigations, court orders for openness, fines up to $500 per violation, or action invalidation.
• If KORA Applies: Nonprofits receiving $350+ in public funds must disclose expenditures (K.S.A. 45-240), even if not fully "public."
• Broader Kansas Transparency Issues: No major Go Topeka controversies found, but state-wide critiques (e.g., ACLU calling Kansas "secretive") highlight similar setups.

Steps to Demand Transparency or Point Out Conflicts

1. File a KORA Request: Submit to Go Topeka/Greater Topeka Partnership for minutes, agendas, financials. If denied, appeal to AG (ag.ks.gov/file-a-complaint/koma-kora-violations).
2. Complain to AG or DA: For suspected KOMA violations or undisclosed conflicts.
3. Ethics Complaint: To Governmental Ethics Commission (ethics.ks.gov) for SSI non-disclosure.
4. Public Advocacy: Share findings with voters via media/op-eds; petition for audits or referendums on funding.
5. Litigation: If evidence of violations, sue in district court to enforce KOMA/KORA (e.g., seeking records or open meetings).

For the latest, consult the AG's office or a Kansas attorney specializing in open government law. Board compositions and policies can change; verify via topekapartnership.com or direct contact.

Fw: NOTICE-Public Health & Safety Committee Meeting: March 11, 2026 @ 1:00pm

---

From: City of Topeka, Kansas <no-reply@topeka.org>
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 4:31 PM
To: mcre13@gmail.com <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: NOTICE-Public Health & Safety Committee Meeting: March 11, 2026 @ 1:00pm

View this email in your browser City of Topeka E-Notify You are receiving this because you asked to be notified when City of Topeka shares City Council Committee related information. A Public Health & Safety Committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 11, 2026, at 1:00pm. The meeting will be held in the 1st Floor Conference Room at City Hall (215 SE 7th St). A virtual attendance option is also available.  If you would like to attend virtually, please contact the Council office by 1:00pm on 3/10 to obtain the virtual log-in information. The meeting will be live streamed on the City of Topeka's Facebook and City4 Communications platforms as well. Agenda will be posted to the City Council webpage closer to the meeting date. Additional City Council information including the meeting agenda is located at Welcome to Topeka, KS Privacy is important to us.  Subscriber information will not be shared with anyone.  Subscribers only receive the information requested.   Copyright © 2026 City of Topeka, Kansas, All rights reserved. You subscribed to one or more e-Subscription lists asking to receive news and updates. Our mailing address is: City of Topeka, Kansas 215 SE 7th Street City Hall Building Topeka, KS 66603 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

Loud Light ### Party Lean: Overwhelmingly Democratic. No Republican endorsements found.

 Loud Light is a Kansas-based nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing civic participation, particularly among youth and underrepresented communities. Below, I'll provide a comprehensive overview based on available public information, including their structure, history, political orientation, activities, funding, and involvement with candidates or elections. This draws from their official websites, financial disclosures, third-party analyses, news reports, and related searches. Note that Loud Light operates as two related entities: the main 501(c)(3) nonprofit (focused on education and nonpartisan engagement) and Loud Light Civic Action, a 501(c)(4) affiliate (focused on advocacy and lobbying). They claim to be nonpartisan, but their activities, partnerships, and endorsements align with progressive and Democratic-leaning causes.

History and Founding

• Founded: 2015 by Davis Hammet in Topeka, Kansas. It started as a one-person operation aimed at boosting youth voter turnout and participation. By 2025, it marked its 10th anniversary, having grown into a larger organization with staff, fellows, and statewide reach.
• Evolution: Initially focused on voter registration and education, it expanded to include coalition-building, informational campaigns, and legal challenges to voting barriers. The Civic Action arm was established to handle more direct advocacy, as 501(c)(3) rules limit political activities.
• Key People:
  • Davis Hammet (Founder and President): Background in left-leaning activism, including work with RePower (a progressive training group), the U.S. Senate campaign of Charlie Crist (initially Independent, later Democrat), and Planting Peace (a global anti-poverty nonprofit). He remains the primary leader and is the only compensated key personnel in financial filings (salary around $93,000–$100,000 in recent years).
  • Other Staff/Board: Includes Advocacy Director Melissa Stiehler (Civic Action arm), board members like Rev. Sarah Oglesby-Dunegan (Chair) and Farai Harreld (Treasurer), who receive no compensation. The organization employs fellows and volunteers for fieldwork.
• Location and Reach: Headquartered in Topeka, KS (P.O. Box 4045), with activities statewide. They emphasize Kansas-specific issues but are part of national networks like the Alliance for Youth Action.

Mission and Programs

• Core Mission: To engage, educate, and empower underrepresented populations (especially youth, people of color, and low-income communities) to build community power and influence decision-makers. They aim to "turnout the vote and turn up democracy" by overcoming voter apathy, providing accessible information, and demanding accountable government.
• Key Programs and Activities:
  • Voter Registration and Education: Run drives targeting students and young voters (e.g., helped register 10,000 new voters ahead of the 2020 election). Provide guides on voting rules, such as allowing college students to register at either their home or school address.
  • Informational Campaigns: Produce videos, explainers on legislation, and resources like community resource fairs (e.g., KC Metro event in March 2026). They track bills and testify in the Kansas Legislature (e.g., opposing HB 2438 in 2025, which would restrict online voter registration).
  • Advocacy and Coalitions: Partner with groups like ACLU Kansas, Demos, League of Women Voters, and Kansas Governor Laura Kelly (D) on expanding voter access. Involved in issues like fair maps (#fairmapsks protests at the Kansas Supreme Court), abortion rights (opposed bans post-2022), trans rights (condemned SB 244 veto override in 2026, calling it "state-sanctioned harassment"), and civil rights.
  • Youth Empowerment: Fellowships and training to build leadership among young Kansans. Member of the Alliance for Youth Action, a network of progressive youth voter groups.
  • Legal Actions: Filed lawsuits against Kansas election officials (e.g., against Secretary of State Scott Schwab (R) for delaying public voter data in 2020 and 2021; won a 2019 case against Johnson County for provisional ballot lists). Temporarily halted voter registration drives in 2021 due to a new law broadly defining "impersonating an election official" as a felony, fearing prosecution.
• Impact: Claim to represent over 16,000 Kansans across all legislative districts. Focus on countering low turnout (e.g., citing 2018 stats: 53% overall, 32% youth). They've influenced policy by challenging restrictive laws and boosting participation in marginalized groups.

Political Orientation: Liberal/Progressive, Leans Democratic

• Self-Description: Nonpartisan, focused on "social good and justice." They emphasize collective action to hold officials accountable based on "needs and values" of young/underrepresented Kansans.
• In Practice: Described by third-party sources like InfluenceWatch as "left-of-center." Their activities oppose Republican-led voting restrictions (e.g., grace periods for mail ballots, early voting limits) and support progressive issues like expanded voter access, LGBTQ+ rights, and abortion access. They've criticized GOP figures like Rep. Pat Proctor (R) for pushing "conspiracy-minded" bills.
  • Not Republican or conservative: No evidence of support for conservative policies or candidates. Their opposition to bills like those restricting voting aligns with Democratic priorities.
  • Liberal/Progressive: Partnerships with left-leaning groups (ACLU, Demos, Movement Voter Project). Hammet's background is in Democratic/progressive campaigns. They advocate against "corporate influence" in politics and for inclusive representation.
• Controversies:
  • Accused by conservatives of promoting "voter fraud" through access expansions, but no substantiated claims.
  • In 2021–2022, paused registration due to GOP-backed laws, highlighting tensions with Republican-dominated legislature.
  • Involved in high-profile advocacy, like condemning anti-trans legislation and supporting youth turnout that polls showed opposed abortion bans (75% of 18–34-year-olds per their cited data).

How They Pick/Engage with Candidates: Endorsements via Civic Action Arm

• General Approach: The 501(c)(3) arm (Loud Light) does not endorse candidates, as it's prohibited. Instead, they educate voters on issues and candidates without direct support.
• Endorsements: Handled by the 501(c)(4) Loud Light Civic Action, which can engage in limited political activity. They endorse based on alignment with voting rights, civil rights, youth empowerment, and progressive values (e.g., expanding access, opposing suppression). Criteria aren't explicitly detailed publicly, but endorsements favor candidates who support "free and fair elections" and community needs.
  • Party Lean: Overwhelmingly Democratic. No Republican endorsements found.
  • Examples from Recent Elections (via Blue Voter Guide and reports):
    • Federal/Statewide: Endorsed Patrick Schmidt (D) for U.S. House (KS-02), emphasizing veterans' issues.
    • State Legislature: Endorsed candidates like Jennifer Day (D) for Kansas House, Alexis Simmons (D) for Kansas House (opposed personal attacks in election reform hearings), and others in districts focused on affordable healthcare, union jobs, and voting rights.
    • Other: Supported pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ+ Democrats in 2022–2024 cycles, aligning with groups like LPAC (LGBTQ PAC) and Kansas Democratic Party.
  • Process: Likely involves reviewing candidate positions on key issues like voter access and civil liberties. They build "power to impact any election" through turnout, indirectly aiding aligned candidates.
• No Direct Candidate "Picking": They don't run primaries or select nominees; endorsements are selective support for those matching their mission. Focus is on voter mobilization rather than party-building.

Funding and Financials

All funding comes from donations and grants (no program revenue or investments). Revenue has grown significantly, reflecting expanded operations.

Early Years: 2017–2019

Loud Light started small in its initial years. In 2017 (fiscal year ending December), the organization reported revenue of $81,136, expenses of $70,548, and total assets of $19,546. This reflected modest growth as a new entity building its voter education and youth participation programs.

By 2018, revenue increased significantly to approximately $190,000 (an early peak), driven in part by a $50,000 grant from the Kansas Health Foundation specifically for youth voter participation initiatives. Detailed expenses and assets for that year are not fully itemized in summaries, but the funding marked a step up in operations.

For 2019, comprehensive figures are limited in public summaries, but all revenue came from donations, with no major program income or investments noted. This period laid the groundwork before larger election-year surges.

Election-Year Surge: 2020

The 2020 presidential and general election cycle brought a major boost. Revenue jumped to $745,411, reflecting expanded voter registration drives, education campaigns, and outreach to underrepresented groups (especially youth). This was a classic cycle-driven increase for advocacy nonprofits. Expenses and assets details are partial in some overviews, but net growth positioned the organization for sustained activity.

Post-Election Dip: 2021

Following the high of 2020, 2021 saw a typical post-election decline. Revenue dropped to $375,839 as mobilization efforts wound down. This dip is common in voter-focused groups, with resources shifting toward ongoing advocacy rather than peak turnout campaigns.

Recovery and Growth: 2022–2023

Revenue rebounded in 2022 to $669,586, supported by grants from sources like the Movement Voter Project and allied foundations. This helped fund continued statewide work on voting rights and community empowerment.

By 2023, the upward trend continued with revenue at $816,432. Expenses totaled $602,916 (with salaries making up about 57%, or roughly $344,000), resulting in net income of around $213,516 and total assets reaching $1,012,101. This showed stable scaling of staff and programs.

Recent Peak: 2024

The most recent full year (fiscal 2024, ending December) marked strong growth, with revenue at $1,220,169—nearly doubling from 2023. Expenses were $1,010,075 (salaries accounting for about 53%, or roughly $539,000), leading to net income of approximately $210,094 and total assets of $1,245,188 (with net assets around $1,207,183 after liabilities of about $38,000). Davis Hammet's compensation as president was $93,312 plus benefits. This increase aligned with intensified advocacy during the 2025 Kansas legislative session, including legal challenges and voter education efforts.

• Sources: Primarily progressive funders like Movement Voter Project (Youth and Student Fund), Kansas Health Foundation, Silicon Valley Community Foundation ($103,350 in 2024), NEA Advocacy ($150,000 indirect via allies), and Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (abortion-related). Civic Action arm received $50,000 in 2024. Total 2024 funding across entities: ~$452,000 for Loud Light + $50,000 for Civic Action.
• Transparency: No professional fundraising fees. All officers except Hammet unpaid.

Social Media and Recent Activity

• X (Twitter): @loud_light (active, 1,000+ followers). Posts focus on protests (e.g., fair maps rallies), legislative updates, and calls to action. Recent examples include lawsuits challenging mail ballot laws, veto session recaps (criticizing "back to Brownback days" and fetal personhood bills), and house elections testimony.
• Other: Active on Facebook (@LoudLightKS), Instagram (@loud_light with 14K followers), and YouTube (fellowships videos, civic engagement series). They host events like rallies at the Kansas Capitol and collaborate with universities (e.g., Washburn University's WU Votes).

In summary, Loud Light is a progressive, youth-focused nonprofit that leans Democratic in practice, despite nonpartisan claims. They empower voters rather than directly "pick" candidates, but their endorsements support liberals advancing voting and civil rights. No ties to Republicans or conservatives; their work counters what they see as suppressive policies from the GOP-led legislature.