The death of flat fees: indigent defense reform

California Assembly Bill 690 seeks to reform the the criminal justice system in the state by banning flat fees and per case compensation contracts for indigent public defense. Under the current flat fee system, the government may contract with a private for-profit attorney or firm and pay them a lump sum in exchange for their representation of indigent defendants. The practice of contracting for a flat fee has been criticized for various shortcomings.

These problems were highlighted in a very recent report published by the Wren Foundation, the ACLU, and the UC Berkley Criminal Law and Justice Center earlier this March. Per the report, the major problem with the flat fee system is that contracted attorneys do not stand to make additional money for putting more time or investing more money into indigent cases. This, in turn, creates an incentive for contracted attorneys to spend as little time possible on these cases.

This problem is compounded by the fact that most counties that utilize the flat fee system do no require contracted attorneys to focus solely on the indigent cases they are assigned. This means these attorneys can take on private clients who are paying normal rates based on the time that their case is being worked on. This provides further incentive for attorneys to spend less time on indigent defense, and prioritize those clients from which they stand to gain the most financially. Add the fact that most contracted attorneys have to pay out of pocket for investigative services in the indigent cases they handle and the fact that contracted attorneys are subject to very little, if any, oversight and you have recipe for some very questionable representation.

The incentives created by the flat fee system undercut the right to zealous and competent representation, which the report backs up with some rather alarming statistical findings. For example, eight of the ten counties with the highest incarceration rates, including all of the top five, currently utilize a flat fee system. Additionally, only four counties required some sort of attorney supervision while only seven required independent county oversight. It is abundantly clear that something needs to be changed, and AB 690 is the solution be offered.

However, some organizations, like the California District Attorney Association, have opposed AB 690. They argue that it threatens to create a two-tiered criminal justice system that will disadvantage public defenders and district attorneys. This view is likely based on the fact that the new system, which would require contracted indigent defense attorneys to be paid in a way that truly accounts for the caseload and resources they need to adequately represent their clients, would be more expensive. This would, presumably, draw funding away from both prosecutorial and defense institutions in places where there is a mixed system. This seems to ring true when one considers the caseload contracted attorneys and public defenders currently have. (More on case caps and other criminal justice reform and its impact on rural areas here.)

This is further complicated by the fact that the 25 counties that do not have institutional public defense services in California are virtually all rural. (More on the issues the rural counties in California are facing with regards to lawyer shortages here.) Rural areas already struggle with with attracting attorneys to provide legal services. (More on legal deserts here.) Additionally, because rural counties have less population, they inherently have smaller tax bases. If AB 690 passes, it means a larger portion of budgets will need to be allocated to providing indigent defense while other aspects of the budget will have to be cut back. 

To be sure, the findings of the Wren Foundation are alarming and indigent defendants should be afforded adequate representation. However, it appears that the new law is aiming to address the current problem with a solution that doesn't have adequate infrastructure to support it, especially when considering how it will likely disproportionately impact rural counties. This affords another opportunity to step back and consider whether these issues are being addressed with the unique issues rural places face in mind. Just because you can dictate a solution on paper does not mean its workable or affordable for the impacted communities in practice. 

Bernie Sanders rallies rural Americans to "Fight Oligarchy"

As part of his "Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here" tour, Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has spent the last several weeks visiting districts where Republicans secured a narrow victory during the 2024 general election.

The tour began in Omaha, Nebraska, where Senator Sanders spoke to an overflow crowd of more than 3,400 people. Following this trend, Sanders' next stop was in Iowa City, Iowa, where he filled the historic Englert Theatre and then delivered a second rendition of his speech to the overflow crowd at the hotel next door for the first time in his career. 

Although these cities are not rural themselves, both Iowa and Nebraska are mostly rural states, and many people traveled from hours away to hear Sanders speak. So far, the tour has drawn record crowds.

Reporting for Barn Raiser, Greg Wickencamp writes about the crowd's fears and hopes as they attended Senator Sanders' Iowa rally on February 22, 2025. Some attendees expressed frustration over rising grocery and feed prices, others worried about their children's job prospects, and others said they hoped Sanders' speech would give them hope and motivation. Kelli McCreary, a retired nurse from Toledo, Iowa, noted that her Trump-supporting neighbors are just starting to regret voting for the current President, but that "it's too late."

The theme of Senator Bernie Sanders' message seems to be that politicians will not save us, that both political parties have fundamentally failed the American people, and that we have more power than we are led to believe. Sanders told the audience during his Iowa speech:

Trumpism will not be defeated by politicians in the D.C. Beltway. It will only be defeated by millions of Americans in Iowa, in Vermont, in Nebraska, in every state in this country by people who come together in a strong grassroots movement and say no to oligarchy, no to authoritarianism, no to kleptocracy, no to massive cuts in programs that low-income and working Americans desperately need, no to huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country.

Bernie Sanders is also using his platform to address the myth that rural people are regressive and conservative. Following his stop in Altoona, Wisconsin, on March 8, 2025, Sanders posted the following message to Facebook:

We're told that rural America doesn't like progressive ideas. Not what I saw today in our great rally in Altoona, WI - population 9,200. The people here, and throughout the country, understand that health care is a human right and that we need an economy that works for all, not the few.

Sanders spoke to the Altoona crowd of 2,600 about how the current administration will harm rural and working-class communities. He also sought to empower and motivate the audience through a targeted call to action, saying:

I worry very much that people all over this country in rural areas especially, do not stand up. What we're going to see in the next few months...over a trillion dollars of tax breaks for the top one percent. We can stop it.

For a long time, Bernie Sanders' policies have been degraded by Republicans and Democrats alike for being too radical and extreme. Now, Sanders points out that the Democratic Party has failed to excite people enough to motivate voter turnout. He says that rather than standing for the working class, the Democrats have prioritized corporate interests and need to radically change their approach in order to be successful in the future.

Whether or not Bernie Sanders will gather enough momentum to inspire significant change remains to be seen. Some Bernie-supporters remain cautiously optimistic. Kelly Schmidt, a University of Northern Iowa graduate from Holstein, Iowa, expressed that although everyone in her hometown would benefit from Sanders' proposals, she is unsure if they will listen. Still, many of those who did listen to Sanders' words left his rally feeling hopeful, inspired, and invigorated.

You can find more information about the rural vote here, here, here, and here. 

God, family, and Baylor Law School

One of the most exhilarating (and sometimes disheartening) experiences in an attorney's life is the period between submitting their law school applications and committing to attend a particular school. That time spanned from the Fall of 2021 to April 2022 for me. I fondly remember my first acceptance. I received an email just one week after submitting my application to Baylor Law School informing me that I would shortly receive my decision via mail. Days later, a package was placed on my front porch. Inside, I found my acceptance letter and an invitation to attend a fully expenses-paid trip to the school to tour and visit some classes. I was elated but also apprehensive.

Located in Waco, Texas, Baylor University is affiliated with the Baptist denomination. Although I was hesitant to attend a religiously affiliated school, having just left a religion that had dominated all aspects of my life up until that point, my interactions with the Baylor admissions team mostly alleviated those concerns. Several people told me that Baylor, while religiously affiliated, was welcoming to all people and beliefs. I was also concerned about the political environment. I thought that if the school was located in Texas, I would probably be an outsider with my newfound leftist beliefs. 

In an attempt to alleviate my concerns, an admissions dean from the school stopped by my city for dinner. I mentioned that while Baylor seemed like an excellent fit, and although the scholarship package was extremely generous,  I felt unsure about the religious and political components because I considered myself a left-leaning atheist. Regarding my concerns about religion, I was assured several times that, although Baylor had religious aspects, they primarily affected undergraduate students. Thus, they said, I likely would not even notice any religious influences. As for my political concerns, I was informed that political beliefs at Baylor were evenly divided, with all views being respected and treated with equal consideration. 

I made my visit one month later. The first red flag (or rather, a red flag with a blue starred X) that I had been honeypotted was the massive Confederate flag greeting me at the city limit sign. Compounding this, I was even more surprised when, upon meeting the Law School's Dean, he shook my hand, looked me in the eye, and said, "The three most important things in my life are God, family, and Baylor Law School. If you come here, know that one of my main priorities will be you." Later, when the Dean asked what other schools I was considering, and I mentioned Davis, the Dean scoffed, asking why I would want to attend a school full of "liberals." 

To describe my reaction as surprised would be an understatement.

 As the remainder of my visit progressed, going from breakfast, where a prayer was said over the donuts to "bless them for our body's nourishment" and "to protect our dear President Trump," to tour guides showing their plethora of religiously symbolic tattoos, my association of southern/rural people, religion, and political affiliation strengthened. In my mind, the South was synonymous with rural areas; rural people were often religious, and religious people were generally politically conservative. 

My association is likely incorrect. While 87% of Republicans are religiously affiliated, 77% of Democrats are also religiously affiliated, a not-too-stark difference between the parties. Additionally, only 60% of rural voters identify as Republican. To say that religion influences one's political party seems incongruent with the data. 

However, perhaps more research should be devoted to the connection between rurality and republican beliefs. Notably, from 1996 to 2010, rural people were primarily divided along partisan lines. However, since 2012, support for the Republican Party has steadily risen among rural people. While party support has remained unchanged in urban and suburban counties, the primary explanation for Donald Trump's recent rise to power is primarily attributed to rural residents. 

I am forever grateful that I attended Baylor before making my decision about which school I would attend. Moreover, although my visit did leave me with several stereotypes that I am now discovering are likely unfounded, I view it as an opportunity — an opportunity for growth to challenge and update my preconceptions. We are all on a journey through life, shaped by our experiences. As I soon move on from this current pit stop, which is law school, I am pleased by how these experiences have and will continue to shape my journey going forward.

The cow says moo-ve

I was once walking my dog in San Francisco and noticed something peculiar: a man across the street walking his pet pig. Apparently, having a farm animal as a pet isn’t as uncommon as we might think. For example, Goliath, a baby cow raised in Danville, California went viral in 2015 because thinks he’s a dog. Pretty cute, right? 

As someone who’s favorite animal is a cow, I wish I could adopt one from the SPCA just like I adopted my dog, but I know that it’s impossible unless you have a lot of land. I’ve definitely looked up how to adopt smaller farm animals online, like ducks and chickens, but ultimately decided that it wouldn’t be the best idea while living in an urban area. Although the Internet didn’t have much on where Goliath is today, I would imagine that he eventually outgrew his dog bed and required more space to flourish. 

In San Francisco, you can technically have a cow as a pet as long as you comply with housing and stable laws. However, having farm animals as pets can be challenging if you do not have the knowledge, experience, and land necessary to care for them properly. If you live in a city, this article says that it might be easier to have smaller farm animals as pets like chickens, ducks, pygmy goats, and Dexter cattle.

Social media has seemingly glorified having farm animals as pets. For example, this article highlights many non-traditional house pets, like pigs and cows, that people treat just like dogs and cats. Recently, on a bovine note, highland cows have plagued my feed on TikTok. A 2024 Newsweek article titled “Miniature Cows, Goats, and Donkeys Surge in Popularity” highlighted the increasing popularity of mini goats as pets, stating: 

Mini goats are one of the most popular entry-level mini animals…In the past year, animal breeders have registered roughly 8,330 mini goats with the Miniature Dairy Goat Association, a 73% jump from the 12 months before July 2021, said Angelia Alden, a business operations manager for the North Carolina-based organization. 

However, the article continues by saying how “[m]ini goats are sold after just a few years because it can be challenging and expensive to take care of them.” Additionally, owners struggle with the veterinary and feeding costs that come with owning less traditional animals. 

The increase in mini farm animals is also correlated with the rise in hobby farms, a growing trend where people will purchase a one-acre plot and “keep a miniature cow or a few miniature goats.” This article highlights TikTok creator, Allie Sine’s, experience showcasing her mini cows: 

Sine, 28, launched her own business breeding and selling mini cows in 2020 after reselling a sick mini cow that cost $350 for $5,000. Last year, she sold about 190 calves through her Missouri-based business, Mini Moos LLC. The calves were roughly split between mini and micromini cows that can cost from $2,000 to $30,000.

Based on the increased popularity of mini farm animals, it’s not surprising that prices for miniature animals have increased. However, I can’t help but think about how this must affect the lives of people who rely on farm animals as their source of income. On the one hand, this might be a good way to increase revenue for farms who sell their animals to mini farm animal enthusiasts. On the other hand, the growing demand and interest in hobby farms might increase the costs of farm supplies and veterinary care. We have already seen this with the increasing popularity of the Carhartt brand driving up clothing prices for working class folks. 

Hopefully, hobby farms and city people raising farm animals won't drive up the costs for real farm owners, but the jury's still out. I know one thing for sure: I sadly won’t be adopting a cow anytime soon, as long as I’m living in a big city. 

Marin County declares shelter crisis crisis after farmworkers displaced by historical Point Reyes settlement

Nearly 100 Marin County farmworkers and tenants are set to lose their homes. This comes as a result of a recent settlement to cease ranching operations throughout California's iconic national park -- the Point Reyes National Seashore. The settlement and its effects raise concerns over whether California’s environmental prerogatives are exacerbating the state’s housing crisis.

John Beck has reported extensively on the Point Reyes Settlement in The Press Democrat (Sonoma County). This post relies heavily on his reports which can be found here, here, and here.

In response to the settlement, the Marin County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted in mid-March to pass a shelter crisis declaration. The declaration will allow the County to bypass certain housing regulations, in order to rapidly develop emergency shelters for displaced farmworkers. The declaration will also provide for a number of different temporary shelter types, including buildings without permanent foundations, according to PublicCEO, an outlet for California local government reporting.

The Board's vote was met with broad support from impacted farmworkers and the community at large. "This is a huge win for the community," Jasmine Bravo, a Marin County farmworker advocate, said. However, some community members are concerned that the temporary housing initiative will only delay the inevitable -- the relocation of Marin County's long-established farmworker community.

As of 2024, Marin County ranked third in most expensive housing amongst all California Counties, according to a California Association of Realtors report. In light of this, Marin County housing advocates have expressed a desire to outline a long-term solution to the current crisis. Bravo commented: 

We are hoping that the [temporary housing initiative] is just an interim solution towards a much bigger project. And, hopefully, [the impacted farmworkers] have the opportunity to be homeowners in the future.

The County's declaration will remain in place for three years, but it could be extended afterwards. Funds to support the development of temporary shelters will "come from county housing trust funds," Marin County Supervisor Dennis Rodoni said.

The cause of the crisis -- the Point Reyes settlement -- was itself the product of a years of litigation among environmental conservation groups, the federal government, and Marin County ranchers.

In 2016, three conservation groups sued the National Park Service ("NPS"). The lawsuit challenged the NPS' decision to issue new 20-year commercial farming leases to several Marin County ranching operations, the Resource Renewal Institute ("RRI") explained. The conservation groups argued that the leases were issued without any analysis of potential environmental impacts and without public input, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

The parties eventually settled the 2016 case. That settlement led the NPS to update its Point Reyes land management plans, "which proposed expanded ranching, livestock diversification, and mobile slaughterhouses in the national park," the RRI reported.

However, the conservation groups once again sued the NPS once again in 2022 to halt implementation of the updated plan. This time, the conservation groups argued that the plan violated the NPS's founding mandate to "conserve the scenery, wildlife, and natural and historic objects in national parks, monuments, and reservation . . . for the enjoyment in a way that leaves them unimpaired for future generations.”

An association representing several Marin County ranching operations joined onto the 2022 lawsuit. That same year, all parties involved in the litigation entered into settlement negotiations. Then, in 2023, the Marin County ranchers agreed to cease their operations , in exchange for around $30 million compensation.

The settlement itself has been met with mixed responses. On this point, The Press Democrat’s John Beck observed:

The settlement has proven divisive in the area, as some environmental advocates hail its benefits for the seashore’s watershed and wildlife, including tule elk, while agriculture supporters and others worry about the fallout on local businesses and schools, as well as the region’s farming legacy.

The Point Reyes settlement, and its resulting displacement of the County's farmworkers, is illustrative of the on-going tension between California's pro-environmental policies and its growing housing crisis.

Over the last two decades, California's pro-environmental reforms have come at the expense of pro-housing efforts. Take the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), for instance. CEQA was passed to combat climate change and prevent environmental degradation. And, in many respects, it has achieved this goal. However, CEQA has also infamously become the go to litigation tool for affluent community groups that oppose the construction of new, high-density housing projects. Thus, in a state that desperately needs to increase its housing supply, CEQA has operated to exacerbate California's housing crisis.

The Point Reyes settlement was similarly the result of conservation group efforts. The settlement's proponents may have accomplished their goal of mitigating the rancher's ecological impacts on the national park. This could only accomplished, however, at the expense of housing for nearly 100 farmworkers. Now, as a result of soaring housing prices in Marin County, many lower-income families are at risk of being forced out of the community where some of their families have lived for generations.

For a detailed discussion on CEQA’s impact on California’s housing crisis, check out this article by land use attorney Jennifer Hernandez.

The Point Reyes settlement is now another chapter of the growing saga that is California's struggle to reconcile its pro-environmental positions with its unprecedented housing crisis. This struggle shows no sign of relenting, as the state's housing crises continues to worsen, and the effects of climate change continue to surge.

New Hampshire (once again) tries to restrict student voting - Part I (the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and its immediate aftermath)

Let me start this piece off with a very basic question:

If you live somewhere for four years, should you be able to vote and have a say in the affairs of the state and local government?

Most people would say yes. If you live in a community, if you study there, work there, rent an apartment, buy groceries, use public services, you have a stake in what happens there. The laws passed by state and local governments directly affect your daily life. In any functioning democracy, you should have the right to elect the people who make those laws.

What am I asking this question? Because New Hampshire politicians are once again proposing a law that would disenfranchise college students and exclude them from having a say in their local government. In January, Republican State Senator Victoria Sullivan introduced Senate Bill 223, which would amend New Hampshire's existing voter ID law to remove the ability to use college IDs to satisfy the requirement. This is particularly egregious for New Hampshire, which prides itself on having a citizen legislature (with 424 members, its legislature is the third largest in the English-speaking world). 

This bill is disguised as a proverbial trojan horse. After all, State Sen. Sullivan and her co-sponsors are simply asking that students gets a New Hampshire ID in order to vote in New Hampshire elections. However, this ignores the context in which this law exists and the decades long battle against student voting that has been waged by Republicans in the state. It also ignores the fundamental problem of every voter ID law, they exist to disenfranchise voters who cannot (for various reasons) get an ID. It's an additional barrier to exercising a fundamental right. 

But this is not an isolated occurrence, it's the latest in a decades long battle to curtail student voting rights in New Hampshire. Over the next few weeks, we'll explore this history and how it impacts the current battle.  

Twenty-Sixth Amendment and the Student Vote

The fight against student voting in New Hampshire dates back to 1971, when then-Attorney General (and future U.S. Senator) Warren Rudman took a hardline stance against allowing college students to register to vote in the state. The issue came to a head following that year's ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. In July of that year, Rudman issued a directive requiring college students to register in their hometowns rather than where they attended school. The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union swiftly pledged to fight Rudman's directive, though they did not file their lawsuit immediately. 

Rudman reasoned that a college student's domicile remained in their parent's households, a rationale that is not applied to any other New Hampshire adult that moves out on their own at the age of 18. He also claimed that college students pay no taxes (presumably property tax since NH doesn't have an income or sales tax), a rationale that is not applied to any other New Hampshire renter. Rudman also said that he opposed letting people who are not in a community "permanently" to vote there, again a standard that is not applied to any other New Hampshire adult. 

There were other bizarre standards at play - opponents of student voting reasoned that college students were more informed about the issues where their parents are living than their college town. Even if this were true, knowledge of local affairs does not determine an individual's right to vote. In fact, I have met many adults who could not even name their state legislator. There were also tall tales (debunked by local officials) of Dartmouth College students flooding Hanover, NH town meetings and voting for absurd items like a subway system. Opponents seized on the idea of "temporary residents" radically changing the political affairs of small college towns. 

In the context of the time, it must have scared New Hampshire Republicans to have thousands of liberal college students added to the voter rolls. The country was in the midst of the Vietnam War and college students were both politically engaged and incredibly motivated to exercise their newly acquired right to vote. These political calculations undoubtedly led Rudman to advocate for disenfranching entire swaths of his state's population. 

Rudman's commitment to disenfranching college students even led him to threaten to criminally prosecute town officials who registered college students to vote and take the issue to the United States Supreme Court. He also accused the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union of having political motives for advocating for student voters. He was seemingly oblivious to the irony in his statement. 

Rudman even opposed compromise measures, such as HB 1029, which would have excluded college students from voting in local and municipal elections. 

By October 1971, Rudman was increasingly finding himself as a man on an island. Courts around the country (including in California, whose Attorney General took a similar stance to Rudman) had rejected the kinds of arguments that Rudman had advanced. According to the October 25th edition of the Concord Monitor, in New England, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut explicitly allowed college students to register to vote while a federal court case was pending and would soon be decided in Maine on the matter. Vermont had no explicit policy, but the state had given tacit approval to move forward with registering students to vote. Despite these setbacks, Rudman said that he did not plan to change his guidance. 

In December, the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union finally filed their lawsuit. 

--

Here's what to expect in future parts:

Part II of this series will cover the outcomes of the legal actions against Rudman and the State of New Hampshire and their impacts on voting rights in New Hampshire. 

Part III will cover more contemporary battles, including the rise of voter ID and its usage as a vehicle to suppress the student vote. 

Part IV will cover the Chris Sununu era and the battle over college student voting in the late 2010s.  

Part V will wrap it all up and talk about the current struggle

Agro-Mafia and the Caporalato: How far-right immigration policy is failing rural Italy

 Le Langhe, a region in Northern Italy, has been heralded as the "New Tuscany" for its scenic landscape, tartufi bianchi, and quality wines. It's one of many parts of Italy that relies on rural agricultural practices for economic output. The agri-food industry in Italy accounts for almost 15 percent of its total GDP. It also represents an economic expansion: from 2006 to 2016, international demand for Italian wine grew by 74 percent. 

The people making the wine? Migrant workers from Romania, India, and Northern Africa. Foreign workers account for 10.3 percent of Italy's total workforce, but in the agricultural sector, around half of workers are migrants — around 400,000 or 500,000 people in total. Some are asylum seekers, fleeing violence from their home country. Some are hoping to pass through Italy to resettle further north, but are stuck due to European Union restrictions that require the first EU state an asylum seeker enters to be the one to adjudicate their claim. 

Trapped without status, many turn to temporary agricultural jobs in rural areas that pay little and require long hours. Their recruiters? Corporali, or intermediaries who offer migrants exploitative, temporary jobs and take a fee for providing them with work. 

Many refer to the Caporalato and their control of the industry as the "Agro-Mafia." In 2020, over 42 percent of Tuscany's 55,000-person workforce were migrants. Some reported working for as little as 3 to 4 euros an hour. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that when migrant workers are employed through corporali, their wages are sometimes 50 percent lower than those working under regulated contracts. Workers face rampant discrimination, racism, and poor working conditions. One worker in a study conducted by Amnesty International shared that after working from 6 AM to 6 PM and taking only a thirty-minute break, he was paid only 20 euros for his time. Rurality, of course, exacerbates all of these problems, leaving workers far from community resources and the employers with little oversight and incentive to stop their labor practices. 

In 2016, Italy passed Law No. 199/2016, which included criminal penalties for corporali and codified a new definition of "labor exploitation." However, the law has been heavily criticized for penalizing the intermediary worker, but not the employer itself. And given the high turnover in short-term agricultural work, many leave to a new job or exit the country entirely before prosecution is possible. 

The possibility of reform has become further complicated given dramatic changes in Italy's political landscape. In 2018, then-Interior Minister Matteo Salvini abolished all humanitarian aid in Italy. Tens of thousands of refugees lost their status, forcing many to turn to agricultural jobs and expanding the reach of the corporali. The 2022 national elections fared no better: Giorgia Meloni was sworn in as Italy's first female prime minister. Her party, Fratelli d'Italia ("Brothers of Italy"), now leads what is largely considered to be the most conservative Italian administration since World War II. Meloni recently announced that pursuant to a new agreement between their two countries, Albania will detain up to 36,000 migrants rescued by Italian authorities in the Mediterranean. The deal also included a dedicated €650 million for new detention centers.

Beyond the evident humanitarian crisis, extremist immigration practices will have an undeniable impact on rural economies. Border restrictions and punitive immigration policy will lead to labor shortages in the agricultural industry, which relies entirely on migrant labor. Not to mention that declining population levels in rural areas have often been filled by immigrants working in those communities. Camini, a commune that had a population of 751 in 2007, now hosts over 118 immigrants from Syria, Bangladesh, and Turkey. Camini exemplifies how immigrants are often the difference between a community collapsing entirely or thriving. 

Read more about agricultural crime in Italy here. This article further discusses rural population decline in Italy. 

Hey, Taylor Swift, why don’t you perform somewhere rural?

I attended my first concert at five years old. I remember enthusiastically dancing and singing along to The Wiggle’s “Fruit Salad,” a hit that has honestly withstood the tests of time.

Since The Wiggles, I’ve been lucky enough to attend concerts of popular artists like Harry Styles, Coldplay, and Taylor Swift. These concerts not only allowed me to listen to great music, but also improved my mental health. Lisa Badanes, the chair of the Department of Psychological Sciences at Metropolitan State University of Denver, states that people who attend concerts have increased levels of endorphins and oxytocin. Additionally, dancing with others in a crowd can lead to increased feelings of belonging.

However, it’s not always easy to attend a concert. Most of the artists I’ve seen only stopped in Los Angeles, not my hometown of San Diego. While the two hour drive wasn’t the worst, it did require planning, gas money, and often buying a hotel for the night. And, for many Americans, especially rural Americans, it is even more logistically challenging to get to the city where their favorite artist tours. For example, in Harry Styles’ Love on Tour, he only stopped in four cities in the United States: New York, Austin, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

Aside from distance, the price of tickets have become more of an obstacle for the average concert goer since the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2019, the average ticket price was $96.17, in 2024 the average ticket price was $123.25. Thus, for many rural Americans, traveling to attend a concert with already expensive tickets is not financially feasible.

Take for example, Gunnison County in Colorado, which was recently mentioned in a previous blog post. Gunnison County workers devote 32 percent of their income on average to rent. After factoring in other necessities like food or medical care, they likely do not have the discretionary income to attend a concert out-of-state.

This is not to say I don’t understand why big artists only include major cities on their tour. Musicians like Taylor Swift can fill NFL stadiums, and all 30 NFL stadiums are located in major cities. Additionally, many artists prefer large venues in big cities because of the better security practices in place.

So, how do we make it easier for rural residents to attend concerts and see their favorite artists live? While the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit to break up the Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopoly could drive down ticket prices, that doesn’t solve the high costs associated with traveling to another city. Thus, one answer is to promote festivals, as that seems to be one of the major ways to get big artists to visit rural areas. A festival, as opposed to a concert, usually takes place over multiple days with different artists performing.

For example, the music festival “Hinterland” takes place in Saint Charles, Iowa, which had a population of 640 people in 2020. This August, the festival’s lineup includes Tyler, The Creator, Lana Del Rey, and Kacey Musgraves.

Holding festivals in rural areas both allows rural residents to see live music from popular artists and invigorates the local economy. For example, the Bonnaroo Music and Arts Festival happens annually on a 700-acre farm in Manchester, Tennessee (population around 12,200), and generates approximately $50 million for the surrounding region. Tax revenue from the ticket sales and increased local spending funds the county’s schools, public safety, and infrastructure projects, and Bonnaroo has further donated more than $7 million to community programs since 2002.

Plus, music festivals are usually held outdoors, which circumvents the logistical challenge of finding a venue big enough for traditional concerts in rural areas. In fact, when it comes to festivals, rural areas should be the preferred option as they usually have more outdoor space than urban areas.

However, despite the possible incentives for holding festivals in rural areas, of the 26 largest music festivals, only three take place in rural areas. This is because corporations are more likely to sponsor an event held in a city since those festivals often have more attendees.

While I understand why ticket sales may be greater in cities, the success of festivals like Bonnaroo should prove to companies that we can entice people to travel to rural areas, and benefit those rural areas’ economies at the same time. Not to mention, a backdrop of mountains and a sunset while listening to Taylor Swift certainly doesn’t sound like the worst thing in the world.

Filling the rural labor void

A hotly contested issue during the 2024 presidential election was immigration. President Trump’s presidential campaign centered around mass deportations, restricting entry for refugees, and expanding the border wall. According to the New York Times, former Vice President Harris tried to neutralize the immigration topic:

But her message fell flat, as voters across the country doubted her resolve, associated her with the Biden administration’s failures at the border or were simply won over by Mr. Trump’s starkly xenophobic rhetoric.

Most of Trump’s political comments around immigration related to his assertion that immigrants were “stealing” jobs from U.S. citizens. However, labor economists pushed back against his sentiments by explaining how immigrants are beneficial to the U.S. labor market and economy:

Immigrants take jobs but they also create new ones by spending in local economies and by starting businesses, economists said. One 2020 research paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found immigrants are 80% more likely to become entrepreneurs than native workers.

A recent “surge” of immigrants to the U.S. is expected to add $8.9 trillion (or 3.2%) to the nation’s GDP over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan scorekeeper for Congress.

Currently, the manufacturing and agriculture sectors are experiencing labor shortages, and the problem can be especially acute in rural areas, where populations are declining. Immigration can be a solution to this labor shortage. Specifically, the U.S. should increase opportunities for employment-based visas for skilled and unskilled workers.

The largest immigration raid in U.S. history in Postville, Iowa should educate us about the importance of the immigrant workforce and the impact of I.C.E. raids on host communities. The Postville raid resulted in 389 arrests in a town with just about 2,500 residents. In the wake of the raid, however, another 1,000 immigrants either fled the town or left to follow family members who were detained. As a result, the county lost seven percent of its workforce, and the factory soon went bankrupt. A different company bought the factory and hired immigrants from the Pacific island of Palau to work at the factory.

Thus, the void left by the detained immigrants was filled by another immigrant workforce.

Immigrants not only fill labor shortages in rural America, but they also bring an entrepreneurial spirit. Immigrants are eighty percent more likely to start a business compared to native-born Americans. This law review article by Professor Amarante documented the extent to which Hispanics and Latinos own small businesses even in rural places. He wrote in particular of Morristown, Tennessee:

But before I got to Morristown’s main street, I was shocked to see three tacquerias, a tortilleria, and a panaderia. I hadn’t seen signs in Spanish since I left Nevada and it felt a little surreal to see a traditional Mexican bakery on a main thoroughfare in a small town in East Tennessee.

As the country moves into an uncertain future under a second Trump administration, it is more crucial than ever that conversations around labor shortages help change the current political rhetoric around immigration.

To read more about immigrants in rural America, see These boots were made for immigrants and Addressing the rural lawyer shortage has never been more important.

Food deserts and their disproportionate effects on rural areas

Food deserts are both an urban and rural problem, but rural communities are disproportionately affected by a lack of access to food. Food deserts and their effects have been discussed before on this blog, but food deserts and food insecurity remain a persistent problem. Food insecurity affects millions of people in the United States. As of July 2023, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that a staggering 27 million Americans are affected by food insecurity or a lack of access to food. In many instances, food insecurity comes from persistent poverty, but other times, food insecurity is caused by a lack of access to grocery stores. The latter disproportionately affects rural areas.

Food deserts are a form of food insecurity. Put succinctly, a food desert is an area where people do not have immediate access to a grocery store to purchase food. The United States Department of Agriculture has defined an urban food desert as one where 33% of the population is further than one mile from a supermarket and a rural food desert as one where 33% of people are more than 10 miles from a supermarket.

People in food deserts are faced with a lack of options as well. A local grocery store or supermarket may not have the variety or options that a large grocery store can provide. This limits people's access to fresh produce as well, which is a crucial part of a healthy diet. Instead, the few grocery stores located within a food desert may only have shelf-stable, processed foods. This further compounds the health issues that many communities, particularly rural communities, already face.

Rural areas are disproportionately affected by food deserts. A CoBank Study found that “rural communities comprise 63% of all U.S. counties but 87% of counties with the highest food insecurity rates.” Another study by Verwell Health found that “over one-fifth of people living in urban areas and one-third of people in rural areas are in food deserts.” The numbers show that food deserts disproportionately affect rural communities. Food insecurity in rural areas is due in part to food deserts.

A lack of access to grocery stores or supermarkets plays a major role in the formation and perpetuation of food deserts in rural America. Many rural individuals have to travel long distances to get to grocery stores. This travel can become even more difficult and dangerous during winter months when weather can impact travel. Furthermore, when people in rural communities get to their local grocery stores, they find themselves faced with a lack of options. Many rural grocery stores do not provide people with “access to a wide range of food and beverage options.”

As mentioned above, many local grocery stores or supermarkets in rural areas only have processed foods available to customers. Processed foods are cheaper and easier to transport compared to fresh produce. Typically, processed foods are higher in sodium, fat, and sugar. This leads to an unhealthy diet which has further health consequences outside of food insecurity.

There is a direct correlation between food deserts, unhealthy diets, and health issues related to poor nutrition. Diets that are high in sodium, fat, and sugar lead to an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and other health issues. Furthermore, a diet that lacks proper nutrition can also lead to complications during pregnancy.

Solving the food desert crisis is a complicated issue as well. One suggestion is that food delivery services may be able to fill the void of food deserts. A study from the Brookings Institute found that 90% of people living in food deserts could potentially have access to food delivery services such as Amazon, Instacart, Uber Eats, or Walmart. The study also acknowledges that a lack of internet access could make it difficult for rural areas to access food delivery services. Lack of internet access in rural areas, which has been discussed here, is not only a technological limitation but can also limit rural area's access to food.

Food deserts and food insecurity affect many millions of people in the United States but disproportionately affect rural communities. While there is no readily apparent solution to the food desert problem, hopefully, more people will be aware of how prevalent food insecurity is in the United States, particularly in rural areas.

The ripple effects of a pivot away from clean energy reach Humboldt County

Efforts to develop offshore wind infrastructure off the coast of California have run into a confluence of Trump administration priorities: reducing federal spending, eliminating clean energy projects, and undoing anything related to the Biden administration. In a widely expected move, the Trump administration announced that they were pausing all offshore wind leasing and reviewing existing leases for potential termination. 

Since that announcement, companies planning to build wind turbines off the coast of Humboldt County announced significant layoffs, a sign that those projects may no longer be moving forward. While the Trump administration's announcement did not immediately revoke the permits for the planned offshore wind sites off of Morro Bay and Humboldt County, development of these sites and the onshore infrastructure needed to build the wind turbines and carry the electricity to its destination markets requires a huge investment that offshore wind supporters believe would almost certainly require federal funding. Given the current administration's posture towards wind and other clean energy sources (not to mention towards the entire state of California), that funding will not be coming anytime soon. Thus, it is not surprising that the companies who already paid the U.S. government $757.1 million to lease tracts of the ocean for wind energy appear to be rolling back those plans and cutting jobs that would have been focused on those projects.

In addition to the direct impacts on those losing their jobs with these wind energy developers, the Trump administration's decision to pull support for offshore wind will affect those in Humboldt County who were hoping for the economic benefits that were promised to accompany these projects. As part of the lease bidding process, bidding companies were required to "commit to mak[ing] a qualifying monetary contribution to programs or initiatives that benefit the greater Humboldt County community." The agreement with the federal government provided for about 7.5% of the bid amounts to go to local stakeholders, a not-insignificant amount considering that the total bids amounted to over $750 million for parcels off Morro Bay and Humboldt County. It is unclear how much of that money the County and other local stakeholders have received.

Beyond the direct payments, however, local communities stood to gain from accompanying investments in electric infrastructure and in making significant upgrades to the Humboldt Bay Harbor District, as well as accompanying increases in economic activity in the local area. Now, whether any of those benefits will materialize is an open question.

Even before the Trump administration moved to scuttle clean energy development, many locals in Humboldt County were skeptical about the promised benefits from wind projects. Calmatters' Julie Cart, in her excellent reporting on offshore wind development in California, noted that local communities would bear social costs and face strains on infrastructure, including higher housing costs and utility upgrades. 

As previously discussed on this blog, Humboldt County has experienced a series of boom-and-bust cycles from different industries, including timber, fishing, and cannabis, that have brought prosperity to the region only to collapse and give way to economic despair. Humboldt County's Director of Economic Development, Scott Adair, shared that locals "are cautious about the flimflam, if you will, the over-promisers."

Adair also noted that, even if locals are skeptical, the fate of the project is out of their hands.

“This is a federal project that is happening to us,” Adair said. “We have a limited ability to be involved and to help steer or shape the outcomes of the project.”

County supervisors expressed some cautious optimism that underscores how the region stood to gain and how it has suffered from prior economic hardships: 

The supervisors said they are excited about the possibilities, but they also worry about the pitfalls and are bracing for disappointment. “I go into this with my eyes wide open,” said Supervisor Rex Bohn. “I pray this happens. I hope like hell this happens.

From outside of Humboldt County, offshore wind is considered critical to achieving California's zero-carbon targets for electricity. 

“There is an undeniable urgency,” said David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission. “California has had unprecedented climate challenges. There is a fierce urgency to respond. We have to stop being academic on this. We have to build.”

But this urgency is not enough to justify the project's presence in Humboldt for many locals who have felt burned by prior experiences with extractive industry. Phillip Williams, a member of the Yurok Tribal Council, was extremely skeptical about relying on this project for economic benefits to the local communities:

“Everybody's lining up. It's almost like there's a predator. ‘Okay, these guys are weak. We can come in here and take advantage of this community that’s this desperate for dollars, because they've already depleted all their natural resources. What else can we extract from these communities, and these communities are so desperate, that they're willing to jump off the bridge blind, in hopes that there's gold at the bottom,’” he said.

Like other communities along the North Coast, Williams said the Yuroks need sustainable jobs, but not at any cost. More than a third of tribal members live below the poverty line, 60% of them children.

 Now that it appears likely that the project will be delayed, if not abandoned, skeptics in the local community may be breathing a sigh of relief. Their reactions to the proposed project certainly show the importance of local input and the potential pain that can be caused by major infrastructure development in rural and economically depressed areas. But the climate crisis continues unabated, and the Trump administration has not announced any proposals for economic development in Humboldt County to lessen the impact of the potential loss of offshore wind.