A new angle on rural library closure, with a story out of central Washington

Library in Kingtson, Arkansas 2013

There have been a number of rural library stories --most of them about the closure of rural libraries--in the past few years.  (Read some of them here). This latest, from the New York Times, is a bit more complicated.  Anna Griffin reports form Tieton, Washington, population 1389, in Yakima County.  The headline is "Federal Cuts, Immigration Raids, and a Slowing Economy Hit Rural Libraries."  Here's the lede: 

Cole Leinbach, a librarian in Tieton, Wash., population 1,610, watched intently as a 7-year-old girl hunkered down with a book in a corner of the town’s one-room library. Her brother, 4, had opened a board game searching for potential toys. Their mother talked quietly on her phone in Spanish.

“This is what libraries are supposed to be,” he said, “just a place a mom can go with her kids for an hour to hang out and get some kind of enriching entertainment.”

But the Tieton library, which occupies a few hundred square feet in a side room at the city hall, is closing next month, a casualty of rising costs in Yakima County, Wash., shrinking help from Washington, D.C., financing decisions made decades ago and significant demographic change.

“I’ve had people come express dismay,” said Mr. Leinbach, who at 26 has been a librarian for about a year and a half. “A library is in a lot of ways a kind of civic symbol, a demonstration of a community’s commitment to itself. So what does it mean if that goes away?”

* * * 

That is a question a growing number of communities, many of them in Republican states, will be facing soon. In March, President Trump issued an executive order dismantling the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which has provided around $270 million a year to public and academic libraries to help pay for services such as summer reading programs, broadband internet access, lending between libraries, staff training and access to national databases.

Don't miss the rest of the Tieton, Washington story here.  

New book: Global Reflections on Positionality in Rural Access to Justice

Global Reflections on Positionality in Rural Access to Justice Research is published today by Bloomsbury.  The co-editors of this anthology are Michele Statz and Daniel Newman.  A synopsis follows: 

This book offers a unique look at rural access to justice through a series of personal and professional reflections by leading scholars in the field.

Engaging a “position sensibility”, it explores how our identities, class backgrounds, and professional privileges shape research and writing in rural places-and how those rural places in turn shape us.

This is an important collection, for while rural justice gaps are well-documented, considerably less has been written about the distinct opportunities that rural communities present for collaborative research, innovation, and policy development. The book offers us an honest, reflexive accounting of what has been done, why, and what's next to dismantle academic barriers and promote meaningful work on rural access to justice.

As a call to still deeper engagement with rurality, this book will inspire readers to consider rural place in their studies of law-and to consider their own place in scholarship on access to justice.

Here's the Table of Contents; as you will see, it includes many notable scholars of rural legal scholarship: 

1. Introduction, Rebecca Sandefur (Arizona State University, American Bar Foundation , USA) 

2. Claiming the South, Elizabeth Chambliss (University of South Carolina, USA)

3. From the Valleys to the Academy, Daniel Newman (Cardiff University UK)
4. Improving Access...Delivering Justice? Insights from Empirical Legal Research on (Rural) Access to Justice, Leslie S Ferraz (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime)
5. Indigenous Communities and Reparative Reflexivity in Socio-legal Studies, Brieanna Watters (University of Minnesota, USA)
6. Considerations of Access to Justice in the Context of Disaster, Kyle Mulrooney (University of New England, Australia), Marg Camilleri (Federation University Australia), Joseph F Donnermeyer (Ohio State University, USA) and Alistair Harkness (University of New England, Australia)
7. An Escape to Rurality, Maybell Romero (Tulane University, USA)
8. The Language of a Place, Michele Statz (University of Minnesota, USA)
9. The Slain South African Police Officer's Legacy Lives on: A Rural Criminologist's History, Witness Maluleke (University of Limpopo, South Africa)
10. Race, Rurality, and Marginalisation in the American South, Lauren Sudeall (Vanderbilt University, USA)
11. 'Do What Has to Be Done': How the Codes We Live By Shape Rural Access to Justice, Hillary Wandler (University of Montana, USA)
12. My Past is My Present: Teaching in and Writing about a Home Community, Hannah Haksgaard (University of South Dakota, USA)
13. Legal Pluralism and Human Rights Concerns, Wilfredo Ardito (Pontifical Catholic University
of Peru)
14. The Importance of Place in Law and Society, Mark Fathi Massoud (University of California, USA)

Farm Bureau skirts Obamacare (ACA) requirements on health plans

The Washington Post story is here, under the headline, "More states are offering cheap health plans to farmers, with a catch."  The lede follows:  

For years, Indiana farmer Corina Brant found herself squeezed on health care. Unable to qualify for Affordable Care Act subsidies, she worked an extra job that took her away from her farm duties.

That all changed in 2021, when she bought a policy for herself and her family under the Indiana Farm Bureau. It’s one of the growing number of states that allow these agencies — which lobby on behalf of farmers — to sell policies underwritten by large insurers such as UnitedHealthcare. The laws are modeled after a decades-old Tennessee statute that allows a state farm bureau to sell health coverage to farmers.

The catch: While these policies are inexpensive, they come with major restrictions. The plans cover checkups and most medical procedures, but they aren’t required to cover applicants with preexisting conditions or maintain coverage for someone who becomes seriously ill. In that sense, they resemble the cheap short-term plans that the Trump administration has pushed as a private-market alternative to the ACA. Critics call them “junk plans,” while proponents say they expand affordable options to an underserved group.

Rural K-12 education deficits draw (at least) momentary attention from New York Times

Jessica Grose of the New York Times wrote earlier this week about the plight of rural schools.  The headline is "Rural Kids Need More than Vocational School."  Her newsletter was inspired by Beth Macy's new book, Paper Girl, which claims to be about rural America--broadly defined.  In the book, Macy takes up some rural K-12 education deficits, and she cites the work of Prof. Catharine Biddle of the University of Maine.  

[Biddle] explained that while [a range of wraparound] services are also in demand in high-need urban and suburban districts, it’s a particular challenge to offer them in rural America. Most school systems run on economies of scale and a per-student funding model; it poses a great challenge to provide wraparound services to districts with fewer students who have a lot of needs and who are also spread out. Rural districts already face a teacher shortage, and earlier this year, the federal Department of Education cut funding to teacher training programs that might have helped alleviate some of those shortages.

In one paper Biddle wrote, where she spoke to over 100 educators in rural Maine about how they dealt with children with adverse childhood experiences, a teacher mentioned that the school nurse is on site just once a month, and that teachers feel as if they are acting as ad hoc social workers on a daily basis.

Thus, Grose's column, among other things, points out is the spatial inequality between rural and urban.  Other not-so-distant NYT attention to rural educational deficits is here (NYT Magazine 2021).  

Ro Khanna talks "Epstein class" in relation to rural and working-class unrest

David Leonhardt interviewed U.S. Congressman Ro Khanna on the NYT opinion podcast yesterday under the headline, "The Democrat Who Split MAGA Over the Epstein Files."  Khanna styles himself an economic populist, and he has paid a lot of attention recent years to spatial inequality and the ways in which rural and rural-ish communities have been hurt by U.S. trade policies of recent years.  That is, he takes seriously the woes of places often styled as "left behind," including rural ones.  (Here's a December 2022 post about Khanna's interest in rural America).  

In this interview with Leonhardt, Khanna talks about his collaboration with Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie to push for the release of the Epstein files.  The quotes below, all from Khanna, link rural and working class agitation that drew them to Trump to their discontent with the so-called "Epstein class."  

Khanna: I have been going on podcasts to argue for my economic patriotism agenda — an agenda that says we’ve got to focus on factory towns that have been hollowed out in rural communities. I was going and visiting these communities, and so I was on Theo Von’s podcast and I was on the “Flagrant” podcast and I was going to places like Johnstown, Pa., and going to places like Warren, Ohio. When I was there, the issue would come up about the “Epstein class” — that’s what they called it. They said, well, are you on the side of the forgotten Americans or on the side of the Epstein class?

I realized how much the abuse by rich and powerful men of young girls and the sense of a rape island that Epstein had set up for people embodied the corruption of government. And then many of them saw Donald Trump as fighting this corrupt government and standing up for forgotten Americans. And this was the symbol for the most disgusting abuse and corruption of our government. And so when the issue came up that Pam Bondi said that there was nothing to release, I knew that this was a betrayal of the core promise that Trump had made to MAGA voters.

I said, we should push for the release. And I put out some tweet initially and then we introduced a bill. Then Massie and I have worked together for years; we have a real friendship. He called me and he said: Well, why don’t we try to collaborate on this instead of just doing something partisan? And I think we can reshape the coalition.

In the process, I then met the survivors and when I met the survivors, then it became personal. I mean, these are women who are talking about being raped at the age of 14 and being told to recruit other junior high and high school students. I think I had the same experience that Marjorie Taylor Greene or Nancy Mace or Thomas Massie had — once you meet these survivors, I mean, it’s just one of the most horrific crimes in our country’s history.

* * *

And once these files are released, people can judge for themselves the abusive conditions of those young girls. But one of the survivors really struck me and said, “Ro, I don’t remember what happened to me, and I want to see the files to understand the trauma I went through.” And for these survivors, some of them voted for Trump. It’s not personal. In fact, we’re having a press conference and one of the asks of the survivors will be to meet with Donald Trump to have these files released. But anyone who meets them realizes that, look, there were over a thousand victims. The idea that only two people would be doing this with a thousand victims just doesn’t make sense. I mean, it’s more than Epstein and Maxwell. It’s a symbol for the recklessness of an elite that could do things without impunity.

* * *

It gave me a sense of how deep it went. I didn’t really follow the details. Now, there is a whole island of people with a thousand-plus victims abused so that the scale of it, it resonated. And it occurred to me how many people view this as the central example of the corruption of their own government. And many of them had said — look, they thought that there were more Democrats than Republicans involved. I think that’s probably because of Trump’s messaging. And I don’t believe that to be the case, I think it’s widespread, but that was the sentiment. And so the emotional power of it is something that I grasped only because I was in these communities. I was on these podcasts and I was talking to people in the MAGA base.

* * *

And I would often say to people, after I go into these communities, when I was in Aliquippa or Johnstown, I said, if I was in one of those communities, I’d vote everyone out too. Why wouldn’t you? Those towns have been abandoned for 40 years and it’s not just the working class.

I think this is one of the places that Democrats make a mistake — it’s not just the person who’s making $13 an hour who should be making $15 or $17 or $20 an hour. It’s people who are doctors or who are lawyers or who are small-business owners who think their entire communities have been hollowed out. The pride is gone. Their jobs were shipped overseas. They see districts like mine that are succeeding. They think they built America and a governing class has abandoned them. And Trump evoked that sentiment and he said, I’m going to tear down this corrupt system. I would often say, well, what we need to do is build things up. But they said, well, your party is not even understanding what needs to be torn down.

The Epstein class often became Exhibit 1 in what they thought that the status quo had protected, and didn’t care enough about. So I think it’s deeper than just the economics. It was this sense that these people feel and felt they were losing their country.

* * *

I did not know, in full honesty, where the MAGA base would go because one of the things — having just been to so many small towns, rural communities, factory towns for the past nine years — that I think we don’t understand is the emotional connection that Trump built with these communities because he was one of the first people to say, you got shafted, you got screwed and I’m going to bring back your pride.

And so they give him a lot of latitude because they think he was the first to emotionally speak to their ambition and their pain and their hopes. But what started to happen is, as we built momentum for this, I started to see commentators first in the MAGA base say: “You know what? This is really important. This is core to what Trump ran on.”

New survey shows (some) rural Americans more optimistic than their urban counterparts

The AP reported yesterday on a new survey from the American Communities Project that shows, among other findings, that certain rural Americans--those living in counties the survey designers designate "Rural Middle America" are more optimistic than the average American.  Here's the part of the AP story about rural optimism: 

Rising optimism in rural areas, despite economic anxiety

Rural residents are feeling more upbeat about the country’s trajectory — even though most aren’t seeing Trump’s promised economic revival.

The $15 price tag on a variety pack of Halloween candy at the Kroger supermarket last month struck Carl Gruber. Disabled and receiving federal food aid, the 42-year-old from Newark, Ohio, had hardly been oblivious to lingering, high supermarket prices.

But Gruber, whose wife also is unable to work, is hopeful about the nation’s future, primarily in the belief that prices will moderate as Trump suggests.

“Right now, the president is trying to get companies who moved their businesses out of the country to move them back,” said Gruber, a Trump voter whose support has wavered over the federal shutdown that delayed his monthly food benefit. “So, maybe we’ll start to see prices come down.”

About 6 in 10 residents of Rural Middle America — Newark’s classification in the survey — say they are hopeful about the country’s future over the next few years, up from 43% in the 2024 ACP survey. Other communities, like heavily evangelical areas or working-class rural regions, have also seen an uptick in optimism.

Kimmie Pace, a 33-year-old unemployed mother of four from a small town in northwest Georgia, said, “I have anxiety every time I go to the grocery store.”

But she, too, is hopeful in Trump. “Trump’s in charge, and I trust him, even if we’re not seeing the benefits yet,” she said.

It's important to note that not all rural or nonmetro counties are designated "Rural Middle America", and I'd say the lion's share of the counties in that category are in the Midwest. Many are in Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, for example, with a few in coastal states, including New York, Washigton and Oregon.  Many nonmetro counties, including my home county in Arkansas are designated "Evangelical Hubs" and others--as in New England--are designated "Graying America."  You can find the cool color-coded map here.  And here's a chart showing the movement in attitudes from all groups.  It shows Native Americans as even more optimistic than "Rural Middle America."   Optimism also rose among other groups associated with rurality, including "Evangelical Hubs", "Aging Farmland", "Working-Class Country" and "Exurbs."   

You can read more about the methodology for assigning counties to the various categories here.  

Postscript:  On Nov. 20, Newsweek published this story about rural-urban difference in the survey.   I'll feature a few posts from that story here.  First, this is from Shannon Monnat, President Elect of the Rural Sociological Society and Director of the Center for Public Policy Reform at Syracuse University:   

Rural communities tend to be concerned with "cultural recognition, respect, and visibility," Mon " nat said, as many have experienced "long-term economic losses, population aging, poor health, and weakening local institutions," so she added that when their daily life is "shaped by these challenges, national politics can become a symbolic arena where people seek affirmation.

It's also important to remember that rural communities "vary tremendously in their economies, the types of people who live in them, and political orientations," Monnat said, so not all rural communities will feel the same.

* * * 

"Painting these results as rural versus urban masks the diversity within nonmetropolitan counties, which make up the vast majority of counties in the U.S.," Carrie Henning-Smith, a professor of health policy and management at the University of Minnesota, told Newsweek.

* * * 

"Some parts of rural America are thriving, while other parts face significant challenges both now and in the future," Kenneth Johnson, a professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire, told Newsweek.

* * * 

However, in other areas, rural counties are depopulating, meaning they reached their peak population decades ago and have now lost around 25 percent of that population, Johnson said.

This is partly because in "the majority of rural counties, more people die than are born each year," as "access to health care is more limited," he added. It is also because many rural areas are losing young adults to urban areas and cities, he said.

Finally, I am quoted regarding Democrats' disinvestment in the rural vote.  

Calls to divide California into two states revived after passage of Prop 50

California Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) is again pushing to split the state into two, re-energized by the recent passage of Proposition 50 (read more here and here).  Gallagher, who recently stepped away from his role as minority leader of the State Assembly, spoke at a meeting of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors on Nov. 6, two days after the election.  Here's a quote from the San Francisco Chronicle coverage of Gallagher's comments indicating that  

the passage of Prop. 50 was a “catalyst” for him to reintroduce a resolution that would form a new state out of multiple dissatisfied California counties. The proposed new 51st American state would sever the entirety of more rural inland California from the coast.

“Let’s not discount ourselves in what this Inland California is actually really capable of,” Gallagher said while speaking at the podium during the board meeting. “... I think we can do it a lot better than the [government] that is currently controlled by the coastal representatives.”

Gallagher, who used to serve on the Sutter County board before he was elected to the state Assembly in 2014, blames coastal cities for taking tax dollars away from inland California –– including the Central Valley, Northern California and the Inland Empire. As a result, Gallagher said from behind the podium on Thursday, issues such as water, wolves, wildfire mitigation, and “skyrocketing utility and gas bills” have been put on the back burner.  

It's interesting that Gallagher is focused on tax dollars going from inland California to the benefit of the coast.  It'd be interesting to see the data on that since most people assume that urban California taxs subsidize rural California.  As I've written recently here, I'm not sure that thinking of who is benefitting from whom in terms of taxes is the most useful frame.  Not all of the benefits urban California gets from rural California--and vice versa--can be reduced to revenue.  

Greatest protest against Prop 50 in California from state's northeast corner

California voters passed Proposition 50--the law that dramatically gerrymandered the state's Congressional districts--by a wide margin (64% to 36%) on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 4.   Here's the county-level map of the vote, where you can see that the most intense opposition was in the far northeastern part of the state, in Modoc (population 8,700) and Lassen (population 32,730) counties.   Read more coverage here from CalMatters, here from KRON4 News out of San Francisco, and here from Eyewitness News 7, dateline Auburn California.  This post from a few weeks ago collects coverage of the proposition from earlier this fall, and this one from late August also explores the proposition through a ruralist lens. 

I'll be writing more soon about post-election responses to the vote, especially from rural California.  

NYT's Thomas Edsall on the current food stamp controversy, including rural and racial differences

Thomas Edsall's column in the New York Times this week is under the provocative headline, "It Would be Trump's Honor to Pay for Food Stamps."  Here's the part of Edsall's column that mentions rural Americans:  

In “Rural Versus Urban: The Growing Divide That Threatens Democracy,” the coauthors Suzanne Mettler and Trevor Brown point out that while urban and rural counties relied on government transfer programs at similar rates in the 1970s and 1980s,

They diverged from the 1990s onward as rural places faced economic tumult and residents came to rely more on government benefits. By 2019, the eve of the pandemic, rural people benefited from social transfers by $1,749 more per person per year than their urban peers.

In 1970, Mettler and Brown calculated, rural and urban households received social benefits of $2,220 and $2,244, respectively, a 1.1 percent difference. By 2019, the average annual government benefit for rural residents rose to $10,558 and for urban residents to $8,809, a 20 percent difference. 

Mettler and Brown cite research by Jennifer Sherman, a sociologist at Washington State University, to describe the agonized struggle of the rural poor who, when faced with a major economic setback, are forced to turn to government for help:

When they themselves need to use such benefit, they experience a deep sense of stigma and shame. They drove to stores far away to use SNAP benefits, hoping to avoid the gaze of their neighbors and community members.

Given the way people have traditionally talked about these programs, one of the most striking things about government data on SNAP use is just how high the white share of food stamp recipients actually is.

In West Virginia, 97.7 percent of SNAP recipients whose racial and ethnic identity was recorded are white; Indiana, 66 percent; Iowa 75.5 percent; Kentucky, 83.4 percent; Missouri, 67.1 percent; Montana, 76.6 percent; North Dakota, 66.9 percent; Ohio, 64.9; Oklahoma, 60.9 percent; Utah, 86.6 percent; and Wyoming, 78.8 percent.

On this issue of "white share of food stamp recipients" I am pleased to see Edsall note that.  It's an issue I've often foregrounded, along with the fact that middle class folks who are resentful of those who receive public benefits are as resentful as the whites who do so as they are of the people of color who do so. The resentment is not driven by racism, certainly not solely so.  The intra-racial tension is as significant as the inter-racial tension.  Read more here and here.

Legal Services Corporation releases long-awaited report at Rural Reach event

Panel of paraprofessionals who provide assistance to legal aid clients
"Rural Reach" event, Oct. 29, 2025, Madison, Wisconsin 

Here are the broad outlines of this important report, "Justice Where We Live:  Promising Practices from Rural Communities, quoting from the press release: 

For millions of Americans living in rural communities, access to civil legal help is out of reach, according to a report released today by the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). The report, “Justice Where We Live: Promising Practices from Rural Communities,” is a first-of-its-kind exploration of the barriers rural Americans face in accessing legal help – and the community-driven solutions already making a difference.

Across the country, 41% of counties are considered “legal deserts,” with few or no lawyers available to serve residents (source: Legal Evolution). In rural-heavy states like Wisconsin, which ranks among the bottom three nationwide for lawyers per capita, families and individuals often face life-altering legal problems — from housing insecurity to domestic violence — without meaningful access to assistance.

To address this urgent need, LSC convened its Rural Justice Task Force in 2021. Funded in part by Ascendium Education Group, today’s report release marks the Task Force’s work by highlighting four key challenges.

• The shortage of attorneys in rural areas.
• The digital divide limiting access to online resources.
• Geographic and transportation barriers.
• Cultural differences that can hinder trust in the legal system.

Alongside these challenges, the report highlights innovative solutions already underway in rural communities and offers recommendations for lawmakers, courts, legal aid providers, law schools, and others. Promising practices — from technology-enabled legal services to new recruitment pipelines for rural lawyers to expanding opportunities for professionals beyond lawyers to help those facing legal issues — show that progress is possible and replicable.

“If we want to know how to deal with the challenges that face rural Americans, the best thing we can do is talk to rural Americans and the people deeply rooted in those communities,” said Fr. Pius Pietrzyk, LSC Board Vice Chair and co-chair of the Task Force. “In this new report, we've taken a deep look at the reasons families cannot seem to get the civil justice they deserve, and our Constitution promises them, and offers concrete solutions not just for legal services offices, but for all Americans.”

“Access to justice should never depend on where someone lives, but for too many in rural Wisconsin and across the country, that’s the reality,” said Rebecca Rapp, General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer of Ascendium, who serves as co-chair of the LSC Task Force alongside Pietrzyk. “This report shines a critical light on the barriers rural residents face and points to solutions they have developed to close the justice gap in rural areas and beyond.”

The gallery walk at the "Rural Reach"
event featured innovative approaches
to serving rural residents where they
are.  Oct. 29, 2025

For rural residents, the stakes are high. LSC’s research shows that more than three-quarters of rural households face at least one civil legal problem each year, yet 86% receive inadequate help. Without legal assistance, families risk losing homes, veterans struggle to access earned benefits, and seniors face crushing debt with nowhere to turn.

The report emphasizes that while the challenges are steep, progress is possible.

“We know what works to close the rural justice gap,” said Ron Flagg, President of Legal Services Corporation. “We need to invest in programs that bring legal help to where people live — from growing the pipeline of rural attorneys, to supporting licensed legal paraprofessionals and community advocates, to using technology that connects clients to help across long distances.”

These ‘fixes’ only work, though, “with sustained commitment at the local, state, and federal levels,” Flagg added. “Together, we can ensure that geography never determines whether someone can access justice.”

 A big focus of the event--not highlighted here--was a push toward the use of para professionals--sometimes called "justice workers"--to help meet legal needs in rural places.   The final panel of the day featured four such paralegals or justice workers from Montana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Georgia.  Interestingly, a program to empower paraprofessionals in Washington State--there called LLLT (limited license legal technicians)--was shuttered a few years ago.  Now such programs--at least among a few dozen states--are being seen as the future of filling the justice gap.  Two prior posts on the rural justice gap and how paraprofessionals might fill them are here and here.  

Panel of judges and the American Bar Association President 
speaking in support of licensing of paraprofessionals, sometimes
called justice workers. 

Bipartisan effort to re-open rural California hospital

I blogged this summer about the impending closure of the Glenn County Hospital in northern California, a closure attributable to a change in interpretation of a federal regulation regarding what counts as a "critical access" hospital.  Because of that changed interpretation, the hospital lost a critical funding stream and closed in early October, as reported here.  Now, however, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff and U.S. Congressman Doug LaMalfa, both from California, have introduced legislation that would restore the funding stream, leading to the possibility of the facility again opening.  Here is some detail of how that might work:

Schiff teamed up with Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi to introduce legislation that would amend the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program, which helps fund critical access hospitals. Their bill would allow hospitals designated critical access as of Jan. 1, 2024 – including Glenn Medical Center – to keep that status.

 Ana Ibara reports for CalMatters on why the effort is unlikely to be successful.  Here's an excerpt:  

Each proposal would restore the hospital’s “critical access” status, a designation that brings increased Medicare reimbursement and regulatory flexibilities that help small hospitals.

* * *

Changing federal policy to restore the hospital’s critical access status, however, would not enable Glenn Medical to reopen immediately. Even if Congress approves Schiff’s or LaMalfa’s bill, the hospital is still left with another problem: reopening a closed facility requires cash, and lots of it.

“Having the critical access designation reinstated, which is my understanding of what the bill would do, that at least makes [reopening] a possibility,” said Matthew Beehler, a spokesperson for American Advanced Management, the for-profit company that owns Glenn Medical Center and several other rural hospitals in California.

But, he said, “the reality is once the employees have left, you’re starting from scratch. We need to see this be successful first and then work with electeds to help identify potential funding sources,” he said.

Beehler did not have an exact figure, but reopening Glenn Medical, he said, would cost in the tens of millions of dollars.

Catching up on rural healthcare stories

I wrote several posts about rural healthcare this summer, mostly prompted by the consideration and passage of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, which was widely discussed as undermining rural health care and rural hospitals.  Since then, I've neglected the issues except to address some of them in this forthcoming law review article, which focuses on the challenge of maternal mortality for rural women.  

In this post, my plan is just to provide links to the stories I've seen about rural health care since the summer, making this something of a repository of resources to study how rural health care is faring in the Trump administration's first year and likely further degradation of services as a consequence of recent Republican policies.

First off, the Trump administration is withholding support to tsunami proof this hospital.  Katia Riddle reports from Astoria, Oregon.   One interesting aspect of this story is how local Republicans who supported Trump are flummoxed--or worse--about his administration's failure to support a rural hospital that has saved many local lives.  Here's some context:   

The Trump administration has canceled billions of dollars in federal grants across multiple agencies, and one of those grants is for a program that was designed to help local governments fortify places that are vulnerable to natural disasters.

* * *  

[The hospital in Astoria], called Columbia Memorial, was built decades ago. Now that we know more about earthquakes, it's hard to imagine a worse spot to build a hospital. Not only is the whole town in a major subduction zone, the building is just a few blocks from the water, on top of dangerously unstable ground.

And here's a key quote from a former mayor of Astoria, Willis Van Dusen, a Republican who voted for Trump but now is frustrated by the recent turn of events regarding the needed hospital work: 

Van Dusen: What is more important than a hospital in a rural community like Astoria? Now, it saved my life.

Riddle: Van Dusen points to a framed photocopy of a piece of paper - the EKG reading when he had a heart attack some years ago. At one point, he flatlined.

Van Dusen: All these are (imitating electric current), and they're hitting the paddles. And I had actually died.

Riddle: It was doctors at Columbia Memorial that brought him back. Van Dusen says he and many other people in Astoria wouldn't be here without this hospital. Making sure that it can keep providing care during an earthquake and a tsunami, he says, is the opposite of waste, fraud and abuse.

Van Dusen: And just to jerk that money away from us, I can't just say it makes - it's frustrating. It makes me livid. It makes me angry.

Riddle: Van Dusen says he's not the only one in this town who's mad.

Van Dusen: I know every single Republican that I have talked to is livid over what's happening.

This is a rare instance when I've seen a Trump voter whose mind has been changed by Trump's spending priorities--and how those priorities have played out in the voter's own community.  It shows that Trump voters can be swayed when Trump's spending priorities impact them, something rarely illustrated.  

Regarding the $50 billion "rural health fund," sometimes referred to as the rural slush fund, Sarah Jane Tribble of Kaiser Health News reported about ten days ago on how states are competing for these funds.  It hardly seems like a fair fight.   Tribble provides details on how and why substantial chunks of the funds might not even wind up in rural places:  

Nationwide, states are racing to win their share of a new $50 billion rural health fund. But helping rural hospitals, as originally envisioned, is quickly becoming a quaint idea.

Rather, states should submit applications that "rebuild and reshape" how health care is delivered in rural communities, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services official Abe Sutton said late last month during a daylong meeting at D.C.'s Watergate Hotel. Simply changing the way government pays hospitals has been tried and has failed, Sutton told the audience of more than 40 governors' office staffers and state health agency leaders — some from as far away as Hawaii.

"This isn't a backfill of operating budgets," said Sutton, CMS' innovation director. "We've been really clear on that."

Rural hospitals and clinics nationwide face a looming financial catastrophe, with President Trump's massive tax-and-spending law expected to slash federal Medicaid spending on health care in rural areas by $137 billion over 10 years. Congressional Republicans added the one-time, five-year Rural Health Transformation Program as a last-minute sweetener to win the support of conservative holdouts who worried about the bill's financial fallout for rural hospitals.

Yet, the words used by CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz and his agency's leaders to describe the new pot of cash are generating tension between legacy hospital and clinic providers and new technology-focused companies stepping in to offer new ways to deliver health care.

It's "what I would call incumbents versus insurgents in the rural space," said Kody Kinsley, a senior policy adviser at the Institute for Policy Solutions at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing.

I further detail possible non-rural uses of the fund in my forthcoming law review article, which relies on Tribble's reporting. 

Finally, Abigail Ruhman reported for the Texas Tribune a few weeks ago on how Texas' rural hospitals are competing for a piece of that "rural slush fund."  

As Texas develops its application for a new rural health funding program, rural hospital leaders say the priority should be financial stabilization for their facilities.

The recent sweeping tax and spending plan includes a $50 billion appropriation for the Rural Health Transformation program. States will receive funding based on applications they submit in early November.

During an hours-long public hearing Monday to discuss the program, several hospital leaders raised concerns that without direct funding, the state may experience more rural hospital closures.

Erin Clevenger, CEO of Memorial Medical Center in Port Lavaca, southeast of Victoria, said her hospital is high on the list of Texas hospitals at risk of closure.

“Every day is a battle to make sure we don’t become one of those statistics,” Clevenger said.

In the last decade, Texas has lost 14 rural hospitals. Of the 156 rural hospitals currently in the state, about 70% have lost services, and more than half are at risk of closing, according to a report from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform.

Memorial Medical Center is in the southern part of the state, but it provides critical services that benefit people across Texas – even patients in Dallas.

“When even large urban hospitals could not take on more patients, we opened a COVID care unit and accepted their transfers, even flying patients in from Houston and Dallas,” Clevenger said.

Keep an eye out for more news about whether rural hospitals are getting the benefit of the "Big Beautiful Bill" and its rural slush fund--and whether any funds they receive are sufficient to keep them open.  It'll also be interesting to see if the anticipated closure of rural hospitals will turn rural Trump supporters against him--if those closures happen during his presidency.  

Meanwhile, the reduction and reinterpretation of other federal funding streams, along with other strains,  have been threatening--and in one instance, closing--hospitals in rural California.  Read more here (Inyo County in the eastern Sierra) and here (Imperial/Riverside County).  

New immigration fee will hurt rural schools relying on international teachers

Sequoia Carrillo reported from Hardin, Montana for NPR on a school system's heavy reliance on teachers from the Philippines and what that reliance means given the new Trump administration rule requiring a $100,000 fee for each H-1B visa application.  Here's an excerpt from Carrillo's story:  

Hardin, like many rural districts, relies on international teachers to fill out its staff. Out of 150 teachers in the district, about 30 are in the U.S. on teaching visas. Many are on short-term J1 visas, with hopes to one day graduate to the longer-term H-1B visa.

Now, things are about to get even tougher — for the district and for teachers like Tomimbang [who has taught middle school math in Montana for four years after doing so for 18 years in the Philippines]..

Last month, President Trump unveiled a plan that requires employers pay a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas. In his announcement, Trump specifically called out high-paying tech jobs that he said were filled by too many foreign workers.

However, the impact on schools and educators will be significant. According to data from the Department of Homeland Security, more than 20,000 educators are in the country on H-1B visas — the third most common occupation group for the program.

"I don't have a teacher in my district that makes $100,000 a year," [Hardin school superintendent Tobin] Novasio says. For school districts, "to pay that fee on top of a salary is just gonna kill the H-1B for education."

The change is a blow to some districts' long-term strategy to keep teachers in classrooms.

More relevant context fron superintendent Novasio:  

"We don't have candidates." ... Earlier in his career, [Novasio] says that if he posted an elementary teacher position, at least 20 people would apply. Now, "if we get two, we're ecstatic."

Here is a prior post touching on a different angle about rural schools' reliance on Filipina/o teachers.  

An unduly provocative headline from the Ezra Klein Show about rural-urban tension

Image from today's New York Times Ezra Klein Show podcast.

The headline for the Ezra Klein podcast today--the one that popped up on my NYTimes audio feed--is "The Rural Power Behind Trump's Assault on Cities."  I found that very provocative--unhelpfully so.  It seems to place blame on rural America and rural Americans for Trump's assault on urban America.  In fact, it's not only provocative, it's a bit misleading regarding the content of the podcast, which is an interview with Suzanne Mettler about her book, with Trevor Brown, Rural versus Urban:  The Growing Divide that Threatens Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2025).  I'll come back to that, but first I want to excerpt the part of the interview where Klein gets closest to backing up the provocative headline: 

Klein:  

I’ve heard a lot of people who study civil wars say it is a bad sign when the federal government is ordering armed troops from some states into other states over the objections of those states’ governors and — these are all cities they’re ordering them into — those cities’ mayors.

And you can look at this, and I think I have been looking at this, and say: This sure looks like a rural coalition militarily occupying the cities it has come to see as the power centers of their enemies. (emphasis mine)

What I don't understand is how Klein can assert that a "rural coalition" is militarily occupying U.S. cities.  Who makes up this purported "rural coalition," exactly, when there are too few rural voters to have put Trump in the White House?  Klein's assertion completely overlooks the much more robust numbers of urban voters who chose Trump.  (Nicholas Jacobs, co-author of The Rural Voter, has commented on this in various publications, most recently here).  Perhaps Klein is thinking about the disproportionate power of red states in the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College?  If so, he should consider that the rural voters in California and New York are as underrepresented as those states' urban voters--and that "red states" like Idaho and Arkansas have "blue cities" like Boise and Little Rock, whose urban residents are overrepresented.  (I wrote more about this here and here).  

Or is Klein somehow claiming that rural is occupying urban because a disproportionate number of rural young people join the armed services?  whatever Klein means, I see this framing--this attribution of what Trump is doing to a "rural coalition"--as inflammatory and therefore unhelpful.  Of course, it is also inaccurate unless one uses a really capacious definition of "rural."     

Here's Mettler's response to Klein's comment.  Unfortunately, Mettler doesn't actually respond to Klein's assertion that some rural coalition is militarily occupying U.S. cities.  She says:  

Well, it’s unthinkable. It’s so un-American to be telling the military you can use cities as training grounds and to be sending in federal troops and federalized National Guard into cities. And this comes on top of Trump, for the past few years, using a lot of rhetoric against cities — but now using actual violent force against cities.

So how is this possible? It’s possible because of the rural-urban divide. It’s possible because this us-versus-them politics has become so deep.

By the way, the headline for this podcast on the NYT home page right now is a less sensational "How the Democratic Brand Turned Radioactive in Rural America."  Both the provocative and less provocative headlines show up when you click through. 

Here are some of the more interesting exchanges about the book that are featured  in the podcast:

Klein: 

Before we get into what created the divide, beginning in the ’90s, what kept urban and rural America politically united for so long?

Mettler:  

If you go back to, say, the late 19th, early 20th century, as industrialization is happening, rural areas really feel left behind. There’s a big agricultural depression in the 1920s. Then the Great Depression comes. And rural people at that point are really upset, and policymakers are worried there’s about to be a revolution in the countryside, as they call it.

But what happens is that Franklin D. Roosevelt steps in and creates this big rural-urban coalition. And to an extent that I was unaware of until we wrote this book, he really put rural Americans front and center in his vision of what needed to happen for the country and created all of these policies that were really designed to lift up rural America.

Archived clip of Franklin D. Roosevelt: 

I cannot escape the conclusion that one of the essential parts of a national program of restoration must be to restore purchasing power to the farming half of the country. Without this, the wheels of railroads and of factories will not turn.

* * *  

Rural Americans really appreciated that. They felt the Democratic Party was there for them, and many of them remembered it for their lifetimes. And then their kids did, as well, all the way up until the 1990s.

In the 1980s and early ’90s, rural places were more likely to send Democrats to Congress than Republicans. Only a few decades ago, there was still a coalition where there were rural politicians who were really at the forefront in Congress in brokering compromises on all sorts of important policies.

Klein:

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law. And that kicks off this process of ideological polarization, where the parties sort into liberal and conservative. The Dixiecrats die out.

And I think the most commonly believed story about what happened in the urban-rural divide is that they hated the Civil Rights Act. I think if you look at a lot of Democratic accounts of this, you’ll see something like that.

But you don’t buy that account. Why?

Mettler:

Yes, that’s wrong. So for one thing, just look at when the rural-urban divide emerged: It’s not until the late 1990s.

The story that you’re telling, usually the follow-up is that the South left the Democratic Party. Well, in fact, there were a lot of urban Southerners who left the Democratic Party. But rural Southerners stuck with it up until the 1990s, and then they left.

Klein:  

The way your book is structured, you sort of say: There’s this economic divergence, and then layered on top of that very quickly is what you call elite overreach. That’s what we’re talking about here.

The way you describe it is: “It was not any one issue that tipped the scales but rather the persistent commonality that ran across them. From 2008 onward, rural Americans perceived an urban elite that sought to impose itself on far-flung places, controlling residents’ lives through new rules and procedures, in which they felt they had little voice.”

And you argue that the issue here is not the policy but the sense of respect or disrespect, of listening or not listening, of representation or absence of representation — that there was something sort of beneath policy that drove this.

Klein: 

Political scientists use this slightly strange tool called the feeling thermometer, where they ask people to rate other groups on a 1-to-100 scale.

You have this data for white rural America, and on a scale of 1 to 100, they put Black Americans at a 70 — pretty good; Hispanic Americans at 67; gay men at 57; illegal immigrants at 39 — pretty low; and Democrats at 14 points.

So Democrats are rated at less than half illegal immigrants’ rating.
By the way, this is not just rural America — white urban Democrats put Republicans at 17 points. But the hatred is much more concentrated at the political outgroup, at least in these measures, than at any other group.

Klein:

White rural America’s sense that the Democratic Party sees all these other groups as in need of help and respect and is prioritizing them ahead of them — Arlie Hochschild’s idea about other groups getting to cut in line. And then there’s a real rise of discourse around white privilege. And this creates — we’ve seen this in our politics — a lot of anger.

Like: You’re telling me — in a poor community that has very few jobs now, where life expectancy is going down — that I have white privilege, and your urban coalition is what needs the help? Or that illegal immigrants need the help?

I’d like you to talk a bit about that distinction between the divide being discriminatory, and the divide being a feeling: That coalition doesn’t prioritize me, so I’m going to go with a coalition that does.

Mettler:  

It’s a really important issue in that I think a lot of urban Democrats assume that what’s at play in this rural-urban divide is that rural white people are racist. What we find is that it’s not reducible to that.  (emphasis mine)

The way we understand it is that it’s in this same period that there’s the sense of elite overreach on the part of Democrats, where rural Americans are looking at the Democratic Party and thinking: They don’t understand us. They don’t care about our communities.

And on this, they’re viewing the Democratic Party as really prioritizing the needs of people of color in urban communities and immigrants — but not really understanding or caring about rural people who are struggling, as well.

This last bit from Mettler is, to my mind, so important.  What Mettler doesn't say is how academics contribute to this problem of saying that so-called rural resentment is all due to racial animus.  See some nuanced and thoughtful pushback to that notion--or at least the notion it is all so simple--in this academic article.   

I'll no doubt have more to say about Mettler and Brown's book in future posts, after I've read it.   For now, I'll just say that three of my recent publications aim to take a more optimistic tack regarding rural voters.  They encourage progressives to play to rural residents' rural identity--to show them that they and their needs are seen.   Read more here, here, and here.  I'm somewhat less optimistic here, while still taking seriously the need for politicians--including those on the left--to respond to rural needs.  

No Kings protests in rural California

October 11, 2025, Point Arena, California

I was struck this weekend by reports of "No Kings" rallies in northern California, including the region referred to as the "North Bay," including Sonoma, Napa and Mendocino County.  What's striking, of course, is that rural areas are reputedly conservative.  That said, coastal California is certainly more progressive than the interior parts of the state.  (This point is well illustrated by recent debates of redistricting in California and Proposition 50, which will link these parts of the North Bay with uber-rich and uber-progressive Marin County, just north of San Francisco).  The photos in this post I took on October 11 in the town of Point Arena, in coastal Mendocino County.  

Here are the places listed in The Press-Democrat (based in Sonoma County but also covering Napa and Mendocino counties) where "No Kings" rallies were held on Saturday:  

∘ Protest General Dynamics. No Bombs, No Borders

Time: 10 a.m.-noon

Location: Healdsburg Farmers Market at the intersection of West North and Vine streets (first and third Saturday of the month) or the traffic circle at the intersection of Mill Street and Healdsburg Avenue (all other Saturdays)

∘ Gualala Weekly Protest

Organized by: Let Freedom Ring ~ Pro Democracy March

Time: 10 a.m.-noon

Location: Gualala Hotel, 39301 South Highway 1, Gualala

∘ Point Arena Weekly Protest

Organized by: We Are Democracy

Time: 10 a.m.-noon

Location: Downtown Point Arena

∘ Fort Bragg Weekly Protest

Time: 11 a.m.-noon

Location: In front of Guest House Museum, 343 North Main St., Fort Bragg

∘ Healdsburg Weekly Protest

Time: 11 a.m.-noon

Location: Healdsburg Plaza, Healdsburg

Point Arena, California (Oct. 11, 2025)
These signs were plentiful in businesses of coastal Mendocino County merchants.

∘ Petaluma Weekly Protest

Time: 11 a.m.-noon

Location: East Washington Street and Petaluma Boulevard, Petaluma

∘ Trump Regime Takedown Banner Drop

Time: 11 a.m.-1 p.m.

Point Arena, California (Oct. 11, 2025)

Lots of rural (and Southern) stereotypes in today's NYT opinion

Today's NY Times opinion podcast featured three southerners in conversation under the headline, "There is No Trump Without the South."  Here are some excerpts that play to stereotypes of the South--and its conflation with rurality. (That conflation is not entirely inaccurate in that the South is the most rural region of the nation).  Rural-urban tension is also touched on, as a sort of parallel to the tension between the South (and what it represents) and the rest of the nation.  

Jamelle Bouie:  

One observation everyone in this conversation has made and other people have made is the way that there has emerged an almost generic national rural culture.

It’s a certain kind of country music. It’s a certain kind of pickup truck. You see it if you go to rural New Hampshire, if you go to rural Montana, if you go to rural Illinois. It’s very much rooted in a franchised version of a white Southern rurality.

And I bring that up to say that it’s both the case that the country will shunt its difficult conversations, as Tressie said, about race to the South and make it a Southern problem. But it’s always been the case that the rest of the country has been fascinated by the South in really important ways.

* * * 

Tressie McMillan Cottom: 

Every time a Southern politician goes out and they congratulate themselves about building the new car factory or the new battery maker in some rural part of their Southern state or municipality, what they have generally done is they have made a deal with either a national or a transnational conglomerate that says: You do not have to worry about unionizing.

* * * 

And what we are seeing here is not just a transplant of people but of ideas that don’t necessarily create that kind of mobility for Southern workers across the South, which then leads to a war, a battle for the soul of rural America that you can feel very tangibly in the South.

David French: 

I come from a town — when I was growing up there, it was about 8,000 people. We had three stoplights in a rural town in Kentucky. That’s where I spent my elementary and high school years, and it’s unrecognizable now because a Toyota manufacturing plant came there and completely transformed the city.

But these are good, high-paying jobs. They are transformative jobs in these parts of the South, but it is absolutely true that they also pull and draw jobs from other parts of America. And it’s one of the reasons I think so many people have been moving to the South.

Bouie:

But I also want to say that part of the allure of the South as a cultural object — and this is getting back to what Tressie had said earlier about cost of living — is not simply that things might be cheaper but that you have an opportunity to use your wealth, for lack of a better term, to dominate other people.

You can have a big compound in the middle of Texas and drive a gigantic vehicle and use all the resources you’d like and boss people around.

McMillan Cottom: 

It’s the “Yellowstone”-ification of the country, Jamelle.

Bouie: 

Yes. And that aspect of it — there’s no policy you can do to compete with that, I guess. Because what a place like California is offering, the trade-off is it’s going to be more expensive to live there. Unless you are in the highest echelon of income earners, you’re not going to be able to hire someone to look after your house for dirt cheap, right? You won’t be able to exploit someone so easily.

But you are going to live in this multicultural, cosmopolitan place where people are going to exist, at least culturally, on some plane of equality. And if you like that kind of life and experience, that’s what you’re in L.A. for, that’s what you’re in New York for, that’s what you’re in Chicago for and all the places that are their own places but offer a smaller or more manageable versions of that thing.

* * * 

McMillan Cottom: 

Now, I think at the state level — again, especially in a place like North Carolina — we tend to prefer a more socially conservative performance of Southern politics. But on the ground, especially when you’re talking about local elections, it is that the Democratic Party wants to run a far more conservative candidate than can excite the base across the rural parts of the South.

Bouie: 

I think that it would be a good idea for the Democratic Party to make serious investments in Mississippi, a state where Democratic candidates with no investment routinely hit the mid-40s in statewide elections. That’s a clear sign.

It’s going to be really hard to close that gap because of racial polarization in the state. But the gap can be closed, and making Mississippi competitive would be a huge blow to Republicans if you’re a Democrat. It changes the game.

More on gerrymandering and its impact on far nothern California

Several stories have been published about California's Proposition 50, which would permit re-districting immediately, between the decennial censuses.  It's a topic I first blogged about here, in late August.   

The first is Jeanne Kuang's deeply reported story for CalMatters, from mid-September.  

The headline is a telling, "These rural Californians want to secede. Newsom’s maps would pair them with Bay Area liberals."  Here's the lede: 

Over several rivers and through even more woods, flags advocating secession from California flutter above hills dotted with cattle, which outnumber people at least sixfold.

This ranching region with a libertarian streak might have more in common with Texas than the San Francisco Bay Area.

But it’s not Texas. Five hours northeast of Sacramento on an easy day, Modoc County and its roughly 8,500 residents are still — begrudgingly — in California.

And California is dominated by Democrats, who are embroiled in a tit-for-tat redistricting war with the Lone Star State that will likely force conservative Modoc County residents to share a representative in Congress with parts of the Bay Area.

Modoc County and two neighboring red counties would be shifted into a redrawn district that stretches 200 miles west to the Pacific Coast and then south, through redwoods and weed farms, to include some of the state’s wealthiest communities, current Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman’s home in San Rafael and the northern end of the Golden Gate Bridge, all in uber-liberal Marin County.

“It’s like a smack in the face,” said local rancher Amie Martinez. “How could you put Marin County with Modoc County? It’s just a different perspective.”

* * * 

Though Modoc County supervisors have declared their opposition to Prop. 50, there’s little else locals can do. Registered Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats statewide nearly two-to-one. Rural residents represent an even smaller share of the state’s electorate.

“It’ll be very hard to fight back,” said Tim Babcock, owner of a general store in Lassen County, a similar and neighboring community that’s proposed to be drawn into a different liberal-leaning congressional district. “Unless we split the state. And that’s never going to happen.”

Here are some key quotes highlighting the rural implications of the proposed redistricting.    

County Supervisor Geri Byrne said she knew it was a longshot — but thought, “when’s the last time The New York Times called someone in Modoc County?”

Byrne, who is also chair of the Rural County Representatives of California and of the upcoming National Sheepdog Finals, said the secession resolution was about sending a message.

“It wasn’t conservative-liberal,” [Byrne] said. “It was the urban-rural divide, and that’s what this whole Prop. 50 is about.”  

Even a Democratic resident running a produce pickup center in Alturas observed that her neighbors are “not that Trumpy.” Instead, there’s a pervasive general distrust of politics on any side of the aisle.

* * *

Flourishing wolves are a problem

At the moment, all anyone can talk about is the wolves.

The apex predator returned to California more than a decade ago, a celebrated conservation success story after they were hunted to near-extinction in the western U.S. Now they’re flourishing in the North State — and feeding on cattle, throwing ranching communities on edge. Federally, they’re still listed as an endangered species under the landmark conservation law signed by President Richard Nixon.
Under California rules, ranchers can only use nonlethal methods to deter the wolves, like electrifying fencing or hiring ranch hands to guard their herds at night.

* * * 

Few Republicans in the state and nation understand “public lands districts,” said Modoc County Supervisor Shane Starr, a Republican who used to work in LaMalfa’s office. “Doug’s the closest thing we’ve got.”

“This whole thing with DEI and ‘woke culture’ and stuff,” he said, referring to the diversity and inclusion efforts under attack from the right, “it’s like, yeah, we had a kid who goes to the high school who dyed his hair a certain color. Cool, we don’t care. All of these things going on at the national stage are not based in our reality whatsoever.”

At a cattlemen’s dinner in Alturas one recent evening, Martinez said she once ran into LaMalfa at a local barbecue fundraiser for firefighters and approached him about a proposal to designate parts of northwestern Nevada as protected federal wilderness. Her 700-person town of Cedarville in east Modoc County is 10 minutes from the state line.

Martinez worried about rules that prohibit driving motorized vehicles in wilderness, which she said would discourage the hunters who pass through during deer season and book lodging in town. Even though the proposal was in Nevada, LaMalfa sent staff, including Starr, to meetings to raise objections on behalf of the small town, she said.

“I know we won’t get that kind of representation from Marin County,” she said.

Reached by phone, Huffman defended his qualifications to represent the region.

Adding Siskiyou, Shasta and Modoc counties would mean many more hours of travel to meet constituents, but Huffman pointed out his district is already huge, covering 350 miles of the North Coast. And it includes many conservative-leaning, forested areas in Trinity and Del Norte counties. A former attorney for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, he’s the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, where [first district congresswoman Doug] LaMalfa also sits.

Then there is this more recent story by Bloomberg's Maxwell Adler, which features the following lede: 

California’s Marin and Modoc counties lie more than 200 miles apart — and several worlds away.

Modoc, tucked into the state’s remote northeast corner, lacks a single traffic light. Many of its 8,500 residents once lost internet service after squirrels chewed through a fiber-optic cable. Ranchers fear wolf attacks on cattle.

Tech-industry wealth, meanwhile, has transformed Marin from a bohemian refuge outside San Francisco into one of California’s richest communities. Traffic regularly jams the freeway into the city, and residents fight over efforts to build more homes.

On the same day, the New York Times published this story about Kevin Kiley, a Republican congressman from greater Sacramento who represents a very rural district stretching down the eastern Sierra.  He would almost certainly lose his seat if redistricting occurs.   

Here's coverage from the California Farm Bureau, "In Rural Districts, Backlash Mounts Against Prop. 50." 

In contrast to these rural-focused stories, Politico published this September 7, 2025 piece  covering the California GOP meeting.  It does not even acknowledge the concern regarding lack of representation of rural concerns.  It includes no use of the word "rural." 

On the USDA Economic Research Service website right now: a reference to the "Radical Left Democrats"

 
A banner at the top of the USDA Economic Research Service website reads:  

Due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown, this government website will not be updated during the funding lapse. 

President Trump has made it clear he wants to keep government open and support those who feed, fuel and clothe the American people. 

Frank Morris reported yesterday for NPR on how the government shutdown is impacting farmers. 

Rural lack of anonymity in the wake of Tennessee explosion

An explosion yesterday at an ammunition plant in McEwan, Tennessee, population 1643,  left several dead and many missing.  In the Washington Post's coverage of the disaster, I was struck by these comments from the Humphreys County Sheriff in that they reflected rural lack of anonymity.  

Nearly 12 hours after the explosion, law enforcement officers were still trying to contact victims’ families, Davis said, adding that officials planned to work through the night to keep looking for possible survivors, interviewing witnesses and family members, and trying to find out what happened.

“It’s hell on us,” he said. “It’s hell on everybody.”

The close-knit nature of the community compounded the pain. Davis said that he’s “very close” with at least three families involved in the explosion and that the sheriff of the neighboring county could say much the same. That closeness drove Davis to keep looking for survivors, caring for the injured and consoling the bereaved, he said.

“When you have small counties like this, we know each other, we communicate with each other, we love each other,” Davis said. “And that’s what — honestly, it’s what keeps my motivation alive.”

“We’re working for our people,” he added.

This is from the New York Times coverage of the explosion: 

The explosion has shaken the small, tight-knit communities in Hickman and Humphreys Counties, which have a combined population of about 44,000.

One of the communities is known as Bucksnort, where there are winding dirt roads, ample hunting ground and just a handful of businesses. Steven Anderson, who runs a trout farm there, said there were only three points of interest in town — the trout farm, the munitions plant and a gas station with a convenience store where he said workers from the plant often eat lunch.

Postscript:  On October 13, the New York Times ran this story, "A Tennessee Sheriff Becomes the Face of Grief after Plant Explosion."   

Maine Law Review Call for Papers. Rural Perspectives in Law: Challenges and Opportunities

The Maine Law Review is seeking article proposals for our topical issue: Rural Perspectives in Law: Challenges and Opportunities.  This issue will be published in spring 2026 as Volume 78.2 of our legal journal.

Abstracts of 300-500 words will be reviewed on a rolling basis and should be submitted no later than October 1, 2025, at 5:00 PM.  All submission should be sent to mlreditor@maine.edu.

Rural communities across the United States face unique legal challenges that often differ from those in urban and suburban settings.  Issues such as access to justice, scarcity of adequate legal counsel, limitations due to aging infrastructure, and the impact of shifting industries and demographics shape the practice of law in rural America.  Maine is the second most rural state in the country with 62% of its population living in rural areas. However, most of the legal providers are located in the more urban, southern portion of the state.  Rural communities outside of Maine face similar challenges.  

This volume is meant to speak about the challenges and potential opportunities rural communities across the nation face, and contribute to a broader conversation about how the law and policy can better serve rural America. 

Articles published in this upcoming volume of the Maine Law Review have the opportunity to contribute to an evolving area of law and to provide practical guidance and commentary on a pressing issue many rural communities across the nation are facing. Potential article topics could include but are not limited to: 

• Access to legal services in remote communities.
• The rise of virtual court hearings and tele-lawyering, and their impact on legal services.
• Infrastructure challenges in rural communities including broadband, utilities, etc., and legal solutions to them/the role of attorneys in rural economic development. 
• Unique issues to rural communities in areas of interest like family law, criminal law, property law, or impacts to rural economies or heritage industries.
• Property issues including zoning ordinances, land use regulation (farming, fishing, forestry, cannabis, etc.), or the impact of pollution/climate change on economic revitalization.
• The impact of federal funding priorities and the potential disproportionate impact on health or public services. 
• Recruitment, retention, burnout, and retirement of attorneys in rural communities.  

 The editors encourage creative and diverse viewpoints, and encourage interested authors to submit proposals on legal topics of interest that impact rural communities.