America may need saving, but not from the voters
Re: “Suppressing state rights,” and “New voter proposals have us searching for our true ID,” March 15 commentaries
The two articles about the SAVE America Act helped readers understand that the disruption and hardship changes to voter ID expectations going into the next two election cycles are more of a strategy to limit voting and instill skepticism as opposed to creating an upgrade to our voting systems. SAVE America Act sounds like there is an existential threat. No one seems to point out that no money is being appropriated to initiate a sincere improvement, a universal voter ID number system embedded into an ultra-modern and secure high-tech system that will lead to citizens voting from home or voting centers throughout our country.
Look at how money is being spent for military conflicts, renovating ballrooms and the Kennedy Center, tax cuts, and immigration detention centers and all.
The election illegitimacy lies, which are actually right out of the KGB playbook, need to be met with a constructive dialogue with a reasonable timeline, to finally update, modernize, and make voting welcoming and easy to access for every American. Letap ask Republicans to initiate bipartisan legislation to be in place for the 2030 midterms and call it the Voting for Every American Act, and create landmark legislation we can all be proud of.
Mark Zaitz, Denver
Aaron Brown’s column should send chills down the spine of all those who have taken the right to vote for granted for all these years.
The SAVE America Act is a solution looking for a problem. Our elections are some of the safest and most secure elections of any country in the world. Mail-in ballots have made voting easier for millions of Americans, and there have been very few reports of fraud. Tina Peters is in jail for breaking the law while trying to prove fraud existed, and her efforts went nowhere.
The real reason Trump and his sycophants in the House of Representatives want to pass the SAVE America Act is for one simple reason. Donald Trump is terrified that if we have fair and free elections in 2026 the Republicans might lose the House and the Senate. This would put serious checks on his power and hold his administration accountable for his horrible policies.
The SAVE America Act doesn’t look like it will pass in the Senate because the Republicans wisely do not want to eliminate the filibuster in case they lose power in both houses in the midterms.
Reach out to your senators and let them know the SAVE America Act would be devastating to our democracy.
The upcoming “No Kings” protest is on March 28th. Letap send a strong message to Trump that we value democracy over dictatorship.
David Shaw, Highlands Ranch
Donald Trump’s assertion that no legislation will be passed until his SAVE America Act is passed might be a mixed blessing. If this legislation passes, Americans’ freedoms will be eroded and many — thousands, millions, we don’t know — will be disenfranchised, losing their right to vote because of a paperwork snafu.
However, if the SAVE America Act fails, it may actually become a true Save America Act as it will save us both from the tyranny of this act, and, equally if not more important, from any future legislation from this Congress and president – if he upholds his promise to not sign any further legislation. Save America indeed. Please vote no.
Robert Priddy, Westminster
The so-called SAVE America Act should be called the Save America from a Problem That Doesn’t Exist because the problem of non-citizens voting is so minor as to be virtually nonexistent. Instead, its real purpose is to make the United States a one-party nation, which is what the wannabe autocrat President Trump wants to create. It’s designed to restrict and disenfranchise Democratic Party voters who would have a harder time in meeting the act’s requirements for registering to vote.
Clarence Colburn, Thornton
How pediatricians should deal with anti-vaccination parents
Re: “Vaccines: Pediatricians navigate sea of misinformation,” March 15 news story
Sunday’s article in The Denver Post is discouraging, as medical professionals are facing this issue, which they know will eventually result in at least one of their patients being infected with a preventable disease.
One way to provide some peace of mind and protection for the providers, as well as emphasize the importance of vaccinations to parents, would be to have the parents sign a document stating they have received verbal and written encouragement from the provider to have their children vaccinated, and have chosen to not have them vaccinated. The document should include a list of each recommended vaccination with a box to check and a place to initial.
In today’s world, it is a given that every pediatric caregiver who has unvaccinated patients will eventually be sued for not being able to counteract the flood of false and misleading information about vaccinations. The document, which should be completed on every visit, will provide some protection. It will make many parents think twice, as they will realize how important the provider believes they are.
Finally, for providers who do not want to have to deal with a patient who contracts RSV, Polio, Mumps, etc., they could simply state that, in their professional practice, they believe so strongly in the importance of preventive vaccinations that parents who choose to avoid them need to find another provider.
Mandell S. Winter Jr., Denver
What Congressman Tipton left out about NEPA
Re: “Years of permitting delays for projects like Uinta Basin Railway are costing Colorado,” March 15 commentary
Former Congressman Scott Tipton’s targeting of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a barrier to economic progress — using the Uinta Basin Railway as his example — conveniently omits key facts that lead readers to conclude it’s all bad and needs to change.
What he neglected to mention is that NEPA has undergone several reforms since its 1970 founding, most recently in 2023, to address criticisms about lengthy timelines, excessive paperwork, and litigation delays. Those reforms imposed deadlines and page limits, assigned lead federal agencies, reduced duplicate analysis, and clarified legal standards. As a result, roughly of projects today are excluded from major environmental studies, and only require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Tipton is correct that this smaller lot averages 4–5 years to complete, but omits that the complexity of these projects warrants it — requiring multi-agency coordination, public comment periods, layered scientific analysis and significant funding. These are high-stakes projects evaluated through the lens of long-term community and environmental impact, which is precisely NEPA’s purpose: to encourage smarter planning when consequences are serious.
NEPA rarely kills projects. of federal actions reviewed are approved, though many are modified to reduce environmental harm through redesigns, relocations, or added protections.
Citizens and their representatives should carefully weigh whether further weakening NEPA — particularly for the energy sector that Tipton champions — is worth the risk. When it comes to long-term environmental consequences, the stakes could be great.
Daniel Kowal, Louisville
Stop ‘whining’ about housing while subsidizing businesses coming into the state
Re: “No corporate welfare for data centers. Big Tech can pay its fair share,” March 15 commentary
Krista Kafer’s Sunday column on not subsidizing data centers was right on the money! We should not give tax breaks to these entities that use huge amounts of power and water, and so make life more difficult for those already here.
The underlying philosophy we should use is, simply put, “Growth should pay its own way!” This means new development should pay fees and taxes adequate to prevent any long-term degradation of public services to existing residents and businesses.
This includes preventing increases in traffic congestion, not needing additional water restrictions, keeping utility rates stable, and avoiding increases in harmful and climate-warming emissions. And it means not forcing governments to keep coming back for tax increases so as to avoid lowering the levels of important public services like police, fire, street maintenance, and utilities.
And, critically, we should stop continually subsidizing businesses coming here (like our absurd Office of Economic Development and International Trade does) while at the same time whining about our “housing crisis” due to the resulting shortage of supply.
And, on that subject, make new job growth pay to provide housing for workers that otherwise could not afford it, and require new housing developments to include a percentage of affordable units adequate to maintain an economically diverse community.
Then, if you want to make life easier for those on the economic lower rungs, charge everyone equally, and then give some of the resulting surplus back to those who truly need it.
Steve Pomerance, Boulder
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
