TIME Innovation

Five Best Ideas of the Day: November 24

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

1. A bipartisan plan in North Carolina shrunk prison population and cut costs while the crime rate continued to fall. Can it serve as a model for other states?

By the Justice Center at the Council of State Governments

2. In international development, the massively scaleable transformative idea is usually too good to be true.

By Michael Hobbes in the New Republic

3. Net Neutrality could have a big impact on the future of healthcare, from telemedicine to electronic medical records.

By Darius Tahir in Modern Healthcare

4. Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us from climate change. We need new ideas.

By Ross Koningstein & David Fork in IEEE Spectrum

5. We must understand and counter the major trends fueling the ranks of Islamic radicals.

By Maha Yahya in the National Interest

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Lobbying

Governors Lean Heavily on Industry-Funded Group on Offshore Drilling

Chevron's Jack/St. Malo Oil Platform Departs From Kiewit Offshore
Birds fly as pedestrians watch tug boats transport the Chevron Corp. Jack St. Malo semi-submersible drilling and production platform to the Gulf of Mexico from Kiewit Offshore Services in Ingleside, Texas, U.S., on Nov. 15, 2013. Eddie Seal—Bloomberg/Getty Images

Energy lobbying firm worked through industry-funded advocacy group to provide research and resources

It was a brisk February morning, and the governors of Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia and North Carolina were seated around a ring of tables draped with pleated beige fabric in the ornate Nest Room of Washington, D.C.’s Willard InterContinental Hotel. Sitting across the tables was Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, whom the governors had invited so they could make their case for expanding offshore energy production. It was a long-awaited meeting for the governors, and they’d armed themselves with specific “asks” — that Jewell’s department open access to oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic, for instance, and improve “regulatory certainty” for energy companies operating rigs off the coasts.

The get-together this past winter was but one small push in the type of broader political campaign that occurs every day in countless Washington conference rooms, watering holes and hotel suites. For the past three years, a group of eight, mostly Republican governors from coastal states has been lobbying the Obama administration to expand access to the nation’s offshore oil and gas deposits, working through an organization called the Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition.

While the message from the governors that morning would have come as no surprise to Jewell, less clear, perhaps, was that the governors were drawing on the research and resources of an energy lobbying firm acting on behalf of an oil industry-funded advocacy group.

Indeed, the background materials handed to the governors for the meeting, right down to those specific “asks,” were provided by Natalie Joubert, vice president for policy at the Houston- and Washington D.C.-based HBW Resources. Joubert helps manage the Consumer Energy Alliance, or CEA, a broad-based industry coalition that HBW Resources has been hired to run. The appeal for regulatory certainty, for example, came with a note to the governors that Shell, a CEA member, “felt some of the rules of exploration changed” after it began drilling operations in the Arctic.

The governors’ efforts have produced more than just talking points. This summer, the coalition won a major victory when the Interior Department said it would accept applications to probe the Atlantic seabed for oil and gas with seismic tests, a significant step toward allowing drilling off the East Coast — drilling that has been off-limits for decades. While the federal government ultimately controls where offshore drilling is allowed, the Obama administration has made clear it will allow production where the public — and public officials — support development.

And so it appears as if CEA’s considerable investment of time and resources has paid off. Indeed, a review of thousands of pages of public documents, obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through records requests, shows that much of the governors coalition work has been carried out by HBW Resources and CEA, a group that’s channeled millions in corporate funding to become a leading advocate at the state level for drilling.

The governors coalition is just one of many groups, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (in which CEA is actively involved), that allow powerful corporate interests to gain a direct line to state policy makers not available to common citizens or other stakeholders, all under the banner of a generic advocacy organization.

“It would be alarming I think for many people if they found out that some of the biggest polluters were running a governors group, but less so if it’s a nonprofit,” said Nick Surgey, director of research at the Center for Media and Democracy, a liberal advocacy group. “That one step removed stops the alarm bells going off, but it should really concern people.”

The documents suggest that CEA staff attended the February meeting with Jewell, but Interior Department spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw did not respond to a question asking whether Jewell knew of CEA’s involvement, saying only that the department speaks with “a broad group of stakeholders,” and considers “all points of view.” She said Jewell told the governors that the department “is committed to working with them and their participation in the planning process is fundamental for any kind of coastal development.”

The Center requested interviews with staff of each of the governors — additional coalition members include the chief executives of Alaska, Texas, South Carolina and Louisiana — but none made anyone available, though Alaska responded to questions in writing.

There’s been little effort to explain CEA’s relationship with the coalition, which is currently chaired by North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory. The coalition’s website made no mention of CEA until recently, when one page was edited — after the Center began reporting this article — to acknowledge the organization provides “information and administrative support.” In March, when the Center first asked who staffs the coalition, Ryan Tronovich, a spokesman for McCrory, said the governors provide the staff (records show Tronovich actually consulted with CEA to answer the Center’s questions). When the Center asked again after learning of CEA’s involvement, Tronovich said in an email that he “should have been more clear,” and compared CEA’s help to that given by an intern. (The Republic Report, an investigative news website, first reported a possible connection with CEA in February when it noted that a coalition letter appeared to have been written by Joubert.)

In an interview, David Holt, president of CEA and managing partner of HBW Resources, said CEA provides assistance to the coalition at the governors’ request. He said both the coalition and CEA have an “all-of-the-above” energy policy that supports renewable as well as fossil fuels. He also characterized his organization’s role as supportive of the coalition in the same way any number of stakeholders may be.

But there’s no evidence that any other group has played a substantive role in the coalition, or that environmental organizations have been invited to any of its meetings. Earlier this month, the McCrory administration organized a meeting with federal officials to discuss Atlantic drilling; no other governors were there, but staff representing the governors of South Carolina and Virginia did attend. McCrory administration staffers told journalists and environmental organizations that the meeting was closed to interest groups so as not to “allow for the potential of the appearance of influence.” In fact, CEA and other industry groups did attend the meeting. Nadia Luhr, the legislative counsel for the North Carolina Conservation Network, wrote a letter to the administration protesting the circumstances of the meeting. She had not previously been aware of CEA’s role in the coalition, but indicated she wasn’t surprised.

“It’s just another example,” she said, “of industry having a voice where no one else does.”

Rebirth of an industry

Each May, tens of thousands of people gather in Houston for the Offshore Technology Conference, the industry’s premier event, and in 2011 they were looking for a fresh start. A year earlier, the Deepwater Horizon rig had exploded in the Gulf of Mexico just weeks before the conference, killing 11 people and leading to the largest oil spill in the nation’s history. In the aftermath, Obama placed a moratorium on deep-water drilling and canceled plans to allow drilling in the waters off Virginia.

Nevertheless, the 2011 conference was bigger than ever, with exhibit booths displaying the latest in drilling technology sprawling over nearly 600,000 square feet of Houston’s Reliant Park complex, which encompasses a cavernous exhibition center, an indoor arena that seats nearly 6,000 people, and covered outdoor booths. There were policy discussions and technical events with titles like “Active Heating for Life of Field Flow Assurance.” The first day kicked off with a panel hosted by Holt and an executive with Noble Energy that featured officials from the five inaugural states of the coalition — Texas, Alaska, Virginia, Mississippi and Louisiana — who decried the federal government for standing in the way of development.

It was there that the governors of those five states announced their coalition, with a stated goal of improving dialogue between the states and the federal government. The coalition’s first chairman was Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who as a congressman in 2006 sponsored a bill that would have removed the federal moratoriums on drilling in the Atlantic and Eastern Gulf. In 2010, as governor, Jindal railed against Obama’s deep-water moratorium — a moratorium that had been lifted by the time the 2011 conference was held. The governor has been a reliable friend to the oil industry, which has contributed more money to his campaigns than any other sector — more than $1.4 million over the past decade, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Jindal’s office did not respond to an interview request or to questions about the coalition’s formation. Sharon Leighow, a spokeswoman for Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell, the second chairman of the coalition, said in a written response that the founding governors, not CEA, had decided to form the coalition. When asked how CEA got involved, she wrote: “Unknown.” (Parnell recently lost a bid for re-election.)

CEA president Holt said the governors approached his group because it represents not only energy companies, but also other sectors like airlines, trucking and construction. “They knew of us and asked CEA because we represent the whole economy,” he said.

Some environmental advocates have a dimmer view of why the group was formed that May. “The Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition is a Trojan horse,” said Richard Charter, who has fought against offshore drilling for decades and is now a senior fellow at the Ocean Foundation, which supports marine conservation. Oil companies and other industry groups, including CEA, started a campaign a decade ago to repeal the Atlantic moratorium by lobbying officials and the public state-by-state, he said, and the coalition is the culmination of that effort. “They want to create the appearance that a bunch of coastal states are clamoring for ‘drill here, drill now.’”

Throughout its three-and-a-half-year life, the governors coalition has focused on the Interior Department’s “Five-Year Program” — the arcane, bureaucratic process the department uses to plan the nation’s offshore drilling regimen — lobbying at each incremental turn for the department to open more areas to drilling and to ease restrictions where drilling is underway. The coalition has also pushed for the federal government to share more drilling revenue with the states.

The Center requested documents related to the governors coalition from the three states that have chaired the coalition. Louisiana and Alaska provided thousands of pages, though Alaska’s response was heavily redacted. North Carolina has yet to respond to the request, which was submitted in April.

Whatever the origins of the coalition, the documents show that Holt was an early driving force. In May 2011, he and his colleagues at CEA designed a logo for the group. In July, he sent an email to Chip Kline, deputy director of Jindal’s Office of Coastal Activities,congratulating Louisiana on being named the coalition’s first chair, stressing that the governors would add a “meaningful voice” to the energy debate. When they were planning the coalition’s first meeting, alongside a Republican Governors Association gathering in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and RSVPs weren’t coming in as hoped, Holt fired off a message saying, “REALLY need to have this OCSGC meeting to get things rolling.”

Voice of the consumer?

The Consumer Energy Alliance calls itself “The Voice of the Energy Consumer.” The group was formed in 2006, operating initially out of a small office park in Houston. Its first board of directors included executives with Shell, Hess and a wind power company, as well as geologists and representatives of “consumer” industries such as trucking. Also on the board: Jim Martin, chairman of the 60 Plus Association, which bills itself as the conservative alternative to the elderly advocacy group AARP, but which is also part of the well-financed political network led by Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists with major stakes in oil and gas.

Holt, 48, who speaks with folksy Texan charm, has been the alliance’s only president. Before starting CEA, he had worked in government affairs for Hart Energy, an industry publishing company, and before that, he says, as legal counsel to the top oil and gas regulator in Texas.

The alliance says it seeks to improve understanding of the nation’s energy needs and advocates for lower energy prices through an “all-of-the-above” policy of increased domestic energy production. Over the past eight years, the group’s membership has grown to about 240 corporate entities, including groups from “energy consuming” industries like transportation and construction, as well as energy companies. CEA also claims to have some 400,000 individual members who have signed petitions or taken other actions that are described on its website. (In October, however, Wisconsin regulators rejected a petition CEA had filed in an electricity rate case there after an investigation by the Madison Capital Times revealed that some of the 2,500 people whose names had been used were unaware they appeared on the petition, and actually opposed CEA’s stance. CEA said it stood by the 2,500 signatures, but had actually requested that the petition be withdrawn before it was rejected.)

In 2011, the year the governors coalition was formed, CEA’s annual revenue ballooned to $3.8 million from just $737,000 the previous year, and it’s remained above $3 million since then. Holt says the majority of CEA’s members are from “consuming” sectors and that its funding comes from all members. He wouldn’t say who pays what, however, and tax records show that in 2011 and 2012, the most recent years available, at least 30 percent of the money came from just three entities: the American Petroleum Institute, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and America’s Natural Gas Alliance, each a prominent oil and gas industry group.

More than $1 million of that revenue goes as a management fee to HBW Resources, an energy-focused lobbying and consulting firm that Holt formed in 2008 along with Michael Whatley — a former chief of staff for Sen. Elizabeth Dole — and Andrew Browning, who had worked as a lobbyist and in the Department of Energy. With the exception of a few regional directors, CEA’s staff is comprised of HBW staff, and to the layman, it’s hard to tell the difference between the two.

HBW’s Washington, D.C., office sits in a giant truncated pyramid of a building, with sloped outer walls, that overlooks Farragut Square on the city’s lobbyist-dense K Street. The firm has offices in five other cities in the U.S. and Canada and has its fingers in many pies. Its 18 employees manage not only CEA, but also the Energy Producing States Coalition, a group of state lawmakers that work on energy policy, and the National Ocean Policy Coalition, a collection of energy companies, commercial fishing organizations and other business interests that opposes the Obama administration’s oceans policy. Whatley is also the vice president of Nebraskans for Jobs and Energy Independence, ostensibly a group of Nebraskans who support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The firm lobbies on behalf of just a handful of clients, including Noble Energy and The Babcock and Wilcox Company, which makes nuclear reactors and other industrial power equipment.

HBW employees have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to dozens of political campaigns. Notably, they gave $1,600 to Democrat Terry McAuliffe — who, following his election as governor of Virginia last year, joined the governors coalition after Whatley and Joubert made a direct appeal to one of his senior advisers during a December meeting. They also gave more than $8,300 to Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina within a day of a coalition meeting that Haley attended, in Houston in 2013.

One of the firm’s first major campaigns began in late 2009, when Whatley worked with a Canadian diplomat to help block state and federal attempts in the U.S. to pass low-carbon fuel standards, which could have threatened imports from Canada’s tar sands oil deposits.

The effort previewed what would become a recurring strategy for Whatley and his colleagues: pairing a public advocacy campaign with direct, behind-the-scenes appeals to elected officials, urging them to make similar public comments in their own voices. More recently, CEA has worked through the American Legislative Exchange Council, the conservative state legislators group, to oppose a new federal rule limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Holt says his organization supports all forms of energy production and is directed by its board, which no longer includes energy companies. “We are a consumer controlled and a consumer funded and a consumer dominated organization,” he said.

Most of its campaigns and communications focus on oil and gas, however. That, coupled with what’s known about its funding, has led some advocacy groups to view CEA as a front group for energy companies, an entity created to give the appearance of an independent and broad-based voice. To these advocacy groups, the governors coalition is just another player in the larger game. “This is a purposed campaign to mislead the public,” said Claire Douglass, campaign director for climate and energy at Oceana, an environmental group that opposes offshore drilling. “The politicians are now doing industry business, not being public servants.”

Gaining speed

The governors coalition’s work inched forward through much of its first year-and-a-half, at least in part because there wasn’t that much it could do. The Interior Department had excluded new areas from the current drilling plan, covering 2012-2017, and it hadn’t yet begun substantive work on the next one. The coalition wrote letters to Congress and the Obama administration (two of which appear to have been edited by Shell and Exxon Mobil), urging open dialogue and pressing on other issues, such as revenue sharing. It held periodic meetings. On December 7, 2012, three Alaska officials — Kip Knudson and Nathan Butzlaff, who led Parnell’s work on the coalition, and state Commerce Commissioner Susan Bell — attended CEA’s holiday party at the Old Ebbitt Grill in Washington, according to emails.

In 2013, the newly-elected McCrory, formerly a Duke Energy executive, joined the coalition, adding an important player in the group’s push for drilling off the South Atlantic coast. The group had a new chairman in Parnell, who before entering office had been ConocoPhillips’ chief lobbyist in Alaska and had worked on energy for Patton Boggs, a D.C. lobbying firm that represented Exxon Mobil.

As part of the coalition’s effort to establish itself, the governors and CEA formalized their relationship with a memorandum of understanding designating CEA as volunteer staffwith specific duties to manage the organization. It held a “strategy session” with the American Petroleum Institute.

In October, the coalition convened at the Beau Rivage Resort and Casino in Biloxi, Mississippi, alongside the annual gathering of the Southern States Energy Board for what would be a formative meeting. The following year would present the first opportunity for the group to weigh in on the next five-year drilling plan, and the governors and CEA wanted to make sure they were prepared to make their case.

Govs. Parnell, McCrory and Bryant, along with staff of the other governors, met for more than an hour in one of the resort’s ballrooms with executives from Exxon Mobil, Shell, Spectrum Geo — a seismic testing company — and other energy groups, including the Southeastern Coastal Wind Coalition, to hear their concerns, according to a meeting agenda.

Briefing documents prepared by CEA include talking points on the economic benefits of drilling, saying, “the key is to echo these messages to Congress and the Obama Administration, encouraging them to pursue a sensible path that allows for Atlantic leasing.” The document adds that “coastal governors, legislators, and other stakeholders should play a lead role in delivering the messages below to the Administration and to Congress.”

According to notes from the meeting prepared by CEA’s Joubert, Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, an offshore industry group, advised the governors that they could suggest to the Interior Department which areas should be leased, and he “urged the governors to keep their areas of potential interest as broad as possible.” He also warned of “increasing activism by NGOs against seismic activity and cautioned the governors about some of these groups’ false rhetoric.”

The day after the meeting, Tony Almeida, a senior adviser to McCrory, sent an email to Holt saying the governor had agreed to serve as vice-chairman of the coalition. “Great news, Tony!” Holt replied, adding, “Great work yesterday. Pat was outstanding! Lots of key action items. We can’t thank you enough for all your support and leadership on OCSGC. 2014 is going to be… interesting. :)”

An “interesting” year

This year, the debate over drilling in the Atlantic picked up significantly just as the coalition finally gained the sort of direct access to the Obama administration it had been seeking. And, the emails show, CEA played a critical role in helping the governors respond.

Two weeks before the governors’ meeting with Jewell that cold February morning in Washington, officials from Alaska and North Carolina had a series of email exchanges and phone calls with CEA’s Joubert to prepare for the meeting. Joubert advised Donald van der Vaart — North Carolina’s deputy environment secretary, who had been tasked with preparing McCrory — on specific policies, such as what to request regarding seismic testing. Van der Vaart asked Joubert to send talking points, noting that a previous briefing book she had sent was “an amazing resource.”

In that meeting at the Willard, Jewell reportedly told the governors that her job isn’t “to get in the way of development,” but rather “to make sure it’s done right.” She and her staff also noted that environmental organizations had increased scrutiny of seismic testing, so her department would make sure appropriate mitigation measures were in place to protect marine animals.

Just days after the meeting, the Interior Department released a long-awaited environmental assessment that would allow seismic testing, and the governors coalition decided to defer to industry for their response. “Natalie — Would you be able to check with NOIA and/or API to see where they are on their respective reviews/analyses?” wrote Butzlaff, the Parnell staffer, in March, referring to the National Ocean Industries Association and the American Petroleum Institute, and calling Joubert by her first name. Joubert responded that the industry hadn’t yet reached consensus, but that it “has concerns more broadly that setting a precedent for stringent mitigation measures in the Atlantic could affect future measures in the Gulf and the Arctic.”

This past summer, the Interior Department said it would begin reviewing applications for that testing, with those more stringent measures in place. At the same time, it began accepting comments from industry, advocacy groups and other stakeholders on which areas it should open to drilling beginning in 2017.

Representatives of the governors coalition have maintained that it is an open and transparent group that strives to include different viewpoints. But the Center was only able to learn the details of the organization by submitting records requests — which North Carolina still has not provided — and there’s no evidence that opponents of drilling have been invited to any meetings.

Indeed, critics point to that North Carolina meeting earlier this month as the perfect illustration of what’s wrong with the way the governors coalition operates. On Nov. 6, North Carolina hosted a meeting on the five-year planning process that focused on the Atlantic. Officials from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources told journalists and environmental groups that the event was invitation only and that “neither special interest groups nor industry representatives” would be present.

That was true in regard to environmental groups — but apparently not for others. During the event, reporters waited in the halls of Raleigh’s Nature Research Center as state and federal officials listened to panel discussions that featured, among others, a CEA staffer and someone from the Center for Offshore Safety, an industry group.

McCrory did allow reporters in, but not until after the meeting was finished, and industry groups had given their presentations. McCrory’s position hasn’t wavered, and he made that clear, telling reporters that “North Carolina ought to participate in our country’s energy independence.”

MONEY College

The Best and Worst Places to Live for a Low-Cost College Education

Classroom with map of United States on chalkboard. Wyoming is shaded pink.
Want to save $50,000 on your kids' college education? Move to Wyoming. Sarina Finkelstein (photo illustration)—John Kuczala/Getty Images (classroom); Tuomas Kujansuu (chalkboard)

With a wide spread in tuition and tax burdens, the cost of sending your children to local public schools can come to just over $40,000 for four years—or more than $130,000—depending where you live. See where your state ranks.

Want to cut your family’s college tuition bills by more than $50,000? Bring up your kids in Wyoming. Or Florida. Or even New York. But not New Hampshire.

Using new College Board data on the average cost of tuition and fees at public colleges in all 50 states and the average amount of state tax dollars that go toward higher education, MONEY calculated where parents would spend the most and least to raise two children and send both to an in-state public university.

Wyoming, which the Tax Foundation reports has the lowest total tax burden in the country, is also the nation’s best bargain in higher education, thanks to the lowest public-college tuition in the U.S. Yet low taxes alone aren’t enough to make a state a good deal. Although New Hampshire has the sixth-lowest tax burden in the nation, Granite State parents face the highest college-related bills.

To estimate the total cost of a public education in each state, MONEY calculated how much a family earning $50,000 a year would likely pay in state taxes earmarked for higher education over 25 years, and added that to four years of in-state tuition for two children. This back-of-the-envelope analysis, of course, assumes no change in prices or taxes, nor any financial aid.

The results, while rough, do a reasonable job of showing the impact of different philosophies toward government services, says Andy Carlson, senior policy analyst at the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association.

You’ll generally pay more if you live in a state where the students who earn the benefits of the degree have to pay the bulk of the costs, Carlson says. And you’ll usually—though not always—face lower overall college costs in states that view access to higher education as a public good, and as a result direct significant tax support to public universities.

The Best Places to Live

For families, how this difference usually plays out is in higher or lower in-state tuition. And you’ll end up paying the most for your kids’ education in states with high in-state tuition, even if those states have comparatively low college-related taxes.

New Hampshire has no tax on earned income. It funds government services with taxes on things like investment income, real estate, and liquor. For a family earning $50,000, the amount of state revenues that support the state’s colleges equates to about $82 this year, or a little more than $2,000 over 25 years. Not surprisingly, New Hampshire has the highest average public college tuition in the country—$14,712 this year—pushing total higher education tuition and tax spending for parents of two children to more than $132,000 over two decades.

Wyoming, which has low direct taxes on its residents, funds much of its government services with taxes on mineral and energy mining. Out of those revenues, it allocates the equivalent of nearly $600 a year per family to higher education, the highest subsidy in the nation. As a result, tuition and fees at the University of Wyoming are just $4,646. The total higher education taxes and tuition costs for a typical Wyoming family adds up to just $42,000—or $90,000 less than New Hampshire families pay.

Some high-tax and high-subsidy states are bad deals for parents, however. Illinois taxpayers, for example, spend 13% more than the national average on higher education support—about $340 a year per middle-class family. And Illinois public colleges charge some of the highest tuition in the U.S. As a result, Illinois has the nation’s fifth-highest combined tax-and-tuition bill for a typical family—$115,000.

In contrast, a middle class household North Carolina contributes about $500 worth of state taxes to higher education annually. That high level of taxpayer support helps keep North Carolina’s in-state tuition, $6,700 this year, below the national average. The total higher education tax and tuition costs for parents with two children comes in at about $60,000.

One last surprising note: You don’t have to travel far to reap big savings. Moving across the river from high-tax New Jersey, for example, to slightly higher-tax New York cuts the public college tuition you’re likely to pay by about $5,000 a year, and a family’s total lifetime higher education bill by more than $50,000.

The 50-State Ranking

Here’s how the math plays out in all 50 states. For more on finding a great college value, check out our Best Colleges rankings, including the 25 Best Public Colleges.

State State higher-ed spending per $1,000 in personal income 25-year total state higher-ed spending for families earning $50,000 Average in-state tuition 2014-15 Estimated total tuition costs for two children Total estimated tuition + taxes
1. Wyoming $11.92 $14,896 $4,646 $37,168 $41,814
2. Alaska $10.48 $13,101 $6,138 $49,105 $55,243
3. Utah $7.63 $9,537 $6,177 $49,416 $55,593
4. New Mexico $11.51 $14,387 $6,190 $49,523 $55,714
5. Montana $5.70 $7,125 $6,279 $50,233 $56,512
6. Florida $4.84 $6,048 $6,351 $50,808 $57,159
7. Nevada $4.49 $5,616 $6,418 $51,341 $57,759
8. Idaho $6.59 $8,236 $6,602 $52,816 $59,418
9. West Virginia $7.80 $9,753 $6,661 $53,292 $59,953
10. North Carolina $9.62 $12,027 $6,677 $53,418 $60,096
11. Mississippi $9.50 $11,877 $6,861 $54,888 $61,749
12. Oklahoma $6.52 $8,145 $6,895 $55,157 $62,052
13. New York $4.91 $6,134 $7,292 $58,338 $65,631
14. Louisiana $5.98 $7,471 $7,314 $58,510 $65,824
15. Nebraska $8.07 $10,093 $7,404 $59,234 $66,638
16. North Dakota $10.02 $12,522 $7,513 $60,106 $67,620
17. Arkansas $8.01 $10,013 $7,567 $60,535 $68,102
18. South Dakota $5.04 $6,303 $7,653 $61,224 $68,877
19. Iowa $5.92 $7,402 $7,857 $62,857 $70,714
20. Kansas $6.06 $7,577 $8,086 $64,684 $72,770
21. Georgia $7.31 $9,139 $8,094 $64,753 $72,847
22. Missouri $4.02 $5,023 $8,383 $67,068 $75,451
23. Tennessee $6.25 $7,810 $8,541 $68,324 $76,865
24. Maryland $5.42 $6,771 $8,724 $69,790 $78,514
25. Wisconsin $4.51 $5,632 $8,781 $70,248 $79,029
26. Texas $5.78 $7,226 $8,830 $70,637 $79,467
27. Oregon $4.01 $5,018 $8,932 $71,453 $80,385
28. Indiana $6.69 $8,363 $9,023 $72,182 $81,205
29. California $5.84 $7,306 $9,173 $73,381 $82,554
30. Kentucky $7.44 $9,301 $9,188 $73,508 $82,696
31. Maine $4.99 $6,243 $9,422 $75,378 $84,800
32. Alabama $8.18 $10,220 $9,470 $75,759 $85,229
33. Colorado $2.78 $3,479 $9,487 $75,897 $85,384
34. Hawaii $8.08 $10,106 $9,740 $77,921 $87,661
35. Ohio $4.42 $5,526 $10,100 $80,799 $90,898
36. Arizona $3.57 $4,468 $10,398 $83,181 $93,578
37. Minnesota $5.42 $6,780 $10,527 $84,217 $94,744
38. Connecticut $4.63 $5,782 $10,620 $84,957 $95,577
39. Washington $4.81 $6,017 $10,846 $86,765 $97,610
40. Virginia $4.40 $5,503 $10,899 $87,192 $98,091
41. Rhode Island $3.45 $4,316 $10,934 $87,469 $98,403
42. Massachusetts $2.88 $3,605 $10,951 $87,608 $98,559
43. Delaware $5.44 $6,798 $11,448 $91,581 $103,029
44. South Carolina $5.38 $6,729 $11,449 $91,594 $103,044
45. Michigan $4.31 $5,386 $11,909 $95,271 $107,180
46. Illinois $6.77 $8,467 $12,770 $102,156 $114,926
47. New Jersey $3.99 $4,993 $13,002 $104,020 $117,022
48. Pennsylvania $3.02 $3,775 $13,246 $105,967 $119,213
49. Vermont $3.21 $4,018 $14,419 $115,353 $129,773
50. New Hampshire $1.64 $2,050 $14,712 $117,698 $132,411

Sources: College Board, MONEY calculations

TIME Television

Clay Aiken’s Failed Bid for U.S. Congress Will Be an Esquire Network Docuseries

Clay Aiken
Clay Aiken, Democratic candidate for U.S. representative of North Carolina's 2nd Congressional District, gives his concession speech in Sanford, N.C. on Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2014 after losing to Republican incumbent Renee Ellmers. Abbi O'Leary—The Fayetteville Observer/AP

After placing second in two American votes, Aiken's story will be shared

What do you do after placing second on American Idol? If you’re Katharine McPhee, you release a few albums and attempt to cross over into acting. If you’re Adam Lambert, you tour with Queen and become an LGBT activist. If you’re Clay Aiken, you run for Congress. Naturally.

Aiken lost his bid for Congress yesterday to Republican Renee Elmers in North Carolina’s majority-Republican 2nd District; he claimed 41 percent of the vote to Elmers’ 59 percent. And Esquire Network revealed last night that it had been filming behind the scenes throughout the entire race, beginning with the announcement of Aiken’s candidacy in February.

The Democrat’s story is compelling on many levels. He’s a single, gay dad and a Christian. He attempted to break into Washington as a relative outsider, notwithstanding a two-year term on the Presidential Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, for which his time working as a special education teacher qualified him. And the congressional race was marked by tragedy: His runner-up in the Democratic primary, Keith Crisco, died just days after the primary following a fall in his home.

The four-hour docuseries, which is yet to be titled, is helmed by Oscar winner Simon Chinn and Emmy winner Jonathan Chinn. “We were granted incredible access during the making of this documentary, and in turn were able to capture the internal workings of an American campaign — the good, the bad and the ugly,” Simon Chinn told The Hollywood Reporter. The project will air sometime during the first quarter of 2015.

TIME 2014 Election

Early Vote Totals in North Carolina, Iowa Favor Democrats

Early Voting North Carolina Supporters of Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) outside of a polling place in Asheville.
Supporters of Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) outside of a polling place in Asheville, N.C., Oct. 28, 2014. Mike Belleme—The New York Times/Redux

Early vote totals show Democrats in some key states hitting the polls early at higher rates than Republicans

For more than 13 million Americans, Election Day has already come and gone. And that means control of the Senate may already have been partially decided, as a little more than three million of those voters were from key swing states, according to data from the United States Election Project.

So who’s winning? Early vote returns won’t tell us who is ahead in some of the country’s most closely-watched races, but they can give us an idea of where things stand heading into Election Day. And for now, both sides have evidence they can point to that shows they’re doing well.

For Democrats, North Carolina looks particularly promising. So far in the Tar Heel state, where voting rights advocates worried a shortened early voting period would have an adverse impact on the election, over 800,000 votes have been cast so far in the election and 47% were cast by registered Democrats. Registered Republicans account for about 32% of North Carolina’s early votes.

According to North Carolina political science professor Michael Bitzer who runs a blog tracking voting and politics, at least 130,000 more votes have been cast in 2014 compared to the same period in 2010, even though there were seven additional days of early voting that year. Also, more unaffiliated voters and black voters who did not participate in 2010 are hitting the polls this election.

Early vote totals in North Carolina could signal good news for incumbent Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan, who is facing a tough challenge from Republican state Rep. Thom Tillis, but Election Day will show whether the flood of early votes from registered Democrats will surpass the expected Republican turnout at the polls.

For Republicans, the best evidence comes from Colorado, which is hosting its first election using all mail-in ballots. Out of the 1,149,745 votes that were cast as of Friday, about 41.3% were from registered Republicans. About 32.2% of votes thus far are from Democrats in the state. A recent report by Colorado Public Radio, however, suggests both parties are working the ground in the final days of the election to ensure voters get their ballots in the mail. The last-ditch effort could help in the state, where the latest round of polling has incumbent Sen. Mark Udall and his Republican challenger Cory Cardner tied.

It must be noted, too, that a couple days out from the election, the most telling results are coming from two states that took two very different approaches to altering the voting process. In an attempt at expanding the voting pool, Colorado sent ballots to voters instead of waiting for them to show up at the polls, while North Carolina enacted what has been called the most restrictive voting law changes in recent history.

And then, there’s Iowa where a recent Reuters poll has Senate hopefuls Democrat Bruce Braley and Republican Joni Ernst neck-in-neck. There, Democratic voters have returned more absentee ballots than Republicans—but just barely. Out of the 391, 772 votes returned, 39% are from registered Republicans and about 41% are from registered Democrats.

TIME 2014 Election

Supreme Court Allows North Carolina Voting Law to Stand in Midterm

A voter displays their "I Voted" sticker on their lapel after voting as others wait in line for the first day of Early Voting on October 18, 2012 in Wilson, North Carolina.
A voter displays an "I Voted" sticker on her lapel after voting as others wait in line for the first day of early voting on Oct. 18, 2012, in Wilson, N.C. Sara D. Davis—Getty Images

Same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting are prohibited in the Tar Heel state this November

Voters in North Carolina will not have access to same-day registration or out-of-precinct voting in this midterm election, after the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked an appellant court order to stay parts of a sweeping voting law that voting-rights advocates say could leave many voters disenfranchised come November.

“We are disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling today,” the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, said in a statement. Tens of thousands of North Carolina voters, especially African-American voters, have relied on same-day registration, as well as the counting of ballots that were cast out of precinct, for years.”

The North Carolina State Board of Elections said that in 2010, over 21,000 voters registered and voted on the same day during the early voting period, and just over 6,000 voters were able to have their ballots counted even though they voted in the wrong precinct. During May’s 2014 primary, over 400 voters didn’t have their votes counted because these provisions were removed, Durham-based organization Democracy NC reports.

These measures are just two of many that the heavily GOP-backed law eliminated in 2013, in what supporters called an effort to prevent voting fraud in the Tar Heel state. Several organizations have filed a suit against the voting law in the hope of blocking it before this year’s election.

Critics of the law had cause for hope when an appellant court ruled last week that parts of the law should be blocked in November, but the state quickly appealed to the Supreme Court.

In an interview with TIME on Monday, Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project which is representing the North Carolina NAACP in the case against HB 589, said they would “continue to fight this case” which goes to full trial next summer.

“We’re going to do everything we can to make sure voters do get registered and do get to the right precinct,” Hair said. “But, the problem is issues sometimes slip through.”

Early voting begins Oct. 23 in North Carolina. The voter registration deadline is Friday, Oct. 10.

TIME 2014 Election

Court Blocks Parts of North Carolina Voting Law

North Carolina's law has been fiercely criticized by voting rights advocates

Updated at 10:05 a.m., Oct. 2

A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked parts of a sweeping North Carolina voting law from taking hold ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision to allow provisions of the law that eliminate same-day-registration and the casting of out-of-precinct ballots. The appeals court on Wednesday still allowed other portions of the law to stand, including the cut of seven early voting days. But in a 69-page opinion Wednesday, the appeals court said an August decision by the lower district court to allow the full law was flawed.

The decision comes just weeks before the early voting period is set to begin in the Tar Heel State on Oct. 23. “The right to vote is fundamental,” Judge James Wynn wrote in the majority opinion. “And a tight timeframe before an election does not diminish that right.”

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory issued a statement Wednesday saying though he was pleased most of the law will apply in November, the state plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. North Carolina’s law has been one of the most criticized by voting rights advocates since the Supreme Court ruled that parts of the landmark Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional, which opened the door for states to enact more voting restrictions.

TIME voting rights

Voting Rights Battles Heat Up Ahead of Midterm Elections

Voting booths in polling place
Getty Images

After Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Texas may send voting rights cases to the Supreme Court

Updated: September 30, 2014

Voting rights advocacy groups and Ohio state officials submitted dueling briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court Saturday and Sunday in a fight over early voting in the state.

On Sept. 24, the U.S. Appeals court for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to block Ohio’s new election rules, which would cut back early voting from 35 to 28 days before the election and limit early voting on weekends. The courts found that Ohio’s new laws if enacted would violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Ohio officials have asked Justice Elena Kagan to overrule the state courts and prevent voting from starting Sept. 30. She could hand down a decision as early as today.

Ohio is just the latest flashpoint as early voting fights are heating up around the country ahead of midterms. Democrats seek to mobilize lower-income voters who are less likely to turn out for general elections if they have to take time off of work to vote on a Tuesday. Republicans object, claiming the risk of voter fraud and other concerns require tighter voting restrictions.

Here are the three other voting rights laws cases that could work their way up to the Supreme Court before the midterms:

Wisconsin- On September 12, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals put into effect a law requiring most voters to present photo identification at the polls. Proponents of the law say it will discourage voter fraud, while critics say it will deter minorities from voting. On Friday, the entire Seventh Circuit split 5-5 on whether to hear the case, which may send it to the Supreme Court.

North Carolina – North Carolina’s 2013 state voting law, which eliminates same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting and shortens the early voting window by ten days, will be in place for the first time this year in a statewide election. A panel of three judges heard oral arguments about the law on Sept. 25, with one judge pointedly asking, “Why does the state of North Carolina not want people to vote?” The case will likely end up at the Supreme Court, especially if the Fourth Circuit rules against the law.

Texas – Last week, trial ended in a challenge to Texas’s voter identification law requiring voters to display government-issued forms of identification. Under the stringent law, a concealed-carry permit is a valid form of identification, but a student ID is not. The judge is expected to rule soon on whether the law violates the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and if the decision comes out against the law, the state could appeal to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Update: The Supreme Court on September 29th blocked early voting in Ohio. The order will stand until the Court acts on an appeal by state officials.

TIME 2014 Election

A Conservative Group Sent Voter Registration Information to a Cat

And hundreds of the other forms weren’t purr-fect either

Oh, for the coveted feline vote.

In a bid to register conservative North Carolinians to vote, the political group Americans For Prosperity mistakenly sent voter registration forms with incorrect information to hundreds of men, women—and at least one cat.

The faulty forms went out along with hundreds of thousands of normal voter registration mailers, AFP said. Some of those forms, numbering in the hundreds, included inaccurate information, like the wrong date of the deadline to register or the wrong location for where to send the completed form, the News & Observer reports. And at least one such form was addressed to a woman’s cat.

“AFP Foundation has registered thousands of North Carolinians to vote through this registration drive, which is a great thing for the democratic process and getting more people involved,” AFP spokesman Levi Russell said. “While there were non-substantive errors in our mailers, the program has been highly successful so far. Any large mailing even with 99.9% accuracy is always going to have a few inaccurate recipients, but we’ll always be striving to make it better. Ultimately our forms are working as intended—when a resident fills out our form and sends it in, they will be registered to vote, period.”

The liberal group American Bridge nonetheless jumped on the blunder to needle the Koch brother-funded conservative group in an email to journalists and supporters.

Unknown

AFP has spent $25 million on ads this year but has recently focused its energy on voter registration initiatives in North Carolina, where Democratic groups have outspent Republicans two-to-one in booked ads, according to the Associated Press. North Carolina’s contest between incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan and Republican state House Speaker Thom Tillis is one of the year’s most competitive races.

Inviting a cat to register to vote may have been an even bigger mistake than AFP realizes. What little data science has gathered on the political tendencies of felines suggests they may not be the kind of voters AFP is looking for anyway.

TIME Crime

Judge Frees 2 North Carolina Men Imprisoned for 30 Years

Henry McCollum
Henry McCollum sits on death row at Central Prison in Raleigh, N.C., on Aug. 12, 2014. He and his half-brother Leon Brown have spent more than three decades in prison for the alleged rape and murder of 11-year-old Sabrina Buie in 1983 Travis Long—AP

DNA evidence exonerates two half-brothers convicted of the 1983 rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl

Updated: Sept. 2, 6:30 p.m.

Two half-brothers who were convicted in the 1983 rape and murder of an 11-year-old North Carolina girl were ordered free Tuesday, after a judge ruled that they had been wrongly imprisoned thanks to newly discovered DNA evidence.

North Carolina Superior Court Judge Douglas Sasser overturned the convictions of death-row inmate Henry Lee McCollum, 50, and Leon Brown, 46, who had been serving a life sentence. Both men originally confessed to the rape and murder of Sabrina Buie, who was found dead in a soybean field in rural North Carolina.

The ruling comes after an investigation by the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission that found no DNA evidence at the crime scene that could be traced back to McCollum or Brown.

But a cigarette found and tested in 2010 contained the DNA of another man, Roscoe Artis, who lived a block away from where the crime took place and is serving a life sentence for another murder and rape within weeks of Buie’s death.

“It’s impossible to put into words what these men have been through and how much they have lost,” said Ken Rose, a lawyer who represents McCollum, in a statement.

McCollum and Brown, both mentally challenged, initially signed statements saying they were responsible for Buie’s death. According to Brown’s defense lawyers, the two signed the statements believing they would go home afterward.

“When Henry gave his confession, he got up to walk out of the interrogation room,” says W. James Payne, a lawyer representing Brown. “He started to walk out the door.”

Both appealed their convictions over the years. In 2006, Brown filed a motion to test the DNA of a cigarette butt found at the crime scene. The results eventually excluded both McCollum and Brown. Several years later, the state’s innocence commission got involved and in July announced that DNA on the cigarette butt actually belonged to Artis.

That led to the scene Tuesday, in which Judge Sasser announced that the convictions for both men were to be overturned.

“I think I was crying harder than Leon,” says Ann Kirby, one of Brown’s lawyers. “To hear the word innocent in a courtroom is the pinnacle for any lawyer. It was history making.”

Both men had been imprisoned for three decades, McCollum being the longest-serving inmate on death row in North Carolina. Brown was on death row for five years until a retrial dismissed his murder charge.

“He always said, ‘They can go to the North Pole, and they’re not going to find anything,’” Kirby says, referring to Brown. “When we heard the verdict, we said, ‘They went to the North Pole.’ And he said, ‘They sure did.’”

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser