This week, Maniar saw Clinton speak again, this time at the Democratic National Convention, the first since Roe was overturned, where she’s volunteering and attending as a guest of .

She’ll be flying straight from Chicago to Boston on Thursday and then moving into her freshman dorm at Harvard University Friday. She plans on studying  government, education and Spanish and continuing her work as a youth organizer.  She’ll also be spending time in Boston Public Schools helping teach civics education and curriculum through Harvard Civics.

This election cycle, Maniar has been particularly motivated to collect signatures for an abortion amendment that will appear on the November ballot in her home state. If passed, Amendment 4 would establish a statewide constitutional right to abortion up until fetal viability, a major shift from Florida’s current law, which bans abortion after six weeks except in rare cases. 

Currently, related to abortion are certified for the 2024 general election, the most on record in a single year. Vice President Kamala Harris, now leading the Democratic ticket, is seen as a particularly and has already done much to win over Gen Z.

In an interview with The 74, Maniar said she thinks these ballot measures can mobilize youth voters, who are feeling particularly energized both by the abortion issue and Harris’s campaign more broadly.  

“I think autonomy right now to young people means a lot, because — especially in this state — we know what it feels like to feel like you have none,” she said. 

In late July, Harris spoke with Maniar’s peers when she made a virtual appearance at the Gen-Z-led Voters of Tomorrow summit.

“We need your support,” Harris said. “In this election we know young voters will be key, and we know your vote cannot be taken for granted. It must be earned. And that is exactly what we will do.” 

Vice President knows she must earn our generation’s votes, and that is exactly what she will do.

— Voters of Tomorrow (@VotersTomorrow)

Days before leaving for the convention where Harris will accept her history-making nomination, Maniar talked politics with The 74’s Amanda Geduld.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

The 74: How did you first get involved with local politics and civic engagement?

Rhea Maniar: When I was 9, my parents took me to a Hillary Clinton rally in Sanford, Florida, in 2016, and they’ve never been the most politically involved people, but they saw that this election was really exciting because it was our first female nominee from the Democratic Party. And they took me in a shirt that said “Future President.” I think ever since that, I’ve just been hooked. 

I actually signed up to volunteer for Hillary Clinton on my own — after my bedtime — on my mom’s computer. I snuck in afterwards, and then they called my mom because I didn’t have a phone, so I just put her phone number, and they’re like, “Can we speak to Rhea Maniar?” And she was like, “You can, but she’s like 9 and in bed.” So I ended up phone banking at a neighbor’s house … and that was kind of my first foray into politics: Me and my mom phone banking together for 2016.

… In 10th grade, I did the Florida Senate Page Program … and then I also met Rep. Anna Eskamani, who kind of became my biggest inspiration and mentor in this process. And she offered me an internship just as I was going into 10th grade, and that internship was life changing for me. It was my first experience on the legislative side.

… That summer was also the summer that Roe v. Wade broke. So that was insane. I was a rising sophomore in high school. I couldn’t drive, but I was at the rallies, and I planned events all centered around really advocating for Roe v. Wade, and that summer was amazing. 

… I spent the majority of my senior year really talking to adults and advocating for the fact that high schoolers are here, college students are here. We’re ready to get the vote out in 2024, but we need adults to really get us the resources.

You mentioned your experience with the Dobbs decision and your response to that. Can you walk me through that a little bit? Do you remember hearing about that decision for the first time, what your immediate response was and what you’ve done around that issue since?

Yeah, when it broke out … I think everyone at Rep. Eskamani’s office was just shocked, but we didn’t have any time to be shocked. It was time to get to work. 

So this meant we jumped into planning the rallies and the events and the speaker panels, and so it was crazy, because we didn’t expect such a large response from the Central Florida community. But sign-ups for our rally and our march were going out the door. So many people showed up. We didn’t know what to do. I think, like, three or 4,000 people showed up, literally, on that day. They just dropped what they were doing to come and we were so grateful for the fact, but also that was our first time really seeing, “Oh my God. People who are not typically involved with these kinds of things are coming out in full force.” There are so many civically engaged people here who this is their first kind of major protest, major rally, major movement. 

…  And so since, we’ve been trying to capitalize on that type of energy, and I think that we’ve been really effective in the fact that abortion access affects everyone — even if you’re a man. I think for a lot of Floridians, this is definitely top-of-mind with the new ballot initiative. 

And so part of our job was explaining the ballot initiative and why it was so important in November to come out and vote … 

What made it so exciting to see this in 2024 is — we knew that abortion was literally the number one issue on top of Florida students’ minds — college students, especially — along with rent and housing and education. But abortion after Dobbs quickly rose to the top of that. 

… The fact that voters will literally have the chance in November 2024 to actually speak their minds on this and make sure that their legislators actually represent them in their best interests, was something that I think is really powerful to a lot of Florida students, and it’s definitely something that we are trying our best to uplift and then make as obvious as possible. 

… Whenever we did voter registration at schools, we would also have petitions for the 18-year-olds, just to make sure that we were really helping to get that ballot on the table and to pass the threshold.

So what will it mean for youth voters that this abortion ballot will be on the ticket this November?

I think it means a lot to youth voters, because with the combination of having such a powerful and energetic candidate at the top of the ballot — obviously Kamala Harris has greatly improved her numbers in polling amongst youth, especially in Florida — I think what that means is a higher chance of success for our down-ballot races, which are obviously just as important. 

Obviously, we have Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, who is running against Rick Scott [both Tuesday in the U.S. Senate race]. We have a bunch of really competitive, flippable seats in [state] House districts and Senate districts that are literally right in colleges —UCF [University of Central Florida], FSU [Florida State University] and FAMU [ Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University] in Tallahassee — and so I hope, I am pretty sure — that the abortion amendment has done its job in that we’ve excited these voters, we’ve prepped them, we’ve informed them that so that they know that this year, abortion is on their ballot. 

And I think that in November, we’re going to see record-breaking — or at least higher — turnout amongst youth voters aged 18 to 29 than we ever have seen, because with the combination of abortion, weed [Florida ballot measure to ] and Kamala Harris, I think — and obviously massive outreach efforts on behalf of the Florida High School Democrats and the Florida College Democrats — I think all this combined is just a recipe for success, and I don’t really see it going any other way at this point. And I’m very glad I can say that.

When you’re tabling or giving out petitions, what are you hearing from young people about this ballot measure — and about the issue of abortion, more generally — within this political climate and then also within the context of the upcoming race?

I think in a world where our governor has made the decisions constantly for high schoolers … and we’ve kind of lost autonomy over that — over what our teachers can say in school, what books we can have in school, what’s being taught, what can we take — I think autonomy right now to young people means a lot, because especially in this state, we know what it feels like to feel like you have none. 

And so that’s why the abortion ballot initiative — and just in general … amendments — are so popular …

It sounds like this ballot measure brings a sense of empowerment to a population in Florida that — like you said — feels like their autonomy has been taken away. And I’m wondering, for young people in states that don’t have a ballot measure coming up in November that deals with this issue, what is your message to them?

… My message to folks in states who are passionate about abortion, but don’t know where to start because they don’t have a ballot amendment, is, I’d always say, organize your community. There’s power in numbers. There’s power in voices. All you have to do is start speaking up, whether that’s planning events, whether that’s registering your friends to vote, and whether that’s calling and emailing your representative and knocking down their door. I would say anything helps.

Outside of abortion, what are other issues that you hear young people getting really excited about this election cycle?

I think especially in Florida, rent is a really, really big problem. And so many older folks will come up to me and be like, “Oh, what issues matter to young people?” And most of the time I’m like, “The same issues that matter to you.”

Young professionals are also looking for places to work, jobs and homes … We held a and that was top of mind. Property insurance is a massive deal here — especially to young people who are just getting on their feet, who have a college degree, who need a job and need rent help. Things have become so ridiculously unaffordable for everyone. 

The second priority was abortion. The third one was education, because obviously our public colleges have seen such a major shift with political ideology and the governor trying to get his hands into curriculum. The fourth one is usually always gun control — being the state of Pulse, being the state of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School [scenes of massive shootings in 2016 and 2018]. Especially to our high school students, who have lived high school every year, having to do active shooter drills every two months, I think this is a really top-of-mind issue. 

And Gen Z is one of the most diverse generations in history — racially, ethnically, ideology-wise — and we have a very large population of Gen Z who identifies [as] LGBTQ. And so I think the queer community here is also being very outspoken that their issues are also top of ballot, because Florida has done a very poor job with that. So those are probably top five.

So now a question about you: Will this November be your first election?

Yes, I’m actually old enough to do it in our August primary, so I just did that.

Amazing. And how did it feel to be a first-time voter?

It was so fun. I put the sticker on my computer. I took a picture. I wanted to memorialize this moment. After organizing around so many issues for so long, I felt really good to finally mark my name down on the ballot — and I’m really excited to vote in November.

The State of Montana’s from energy and mining projects violates the state constitution because it does not protect Montanans’ right to a clean and healthful environment and the state’s natural resources from unreasonable depletion, a judge ruled Monday in for 16 youth plaintiffs who sued the state.

Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Kathy Seeley the young plaintiffs in her decision in the , striking down as unconstitutional the so-called “limitation” to the Montana Environmental Policy Act, which was this year, as well as another portion of law surrounding greenhouse gas emissions that was changed this past session.

Seeley the 2023 version of the MEPA limitation, passed via House Bill 971 the session, as well as a portion of Senate Bill 557, and the latter “removes the only preventative, equitable relief available to the public and MEPA litigants.”

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

“Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment, which includes climate as part of the environmental life support system,” Seeley wrote in her decision.

The Held vs. Montana case was the first case challenging state and national climate and energy policies to make it to trial in the U.S., and is now the first in which the plaintiffs, 16 Montana youth now ages 5 to 22, were victorious.

Julia Olson, the chief legal counsel and executive director for Our Children’s Trust, the group behind the lawsuit, called Seeley’s decision precedent setting and “a sweeping win” for Montana, the youth plaintiffs, and the climate, and said more court victories would be coming.

“Today, for the first time in U.S. history, a court ruled on the merits of a case that the government violated the constitutional rights of children through laws and actions that promote fossil fuels, ignore climate change laws, and disproportionately imperil young people,” Olson said.

“The Honorable Judge Kathy Seeley declared Montana’s fossil fuel-promoting laws unconstitutional and enjoined their implementation. As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s effort to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate change.”

In statements provided by their attorneys, two of the plaintiffs, Kian Tanner and Eva Lighthiser, said they were elated by the judge’s decision.

“Frankly, the elation and joy in my heart is overwhelming in the best way,” Tanner said. “We set the precedent not only for the United States, but for the world.”

“I’m so speechless right now. I’m really just excited and elated and thrilled. I cannot believe the ruling. I’m just so relieved. I feel so grateful to have worked with every single person involved in this,” Lighthiser said.

Seeley wrote in her that the MEPA limitation, which prohibits the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts when deciding whether to approve permits for energy and mining projects, violated Montanans’ rights under the 1972 state constitution.

that they have a right to a clean and healthful environment and that each Montanan “shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”

Seeley also wrote that the state constitution commands the legislature to “provide for the administration and enforcement” to meet the state’s obligation to maintain and improve the environment and provide remedies to prevent its unreasonable depletion and degradation.

“Montana’s climate, environment, and natural resources are unconstitutionally degraded and depleted due to the current atmospheric concentration of GHGs and climate change,” Seeley wrote.

She said that MEPA makes clear the state should use “all practicable means” to fulfill those constitutional responsibilities, and that the law’s limitation, in place since 2011 and this session in response to a Yellowstone County judge’s order regarding emissions at a plant in Laurel, is failing to meet those constitutional duties.

Seeley wrote, rather, that the MEPA limitation “conflicts with the very purpose of MEPA” in trying to meet those obligations.

“By prohibiting consideration of climate change, (green house gas) emissions, and how additional GHG emissions will contribute to climate change or be consistent with the Montana Constitution, the MEPA Limitation violates Plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment and is facially unconstitutional,” Seeley wrote in her order.

Further, she said, the state did not put forward any evidence there was a compelling governmental interest in having the limitation in place, and Seeley noted there was undisputed testimony that the state could evaluate greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts, as well as consider switching more energy sources to renewable energy.

She also found a section of law this year through Senate Bill 557 to be unconstitutional. That new portion of law said that a permit approved by a Montana agency that did not include a greenhouse gas emissions evaluation could not be vacated, voided, or delayed unless Congress started regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.

Both that clause of and were created by the Republican supermajority to Judge Michael Moses’ that a NorthWestern Energy power generating station in Laurel could not proceed because the Department of Environmental Quality had failed to consider emissions impacts from the plant. He later after the legislature’s moves as the state appealed the ruling to the Montana Supreme Court.

Seeley wrote the newly amended law is unconstitutional “because it eliminates MEPA litigants’ remedies that prevent irreversible degradation of the environment, and it fails to further a compelling state interest.”

Seeley wrote that the state’s authorization of fossil fuel activities without analyzing emissions or climate impacts result in emissions that have caused, and will continue to perpetuate  human-caused climate change, and that the state has the authority to alleviate and avoid those climate impacts.

Seeley said the plaintiffs had proven injury because of the state’s failure to consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and noted outright that “every additional ton of GHG emissions exacerbates Plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries.”

She wrote that their injuries would only get worse and become irreversible “without science-based actions” to address climate change, that the plaintiffs had proven children are irreversibly harmed by pollution, and that they would continue to suffer injuries “due to the State’s statutorily mandated disregard of climate change in the MEPA limitations, and due to SB 557’s removal of MEPA’s preventative equitable remedies.”

Seeley also wrote that if the state was allowed to consider GHG emissions and climate change during MEPA reviews, those would provide the state with “clear information” it needs to make science-based decisions within the framework of the state constitution and deny permits when they do not conform with those constitutional requirements.

Roger Sullivan, a Kalispell-based attorney who worked for the plaintiffs, said Seeley’s order was “a landmark decision establishing enforceable principles of intergenerational justice. Barbara Chillcott, senior attorney at the Helena-based Western Environmental Law Center, said it was “incredibly gratifying” to learn the judge’s decision.

“This decision sets important precedent for other constitutional climate cases in the U.S., and, most importantly, gives these youth plaintiffs some hope for a better future,” Chillcott said.

The case was originally filed in March 2020, when the plaintiffs were ages 2 to 18. The original version challenged the MEPA limitation as well as the state energy policy – both of which were repealed or modified this past legislative session in response to the lawsuit and the ruling from Moses and Yellowstone County.

After by the state to failed, Seeley heard in June from 12 of the 16 plaintiffs and how their lives, leisure, health, and cultural traditions, among other things, were being by human-caused climate change. In addition to questions over MEPA and other policies, they had that 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide should be a stated standard for the state, though the judge’s order did not go that far.

The plaintiffs called 10 expert witnesses, including a Nobel Prize-winning from Montana, other , a renewable energy specialist, a state , a child psychologist, and Native experts who told the court about why the climate was warming, Montana’s outsized contributions to GHG emissions, how easily Montana could move toward using more renewable resources, and how climate change affects the brains and bodies of children.

The state called the director of the Department of Environmental Quality, one of its division directors, and just one of its three expert witnesses to the stand on the sixth day of the trial before resting its case. It did not call to the stand its climate or child psychology experts, but the three expert witnesses in total billed the state nearly $95,000,

Seeley wrote in her order Monday that the testimony of the state’s lone expert witness, Terry Anderson, “was not well-supported, contained errors, and was not given weight by the Court.”

Much of surrounded their stance that MEPA was procedural and not directive, that the permitting statutes are what speak to the constitutional environmental provisions, and that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions only make up a tiny slice of global emissions and could not have an outsized effect on global greenhouse gas values.

DEQ Director Chris Dorrington made some of these claims during his testimony, and also told the court he “was not deeply familiar” with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports were the basis of much of the plaintiffs’ climate experts’ testimony.

The state’s attorneys had also hoped that the legislature’s changes to the MEPA limitation and environmental impact statement law nullified the plaintiffs’ original claims, but Seeley only agreed to dismiss the part of the case involving the repealed state energy policy ahead of the trial.

A spokesperson for the Governor’s Office said the office was reviewing the decision and “evaluating next steps.” The Attorney General’s Office declined to comment to the Daily Montanan but pointed to a statement provided to a news talk radio station.

In a statement the Attorney General’s Office provided to , spokesperson Emily Flower said the state would appeal the ruling, calling it “absurd” and saying the trial was “a week-long taxpayer-funded publicity stunt that was supposed to be a trial.”

“Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate – even the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses agreed that our state has no impact on the global climate. Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states,” Flower said. “It should have been here as well, but they found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward and earn herself a spot in their next documentary.”

Rebecca Harbage, the public policy director for DEQ, said in a statement on behalf of the department: “DEQ’s mission is a to champion a healthy environment for a thriving Montana, and we take that mission seriously. We are currently reviewing the decision.”

Region 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator K.C. Becker called Seeley’s ruling “a landmark moment” in young people’s efforts to protect the earth for future generations.

“Every day the youth in Montana and across their world are watching the impacts of climate change fil their social media feeds as they witness the increased frequency of wildfires and flooding,” Becker said in a statement. “No longer are young people demanding action on the climate crisis from the sidelines – they are successfully advocating for it themselves. They are channeling their feelings of concern and frustration into climate activism. … This decision today sets a precedent for intergenerational accountability and environmental justice, ensuring that the decisions made today positively impact the well-being of tomorrow’s generations.”

Joanie Kresich, the chair of conservation and agriculture organization Northern Plains Resource Council, said in a statement the group, which has held meetings about the Laurel generating station emissions, said it would be watching how the ruling affects other energy projects in Montana that burn fossil fuels and emit greenhouse gasses.

“We will be watching closely to see how this groundbreaking ruling affects prior judicial orders requiring the state of Montana to consider the 23 million tons of climate pollution that NorthWestern Energy’s methane-fired power plant would emit if completed in Laurel,” Kresich said. “This ruling makes it clear that the future prosperity and health of our youth must be considered in all of Montana’s energy decisions.”

Another group, Montana Conservation Voters, said the ruling was a win for Montanans and affirmed the state’s constitutional protections.

“Instead of passing laws that limit our ability to regulate pollution, the state now must consider how its policies affect the health and wellbeing of its citizens and environment,” MCV Executive Director Whitney Tawney said. “The ruling is also a reminder of the importance of Montana’s constitution, and we applaud the brave young Montanans who stood up to protect the rights and freedoms promised to everyone in this state.”

, an attorney with Our Children’s Trust told the Daily Montanan it intended to seek attorneys’ fees and costs should Seeley side with the plaintiffs.

Our Children’s Trust also has a similar case in Hawaii set to go to trial next summer, a federal case that has been allowed to proceed, and other pending cases in Utah and Virginia.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com. Follow Daily Montanan on and .

After a 2013 traffic stop exposed her undocumented status, Alejandra Juarez, 43, was confronted by the officer, and eventually deported to Mexico in August 2018 in the wake of the Trump administration’s strict .

“Despite my mom being a military wife and having no criminal record she was deported,” Estela, 13, told The 74. “I think it’s very important for people to understand how our immigration laws not only hurt undocumented immigrants, but also the whole family.”

Transforming her childhood love of journal writing, Estela is now sharing her story as the daughter of an undocumented immigrant in “Until Someone Listens,” a children’s book co-written with Lissette Norman.

With illustrations by Teresa Martínez, Estela recalls her mother’s journey to permanently reside in the United States.

After living apart from her family for over three years, the Biden administration granted Alejandra a , which was recently extended until May 2023.

In the interim, Alejandra has joined Estela’s book tour to not only advocate for her own U.S. residency but also comprehensive immigration reform.

“The feedback we got from a lot of hardcore Republicans and former Donald Trump supporters is that when they hear our story from the perspective of a child, it makes them change their mind,” Alejandra told The 74. “And that’s my hope – by Estela telling her story, immigration rules can change.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The 74: For Estela, tell me more about “Until Someone Listens” and why writing a book was the best way to capture your story.

Estela: I know that there are many kids out there with a similar situation as me. I wanted to create a book in a way where it could inspire other children and let them know there’s somebody out there that’s going through the same situation as you.

What is the key takeaway you would want someone reading “Until Someone Listens” to understand about your story?

Estela: I would like them to know that my story is one of many. And by reading the book, I hope they understand how our immigration laws really, really hurt families.

You write in your book “Some see people like my mom as ugly weeds that need to be plucked out of the dirt. But they’re not weeds. They’re wildflowers, all with pretty shapes and colors, each one a different kind of beauty.” What were your thoughts as you wrote this?

Estela: I know many people think my mom doesn’t deserve to live in this country and be with her family over here. She contributes so much to this country yet most people see her as a criminal – but she’s not a criminal and she’s not causing any harm.

After his election in 2016, former President Donald Trump adopted a “zero-tolerance” policy on undocumented immigrants which placed Alejandra on a high priority deportation list. For Alejandra, tell me more about what was going through your mind when this happened.

Alejandra: The best way to explain to you is that I couldn’t believe it. Even when I got deported, I thought that they were going to bring me back. I thought that they were going to say we made a mistake. It took me a year and a half to realize that it really happened. I just couldn’t believe it. The cruelty of the Trump administration to do that to a stay-at-home mom with no criminal record and, on top of that, a military wife. I couldn’t comprehend it. So much evilness and cruelty.

Your story has been shared through not just a book tour, but also a and even the . With that in mind, what’s something about your story either no one asks or no one realizes it’s important to ask?

Estela: Most people should know that my dad is a military veteran. Despite my mom being a military wife and having no criminal record she was deported. And I think it’s very important for people to understand how our immigration laws not only hurt undocumented immigrants, but also the whole family.

Alejandra: What nobody asks is how many more people like us are out there. People want to believe that there are only a few of us. There are more than a million undocumented people with an American child. So like Estela mentioned before, our story is the same story of too many.

On the topic of your dad Estela and husband Alejandra, I understand that he is a naturalized U.S. citizen, served in the Marines and voted for Trump in 2016 because he thought he would protect military families. What is your hope for the Biden administration in regards to U.S. immigration policies?

Estela: I know this administration has a good heart and I know that they care about military families. I hope that by hearing my story, they can change those broken immigration laws because that’s the only way my mother will be able to stay here permanently. It’s not just important for us but many other families to be reunited again.

Alejandra: I have hope for this administration. I believe that they have the heart and the intention to change their broken immigration laws. I know that Congress needs to act. We did Estela’s first book tour at two schools and we just came back. The feedback we got from a lot of hardcore Republicans and former Donald Trump supporters is that when they hear our story from the perspective of a child, it makes them change their mind. And that’s my hope – by Estela telling her story, immigration rules can change.

You speak about your experiences with so much courage and conviction. Where does your strength come from?

Estela: For me, I started to really use my voice and spread the message about my mom’s story when she was getting deported. I saw how, even after she came back, the trauma she had. It always stays in my mind and really burns my fire to want to continue sharing my story.

Alejandra: I am a very spiritual person and my strength comes from God. There’s no way to fix this unless immigration laws change. I was told by 32 lawyers that there was no way I was going to be able to come back. So the fact that I am back and that I am here thanks to that was featured in the Democratic Convention makes me think that things can change. I mean, if I was able to come back even temporarily then maybe there’s a way we can fix immigration laws permanently. So that gives me the strength and the courage to know that it can be done.

What advice would you give someone in a similar circumstance that’s too scared to share their story?

Estela: If you’re too scared to fight, just know that I am over here fighting for you and I won’t stop until I see more families reunited. Even if by some miracle my mom is allowed to stay here permanently, I will never stop fighting until immigration laws are changed.

Alejandra: The first thing I’d tell them is nothing comes out of being silent. So you have to keep talking. You have to keep writing. One of the things that I have talked to a few kids about when we did school visits is to Google who your local legislator is and send them a letter. By sending them letters we put pressure on legislators to change the laws. The only way you can make sure the laws are going to change is if we put enough pressure and get people to talk.

What do next steps look like as you continue pushing for comprehensive immigration reform?

Estela: I’m currently writing another book for the adult and teenage audience that goes into even more detail about my experience being the daughter of an undocumented immigrant. I also hope to see more child authors sharing their story and to see other people get inspired by my story.

Alejandra: I want Hispanic kids to write and read. That’s the main thing. We need to get more educated. I want first and second generation Hispanic kids to be like “if she could do it, I can do it too.” The fact that we went to a book fair with 50 other authors, only five of them were minorities and Estela was the only child. For me, we need to be an example for kids. And then of course inspire kids to push for immigration laws to change. But the main thing is, we as Hispanic people and as a minority need to get educated and start reading more.

“Our elected officials have seen American after American drop from a bullet,” said Corin, a survivor of the 2018 mass school shooting in Parkland, then the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School junior class president. As a co-founder of March For Our Lives, her advocacy in 2018 galvanized a countrywide movement that brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators to the National Mall to demand new firearms laws. “And instead of waking up to protect us, they have been hitting the snooze button. But we’re here to shake them awake.” 

Yet four years after youth activists chanted “never again,” some might argue that America is still sleepwalking through wave after wave of gun violence. The latest mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, are once again wreaking havoc on American communities and student advocates are once again preparing to hit the streets to force an end to the carnage. 

On Saturday, Corin and other advocates with the youth-led March For Our Lives, including David Hogg and X Gonzalez, will return to Washington for a second rally to press for new firearm restrictions and a slew of policy changes they believe could thwart a gun violence rate that’s . 

Their insistence that children should never again be allowed to die by gunfire in school was belied — again — by  the reality of Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, where 19 children and two educators were shot and killed May 24.

“Four years ago we said ‘never again,’ there’s never going to be another Parkland, and unfortunately that has not reigned true,” Corin told The 74. Since then, Corin has graduated high school and is now a rising senior at Harvard University, where she studies government and education. During those years, mass shootings have continued to grow more common, with the Uvalde assault  becoming the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. “A large reason for that is because barely anything has been done on a national level.”

Along with , organizers have planned hundreds of , all in a matter of weeks. Ahead of the event, March For Our Lives advocates are to promote their agenda. 

They hope for a different outcome this time, but acknowledge the obstacles that have blocked change in the past remain as challenging as ever. In , President Joe Biden questioned “how much more carnage are we willing to accept?” before calling on Congress to ban assault weapons — or to at least raise the age from 18 to 21 for those looking to buy one. He also pushed for a ban on high-capacity magazines, strengthening background checks and adopting a federal “red flag” law that would allow courts to temporarily remove weapons from people deemed an imminent threat to themselves or others. At the same time, he lamented that “a majority of Senate Republicans don’t want any of these proposals even to be debated.” 

After the Parkland shooting, the Trump administration , a device that uses the recoil of a semiautomatic gun to mimic an automatic rifle. Yet even though then-President Donald Trump embraced an effort to raise the age on rifle sales, efforts fell flat. 

Earlier this week, in negotiations with Republicans over gun proposals after the Uvalde shooting while pointing out that compromises would be crucial to progress. Instead of major firearm restrictions, a bipartisan deal could encourage states to adopt red flag laws and new funding for campus security upgrades — a reaction that for years has followed virtually every mass school shooting. Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, “it will be embarrassing” if Democrats and Republicans in the Senate fail to reach a legislative response to Uvalde. 

​Meanwhile, a ruling this month from the U.S. Supreme Court a decades-old New York law that puts sharp limits on who can carry guns in public. 

For Corin, having a Democrat in the White House isn’t necessarily an encouraging sign. Biden has been president for a year and a half, yet “we haven’t seen anything done,” she said. While Biden has sought to pass the issue onto Congress, Corin said her group has called on the president to appoint a gun violence prevention director, to create a task force focused on the issue and to “declare gun violence a national emergency — but that hasn’t happened either.” 

“No one is exempt from doing work on this issue,” Corin said. “I know the executive office doesn’t have all of the power, but ultimately everyone has a role to play.” 

Corin is very aware that the post-Parkland focus on gun violence had a larger impact at the state level, where . In her native Florida, for example, lawmakers passed a red flag law, raised the age to buy rifles from 18 to 21, created a three-day waiting period on gun purchases and authorized certain educators to be armed at school. In New York, lawmakers responded swiftly to the Buffalo shooting and approved a new law on Monday to strengthen gun control measures, including a red flag law that was implemented after Parkland. 

“I can only hope that the same sadness and fury that the country is feeling now, as we all did back in 2018, will fuel the continuation of these changes on the state level and ultimately — hopefully — on a national level,” said Corin, who the former Marjory Stoneman student who pleaded guilty in October to opening fire on the school. 

In its policy platform, March For Our Lives blames American gun violence on a culture of “gun glorification,” political apathy, poverty and “armed supremacy” in which the threat of guns are used to “reinforce power structures, hierarchies, and status.” And while they recognize a national mental health crisis exists, they oppose “scapegoating” those with mental illnesses as being a threat to others when they’re actually more likely than those without such disorders to .

Solutions, according to the group, include a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines and a national firearm buy-back program that could reduce the number of firearms in circulation by some 30 percent. There are an estimated 393 million guns in circulation across the U.S. — that’s more guns than people. 

But the group’s platform extends far beyond firearm policies to prevent violence and encompasses a slew of policies generally associated with Democrats. Those include ending the “war on drugs,” combating the “school-to-prison pipeline,” and reducing the scope of policing. 

For RuQuan Brown, a D.C. native whose stepfather was killed in a 2018 shooting, the conversation, he said, needs to “focus more on love than legislation.” RuQuan, who is Black, said that urban gun violence has long failed to garner the same urgency as mass shootings like the ones that played out in Parkland and Uvalde despite . 

Through his work with March For Our Lives, Brown said he’s been able to help ensure that the experiences of all gun violence victims are reflected in reform efforts. 

“I’ve been able to work with March to make sure that when we talk about March For Our Lives, that all peoples’ lives are included in that,” said Brown, who also attends Harvard. For him, uplifting disenfranchised communities will be the key to gun violence prevention. “This country and its ancestors are extremely comfortable with the deaths of Black and brown people, it’s almost a part of the fabric of this country. America wouldn’t be what it is without the deaths of Black and brown people, the genocide, the rape and the forced labor.”

He said it’s critical that lawmakers develop compassion for, and a commitment to help, society’s most marginalized people. If they were “committed to furthering the well-being of all people,” he said, “We wouldn’t even be having this conversation about gun violence.” 

With the midterm elections approaching, Corin predicted the recent mass shootings, including at the Uvalde elementary school and a Buffalo supermarket, could once again make gun violence a top issue on the campaign trail. It’s more important than ever, she said, for candidates to let people know on which side of the issue they stand. 

“If people aren’t clear on their stances and if they don’t act with courage, they’re going to be voted out,” Corin said. “And you know what, we’re going to vote in someone that doesn’t believe that children should be shot in their seats in school.”