America Could Get 68 New Zip Codes: Here's Where
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Dozens of communities across the United States could get new zip codes under a bill introduced by Representative Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican, with one mayor telling Newsweek the bill could significantly benefit his community.
Why It Matters
Currently, many communities have outdated zip codes that may cause issues including slower mail delivery or delayed emergency service response times. Supporters of Boebert's bipartisan bill believe this legislation would solve that issue for some communities by giving them an updated zip code.
What to Know
The bill, known as H.R. 3095, advanced through the powerful House Oversight Committee this week. In total, the legislation would give 68 communities from 19 different states new zip codes if it becomes law.
Towns and cities from California to New Hampshire could have new zip codes under this bill. This map shows which communities would have a new zip code.
Glendale, Wisconsin, is one city included in the bill that has dealt with challenges because of its current zip code system, Glendale Mayor Bryan Kennedy told Newsweek in a phone interview Friday morning.
The Milwaukee suburb is divided into three separate zip codes despite only having less than 14,000 residents. This is largely because Milwaukee County zip codes were drawn up before the municipality was established in 1950, he said.
This means that residents' mail comes to a Milwaukee address, even though they live in Glendale. This has created "confusion" in the postal system, Kennedy said.
"We have significant delivery issues with a number of years with absentee ballots, tax payments, water utility bills—people mailing from the post office in Glendale to City Hall, which is just over a mile away in a different zip code, and then taking one, two, three weeks to get to city hall," he said."
A U.S. Post Office truck sits parked in North Haledon, New Jersey, on February 10, 2022.
A U.S. Post Office truck sits parked in North Haledon, New Jersey, on February 10, 2022.Residents have been "disenfranchised" in elections because they mail their ballots a week before Election Day, but it doesn't make it to City Hall on time, he said.
The city has faced other zip code-related challenges, such as when Milwaukee created a new sales tax implemented by zip code, and some suburban retailers automatically started charging that new tax, which went to Milwaukee, rather than the city it is actually in.
"We know there are problems with U.S. Postal Service. We saw a lot of the reforms they've tried to do over the past decade," he said. "When you implement those kind of reforms and you don't also implement a way of streamlining delivery to people, you're going to find situations like ours, where delivery got significantly worse."
Boebert's office, in a press release this week, wrote that communities in Colorado have faced similar issues—sales tax revenue, insurance rates, mail delivery rates and emergency response times have all been negatively affected by these communities not having a unique zip code, her office said.
What People Are Saying
Boebert wrote in a statement: "It may not be an issue that draws headlines, but zip code reform is a topic I continue to be passionate about because it impacts the daily lives of so many small-town residents in the 4th District and beyond. Mayors and community leaders from every part of Colorado have made it clear fixing this problem is a priority for them and I am determined to finish the job this Congress after getting our bill through the House Oversight Committee this morning."
Castle Pines Mayor Tracy Engerman wrote in the statement: "We value our relationship with the Congresswoman and, on behalf of our National Zip Code Coalition, I personally want to thank her for unwavering leadership on this issue. Lauren knows this is not a partisan issue and has worked across the aisle to make this bill happen. I believe this will be the year that she gets this bill through Congress."
What Happens Next
Boebert's bill has support from both Democrats and Republicans, with a total of 30 cosponsors, many of whom represent communities that could have new zip codes if the legislation becomes law. It's unclear when, or if, the bill will be brought to a vote on the floor of the House.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
23 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacture of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Daniel McKee, who has said he supports assault weapons bans. If the bill is signed into law, Rhode Island will join 10 other states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's mass shootings. Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. But despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long argued over the necessity and legality of such proposals. The bill applies only to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities including Los Angeles and New York. Hawaii bans assault pistols. Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued Friday during floor debates that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. 'This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens,' said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Fla. — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the 'weakest assault weapons ban in the country.' 'I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety,' Hogg said in a statement. Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected assertions that the proposed law is weak. 'The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now — no ban on assault weapons,' Ryan said. 'This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all.' Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the 2nd Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the bestselling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth justice, Brett M. Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case 'in the next term or two.' Kruesi writes for the Associated Press. AP writers David Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
28 minutes ago
North Carolina Green Party retains official status despite failing vote thresholds
RALEIGH, N.C. -- The Green Party will remain an official party in North Carolina, able to field candidates statewide through the 2028 elections, even though their 2024 nominees for governor and president failed to get the votes required by state law. The Republican-led State Board of Elections voted 3-2 on Thursday to continue recognizing the North Carolina Green Party, potentially affecting close contests for president, U.S. Senate and governor or other statewide and local offices. Without Thursday's action, the party would have joined four other small parties who also failed to reach the vote thresholds necessary and are thus no longer recognized — the Constitution, Justice for All, No Labels and We the People parties. None of their candidates received at least 2% of the total vote for governor or president to remain an official party. That means voters who are registered with those four parties are moved to unaffiliated status on voter rolls starting next week. Those groups also would have to collect about 14,000 signatures to regain official party status — an effort that takes time and money. But the North Carolina Green Party petitioned the board this spring to apply another standard. State law also says a group of voters can become a political party if they 'had a candidate nominated by that group on the general election ballot' in at least 35 states in the prior presidential election. The group presented a Federal Election Commission document showing Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee, appeared on the November 2024 ballot in 38 states. In seven states, however, she was not the nominee of the party or of a Green Party affiliate, according to the commission document. For example, she was an independent candidate in three of the seven. Democratic board member Jeff Carmon said he wasn't convinced the standard was met because Stein failed to be nominated in 35 states by the Green Party or an affiliate. Republican members decided otherwise. Although Stein may have been listed as the nominee for a different party or as independent, she was the national Green Party candidate, board Chairman Francis De Luca said. The three Republican members agreed that the North Carolina Green Party could remain an official party. The two Democrats voted no. The board shifted from a Democratic majority to a Republican majority last month after a 2024 state law took appointment authority away from the governor and to the state auditor. With Thursday's action, there will be four recognized political parties in North Carolina — Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Green. As of last week, the largest bloc of North Carolina's 7.53 million registered voters are unaffiliated, at 2.85 million. About 4,000 voters are registered with the Green Party.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
