On March 19, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would allow federal workers to stop paying union dues at any time after a statutory one-year period of dues payment. Up to this point, federal workers have only been permitted to rescind their union-dues assignments at one-year intervals.
Section 7115(a) of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute states, “[If] an agency has received from an employee in an appropriate unit a written assignment which authorizes the agency to deduct from the pay of the employee amounts for the payment of regular and periodic dues of the exclusive representative of the unit, the agency shall honor the assignment and make an appropriate allotment pursuant to the assignment.” The statute states that “any such assignment may not be revoked for a period of [one] year.”
In the past, the FLRA has interpreted the latter portion of the law to mean that union-dues payroll deduction authorizations can only be revoked in one-year intervals. After the Supreme Court issued its decision in Janus v. AFSCME, the Office of Personnel Management petitioned the FLRA for guidance on Janus’ applicability to § 7115(a).
On Feb. 14, the FLRA issued a 2-1 decision rejecting its earlier interpretations of § 7115(a). FLRA Chairwoman Colleen Duffy Kiko wrote the following in the decision “Although the Authority has stated that the wording in § 7115(a) ‘must be interpreted’ to mean that dues assignments may be revoked only at one‑year intervals following the first year, in fact, the Authority made a policy judgment to impose annual revocation periods after the first year of an assignment. In other words, notwithstanding previous assertions otherwise, § 7115(a) neither compels, nor even supports, the existing policy on annual revocation windows. Because it remains our privilege and responsibility to interpret the Statute in a manner that is consistent with an efficient and effective government, we cannot allow our decisions or statements of policy to merely rubber-stamp what was said in the past.”
On Feb. 18, National Treasury Employees Union petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to block the proposed rule change. The court has not yet taken up the case. In the meantime, the rulemaking process will proceed. A public comment period opened on March 19 and will close on April 9.
We are currently tracking 93 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking.
Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue. Bills are listed in alphabetical order, first by state then by bill number.
|
On March 26, 2020, the statewide filing deadline passed to run for elected office in Virginia. Candidates filed for congressional offices only, as no state-level offices are up for election in Virginia in 2020.
• U.S. Senate: One Class II Senate seat is up for election. The incumbent, Mark Warner (D), announced his intention to seek re-election for the seat.
• U.S. House of Representatives: All 11 of Virginia’s congressional district seats are up for election. Virginia has not yet released its candidate list, so an official listing of filed candidates is not currently available to the public. As of the publication of this article, seven of the 11 incumbents announced their intention to seek re-election to their seats, leaving four open seats. These numbers may change once the official candidate list is released.
The primary is scheduled for June 9, and the general election is scheduled for November 3, 2020.
Virginia’s statewide filing deadline was the 25th to take place in the 2020 election cycle. The next statewide filing deadlines are on March 30 in New Jersey and South Carolina.
Additional reading:
United States Senate election in Virginia, 2020
United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2020
Ballot access for major and minor party candidates
United States Senate elections, 2020
United States House of Representatives elections, 2020
|
Click here to learn more.
Wisconsin will be the fourteenth state to vote on a Marsy’s Law amendment on April 7. The amendment would add 14 additional rights to the existing list of crime victims’ rights in section 9m of Article I of the state Constitution. The additional enumerated rights include a right to privacy; a right to the protection of information; a right to be present at all criminal proceedings and hearings; a right to reasonable protection from the alleged criminal; a right to be notified of the release, escape, or death of the alleged criminal in a timely manner; a right to speak in any hearing related to the rights of the victim; a right to submit information about the case to authorities; a right to refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request made by the alleged criminal; and a right to be informed of all rights and protections granted by the constitutional amendment and related laws.
Marsy’s Law for Wisconsin is leading the campaign in support of the ballot measure. As of February 10, 2020, the committee reported receiving over $500,000 in loans from Marsy’s Law for All, the national foundation that has funded 13 statewide Marsy’s Law ballot measure campaigns. It was founded in 2009 by Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp. Nicholas was the sponsor of the first Marsy’s Law, which was on the ballot in California as Proposition 9 in 2008. The legislation is named after Henry Nicholas’ sister Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. All 13 campaigns received majority voter approval; however, two of those amendments were overturned in Montana and Kentucky. The 2019 election results in Pennsylvania have not been certified because of a pending court case regarding the constitutionality of the amendment.
Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-21), a legislative sponsor of the amendment, said, “Crime victims should have a voice in the criminal justice process. … Marsy’s Law will help level the legal playing field while still preserving a fair justice system.” The ACLU of Wisconsin opposes the measure. In legislative testimony, the ACLU said, “Victim’s rights cannot be equated to the rights of the accused because they serve very different roles. Defendants’ rights are in the constitution because they are rights against the state, not because they are valued more by society than are those of victims.”
From 2006 to 2019, a total of five legislatively referred constitutional amendments appeared on Wisconsin ballots. All but one were approved.
Ballotpedia is also covering two local ballot measures in Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Schools voters will decide on a referendum that would incrementally increase its annual revenue limit by a total of $87 million over four years and maintain that level thereafter with an estimated property tax of $1,118 per $100,000 of assessed property value (an increase of $160). The 1993-1994 school year was the first year Wisconsin enforced school revenue limits across the state. A revenue limit is the maximum amount of revenue the district is allowed to raise via property taxes according to state law. In 2018, 157 school districts placed similar referendums on Wisconsin ballots, and 90 percent passed.
Milwaukee County voters will be voting on a nonbinding advisory question regarding redistricting procedures in Wisconsin. Support for the question advises the Wisconsin State Legislature to create a nonpartisan redistricting plan for state legislative and congressional boundaries. Six other towns and six other counties in Wisconsin are featuring similar nonbinding redistricting questions on ballots in April.
The deadline for online voter registration was extended to March 30 by a district court ruling. The deadline to request an absentee ballot is April 2. Wisconsin allows same-day voter registration. All polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Central Time on election day.
Maryland and New York are the only states in the nation that do not call its court of last resort the supreme court, but that could change after November 3, 2020.
On March 13, 2020, the Maryland Senate passed Senate Bill 0393 by a vote of 45-1. If the bill is passed by the General Assembly, it will appear on the November 3, 2020, ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment.
Maryland’s court of last resort is currently called the Maryland Court of Appeals. The bill seeks to make the following changes:
In order to add a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to the ballot in Maryland, it must be approved by at least 60% of both houses of the legislature.
The Senate bill was sponsored by Sen. Douglas Peters (D), Sen. Jill Carter (D), Sen. Brian Feldman (D), Sen. Guy Guzzone (D), Sen. Nancy King (D), Sen. Susan Lee (D), Sen. William Smith (D), Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher (D), and Sen. Chris West (R).
|
Click here to learn more.
