Welcome to the Monday, March 17, Brew. 

By: Briana Ryan

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

1. Majority in tied Pennsylvania House of Representatives at stake in the March 25 special election
2. South Dakota voters to decide on a constitutional amendment to condition Medicaid expansion on continued federal funding
3. A weekly roundup of election administration legislative activity

Majority in tied Pennsylvania House of Representatives at stake in the March 25 special election

Stop us if you’ve heard this one before: the Pennsylvania House of Representatives is evenly split due to a vacancy. If that sounds familiar, it’s because since the 2022 general elections, when Democrats gained a one-seat majority in the House, the chamber has been evenly split three times due to vacancies.

The most recent vacancy that led to the House being evenly split happened on Jan. 19, when Rep. Matthew Gergely (D) died. Today, we’ll give you the rundown on the March 25 special election to fill that vacancy in House District 35 and the recent history of vacancies in the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

Let’s start with the special election in House District 35, which became vacant following the 2024 general elections when Democrats retained their one-seat majority in the House.

PoliticsPA‘s Steve Ulrich wrote that House District 35 “is heavily Democratic, with the party holding more than a two-to-one voter registration edge over Republicans.” Democratic candidates also fared well in the 2024 general elections in the district. While Gergely ran unopposed in the legislative election, Kamala Harris (D) won the district with 54% of the vote in the presidential election.

Two major party candidates are running in the House District 35 special election: Dan Goughnour (D) and Charles Davis(R). Adam Kitta (L) is also running.

Goughnour is a McKeesport Area School Board member who has served as a police officer in the McKeesport Police Department for more than 16 years. Goughnour said his priorities include:

• Strengthening public safety
• Supporting public schools
• Reducing the cost of groceries

Davis is a White Oak Borough Council member who has served as a volunteer firefighter for more than 48 years. He also previously served on the borough’s Planning Commission. Davis said his priorities include:

• Lowering taxes
• Expanding energy resources
• Strengthening public safety

As we mentioned, this isn’t the first time a vacancy has caused an evenly split House:

• Rep. Sara Innamorato (D) resigned on July 19, 2023. Democrats later regained their 102-101 majority in a Sept. 19, 2023 special election.
• Rep. John Galloway (D) resigned on Dec. 15, 2023. Galloway’s resignation caused an evenly split House until Rep. Joe Adams (R) resigned on Feb. 9, 2024. Since Adams resigned before the special election to fill Galloway’s seat, Democrats had a temporary 101-100 majority. Ultimately, the special elections to fill Galloway’s and Adams’ seats restored the 102-101 Democratic majority.

Despite those vacancies, Democrats retained control of the House due to a legislative rule passed in March 2023. That rule defines the majority party as the one that “won the greater number of elections for the 203 seats in the House of Representatives in the general election preceding the term of service that began on the first day of December next after the general election.”

However, SpotlightPA’s Kate Huangpu wrote that those occasions of an evenly split House still “[grounded] operations in Harrisburg to a halt as Democratic leaders declined to bring bills up for a vote.”

To date, 44 legislative special elections have been scheduled for this year in 17 states. In addition to the House District 35 special election, there will also be another special election in Pennsylvania this year for Senate District 36.

Between 2010 and 2024, 1,007 special elections were held to fill vacancies in legislatures nationwide. Of those special elections, 121 resulted in a partisan change.

To read more about this House District 35 special election, click here. Also, check out the March 14 Daily Brew, where we did a deep dive on the March 11 special elections in the Iowa and Minnesota Legislatures.

South Dakota voters to decide on a constitutional amendment to condition Medicaid expansion on continued federal funding

On Nov. 3, 2026, South Dakota voters will decide on a constitutional amendment linking state Medicaid expansion to federal funding remaining at or above 90%.

On Jan. 21, the South Dakota House of Representatives approved House Joint Resolution 5001 (HJR 5001)—the bill to put the amendment on the ballot—59-7. On March 3, the South Dakota Senate approved the bill 31-3.

State Sen. Casey Crabtree (R), who supports the amendment, said, “One of the key points made by the proponents of Medicaid expansion was that the feds were going to pay 90 percent of the cost, and South Dakota taxpayers would only have to pay 10 percent. Right now, that 10 percent is projected to cost South Dakota taxpayers about $36 million a year.”

State Sen. Liz Larson (D), who opposes the amendment, said, “People shouldn’t die because they can’t afford to live. Medicaid expansion has been a lifeline for 28,000 South Dakotans, and it’s saved lives.”

This amendment will be the third one related to Medicaid that South Dakota voters have decided on since 2022.

• In 2022, voters approved Amendment D, 56% to 44%, which expanded Medicaid to adults between 18 and 65 with incomes below 138% of the federal poverty level. If voters approve the amendment on the ballot in 2026 and federal funding falls below 90%, Amendment D would no longer apply.
• In 2024, voters approved Amendment F, 56% to 44%, which allowed the South Dakota Legislature to establish work requirements for eligible individuals—those who are not diagnosed as mentally or physically disabled—to receive Medicaid under the Medicaid expansion that voters approved in 2022.

The Medicaid program provides medical insurance to low-income groups and individuals with disabilities. The federal government and states jointly fund this program, and the states manage Medicaid eligibility, benefits, and administration within federal guidelines.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), which President Barack Obama (D) signed into law in 2010, expanded Medicaid to cover all individuals earning incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level. Under the law, the federal government sought to provide 100% of funding to cover newly eligible enrollees through 2016, dropping this funding level to 95% in 2017 and 90% in 2020 and thereafter. However, under the law, states that refused to expand Medicaid would lose all their existing Medicaid funding. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the federal government could not withhold Medicaid funds from states that chose not to expand eligibility. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, this ruling had the practical effect of making Medicaid expansion optional for states.

To date, 40 states and Washington, D.C. have expanded Medicaid.

This amendment is one of four statewide ballot measures South Dakota voters will decide on in 2026. A fifth measure has passed the state House. If it passes the state Senate, it will join the other measures on the 2026 ballot.

Click here to read more about the amendment regarding Medicaid and the other measures that South Dakota voters will decide on in 2026.

A weekly roundup of election administration legislative activity

As legislative sessions continue across the country, we’re following the latest nationwide trends and legislative activity related to election policy.

Let’s start with some key takeaways from last week’s legislative actions:

• We are currently following 3,546 bills. We were following 1,889 bills at this time in 2023.
• Lawmakers in 44 states acted on 633 bills over the last week, 10 fewer than last week. Legislators acted on 433 bills in 2024, 379 in 2023, and 306 bills in 2022 during the same week. 
• Twelve bills were enacted this week. Ten bills were enacted during the same week in 2024, 19 bills were enacted in 2023, and eight bills were enacted in 2022.

Now, let’s check out some other noteworthy election-related developments:

• On March 13, the group Judicial Watch sued the state of California over a state law allowing election officials to count ballots received up to seven days after Election Day. In the complaint, the group said, “Despite Congress’ unambiguous and longstanding statement regarding a single and uniform national Election Day, California modified and extended Election Day by allowing seven additional days after Election Day for receipt of vote-by-mail ballots.”
• On March 12, Wisconsin’s 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled that disabled voters cannot receive absentee ballots by email, overturning a Dane County Circuit Court judge’s decision. Judges Mark Gundrum, Shelley Grogan, and Maria Lazar wrote that the lower court’s ruling “significantly disrupted the status quo” because Wisconsin law only allows military and overseas voters to receive absentee ballots by email.
• On March 11, a U.S. district court judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Georgia’s absentee ballot request deadline. The lawsuit alleged the deadline of 11 days before Election Day violated provisions of the Voting Rights Act that allow voters to cast absentee ballots if they request to do so at least seven days ahead of the election.

Fifty-five bills passed both chambers of any legislature, and governors vetoed no bills. Click here to see all bills awaiting gubernatorial action and their full summaries. To see all vetoed bills, click here.

A version of this story appeared in our March 14 Ballot Bulletin—our weekly email that follows developments in election policy around the country. Click here to sign up.

You can also click here to see a full list of the bills we’re following in 2025.