Author

Ballotpedia staff

Robe & Gavel: SCOTUS Closes March 2023 Sitting

Welcome to the March 27th edition of Robe & Gavel, Ballotpedia’s newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S.

Where has the time gone, dear reader? We’re already nearing the end of our March sitting. As always, there’s a lot to catch up on, so let’s gavel on in. 

Follow Ballotpedia on Twitter or subscribe to the Daily Brew for the latest news and analysis.


We #SCOTUS and you can, too!

Grants

SCOTUS has not accepted any new cases to its merits docket since our March 20 edition.


Arguments

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in six cases this week. Click here to read more about SCOTUS’ current term.

Click the links below to learn more about these cases:

March 27, 2023

  • Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi concerns enablement under the The Patent Act.
    • The questions presented: “Whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope’ of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation-i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort,’ Pet.App. 14a (emphasis added).”
  • United States v. Hansen concerns a First Amendment challenge to U.S. immigration law outlawing the inducement of illegal immigration for personal financial gain, and the court’s ruling in United States v. Sineneng-Smith (2019).
    • The questions presented: “Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.”

March 28, 2023

  • Smith v. The United States concerns the proper remedy for when an accused offender has been tried in the wrong court.
    • The questions presented: “Whether the proper remedy for the government’s failure to prove venue is an acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, as the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have held, or whether instead the government may re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue, as the Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held.”
  • Lora v. United States concerns declarations against interest and penalties for crimes committed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j).
    • The questions presented: “Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which provides that ‘no term of imprisonment imposed … under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment,’ is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j).”

March 29, 2023

  • Samia v. United States concerns the right of a defendant to confront the witnesses against them, known as the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment.
    • The questions presented: “Whether admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.”
  • Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service concerns the scope of § 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) and the relationship that summonsed records have with delinquent taxpayers.
    • The questions presented: “…whether the § 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) exception applies only when the delinquent taxpayer owns or has a legal interest in the summonsed records (as the Ninth Circuit holds), or whether the exception applies to a summons for anyone’s records whenever the IRS thinks that person’s records might somehow help it collect a delinquent taxpayer’s liability (as the Sixth Circuit, joining the Seventh Circuit, held below).”

Opinions

SCOTUS has ruled on one case since our March 20 edition. The court has issued rulings in eight cases so far this term. Fifty-two cases are still under deliberation.

Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS ruled on since March 20:

March 21, 2023

Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools was argued before the court on Jan. 18, 2023.

The case: The case concerns whether a student with special needs must first exhaust the administrative adjudication procedures required by IDEA before bringing an educational complaint in federal court under another statute, such as the ADA, when IDEA does not provide the relief they seek.


The outcome: The Supreme Court reversed the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court unanimously held that IDEA’s administrative requirements did not prevent Perez from moving forward with his ADA complaint because IDEA does not address the type of compensatory relief sought by Perez. The opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch.


Upcoming SCOTUS dates

Here are the court’s upcoming dates of interest:

  • March 27, 2023: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
  • March 28, 2023: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
  • March 29, 2023: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
  • March 31, 2023: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices.

Nominations

President Joe Biden (D) has announced four new Article III nominees since our March 20 edition. The president has announced 158 Article III judicial nominations since taking office Jan. 20, 2021. For more information on the president’s judicial nominees, click here.


Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee has reported no new nominees out of committee since our March 20 edition.


Confirmations

The Senate has confirmed one nominee since our March 20 issue.


Vacancies

The federal judiciary currently has 75 vacancies, 73 of which are for lifetime Article III judgeships. As of publication, there were 35 pending nominations.

According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, there are 35 upcoming vacancies in the federal judiciary, where judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status.

For more information on judicial vacancies during President Biden’s term, click here.

Do you love judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? We figured you might. Our monthly Federal Vacancy Count monitors all the faces and places moving in, moving out, and moving on in the federal judiciary. Click here for our most current count.

Need a daily fix of judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? Click here for continuing updates on the status of all federal judicial nominees.

Or, keep an eye on our list for updates on federal judicial nominations.


Looking ahead

We’ll be back on April 10 with a new edition of Robe & Gavel. Until then, gaveling out! 


Contributions

Myj Saintyl compiled and edited this newsletter, with contributions from Sam Post.



ICYMI: Top stories of the week

Each week, we bring you a collection of the most viewed stories from The Daily Brew, condensed. Here are the top stories from the week of March 20-March 24.


Biden issues first veto of his presidency

On March 20, President Joe Biden (D) vetoed the first legislation of his presidency, sending a measure back to Congress that would have prohibited retirement account managers from using certain environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors to inform investment decisions. 

Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers. 

Presidents have issued 2,585 vetoes in American history, and Congress has overridden 112. President Franklin D. Roosevelt vetoed 635 bills, the most of any president. Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Q. Adams, William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and James A. Garfield did not issue any vetoes.

Dating back to 1981, President Ronald Reagan (R) issued the most vetoes with 87. Biden has issued the fewest, followed by President Donald Trump (R) with nine.

Read more


Litigants in Moore v. Harper submit briefs on SCOTUS’ next steps after North Carolina’s highest court re-hears case

Moore v. Harper is a Supreme Court case involving North Carolina’s redistricting process and one of the high-profile SCOTUS cases we’re covering in 2023.

The parties in the case filed supplemental briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 20 at SCOTUS’ request after the North Carolina Supreme Court announced it would re-hear the case. The briefs outlined each party’s view on whether SCOTUS still had jurisdiction in light of the state court’s decision. ReutersJoseph Ax wrote that “If the justices decide they no longer have jurisdiction, they could dismiss the case without issuing a ruling.”

The case, which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 7, concerns the Constitution’s election clause and whether it gives state legislatures sole authority to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts. North Carolina House Speaker Timothy Moore (R) and a group of Republican legislators brought the case before SCOTUS after the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in February 2022 that the congressional boundaries the Republican-controlled legislature adopted in 2021 were unconstitutional. The North Carolina Supreme court had a 4-3 Democratic majority at the time. 

After overturning the original congressional district boundaries, the state supreme courtsent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. In February 2022, the Wake County Superior Court adopted congressional districts that three court-appointed former judges had drawn. Those districts were used for the 2022 elections.

As a result of the 2022 elections, the North Carolina Supreme Court changed partisan control from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority. In February 2023, that court agreed to re-hear its decision overturning the district boundaries. The court re-heard oral arguments on March 14.

Read more


Jacksonville’s mayoral election advances to a runoff 

Donna Deegan (D) and Daniel Davis (R) advanced from Tuesday’s election and will face each other in a runoff on May 16. With 100% of precincts reporting, Deegan received 39% of the vote, and Davis received 25%. Six other candidates, including one Democrat and three Republicans, also ran.

Incumbent Mayor Lenny Curry (R) was term-limited.

In Jacksonville, all candidates run in the general election regardless of party affiliation. If no candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, the top two vote-getters advance to a runoff.

Broken down by party, Democratic candidates received a combined 48% of the vote in Tuesday’s election, while Republican candidates received a combined 51%. Candidates not affiliated with any party received 1%. 

Read more



The Ballot Bulletin: Ballotpedia’s Weekly Digest on Election Administration, March 24, 2023

Welcome to The Ballot Bulletin: Ballotpedia’s Weekly Digest on Election Administration. Every Friday, we deliver the latest updates on election policy around the country, including legislative activity, nationwide trends, and recent news.

In today’s issue, you’ll find: 

  • Legislative activity: About the bills acted on this week and a big-picture look at all the bills we have tracked this year.
  • Recent news: Noteworthy developments in election policy at the federal, state, and local levels, including litigation and ballot measures. 

Legislative activity

State legislatures acted on 351 election-related bills from March 16 to March 23, down from 379 bills the previous week. 

Highlights:

  • These 351 bills are 17.5% of the 2,005 election-related bills introduced in 2023. At this point in 2022, we were tracking 2,343 election-related bills in state legislatures, 16.9% more than this year.
  • The bill topics with the most legislative activity this week were ballot access (52), audits and oversight (44), counting and certification (44), contest-specific procedures (41), and voter registration and list maintenance (38).
  • Eighty-six (24.5%) of the bills with activity this week are in Democratic trifecta states, 222 (63.2%) are in Republican trifecta states, and 43 (12.3%) are in states with divided governments. 

Notable developments

  • Idaho Gov. Brad Little (R) signed HB0124 on March 16. The bill removes student IDs as acceptable proof of identity for voting purposes at polling places. So far this year, state legislators have introduced 99 voter ID bills, and two other states have enacted voter ID bills. Utah HB0448 requires a state or federally-issued photo ID to vote. Wyoming HB0079 makes concealed carry permits a valid form of voter identification. Democrats sponsored 16 of the 99 bills, while Republicans sponsored 75. State legislators introduced 144 voter ID bills in 2022, 12 of which were enacted. Democrats sponsored 14 of these bills, while Republicans sponsored 117. Thirty-seven states currently require some form of identification to vote. According to the Campus Vote Project, 12 states do not allow the use of a student ID as identification for voting. 
  • The North Dakota Legislature passed SB2292 on March 20. The bill, sponsored by Republican legislators, allows anyone except a candidate to serve as an election observer if the individual informs the election inspector of their intent. So far this year, legislators have introduced 25 other bills concerning poll observers, with Democrats sponsoring eight of these bills and Republicans sponsoring 14. In 2022, state legislators considered 50 bills on this topic, five of which were enacted. Democrats sponsored 14 of these bills, while Republicans sponsored 34.

Recent activity and status changes

Of all election-related bills in state legislatures in 2023:

  • 20 have been enacted (+7 from last week)
  • 46 passed both chambers (+8)
  • 125 passed one chamber (+14)
  • 67 advanced from committee (+5)
  • 1,721 have been introduced (+81)
  • 26 are dead (+1)

Enacted bills

States have enacted 20 election-related bills in 2023, 18.2% of the 110 bills states had enacted at this point in 2022. To see all bills enacted this year, click here

Bills enacted since March 16, with their official titles, are below.

Idaho (Republican trifecta)

  • ID H0124: Amends existing law to revise provisions regarding accepted voter identification at the polls.

North Carolina (Divided government)

  • NC H88: Omnibus Local Elections

Bills that passed both chambers

Forty-six bills have passed both chambers in 2023, 90.2% of the 51 bills that had passed both chambers at this point in 2022. To see all bills that have currently passed both chambers, click here.

Active bills that passed both chambers since March. 16, with their official titles, are below.

Arkansas (Republican trifecta)

  • AR HB1487: To Create The Ballot Security Act Of 2023; And To Amend Election Law Concerning The Handling Of Election Ballots.

Georgia (Republican trifecta)

  • GA SB277: Screven County; board of elections and registration; create
  • GA HB587: Rabun County; Board of Education; change description of districts

Hawaii (Democratic trifecta)

  • HI HB130: Relating To Validation Of Ballots.

Indiana (Republican trifecta)

  • IN SB0106: Local powers concerning elections.

Kentucky (Divided government)

  • KY HB302: AN ACT relating to elections and declaring an emergency.

North Dakota (Republican trifecta)

  • ND HB1192: Relating to electronic voting systems, electronic voting devices, absentee voting, and canvassing boards.
  • ND SB2050: A political subdivision’s ability to establish a library without an election and local maintenance efforts of public libraries; and to provide an effective date.
  • ND HB1293: Relating to election of city commissioners, city council members, and park district commissioners.
  • ND SB2163: Relating to language on voting ballots.
  • ND SB2292: Relating to election offenses and election observers; and to provide a penalty.

South Carolina (Republican trifecta)

Tennessee (Republican trifecta)

  • TN SB1541: AN ACT to amend Chapter 563 of the Acts of 1903; as amended by Chapter 64 of the Acts of 1907; Chapter 647 of the Private Acts of 1911; Chapter 158 of the Private Acts of 1915; Chapter 170 of the Private Acts of 1915; Chapter 3 of the Private Acts of 1917; Chapter 397 of the Private Acts of 1919; Chapter 23 of the Private Acts of 1919; Chapter 231 of the Private Acts of 1919; Chapter 764 of the Private Acts of 1927; Chapter 232 of the Private Acts of 1941; Chapter 669 of the Private Acts of 1947

Utah (Republican trifecta)

West Virginia (Republican trifecta)

  • WV SB522: Allocating percentage of county excise taxes for funding improvements to election administration

Defeated bills

Twenty-six bills have been defeated in 2023, 14.9% of the 175 bills that were defeated at this point in 2022. To see all bills that have been defeated in 2023, click here.

Bills that were defeated in committee or by a floor vote since March 16, with their official titles, are below.

Tennessee (Republican trifecta)

  • TN HB1045: AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2, relative to political party registration.

Recent activity by topic and sponsorship

The chart below shows the topics of the bills state legislatures acted on since March 16. Click here to see a full list of bill categories and their definitions.

* Note: Contest-specific procedures refers to primary systems, municipal election procedures, recall elections, special election procedures, and other systems unique to a particular election type. 


All 2023 bills by topic and sponsorship

The chart below shows the topics of a sample of the 2,005 bills we have tracked this year. Note that the sums of the numbers listed do not equal the total number of bills because some bills deal with multiple topics.  


Recent activity by state and trifecta status

Of the 351 bills state legislators acted on this week:

  • 86 are in Democratic trifectas
  • 222 in Republican trifectas
  • 43 are in divided governments. 

The map below shows election-related bills acted on in the past week by state trifecta status.


All 2023 bills by state and trifecta status

The map below shows the number of election-related bills introduced by state in 2023 by state trifecta status.


Recent news

Pennsylvania court dismisses mail-in ballot lawsuit

On March 23, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania dismissed a challenge to county election boards’ authority to correct mail-in ballots. Plaintiffs included the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania. The defendants were acting Secretary of State Al Schmidt (R), Bureau of Election Services and Notaries Director Jessica Mathis, and the boards of elections in all 67 Pennsylvania counties. The plaintiffs argued that county election boards lack the authority to correct mail-in ballots, because “[t]he Election Code tightly constrains what Boards may do with absentee and mail-in ballots once they receive them.” In yesterday’s court order, Judge Ellen Ceisler said “although the subject matter of this litigation implicates elections, both local and statewide, which are governed by the Election Code, all signs point to the County Boards falling under the designation of ‘political subdivision,’ suits against which are excluded from this Court’s original jurisdiction under Section 761(a)(1) of the Judicial Code.” The defendents have not indicated whether they plan to appeal the court’s decision. 


Kansas appeals court reinstates election lawsuit

On March 17, the Kansas Court of Appeals reinstated a 2021 lawsuit challenging an election-related bill enacted in the state that year. Plaintiffs, including Loud Light, the League of Women Voters of Kansas, the Topeka Independent Living Resource Center, and the Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, alleged HB2183‘s signature matching requirements and ballot collection restrictions were unconstitutional. The Shawnee County District Court dismissed the lawsuit in April 2022. In the appeals court opinion, Judge Stephen Hill said the state must “show that the statute can overcome strict scrutiny.” He said, “Because the right to vote is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Kansas Constitution, an act that infringes on that right must be strictly scrutinized to determine if it is enforceable.” Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach (R), a defendant in the lawsuit, said he would appeal the ruling, adding, “It is clearly wrong. The decision is directly contrary to what the U.S. Supreme Court has said, as well as what every state supreme court has said on the matter.” 



Robe & Gavel: SCOTUS hears the first arguments of its March sitting

Welcome to the March 20 edition of Robe & Gavel, Ballotpedia’s newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S.

“I’ve heard it said that winter, too, will pass, that spring is a sign that summer is due at last. See, all we have to do is hang on.”

– Maya Angelou

Follow Ballotpedia on Twitter or subscribe to the Daily Brew for the latest news and analysis.


We #SCOTUS and you can, too!

Grants

SCOTUS accepted one new case since our March 6 issue. SCOTUS will review the case during its 2023-2024 term. To date, the court has agreed to hear three cases for its 2023-2024 term. Click the links below to learn more about this case:

Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC concerns federal admiralty law and choice of law clauses in contracts relating to sea vessels. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

  • Choice of law is when there is a conflict between the laws of different jurisdictions and a decision must be made concerning which laws to apply to a case or contract.

Arguments

SCOTUS will hear arguments in four cases this week. Click the links below to learn more about these cases:

Click the links below to learn more about these cases:

March 20, 2023

  • Arizona v. Navajo Nation concerns a water rights dispute over the Colorado River.
    • The questions presented:
      • “I. Does the Ninth Circuit Opinion, allowing the Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the Secretary to develop a plan to meet the Nation’s water needs and manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to interfere with that plan, infringe upon this Court’s retained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California?
      • “II. Can the Nation state a cognizable claim for breach of trust consistent with this Court’s holding in Jicarilla based solely on unquantified implied rights to water under the Winters Doctrine?”

March 21, 2023

  • Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. concerns the Lanham Act of 1946 and trademark infringement claims.
    • The questions presented: “Whether the court of appeals erred in applying the Lanham Act extraterritorially to petitioners’ foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers.”
  • Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski concerns a circuit split regarding district court jurisdiction in arbitration cases under the Federal Arbitration Act.
    • The questions presented: “Does a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration oust a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal, as the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuits have held, or does the district court retain discretion to proceed with litigation while the appeal is pending, as the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits have held?”

March 22, 2023

  • Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC concerns trademark infringement claims and commercial products that parody other commercial products.
    • The questions presented:
      • “1. Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims.
      • “2. Whether humorous use of another’s mark as one’s own on a commercial product is “noncommercial” under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(C), thus barring as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act.”

Opinions

SCOTUS has not issued any opinions since our previous edition. The court has issued rulings in seven cases so far this term

Between the 2007 and 2021 terms, SCOTUS issued opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 opinions per year. During that period, the court reversed a lower court decision 805 times (71.4 percent) and affirmed a lower court decision 315 times (27.9 percent).


Upcoming SCOTUS dates

Here are the court’s upcoming dates of interest:

  • March 20, 2023: SCOTUS will hear arguments in one case.
  • March 21, 2023: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
  • March 22, 2023: SCOTUS will hear arguments in one case.
  • March 24, 2023: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices.

Federal court action

Nominations

President Joe Biden has announced no new Article III nominees since our March 7 edition.

The president has announced 154 Article III judicial nominations since taking office on Jan. 20, 2021. For more information on the president’s judicial nominees, click here.


Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee has reported one new nominee out of committee since our  March 7 edition.


Confirmations

The Senate has confirmed five nominees since our March 7 issue.


Vacancies

The federal judiciary currently has 76 vacancies, 74 of which are for lifetime Article III judgeships. As of publication, there are 32 pending nominations.

According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, there are 25 upcoming vacancies in the federal judiciary, where judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status.

For more information on judicial vacancies during President Biden’s term, click here.

Do you love judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? We figured you might. Our monthly Federal Vacancy Count monitors all the faces and places moving in, moving out, and moving on in the federal judiciary. Click here for our most current count.

Need a daily fix of judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? Click here for continuing updates on the status of all federal judicial nominees.

Or, keep an eye on our list for updates on federal judicial nominations.

Correction: In our March 7 edition of Robe & Gavel, there was an error in our Grants section. We stated, “SCOTUS accepted two new cases since the Feb. 27 edition. To date, the court has agreed to hear 62 cases for the 2022-2023 term. SCOTUS dismissed one case after it was accepted. Three cases have yet to be scheduled for arguments.”

The two new cases will be argued during the 2023-2024 term. To date, the court has agreed to hear 60 cases for its 2022-2023 term. One case was dismissed after it was accepted. The court has scheduled 59 of the cases for argument. One case has not been scheduled. We regret the error.


Looking ahead

We’ll be back on March 27 with a new edition of Robe & Gavel. Until then, gaveling out! 


Contributions

Myj Saintyl compiled and edited this newsletter, with contributions from Sam Post.



Biden vetoes CRA resolution seeking to nullify ESG rule


The Checks and Balances Letter delivers news and information from Ballotpedia’s Administrative State Project, including pivotal actions at the federal and state levels related to the separation of powers, due process, and the rule of law.

This edition: 

In this month’s edition of Checks and Balances, we review the landscape of judicial and legislative challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA); oral argument before the United States Supreme Court on the Biden administration’s proposed student loan cancellation plan; and President Biden’s veto of a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution aiming to nullify the U.S. Department of Labor’s rule allowing retirement plans to consider certain environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors in investment-related decisions.

At the state level, we take a look at a proposal in the Idaho State Legislature aiming to modify the legislative approval process for state administrative rules as well as activity in Alabama and Ohio seeking to reduce state administrative regulations.

We also highlight new scholarship from law professor Allison M. Whelan on what Whelan refers to as executive interference in scientific agency decisionmaking. We wrap up with our Regulatory Tally, which features information about the 167 proposed rules and 227 final rules added to the Federal Register in February and OIRA’s regulatory review activity.


In Washington

Judicial, legislative challenges seek to limit federal water regulation

What’s the story?

The Biden administration earlier this year finalized an updated version of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, effective March 30, 2023, which spurred new legal and legislative challenges to the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The challenges argue in part that the inclusion of certain wetlands and streams in the definition of navigable waters—an interpretation of the CWA promulgated by the Obama administration, narrowed by the Trump administration, and largely reinstated by the Biden administration—exceeds the scope of the EPA’s regulatory authority.

A coalition of 24 Republican-led states on February 16 filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota Eastern Division challenging the lawfulness of the Biden administration’s final WOTUS rule. The suit argues, among other claims, that the rule exceeds the EPA’s statutory authority under the CWA “by encompassing waters with no reasonable connection to ‘navigable waters.’”

Meanwhile, a ruling from the United States Supreme Court is forthcoming in Sackett v. EPA, a 14-year legal challenge that questions the EPA’s regulatory scope under the CWA. In Sackett, the court will decide whether to articulate a standard for recognizing the extent of the EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction over the nation’s navigable waters.

At the same time, a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution seeking to nullify the Biden-era WOTUS rule was pending in the United States Senate as of March 17 with support from Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (W. Va.) and 49 Republican senators. The CRA resolution, sponsored by Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) and 170 Republican cosponsors, passed the House on March 9 by a 227-198 vote in which nine Democrats voted with Republican colleagues.

President Biden released a statement on March 6 indicating that he would veto the CRA resolution if it reaches his desk. Biden argued that the resolution would result in an “uncertain, fragmented, and watered-down regulatory system.”

Want to go deeper?


SCOTUS hears oral argument in case challenging Biden administration’s student loan cancellation plan

What’s the story?

The United States Supreme Court on February 28, 2023, heard oral argument in Biden v. Nebraska—a case challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s authority to cancel up to $20,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower under the national emergency provisions of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act).

Six states (Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina) on September 29, 2022, filed a lawsuit arguing in part that the debt-cancellation program overstepped the department’s emergency authority under the HEROES Act and that the department could not lawfully stop collecting student loan payments without congressional approval. A district court in October ruled that the states, which further argued that the plan would harm their investments and reduce their tax revenues, did not have standing to sue because they had not demonstrated sufficient harm from the program. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit later blocked the plan from taking effect while the case progressed through the courts.

While “the court’s liberal justices were dubious about the states’ right to sue,” according to SCOTUSblog analyst Amy Howe, “the court’s conservative justices appeared just as skeptical about whether the Biden administration could rely on the HEROES Act to adopt the loan-forgiveness program.” Howe further observed that “a majority of the justices appeared unconvinced that Congress intended to give the secretary of education the power to adopt the program,” adding that “[s]ome of the conservative justices also suggested that the loan-forgiveness program might fail under the ‘major questions doctrine.’”

Want to go deeper?


Biden vetoes CRA resolution seeking to nullify ESG rule

What’s the story?

President Joe Biden (D) on March 20, 2023, vetoed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution passed by Congress that aimed to nullify a rule from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) allowing retirement plans to consider certain environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors in investment-related decisions.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 216-204 on February 28 to pass the resolution, with Democratic Representative Jared Golden (Maine) joining Republican colleagues. The U.S. Senate passed the resolution on March 1 by a 50-46 vote. Democratic Senators Joe Manchin (W. Va.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) joined Republican senators in supporting the measure.

Manchin described the rule as “another example of how our administration prioritizes a liberal policy agenda over protecting and growing the retirement accounts of 150 million Americans,” according to The Hill.

Nullification of the ESG rule would have resulted in the DOL reverting to a Trump-era regulation requiring that retirement plans only consider pecuniary factors with a material effect on investment risk or return. Biden argued in his veto statement, “There is extensive evidence showing that environmental, social, and governance factors can have a material impact on markets, industries, and businesses. But the Republican-led resolution would force retirement managers to ignore these relevant risk factors” and “would prevent retirement plan fiduciaries from taking into account factors, such as the physical risks of climate change and poor corporate governance, that could affect investment returns.”

Want to go deeper?


In the states

Idaho lawmakers consider changes to legislative approval of agency rules

What’s the story? 

Idaho state lawmakers are considering legislation that would require both chambers of the Idaho State Legislature to approve pending administrative rules before they can take effect.

Idaho law requires the state legislature to reauthorize all of the state’s administrative rules each year. A vote by one chamber of the state legislature is required to either approve or reject a pending administrative rule (except for rules carrying fees, which must be rejected by both chambers). If one chamber approves while the other chamber rejects a rule, the rule nonetheless becomes effective—a framework that has contributed to tension in the past between the state House and state Senate, according to the Idaho Capital Sun. House Bill 206 instead proposes requiring both chambers of the state legislature to approve pending administrative rules.

“This is a fundamental change,” said state Rep. Vito Barbieri (R), the bill’s floor sponsor, during a meeting of the House State Affairs Committee. “As you may know, one house approving a rule and another house rejecting a rule—unless it’s a fee rule—that rule has become effective.”

The House passed the bill by a 59-11 vote on March 1, 2023. The bill was pending in the state Senate as of March 17.

Want to go deeper?


Alabama, Ohio governors propose regulatory reductions

What’s the story? 

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) on March 8, 2023, signed Executive Order 735, which puts a two-year freeze on state agency rulemaking, with certain exceptions. The order also requires each state agency during the two-year period to create an inventory of all rules and rescind any regulatory restrictions on citizens and businesses deemed discretionary. During her State of the State address on March 7, Ivey put forth a goal of reducing the number of regulatory restrictions in the state by 25%.

“In many cases, government regulations that were necessary a decade ago have outlived their usefulness, and it’s time for that to change,” said Ivey in a statement.

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine (R) included a similar proposal earlier this year as part of his proposed budget plan. Under DeWine’s proposal, state agencies would eliminate one-third of the Ohio Administrative Code by rescinding “duplicative provisions, outdated sections, and unnecessary requirements,” according to The Statehouse News Bureau. The proposal also seeks to remove federal regulatory language from the state code in an effort to help small businesses better identify the differences between state and federal requirements. 

Want to go deeper?


Examining scientific agency decisionmaking and the executive branch

New scholarship from law professor Allison M. Whelan in the Vanderbilt Law Review proposes a conceptual framework to address what Whelan refers to as executive branch interference in the scientific decisionmaking of administrative agencies:

“The scientific credibility of the administrative state is under siege in the United States, risking distressful public health harms and even deaths. This Article addresses one component of this attack—executive interference in agency scientific decisionmaking. It offers a new conceptual framework, ‘internal agency capture,’ and policy prescription for addressing excessive overreach and interference by the executive branch in the scientific decisionmaking of federal agencies. The Article’s critiques and analysis toggle a timeline that reflects recent history and that urges forward-thinking approaches to respond to executive overreach in agency scientific decisionmaking. Taking the Trump Administration and other presidencies as test cases, it scrutinizes who should control, or alternatively advance or limit, an agency’s scientific decisions, which are distinct from its policymaking decisions. With its ‘internal agency capture’ framework and the COVID-19 pandemic as its backdrop, the Article illustrates the phenomenon of excessive executive overreach at work in the scientific decisionmaking of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (‘FDA’), glaringly reflected in the Agency’s decisions on reproductive medicines and protocols to respond to the pandemic. This Article demonstrates that covert internal capture can mislead the public, pose serious risks to individual and public health, undermine the arm’s-length neutrality and objectivity of agencies, and result in lasting consequences for agency legitimacy and reputation.”

Want to go deeper

  • Click here to read the full text of “Executive Capture of Agency Decisionmaking” by Allison M. Whelan

Regulatory tally

Federal Register

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

OIRA’s February regulatory review activity included the following actions:

  • Review of 38 significant regulatory actions. 
  • Two rules approved without changes; recommended changes to 35 proposed rules; one rule withdrawn from the review process.
  • As of March 1, 2023, OIRA’s website listed 114 regulatory actions under review.
  • Want to go deeper? 


The Ballot Bulletin: Ballotpedia’s Weekly Digest on Election Administration, March 17, 2023

Welcome to The Ballot Bulletin: Ballotpedia’s Weekly Digest on Election Administration. Every Friday, we deliver the latest updates on election policy around the country, including legislative activity, big-picture trends, and recent news.


In today’s issue, you’ll find: 

  • Legislative activity: About the bills acted on this week. 
  • The big picture
    • Legislative status: The number of bills introduced, voted on, or enacted into law.
    • Concentration of activity: The states that have had the most legislative activity.
    • Partisan affiliation of sponsorship: The number of bills that Democrats and Republicans have sponsored. 
  • Recent news: Noteworthy developments in election policy at the federal, state, and local levels, including litigation and ballot measures. 

Legislative activity

Since March 10, state legislatures have acted on 379 bills, a 35.6% increase from last week’s 280 bills. Of these, 147 are from states with Democratic trifectas, 208 are from states with Republican trifectas, and 24 are from states with divided governments. These 379 bills represent 20.1% of the 1,889 pieces of legislation we are currently tracking. At this point in 2022, we were tracking 2,288 pieces of legislation. 

The topics with the most activity this week were:

  • Ballot access: 50
  • Voter registration and list maintenance: 46
  • Audits and oversight: 42
  • Ballot counting and certification: 41
  • Contest-specific procedures (Primary systems, municipal election procedures, recall elections, special election procedures, and other systems unique to a particular election type): 41

300 bills were introduced (or had pre-committee action).

  • Democratic trifectas: 128
  • Republican trifectas: 160
  • Divided governments: 12

16 bills advanced from committee. 

  • Democratic trifectas: 7
  • Republican trifectas: 8
  • Divided governments: 1

45 bills passed one chamber (or had pre-adoption action in the second chamber). 

  • Democratic trifectas: 8
  • Republican trifectas: 27
  • Divided governments: 10

18 bills passed both chambers. Those bills, with their official bill titles, are:

  • Democratic trifectas: 4
  • Republican trifectas: 13
    • AR HB1461: To Require Legislative Review Of New Federal Election Guidance; And To Amend The Duties Of The Secretary Of State.
    • GA HB532: Pike County; Magistrate Court; chief judge; provide nonpartisan elections
    • ID H0124: Amends existing law to revise provisions regarding accepted voter identification at the polls.
    • IN SB0106: Local powers concerning elections.
    • ND SB2292: Relating to election offenses and election observers; and to provide a penalty.
    • SC H3961: Dorchester School District 2
    • UT SB0043: Public Notice Requirements
    • UT SB0063: Election Candidate Replacement Amendments
    • UT HB0162: Voter Accessibility Amendments
    • UT SB0017: Voting and Voter Residency Amendments
    • UT HB0303: Elections Record Amendments
    • UT HB0037: Voter Signature Verification Amendments
    • UT HB0365: Voter Affiliation Amendments
  • Divided governments: 1
    • VA HB2161: Local government; standardization of public notice requirements for certain intended actions.

The big picture

To date, we have tracked 1,889 election-related bills. These bills were either introduced this year or crossed over from last year’s legislative sessions. 


Legislative status 

The pie charts below show the legislative status of the bills we are tracking. The following status indicators are used: 

  • Introduced: The bill has been pre-filed, introduced, or referred to committee but has not otherwise been acted on.
  • Advanced from committee: The bill has received a favorable vote in committee. It has either advanced to another committee or to the floor for a vote. 
  • Passed one chamber: One chamber has approved the bill.
  • Conference committee: Chambers have passed differing versions of the bill, and a conference committee has been appointed to reconcile the differences. 
  • Passed both chambers: The bill has cleared both chambers of the legislature. 
  • Enacted: The bill has been enacted into law, by gubernatorial action or inaction or veto override. 
  • Vetoed: The bill has been vetoed. 
  • Dead: The bill has been defeated in committee or on the floor. 

The pie charts below show the legislative status of bills in Democratic and Republican trifectas, respectively. 


Concentration of activity

The map below shows the concentration of legislative activity across the nation.


Partisan affiliation of sponsor(s)

The pie chart below shows the partisan affiliation of bill sponsors.


Bills by topic

The chart below shows the topics of a sample of the 1,889 bills we have tracked this year. The number listed on the blue portion of each bar indicates the number of Democratic-sponsored bills dealing with the subject in question. The number listed on the red portion of the bar indicates the number of Republican-sponsored bills. The purple and gray portions of the bar indicate the number of bipartisan-sponsored bills and bills with unspecified sponsorship, respectively. Note that the sums of the numbers listed do not equal the total number of bills because some bills deal with multiple topics. Click here to see a full list of subject categories. 


Recent news

Minnesota enacts bill on felon voting rights

On March 3, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed HF28, a bill allowing convicted felons who have completed their sentences to vote. Walz said, “Minnesotans who have completed time for their offenses and are living, working, and raising families in their communities deserve the right to vote.” State Sen. Warren Limmer (R), who opposed the bill, said, “There are some offenders that have committed heinous crimes against innocent citizens. I don’t think the Senate understands that. Because this bill treats it as a one-size-fits all — all criminals get the same treatment.” Minnesota, which has a Democratic trifecta, joins 21 other states in granting voting rights to individuals convicted of a felony after completion of their sentences. The New Mexico State Legislature passed a similar bill, HF4, on March 13, submitting it to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D). New Mexico also has a Democratic trifecta. 


North Carolina Supreme Court reconsiders voter ID requirements

On March 15, the North Carolina Supreme Court heard arguments in a case concerning a 2018 law requiring a photo ID to vote. The Southern Coalition for Social Justice filed the lawsuit on behalf of six state residents against the North Carolina Board of Elections, Speaker of the House Timothy K. Moore (R), Senate President Phil Berger (R), state Sen. Ralph Hise (R), and former state Rep. David Lewis, Sr. (R). In December 2022, the court, which had a 4-3 Democratic majority, upheld a lower court’s determination that the law was unconstitutional. After Republicans won both of the state’s supreme court seats up for election in the 2022, gaining a 5-2 majority the court, the justices agreed to re-hear the case. In the most recent hearing, Attorney Paul Brachman, said, “This law does bear more heavily on African American voters because they’re more likely to lack a qualifying ID, more likely to face difficulties acquiring an ID.” The defendants’ attorney Pete Patterson said, “The law does not bespeak discriminatory intent, racially discriminatory intent, to enact a voter ID law that allows everyone to vote.” 



ICYMI: Top stories of the week

Each week, we bring you a collection of the most viewed stories from The Daily Brew, condensed. Here are the top stories from the week of March 13-March 17.


More than 24,000 school board seats up for election in 2023

Nine-thousand school districts across 35 states (69% of the nation’s 13,500 public school districts, governed by 83,000 school board members) are holding regular school board elections in 2023.

Approximately 24,100 school board seats are up for regular election in 2023 in these districts, representing 36% of the 66,831 total school board seats in those 35 states.

Ballotpedia’s school board coverage in 2023 will expand to cover 8,750 school board seats in 3,211 school districts across 28 states. This includes comprehensive coverage in these 10 states: Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

Read more


A look at this year’s early voting periods

Eight states—Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington—are holding statewide elections this year.

Nationwide, 46 states permit some form of no-excuse early voting. Of the eight states holding statewide elections this year, all but Mississippi allow no-excuse early voting in some form. (Mississippi does allow voters to cast absentee/mail-in ballots early, but only under certain circumstances.)

Virginia has the longest statutory early voting period this year at 44 days. But some voters in Pennsylvania might have a similar or longer early voting period. 

Pennsylvania doesn’t have a statewide, statutory early voting period. Instead, each county sets its own rules, and voters should check their county’s website for specifics. But early voting is usually available for four to six weeks, typically starting once ballots are finalized and available.

Kentucky’s early voting period lasts three days for its primary and general elections. New Jersey also has a three-day window, but for the primary only. Voters there have nine days of early voting before the general election.

Read more


Special general election for Wisconsin state Senate District 8 will determine if Republicans regain supermajority

Jodi Habush Sinykin (D) and Daniel Knodl (R) are running in a special election for Wisconsin State Senate District 8 on April 4. The results will determine if Republicans regain the supermajority in the chamber they acquired following the Nov. 8, 2022, elections. 

Alberta Darling (R) represented the district since she was elected in 1992. Her Dec. 1, 2022, retirement  reduced Senate Republicans’ 22-member supermajority to a 21-member majority. 

A party with a supermajority would have the votes necessary to suspend Senate rules, which would speed up the legislative process, and hold impeachment trials of state officials. 

Read more



ICYMI: Top stories of the week

Each week, we bring you a collection of the most viewed stories from The Daily Brew, condensed. Here are the top stories from the week of March 6-March 10.


Ballotpedia is covering more than 8,700 school board seats up for election across 28 states

This might be an off-cycle election year for Congress and most state legislatures, but school board elections don’t stop. With about 83,000 board members in over 13,000 districts, school boards are some of the most influential elected bodies in the country—but also some of the most overlooked. 

In 2023, Ballotpedia is covering elections for approximately 8,750 school board seats in 3,211 school districts across 28 states. Traditionally, we’ve covered all school districts in the 100 largest cities by population and the 200 largest school districts by student enrollment.

Read more


Control of Wisconsin Supreme Court at stake in most expensive judicial election in U.S. history

On April 4, Wisconsin voters will decide the ideological balance of their state supreme court, choosing between Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Protasiewicz and former Justice Daniel Kelly. 

While Wisconsin’s supreme court elections are officially nonpartisan, PBS Wisconsin’s Zac Schultz wrote, “Protasiewicz and Kelly are heavily aligned with the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively.”

The winner will succeed retiring Justice Patience Roggensack, a member of the court’s current 4-3 conservative majority. If Protasiewicz wins, the court will switch to a 4-3 liberal majority. If Kelly wins, the conservative majority will remain.

Read more


Virginia General Assembly elections will determine state’s trifecta status

Virginia is one of four states—along with Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Jersey—holding legislative elections this year.

For the first time since 2019, all 140 legislative districts are holding elections: 40 in the Senate and 100 in the House. 

Virginia is one of two states where both major parties control one chamber. Democrats have controlled the Senate since 2019 and enter the election with a 22-18 majority. Republicans have held a 52-48 majority in the House since 2021. This—plus the state’s Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, whose term ends in 2025—gives the state a divided government.

Read more



The Ballot Bulletin: Ballotpedia’s Weekly Digest on Election Administration, March 10, 2023

Welcome to The Ballot Bulletin: Ballotpedia’s Weekly Digest on Election Administration. Every Friday, we deliver the latest updates on election policy around the country, including legislative activity, big-picture trends, and recent news.


In today’s issue, you’ll find: 

  • Legislative activity: About the bills acted on this week. 
  • The big picture
    • Legislative status: The number of bills introduced, voted on, or enacted into law.
    • Concentration of activity: The states that have had the most legislative activity.
    • Partisan affiliation of sponsorship: The number of bills that Democrats and Republicans have sponsored. 
  • Recent news: Noteworthy developments in election policy at the federal, state, and local levels, including litigation and ballot measures. 

Legislative activity

Since March 3, state legislatures have acted on 264 bills, a 6.4% decrease from last week’s 280 bills. Of these bills, 109 are from states with Democratic trifectas, 118 are from states with Republican trifectas, and 37 are from states with divided governments. These 264 bills represent 14.8% of the 1,773 pieces of legislation we are currently tracking. At this point in 2022, we were tracking 2,252 pieces of legislation. 

The bill topic with the most activity this week was contest-specific procedures (25), a category that includes primary systems, municipal election procedures, recall elections, special election procedures, and other systems unique to a particular election type. Other topics with the most activity included voter registration and list maintenance (24), audits and oversight (23), ballot verification (23), and ballot access (17). 

5 bills were defeated in committee or by floor vote.

  • Republican trifectas: 5

185 bills were introduced (or had pre-committee action).

  • Democratic trifectas: 97
  • Republican trifectas: 69
  • Divided governments: 19

12 bills advanced from committee. 

  • Democratic trifectas: 3
  • Republican trifectas: 9

43 bills passed one chamber (or had pre-adoption action in the second chamber). 

  • Democratic trifectas: 5
  • Republican trifectas: 21
  • Divided governments: 17

15 bills passed both chambers. Those bills, with their official bill titles, are:

  • Democratic trifectas: 1
  • Republican trifectas: 13
    • AR HB1419: To Create The Ensuring Access For All Arkansans And Voter Protection Act Of 2023; To Amend The Procedure For The Filing Of A Ballot Initiative And Referendum Petition; And To Declare An Emergency.
    • SD HB1123: Authorize school boards to modify the length of terms for members to allow for holding joint elections.
    • SD SB161: Make an appropriation to the Office of the Secretary of State for voter roll maintenance, ballot machines, and election security.
    • SD SB140: Revise certain provisions relating to voter registration.
    • SD SB160: Establish post-election audits.
    • SD HB1124: Modify provisions pertaining to the testing of automatic tabulating equipment.
    • SD SB55: Prohibit ranked-choice voting.
    • SD SB113: Establish and modify provisions related to initiated petitions.
    • SD SB139: Revise provisions qualifications for the purposes of voter registration.
    • SD SJR505: Proposing and submitting to the electors at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, updating references to certain officeholders and persons.
    • UT HB0365: Voter Affiliation Amendments
    • UT HB0303: Elections Record Amendments
  • Divided governments: 1
    • VA HB2161: Local government; standardization of public notice requirements for certain intended actions.

4 bills were enacted. Those bills, with bill titles and summaries, are:

  • Democratic trifectas: 3
    • NY S00852: Relates to the accessibility of congressional, senatorial, assembly and election district maps in downloadable digital file formats compatible with geographic information (GIS) software.
      • This bill requires the board of elections to make district maps in a digital format compatible with geographic information system (GIS) software, including shapefile, geodatabase, KML, or other similar vector-based GIS file types.
    • NY S00822: Permits electronic correspondence with regard to determinations on objections to designating petitions, independent nominating petitions, certificates of nomination or ballot access documents upon the consent of the objector.
      • This bill allows state agencies to notify objectors to designating petitions, independent nominating petitions, certificates of nomination, or ballot access documents of the date they will consider the petition through email in addition to overnight mail. 
    • MN HF28: Right to vote restored to individuals convicted of a felony upon completion of any term of incarceration imposed and executed by a court for the offense.
      • This bill restores voting rights to individuals charged or convicted of a felony that are not currently incarcerated.
  • Republican trifectas: 1
    • SD SB46: Enhance the penalty for petition circulation perjury.
      • This bill creates additional requirements for filing a petition to initiate an amendment to the state constitution, including requiring a petition circulator to sign a verification form. The bill also makes falsely attesting to petition verification a felony.

The big picture

To date, we have tracked 1,773 election-related bills. These bills were either introduced this year or crossed over from last year’s legislative sessions. 


Legislative status 

The pie charts below show the legislative status of the bills we are tracking. The following status indicators are used: 

  • Introduced: The bill has been pre-filed, introduced, or referred to committee but has not otherwise been acted on.
  • Advanced from committee: The bill has received a favorable vote in committee. It has either advanced to another committee or to the floor for a vote. 
  • Passed one chamber: One chamber has approved the bill.
  • Conference committee: Chambers have passed differing versions of the bill, and a conference committee has been appointed to reconcile the differences. 
  • Passed both chambers: The bill has cleared both chambers of the legislature. 
  • Enacted: The bill has been enacted into law, by gubernatorial action or inaction or veto override. 
  • Vetoed: The bill has been vetoed. 
  • Dead: The bill has been defeated in committee or on the floor. 

The pie charts below show the legislative status of bills in Democratic and Republican trifectas, respectively. 

Concentration of activity

The map below shows the concentration of legislative activity across the nation. A darker shade of orange indicates a higher number of relevant bills that have been introduced. A lighter shade of orange indicates a lower number of relevant bills. 

Partisan affiliation of sponsor(s)

The pie chart below shows the partisan affiliation of bill sponsors.

Bills by topic

The chart below shows the topics of a sample of the 1,773 bills we have tracked this year. The number listed on the blue portion of each bar indicates the number of Democratic-sponsored bills dealing with the subject in question. The number listed on the red portion of the bar indicates the number of Republican-sponsored bills. The purple and gray portions of the bar indicate the number of bipartisan-sponsored bills and bills with unspecified sponsorship, respectively. Note that the sums of the numbers listed do not equal the total number of bills because some bills deal with multiple topics. Click here to see a full list of subject categories.


Recent news

U.S. Supreme Court requests additional briefs in North Carolina redistricting case 

On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered both parties in a case involving North Carolina’s congressional district maps to provide additional briefings. North Carolina Republican lawmakers originally submitted an emergency filing with the United States Supreme Court on Feb. 25, 2022, challenging the congressional district boundaries enacted after the 2020 census. In the order, the court requested “supplemental letter briefs addressing the following question: What is the affect on this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1257(a)  and Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975), of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s February 3, 2023 order granting rehearing, and any subsequent state court proceedings?” The parties must file the additional briefing simultaneously on or before 2 p.m., Monday, March 20.


Three more states withdraw from voter data organization

Missouri, Florida, and West Virginia withdrew from the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) on March 6. Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) said the state was withdrawing because ERIC would not “require member states to participate in addressing multi-state voter fraud.” West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner (R) said, “It truly is a shame that an organization founded on the principle of nonpartisanship would allow the opportunity for partisanship to stray the organization from the equally important principle of upholding the public’s confidence.” ERIC Executive Director Shane Hamlin said, “ERIC is never connected to any state’s voter registration system. Members retain complete control over their voter rolls and they use the reports we provide in ways that comply with federal and state laws.” Hamlin also said ERIC “follow[s] widely accepted security protocols for handling the data we utilize to create the reports.” The announcements follow withdrawals by Alabama and Louisiana in January of 2023 and 2022, respectively. According to its website, ERIC is a nonprofit organization of member-states who share information like voter registration and motor vehicle registration records in order to improve the accuracy of each state’s voter rolls. Twenty-eight states and Washington, D.C. remain members of ERIC.



Florida Republicans introduce bills prohibiting paycheck deductions for public-sector union dues

Florida Republicans recently introduced companion bills in the state legislature that would prohibit certain public-sector employees from having union dues withdrawn from their pay. 


About the bills

Senate Bill 256 and House Bill 1445 state, “[A]n employee organization that has been certified as a bargaining agent may not have its dues and uniform assessments deducted and collected by the employer from the salaries of those employees in the unit. A public employee may pay dues and uniform assessments directly to the employee organization that has been certified as the bargaining agent.”

The bills would also require public-sector employees wanting to join a union to sign a membership authorization form including the following language:

The State of Florida is a right-to-work state. Membership or non-membership in a labor union is not required as a condition of employment, and union membership and payment of union dues and assessments are voluntary. Each person has the right to join and pay dues to a labor union or to refrain from joining and paying dues to a labor union. No employee may be discriminated against in any manner for joining and financially supporting a labor union or for refusing to join or financially support a labor union. 

Under the legislation, unions would be required to allow members to revoke membership at any time. 

The bills would also amend registration and renewal requirements for certified bargaining agents, including requiring recertification if the number of dues-paying union members is less than 60% of eligible employees in the unit. 

Unions representing law enforcement officers, correctional officers, correctional probation officers, and firefighters are exempted from the bills’ provisions. According to Orlando Weekly’s McKenna Schueler, SB 256 sponsor Sen. Blaise Ingoglia (R) said the exemptions were included “because these brave heroes often work second and third shifts while risking their lives to save others,” stating, “I cannot in good conscience ask them, after a 14-hour shift with no sleep, to meet with union reps to give them their check.”

Ingoglia filed SB 256 on Feb. 28. The Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee voted 5-3 along party lines in favor of a committee substitute bill during a hearing on March 7. The substitute bill removed a requirement for unions to pledge that union officials would not earn more than the highest-paid employee in the unit. The substitute bill was referred to the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee on March 9. 

Rep. Dean Black (R) filed HB 1445 on March 3. The bill was referred to the House State Affairs Committee on March 9.

Republicans have had a trifecta in Florida since 2011 and currently hold veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate.  

To read about Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) support for these proposals in the Dec. 23 edition of Union Station, click here

Perspectives

Support

Ingoglia said, “One of the ideas here is to make sure that the union members are getting the best possible union representation as possible. And one of that is to make sure that they’re having face-to-face conversations with their union representatives.”

Vincent Vernuccio, a representative for the Mackinac Center’s Workers for Opportunity initiative, said, “[SB 256] is about transparency, accountability, good bookkeeping, and democracy. … This bill is about the rights of public employees: making sure they’re informed and they can exercise them.” 

Freedom Foundation representative Rusty Brown said, “There’s nothing in this bill that curtails organizing or collective bargaining for wages, benefits, or working conditions, which is what a union should be doing. And when you have a union whose membership is half [the people they represent] … then that could be indicative of a problem. … [This bill] gives the employees represented by the union the opportunity to vote … if they would like to continue allowing that union to represent them.”  

Opposition

The Florida Education Association said, “SB 256 seeks to silence the voices of educators and union members, and we must join together to let legislators know this bill is bad for educators and bad for public education.”

Florida Education Association president Andrew Spar said, “We see a piece of legislation that, quite honestly, is somewhat insulting to teachers and staff in the state of Florida, basically telling them that they don’t know better and someone big government has to watch out over them.” 

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said, “This noxious attack on the freedom of Florida’s teachers, staff and professors to join together and work together will irrevocably harm the children and communities they serve. … [Teachers] need a pay raise and support, not additional obstacles.” 


Michigan HB 4004 update

Following up on last month’s Union Station: The Michigan House of Representatives passed a substitute bill for House Bill 4004—which would repeal a section of law prohibiting public employees from being required to pay union fees—on March 8. The substitute bill states that a provision allowing non-member employees to be required to pay union fees would go into effect if the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME were reversed or limited, or if a relevant constitutional amendment were ratified: 

A public employer and a bargaining representative may enter into a collective bargaining agreement that requires all public employees in the bargaining unit to share equally in the financial support of the bargaining representative. This act does not, and a law or policy of a local government must not, prohibit or limit an agreement that requires public employees in the bargaining unit, as a condition of continued employment, to pay to the bargaining representative membership dues or service fees. This subsection becomes effective immediately upon, and applies to the extent permitted by, either of the following:

(a) A decision or ruling by the United States Supreme Court that reverses or limits, in whole or in part, Janus v AFSCME, Council 31, ___US___; 138 S Ct 2448 (2018).

(b) The ratification of an amendment to the United States Constitution that restores the ability to require, as a condition of employment, a public employee who is not a member of a bargaining representative to pay, under any circumstances, fees, including agency fees, to the bargaining representative.

The substitute bill also includes a $1 million appropriation for the implementation of the act. According to the Detroit Free Press’ Clara Hendrickson, “The appropriation means that the legislation is not subject to a public referendum in which voters could reject the law. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in her first term issued an executive directive promising to veto any legislation ‘that circumvents the right to a referendum.’”

The Democratic Party gained a trifecta in Michigan as a result of the 2022 elections. Democrats hold a 56-54 majority in the House and a 20-18 majority in the Senate.   

Litigation updates

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon 

  • Crowe v. Oregon State Bar: The district court ruled in favor of the defendants on Feb. 14. (The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court in February 2021.) 
  • Gruber v. Oregon State Bar: The district court ruled in favor of the defendants on Feb. 14. (The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court in February 2021.) The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit on Feb. 23. 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

U.S. Supreme Court


What we’re reading


The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 163 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. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s) 


Recent legislative actions

Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue.

  • Alaska HB46: This bill would require the Department of Health to bargain with childcare provider unions.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • House Labor & Commerce Committee hearing Feb. 20. Referred to House Health & Social Services Committee instead of House State Affairs Committee Feb. 27. House Labor & Commerce Committee hearing March 1. House Labor & Commerce Committee recommends committee substitute. Referred to House Health & Social Services Committee March 6.
  • California AB1484: This bill would require temporary public employees hired to perform similar work to that of permanent public employees to be included in the same bargaining unit as permanent employees, upon the union’s request. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced Feb. 17, may be heard in committee March 20. 
  • California AB1672: This bill, called the “In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act,” would stipulate that the state is the employer of record for individual in-home supportive services providers for collective bargaining purposes. The bill would stipulate procedures for collective bargaining.  
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced Feb. 17, may be heard in committee March 20. 
  • California SB334: This bill would authorize the Public Employment Relations Board to include the impact of net-zero carbon emissions initiatives on public employees when conducting studies of employer-employee relations.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee Feb. 15.
  • California SB716: This bill, which would enact the Excluded Employee Arbitration Act, would allow a union representing certain excluded employees to request binding arbitration in certain circumstances.
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • Introduced, read first time, referred to Senate Rules Committee for assignment Feb. 16. Referred to Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee March 1. 
  • Colorado SB111: This bill would give certain public employees the right to express views about union representation and workplace issues, engage in “protected, concerted activity for the purpose of mutual aid or protection,” participate in the political process while not at work, and join or not join a union. It would prohibit public employers from retaliating against employees for engaging in such activities. It would stipulate that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment is responsible for enforcement. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Senate Local Government & Housing Committee hearing Feb. 28. Committee referred amended bill to Senate Appropriations Committee.
  • Connecticut HB06720: This bill would give state managerial employees the right to bargain collectively. 
    • Committee-introduced bill. 
    • Referred to Joint Labor and Public Employees Committee Feb. 16. Public hearing Feb. 23, favorable vote Feb. 28. Filed with Legislative Commissioners’ Office March 1. 
  • Connecticut SB00912: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to probate court employees as of Oct. 1, 2023.
    • Committee-introduced bill. 
    • Joint Labor and Public Employees Committee favorable report Feb. 16, filed with Legislative Commissioners’ Office. Referred to Office of Legislative Research and Office of Fiscal Analysis Feb. 27. Reported out of Legislative Commissioners’ Office March 6, tabled for Senate calendar. 
  • Connecticut SB01199: This bill would provide that anyone holding an adjunct professor permit from the State Board of Education shall be a member of the exclusive bargaining unit for certified employees, unless the employer and bargaining unit agree otherwise. 
    • Committee-introduced bill.
    • Referred to Joint Education Committee March 9. Joint Education Committee public hearing March 15. 
  • Delaware SB45: This bill would make exceptions to a law disqualifying individuals from unemployment benefits for two weeks if their unemployment was the result of a labor dispute work stoppage, including if the labor dispute was “caused by the failure or refusal of the employer to comply with an agreement or contract between the employer and the individual, including a collective bargaining agreement with a union representing the individual[.]” 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced, assigned to Senate Labor Committee Feb. 17.  
  • Florida H1445 and Florida S0256: These companion bills would require public employees who want to be union members to sign a membership authorization form including language specified in the bill. The bills would require unions to allow members to revoke membership at any time. The bills would prohibit public employers from collecting union dues from employees’ pay. The bills would amend registration and renewal requirements for certified bargaining agents. Unions representing law enforcement officers, correctional officers, correctional probation officers, and firefighters are excepted from the provisions of the bills. 
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • H1445: Filed March 3. First reading March 7. Referred to House State Affairs Committee and assigned to Constitutional Rights, Rule of Law & Government Operations Subcommittee March 9.
    • S0256: Filed Feb. 28, referred to Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee and Senate Fiscal Policy Committee March 1. Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing March 7, substitute bill reported favorably. Committee substitute referred to Senate Fiscal Policy Committee March 9. 
  • Georgia SB166: This bill would allow public employees to organize and bargain collectively. The bill would establish the Georgia Public Employees Relations Board. It would repeal a law prohibiting payroll deductions for organizations engaging in collective bargaining. It would prohibit public employees from striking.  
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced Feb. 14, referred to Senate Insurance and Labor Committee Feb. 15.
  • Hawaii HB334: This bill would remove state and county employer contributions to the state’s health benefits trust fund from the scope of public-sector collective bargaining negotiations.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Reported from House Labor & Government Operations Committee as amended Feb. 13, recommending passage on second reading and referral to House Finance Committee. Passed second reading as amended and referred to House Finance Committee Feb. 13. House Finance Committee hearing Feb. 27. Committee recommends the measure be passed, unamended. Passed third reading March 3. Senate received from House March 7. Passed first reading March 7.
  • Hawaii HB1205: This bill would stipulate that public employee unions are not required to provide grievance representation to members of the bargaining unit who do not pay dues, dues equivalents, or reasonable costs of representation.
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • House Labor & Government Operations Committee hearing Feb. 14. Committee recommends that the measure be passed with amendments. Passed second reading as amended, referred to House Finance Committee Feb. 16. House Finance Committee hearing Feb. 27. Committee recommends the measure be passed, unamended. Passed third reading March 3. Senate received from House March 7. Passed first reading March 7.  
  • Illinois HB5107 (2022 session): This bill would define educational supervisors (e.g., principals and assistant principals) as educational employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. The bill would not allow educational supervisors in positions requiring an administrative license to strike. The bill would only apply to districts organized under Article 34 of the Illinois School Code, which applies to cities with a population of more than 500,000.  
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Governor signed Feb. 10. 
  • Illinois HB1083: This bill would stipulate that any collective bargaining provision limiting a public employer’s ability to investigate employee conduct is unenforceable. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Referred to House Labor & Commerce Committee Feb. 21. Hearings March 1, March 8.
  • Illinois HB1089: This bill would prohibit collective bargaining agreements between public employers and police unions from allowing unconstitutional police conduct. A collective bargaining agreement allowing unconstitutional police conduct would be void.      
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Referred to House Judiciary – Criminal Committee Feb. 21. Hearings Feb. 28, March 7, March 9.
  • Illinois HB1120: This bill would require certified charter school contract renewals to include a union neutrality clause stating that the school agrees to be “neutral regarding the unionization of any of its employees …,” to provide “labor organization access at reasonable times…,” and to recognize unions “through a majority card check verified by a neutral third-party arbitrator[.]”
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • House Labor & Commerce Committee hearings Feb. 15, Feb. 22, March 1, March 8. Committee recommends “do pass” March 8.  
  • Illinois HB2489: This bill would amend the definitions of “managerial employee,”  “supervisor,” and “unit” in the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The bill would stipulate that public employers may bargain with managerial employee bargaining units. It would provide that the Illinois Labor Relations Board should use job functions instead of job titles in unit descriptions.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • First reading Feb. 15, referred to House Rules Committee. Assigned to House Labor & Commerce Committee Feb. 23. House Labor & Commerce Committee hearings March 1, March 8. 
  • Illinois HB2863: This bill would amend the definitions of “managerial employee,” “supervisor,” and “unit” in the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The bill would stipulate that public employers may bargain with managerial employee bargaining units. It would provide that the Illinois Labor Relations Board should use job functions instead of job titles in unit descriptions. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • First reading, referred to House Rules Committee Feb. 16. 
  • Illinois HB3058: This bill would stipulate that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, “units of security employees of a public employer” includes units of county correctional or detention officers, probation officers, and public safety telecommunicators.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • First reading Feb. 17, referred to House Rules Committee. Assigned to House Labor & Commerce Committee Feb. 23. House Labor & Commerce Committee hearings March 1, March 8. 
  • Illinois HB3094: This bill would stipulate that any provision of a peace officer collective bargaining agreement is unenforceable if it conflicts with a requirement in the bill that certain arbitration decisions are subject to administrative review.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • First reading, referred to House Rules Committee Feb. 17. 
  • Illinois HB3114: This bill would amend the definition of police units “supervisors” in the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • First reading Feb. 17, referred to House Rules Committee. Assigned to House Labor & Commerce Committee Feb. 28. House Labor & Commerce Committee hearing March 8. Committee recommends “do pass” March 8.
  • Illinois HB3313: This bill would stipulate that the Illinois Labor Relations Board must determine whether an employer violating the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with an exclusive representative “undermined or significantly impacted the collective bargaining process.” If so, the board must include the option of interest arbitration in its order. The bill would also stipulate that the board may order make-whole relief.
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • First reading Feb. 17, referred to House Rules Committee. Assigned to House Labor & Commerce Committee Feb. 28. House Labor & Commerce Committee hearing March 8. Committee recommends “do pass” March 8.
  • Illinois SB1813: This bill would stipulate that any provision of a peace officer collective bargaining agreement is unenforceable if it conflicts with a requirement in the bill that certain arbitration decisions are subject to administrative review.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • First reading, referred to Senate Assignments Committee Feb. 9. 
  • Illinois SB2371: This bill would amend the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act to state that certain assistant state’s attorneys, assistant public defenders, assistant appellate defenders, assistant appellate prosecutors, and Cook County Public Guardian attorneys are not managerial employees for collective bargaining purposes.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • First reading Feb. 10, referred to Senate Assignments Committee. Assigned to Senate Labor Committee Feb. 28. Senate committee amendment No. 1 referred to Assignments March 3. Senate Labor Committee hearing March 8. Committee recommends “do pass as amended” March 8.  
  • Illinois SB2410: This bill would amend the definitions of “managerial employee,” “supervisor,” and “unit” in the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The bill would stipulate that public employers may bargain with managerial employee bargaining units. It would provide that the Illinois Labor Relations Board should use job functions instead of job titles in unit descriptions.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • First reading, referred to Senate Assignments Committee Feb. 10. Assigned to Senate Executive Committee Feb. 28. 
  • Illinois SB2430: This bill would stipulate that the Illinois Labor Relations Board must determine whether an employer violating the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with an exclusive representative “undermined or significantly impacted the collective bargaining process.” If so, the board must include the option of interest arbitration in its order. The bill would also stipulate that the board may order monetary make-whole relief including consequential damages and front pay.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • First reading, referred to Senate Assignments Committee Feb. 10. Assigned to Senate Labor Committee Feb. 28. 
  • Iowa SF458: This bill would amend the scope of public employee collective bargaining negotiations. It would outline requirements for exclusive representative certification. The bill would repeal a prohibition on payroll deductions for union dues and require union dues payroll deductions to be collected for one year after a public employee chooses to have union dues deducted. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced, referred to Senate Workforce Committee Feb. 28. Assigned to subcommittee March 7.
  • Kentucky HB364: This bill would prohibit a state public retirement employer from deducting union dues or fees, or funds for union political activities, from a state public retirement employee’s pay. The bill would require state public employers to notify employees of their right not to join a union. It would prohibit state public employers from collecting public employee financial information and providing it to unions.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Introduced Feb. 17, first reading Feb. 21, referred to House Economic Development & Workforce Investment Committee. Hearing Feb. 23.  Reported favorably, second reading, referred to House Rules Committee with committee substitute. 
  • Kentucky HB487: This bill would stipulate that “nothing in this chapter, or in any other statute of this state, shall preclude a public employer from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or on the effective date of the agreement.”
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced Feb. 21, referred to House Committee on Committees.
  • Kentucky SB7: This bill would prohibit public employers from deducting union dues or fees, or funds for union political activities, from public employees’ pay without written authorization. The bill would prohibit public employers from assisting a union in collecting funds or employee financial information.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Introduced Feb. 14. Referred to Senate Education Committee Feb. 16. Hearing Feb. 23, reported favorably. Second reading, referred to Senate Rules Committee Feb. 24. Floor amendment filed March 7.
  • Maine LD1095: This bill would make an exception to the time limit for school administrative units and employee bargaining agents to meet for collective bargaining negotiations requested by the other party for “circumstances relating to wages, hours, working conditions or contract grievance arbitration.”
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Joint Labor and Housing Committee March 9. 
  • Maryland HB65: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to certain county public library employees. The bill would prohibit employees from striking.  
    • Democratic sponsorship (HB65), bipartisan sponsorship (SB352).
    • House Appropriations Committee reported favorably, with amendments, on Feb. 27. House second reading passed with amendments Feb. 28. Third reading passed March 2. Referred to Senate Finance Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee March 3.   
  • Maryland SB284: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to certain employees of the Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 16.
  • Maryland SB298: This bill would grant collective bargaining rights to certain state employees in supervisory and managerial roles. The bill would establish separate bargaining units for those employees. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 16.
  • Maryland HB275 and Maryland SB247: These companion bills would extend collective bargaining rights to certain faculty, teaching assistants, graduate assistants, fellows, and postdoctoral interns at University System of Maryland institutions, Morgan State University, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HB275: House Appropriations Committee hearing Feb. 14.
    • SB247: Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 16.  
  • Maryland HB490: This bill would require the Maryland Department of Health to disclose certain information about residential service agency employees providing home health care to a union upon request.
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • House Health and Government Operations Committee hearing Feb. 23.
  • Maryland HB579 and Maryland SB494: These companion bills would require the Secretary of Budget and Management to assign or reassign certain Department of Education employees to appropriate bargaining units.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HB579: House Appropriations Committee hearing March 9.
    • SB494: Senate Finance Committee hearing March 3. Favorable report March 9.
  • Maryland HB637 and Maryland SB428: These companion bills would allow sworn deputy sheriffs and correctional deputies at the rank of sergeant and below to bargain collectively with their employers. The bills would not authorize such employees to strike.
    • Sponsored by Washington County Delegation (HB637) and Washington County Senators (SB428). 
    • HB637: House Appropriations Committee hearing March 9.
    • SB428: Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee hearing Feb. 21.
  • Maryland HB764: This bill would allow either party to the collective bargaining agreement for Montgomery County Housing Opportunities Commission employees to request the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator. The bill would establish procedures for mediation-arbitration.
    • Sponsored by Montgomery County Delegation.
    • House Appropriations Committee hearing March 7. 
  • Maryland HB797: This bill would allow either party to the collective bargaining agreement for Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission employees to request the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator. The bill would establish procedures for mediation-arbitration.
    • Sponsored by Montgomery County Delegation and Prince George’s County Delegation.
    • House Appropriations Committee hearing March 9.
  • Maryland HB984 and Maryland SB367: These companion bills would consolidate and amend public employee collective bargaining laws. They would stipulate rights and duties of employers, employees, and unions. The bills would establish the Public Employee Relations Board and repeal other existing boards. The bills would stipulate that public school employers, employees, and unions are subject to Title 21 of the State Government Article.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HB984: First reading House Appropriations Committee Feb. 10. Committee hearing March 7.
    • SB367: Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 16.
  • Maryland SB680: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to certain county public library employees. The bill would prohibit employees from striking.
    • Democratic sponsorship.      
    • Senate Finance Committee hearing scheduled for March 10. Hearing canceled Feb. 27. Withdrawn by sponsor March 8. 
  • Maryland SB645: This bill would change the permitted subjects of collective bargaining for full-time law enforcement and court security officers to salary, wages, hours, and other employment matters managed by the sheriff or city. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • First reading Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Feb. 6. Committee hearing Feb. 23. 
  • Michigan HB4004: This bill would repeal a section of law prohibiting public employees from being required to join or financially support a union. The bill stipulates that a public employer may “[make] an agreement with an exclusive bargaining representative … to require as a condition of employment that all other employees in the bargaining unit pay to the exclusive bargaining representative a service fee equivalent to the amount of dues uniformly required of members of the exclusive bargaining representative.”  
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • House Labor Committee reported with recommendation without amendment March 8. Second reading, substitute bill adopted. Third reading. House passed March 8, transmitted to Senate. Referred to Senate Labor Committee March 9.  
  • Minnesota HF827: This bill would add certain requirements for teacher preparation time that must be included in collective bargaining agreements, such as requiring one or two uninterrupted blocks of preparation time, with additional time for certain teachers. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • House Education Policy Committee hearings Feb. 15, Feb. 22, March 1. House Education Policy Committee recommends to adopt as amended and re-refer to House Education Finance March 6. 
  • Minnesota HF1600: This bill would require the commissioner of management and budget to consider only compensation data from the most recent salary and benefits survey when negotiating compensation as part of a collective bargaining agreement with law enforcement officers. The bill notes, “It is the legislature’s intent that the information in this study be used to compare salaries between the identified police departments and the State Patrol and to make appropriate increases to patrol trooper salaries.”
    • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
    • Introduction and first reading, referred to House State and Local Government Finance and Policy Committee Feb. 13. Committee hearing March 7. 
  • Minnesota HF1690 and Minnesota SF1633: These companion bills would stipulate that public employers and unions are not liable for requiring agency fees from public employees. The bills would require public employers to provide exclusive representatives with certain contact information within 10 days of hiring a new employee, as well as a document containing certain contact information for all employees in the bargaining unit every 120 days. The bills would also require public employers to allow exclusive representatives access to employees, including on employer premises.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HF1690: Introduction and first reading, referred to House Labor and Industry Finance and Policy Committee Feb. 13. Committee hearings Feb. 28, March 7.
    • SF1633: Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee Feb. 13. Withdrawn and referred to Senate Education Finance Committee Feb. 20. 
  • Minnesota HF1691 and Minnesota SF1632: These companion bills would stipulate that public employers and unions are not liable for requiring agency fees from public employees. The bills would require public employers to provide exclusive representatives with certain contact information within 10 days of hiring a new employee, as well as a document containing certain contact information for all employees in the bargaining unit every 120 days. The bills would also require public employers to allow exclusive representatives access to employees, including on employer premises.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HF1691: Introduction and first reading, referred to House Education Policy Committee Feb. 13. House Education Policy Committee hearing March 1, committee recommends to adopt and re-refer to House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee March 6. House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee hearing March 9. 
    • SF1632: Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee Feb. 13. Withdrawn and re-referred to Senate Labor Committee Feb. 20. Withdrawn and re-referred to Senate Education Policy Committee Feb. 27. Education Policy Committee hearing Feb. 28. Committee reports to pass and re-refer to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee March 2. 
  • Minnesota HF2463 and Minnesota SF2456: These companion bills would remove the requirement for the legislature to review state employee collective bargaining agreements and arbitration awards.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HF2463: Introduction and first reading, referred to House State and Local Government Finance and Policy Committee March 2. 
    • SF2456: Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee March 2. Committee hearing March 7. 
  • Minnesota SF2742: This bill would amend the circumstances under which teachers may strike to include a school district not offering a collective bargaining agreement with terms providing for the “maximum increase available” to salary and benefits. The bill would require the school district to calculate the maximum increase available based on changes in the state’s gross domestic product and district population, with guidance from the commissioner of management and budget,and notify the exclusive representative of the maximum increase available. If a collective bargaining agreement exceeds the maximum increase available, the bill would require a school district to explain the increase to district residents at an open meeting.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee March 8.
  • Montana HB448: This bill would stipulate that public employees have the right not to join or assist a union. It would provide that public employees may revoke dues authorizations at any time with 30 days’ notice to the public employer. It would require public employers to notify employees who submit a dues authorization form of their right to revoke the authorization. The bill would require employers to display a notice titled “Employee freedom of choice” and provide the notice to employees upon the beginning and end of employment.  
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • House Business and Labor Committee hearing Feb. 17. Tabled in committee Feb. 22. Motion to take the bill from committee and place on second reading failed March 1. 
  • Montana HB698: This bill would require certain “proof of interest” documentation in order for a petition to the Montana Board of Personnel Appeals to raise a question concerning representation. The bill would stipulate that a union may only be certified as an exclusive representative for public employees if it receives the majority of votes in a secret ballot election. The bill would provide that public employees may petition the Montana Board of Personnel Appeals to decertify an exclusive representative or choose a different union as the exclusive representative any time after the 12-month period following a valid election.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Introduced Feb. 20. Referred to House State Administration Committee Feb. 21. Committee hearing Feb. 27, tabled in committee. 
  • Montana SB343: This bill would prohibit public employers from providing compensation or paid leave to public employees for time the employee spends on union activities. The bill would also prohibit public employers from reimbursing expenses a public employee incurs while engaged in union activities.  
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Introduced Feb. 14. Referred to Senate Local Government Committee Feb. 15. Committee hearing Feb. 22. Tabled in committee Feb. 23. 
  • Nevada AB172: This bill would require every local government employer to provide recognized unions with certain contact information for all employees in the bargaining unit twice a year. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Read first time, referred to Assembly Government Affairs Committee Feb. 15. Committee hearing March 2. 
  • Nevada AB211: This bill would authorize supplemental bargaining between local government employers and an exclusive representative for law enforcement dispatchers to negotiate for dispatchers to participate in the Police and Firefighters’ Retirement Fund, under certain circumstances. It would also authorize the same between the State of Nevada Executive Department and an exclusive representative for law enforcement dispatchers.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Read first time, referred to Assembly Government Affairs Committee Feb. 22. Committee hearing March 8. 
  • Nevada AB224: This bill would authorize collective bargaining between State of Nevada Executive Department employers employing 400 or more professional employees and certain professional employees. The bill would provide for the designation of exclusive representatives and establish collective bargaining procedures. 
    • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
    • Read first time, referred to Assembly Government Affairs Committee Feb. 23. Committee hearing March 9. 
  • Nevada SB206: This bill would provide that any collective bargaining provision limiting the authority of a school district board of trustees to terminate or reassign a school staff member of a school converted to a department charter school is unenforceable and void.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Read first time, referred to Senate Education Committee March 2. From printer, to committee March 3.
  • New Hampshire HB134: This bill would establish the Legislature as a public employer and establish collective bargaining procedures for nonpartisan legislative employees. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • House Legislative Administration Committee executive session March 8. 
  • New Hampshire HB150: This bill would decrease the number of employees required to certify a public employee collective bargaining unit from 10 to five. 
    • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
    • House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee executive session Feb. 16.
  • New Hampshire HB241: This bill would define a reasonable opportunity for school district employees to meet with the school district for collective bargaining negotiations as being before 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on scheduled work days.
    • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
    • House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee executive session Feb. 16. Committee reports “inexpedient to legislate” March 6.
  • New Hampshire SB193: This bill stipulates that negotiating in good faith requires parties to meet for bargaining within 10 days of receiving a written request, unless mutually agreed otherwise.
    • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
    • Senate Commerce Committee reports “ought to pass” March 7. 
  • New York A04823: This bill would void the terms of any collective bargaining agreement between a public employer and police union that authorized increased pay for implementing the use of body-worn cameras.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Assembly Governmental Employees Committee Feb. 23. 
  • New York A04739: This bill would stipulate that an impasse is deemed to exist if more than one year has passed since the expiration of a public employee collective bargaining agreement or interest arbitration award. The bill would stipulate that the same criteria apply to a presumption of bad faith in the context of an improper practice charge, and that a strike occuring after that time period “shall be presumed to have been one caused by acts of extreme provocation.” 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Assembly Governmental Employees Committee Feb. 23.
  • Oklahoma HB2026: This bill would require the Office of Management and Enterprise Services to provide a state employee union with a monthly report of employees who have opted-in to union membership. 
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • House Government Modernization and Technology Committee hearing Feb. 21, committee recommends “do pass.” 
  • Oklahoma HB2543: This bill would require school district employees to sign an annual authorization form containing language specified in the bill in order for the school district to deduct union dues from employees’ pay.
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • House Appropriations and Budget Committee hearing Feb. 22.
  • Oklahoma SB99: This bill would require that school district employee union dues payroll deductions must be reauthorized on an annual basis on a form provided by the Secretary of Education. The bill would prohibit debt to a union from accruing after an employee has requested to terminate dues deductions.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Senate Education Committee recommends “do pass” as amended by committee substitute Feb. 28. 
  • Oregon HB2573: This bill would require the Employment Relations Board to develop procedures for the electronic preparation of authorizations designating bargaining representatives and for the electronic signing of those authorizations. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • House Business and Labor Committee work session March 13. 
  • Oregon HB2703: This bill would remove language limiting the inclusion of class size and caseload limits as mandatory subjects of collective bargaining to schools qualifying for Title 1 assistance.  
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • House Education Committee public hearing March 6.
  • Oregon HB2864: This bill would allow unions to charge “reasonable fees and costs for representation that are unrelated to the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement” to non-union Department of Corrections employees, Oregon Corrections Enterprises employees, and parole or probation officers supervising adult offenders.
    • Democratic sponsorship.  
    • House Business and Labor Committee work session March 6. 
  • Oregon HB3270: This bill would stipulate that certain emergency communications workers and police officers are not supervisory employees for collective bargaining purposes.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • First reading, referred to speaker’s desk Feb. 21. Referred to House Business and Labor Committee Feb. 23. 
  • Oregon SB194: This bill would exclude certain Oregon State Police employees from being defined as supervisory employees for collective bargaining purposes.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Senate Labor and Business Committee recommends “do pass,” second reading Feb. 13. Passed third reading Feb. 21. First reading in House, referred to speaker’s desk Feb. 28. Referred to House Business and Labor Committee March 3.
  • Oregon SB1067: This bill would stipulate that “standards, requirements or procedures relating to body-worn cameras” are excluded from the definition of “employment relations” for the purpose of law enforcement collective bargaining. The bill would prohibit unions from negotiating over such matters.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate president’s desk Feb. 27. Referred to Senate Labor and Business Committee March 1. 
  • Pennsylvania SB399: This bill would provide that a public employer must provide notice on its website—or, if it does not have a website, in its main office—at least two weeks before and 30 days after signing a collective bargaining agreement including the terms of the agreement and estimated costs to the public employer. The bill would stipulate that proposed collective bargaining agreements and related documents are public records, and that proposed agreements must be posted on the public employer’s website within 48 hours of receipt.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Senate State Government Committee Feb. 21. 
  • Pennsylvania SB405: This bill would provide that a public employee has the right to examine on a regular basis how the union representing the employee’s bargaining unit uses the membership dues it collects. The bill would provide that a union must file quarterly reports with the names of all union officers and employees, the annual salary and benefits of all union officers and employees, a detailed summary of union expenses, and information about independent expenditures made to influence elections. The bill would require the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board to make these reports publicly available online along with copies of all collective bargaining agreements. The bill would require public employers to provide copies of collective bargaining agreements to the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board within 15 days of the agreement being signed. 
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Senate Labor and Industry Committee Feb. 21.
  • Rhode Island H5180 and Rhode Island S0426: These companion bills would establish a dispute arbitration method for municipal employees. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • H5180: House Labor Committee hearing March 1, committee recommended measure be held for further study. 
    • S0426: Introduced, referred to Senate Labor Committee Feb. 16.
  • Texas HB1579 and Texas SB1436: These companion bills would stipulate that the requirements the bills impose for the investigation of municipal firefighters supersede any collective bargaining or meet and confer provisions in conflict with the requirements.  
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HB1579: Read first time, referred to House Urban Affairs Committee March 3. 
    • SB1436: Filed March 2. 
  • Texas HB2519: This bill would stipulate that a collective bargaining agreement or meet and confer agreement between a public employer and police union must “implement the progressive disciplinary matrix” the bill requires for municipal police officers and “may not conflict with and does not supersede an ordinance, order, statute, or rule concerning the disciplinary actions that may be imposed on a police officer under the progressive disciplinary matrix.” 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Filed Feb. 21. 
  • Texas HB2917: This bill would prohibit a municipality from entering into a collective bargaining agreement or meet and confer agreement with a police union unless community members have been allowed to review and comment on the agreement.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Filed Feb. 27. 
  • Texas SB736: This bill would establish mandatory binding interest arbitration for fire departments serving a municipality of at least 1.9 million people.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Read first time, referred to Senate Local Government Committee March 1.
  • Utah HB0241: This bill would prohibit public employers from deducting union dues from public employee wages. It would prohibit the use of public funds to support union activities. It would prohibit public employers from restricting unions from accessing public property that is accessible to others.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Filed in House file for bills not passed March 3. 
  • Utah HB0243: This bill would stipulate that supervisors, managerial employees, and confidential employees are not included as public transit district employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. 
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Senate Business and Labor hearing Feb. 10, favorable recommendation. Passed second reading Feb. 15. Passed third reading, signed by Senate president, returned to the House, signed by House Speaker, and sent for enrolling Feb. 16.    
  • Vermont H0293: This bill would add a section to Vermont’s court procedure law to create a union agent-represented worker privilege to refuse to disclose confidential communication, with certain exceptions. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Read first time, referred to House Judiciary Committee Feb. 21. 
  • Vermont H0296: This bill would allow a union to be recognized as an exclusive representative for state or school board employees by voluntary recognition or by majority sign-up, instead of by secret ballot only.    
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Read first time, referred to House General and Housing Committee Feb. 21.
  • Vermont H0338: This bill would repeal a law stating that state employees and judiciary employees “may not strike or recognize a picket line of an employee or labor organization while in the performance of [their] official duties.” 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Read first time, referred to House General and Housing Committee Feb. 22. 
  • Vermont H0454: This bill would establish a statewide bargaining unit for Vermont State Colleges adjunct faculty members, excluding employees of Vermont Technical College.  
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • Read first time, referred to House General and Housing Committee March 1. 
  • Vermont S0102: This bill would allow the State Labor Relations Board to certify a union as an exclusive representative for state employees based on a petition that a majority of members of the bargaining unit have signed. It would also allow unions to bring enforcement actions on behalf of the state for violations of the good cause standard for employment termination established by the bill.  
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs Committee hearing Feb. 23. Read first time, referred to Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs Committee Feb. 24. Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs Committee hearings March 1 and March 2.
  • Washington HB1122 and Washington SB5141: These companion bills would grant certain Washington management service members the right to bargain collectively. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HB1122: House Appropriations Committee executive session Feb. 20. Majority recommends “do pass” second substitute bill. Referred to House Rules Committee Feb. 23. Placed on second reading March 2. Second substitute bill substituted March 4. Third reading passed March 4. First reading in Senate, referred to Senate Labor & Commerce Committee March 7. Senate Labor & Commerce Committee executive session March 14. 
    • SB5141:  Senate Ways and Means Committee public hearing Feb. 16. Executive session Feb. 24, no action taken. 
  • Washington HB1200: This bill would require public employers to provide exclusive bargaining representatives with information including employee name, date of hire, contact information, and employment and salary information within 10 days of hiring a new employee in the bargaining unit. All information for every employee in the unit must be sent to the exclusive bargaining representative at specified intervals. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Placed on second reading March 1. First substitute bill substituted March 2. Third reading passed March 2. First reading, referred to Senate Labor & Commerce Committee March 6, public hearing March 16.
  • Washington HB1307: This bill would grant collective bargaining rights to resident and fellow physicians at public university medical schools. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • House Appropriations Committee public hearing Feb. 13, executive session Feb. 23.
  • Washington HB1774 and Washington SB5694: These companion bills would allow the office of financial management more flexibility to use the state salary survey in collective bargaining negotiations. The bills would require classification plans to be negotiated with the relevant employee union. The bills would include the benchmark descriptions and job classifications used in conducting salary surveys as subjects of collective bargaining. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HB1774: House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee executive session Feb. 17. No action taken. 
    • SB5694: Senate State Government & Elections Committee executive session Feb. 17. Majority recommends “do pass.” Referred to Senate Ways and Means Committee. 
  • Wisconsin AB28: This bill would classify county jailers as protective occupation participants. The bill would stipulate that county jailers are general municipal employees unless a county is already treating county jailers as public safety employees when the bill goes into effect. However, if a county “raises a question concerning the appropriateness of including county jailers in a collective bargaining unit that includes public safety employees,” county jailers may not be treated as public safety employees.
    • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
    • Read first time, referred to Assembly State Affairs Committee Feb. 10. Fiscal estimate received, public hearing held March 1. Assembly State Affairs Committee recommends adoption of Assembly Amendment 1 and passage as amended March 8. Referred to Assembly Rules Committee March 8, placed on calendar for March 14.
  • Wisconsin SB28: This bill would classify county jailers as protective occupation participants. The bill would stipulate that county jailers are general municipal employees unless a county is already treating county jailers as public safety employees when the bill goes into effect. However, if a county “raises a question concerning the appropriateness of including county jailers in a collective bargaining unit that includes public safety employees,” county jailers may not be treated as public safety employees.
    • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
    • Fiscal estimates received Feb. 9, Feb. 17.  

Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Email us at editor@ballotpedia.org with any feedback or recommendations.