Author

Ballotpedia staff

Michigan Democrats seek to repeal law prohibiting public employees from being required to pay union fees

By Ballotpedia staff
In Newsletters
February 10, 2023 at 3:00 PM

Fifty-one Democratic members of the Michigan House of Representatives and all 20 Democratic senators are sponsoring companion bills that would repeal a section of law prohibiting public employees from being required to pay union fees. 

Also in today’s newsletter: an update on public-sector union lawsuits at the Supreme Court and an update on union membership from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

About the Michigan bills 

House Bill 4004 and Senate Bill 0005 were both introduced on Jan. 12 and referred to the respective chambers’ Labor Committees. 

Part of the law the bills would repeal currently says, “No person shall by force, intimidation, or unlawful threats compel or attempt to compel any public employee to … [b]ecome or remain a member of a labor organization or bargaining representative or otherwise affiliate with or financially support a labor organization or bargaining representative.” 

If enacted, the bills would add, “[T]his act or any other law of this state does not preclude a public employer from making an agreement with an exclusive bargaining representative as described in section 11 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.” 

In its 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, the U.S. Supreme Court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-member employees to pay fees to support union activities. According to The Detroit News’ Beth LeBlanc, “Sponsors of the bills said the inclusion of public sector unions is an acknowledgment of the Democratic majority’s commitment to all workers as well as a placeholder if the Janus decision should be overturned in the future.” 

Democrats gained a trifecta in Michigan as a result of the 2022 elections. 

Perspectives

Support

Michigan Education Association representative Thomas Morgan said, “It’s important to us that we already have state laws in place so if the Supreme Court does reconsider Janus down the road we have laws on the books (in Michigan) that allow workers to have their rights.” 

Sen. Darrin Camilleri (D), the lead sponsor of the Senate bill, said, “It’s important for us to think about the laws we want regardless of what the Supreme Court says is precedent because they’ve shown precedent doesn’t mean much anymore.” 

Rep. Regina Weiss (D), the lead sponsor of the House bill, said, “We’ve seen with the Supreme Court, decisions are made, decisions are changed.”

Opposition

Mackinac Center for Public Policy vice president for legal affairs Patrick Wright said, “A state legislature cannot overturn a U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of First Amendment rights. … These bills show a grave lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the rights of public employees. This attempt to put forth blatantly unconstitutional legislation is concerning.”

Michigan Capitol Confidential’s James David Dickson said, “House Bill 4004, if passed, would result in litigation on an issue recently settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Public sector employees have right-to-work protections. Michigan law would not override the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the highest court in the land.” Michigan Capitol Confidential is a publication of the Mackinac Center.

The Detroit News editorial board said, “Unions and Democrats know their legislation is unenforceable and already trumped by the court’s ruling. … It’s an irresponsible approach to legislating likely to create a confusing legal landscape for public sector workers in Michigan.”

As of Feb. 10, neither bill had been placed on the agenda for consideration in either committee. To check the bills’ status in each committee, click here and here.  

Supreme Court update

The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied requests to review four cases related to Janus. The justices are scheduled to consider three other related cases on Feb. 17. To view the current status of all the cases we’re tracking, click here.

Bureau of Labor Statistics releases annual union membership estimates

On Jan. 19, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its annual estimates of union membership in the United States. The full press release and data can be found here.

The BLS estimates that 33.1% of public-sector workers nationwide were union members in 2022, roughly five times the membership rate in the private sector (6.0%). In 2021, public-sector union membership was estimated at 33.9%. In 2020, it was 34.8%, and in 2019, it was 33.6%.

  • An estimated 38.8% of local government workers were union members in 2022, down from 40.2% in 2021.
  • An estimated 29.9% of state workers were union members in 2022, up from 29.6% in 2021.
  • An estimated 24.4% of federal workers were union members in 2022, down from 24.9% in 2021.

Commentary

  • AFSCME President Lee Saunders said, “We can’t ignore that anti-worker forces have tried to make it as difficult as possible to join a union, but workers aren’t backing down. … When we have a seat at the table, we receive higher wages, better benefits, and job and retirement security that helps to build stronger, more prosperous communities. And, as the BLS data reveal, these benefits are critical to leveling the playing field for women and workers of color.”
  • Mailee Smith, senior director of labor policy at Illinois Policy, said, “While the raw number of government employees increased, the percentage of those choosing to be union members decreased. … One of the most common reasons: government employees don’t feel well represented by their unions. Union leaders’ political agendas and the labor strife created by strikes get in the way of what unions are supposed to be doing.”

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 102 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. 
    • Read first time, referred to House Labor & Commerce Committee Jan. 25. Committee hearings Jan. 30, Feb. 10. 
  • Arizona HB2110: This bill would repeal the state’s prohibition of denying employment due to nonmembership in a union.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced, read first time, and referred to House Commerce, Government, and Rules Committees Jan. 23. House read second time Jan. 24. 
  • Arizona HCR2008: This bill would refer a measure to the 2024 general election ballot to repeal Article XXV of the Arizona Constitution, titled “Right to Work or Employment without Membership in Labor Organization.”
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced, read first time Jan. 26. Assigned to House Commerce, Government, and Rules Committees. Read second time Jan. 30. 
  • Arizona SB1479:This bill would repeal the state’s prohibition of denying employment due to nonmembership in a union.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced, read first time, and referred to Senate Commerce Committee and Senate Rules Committee Feb. 2. Senate read second time Feb. 9. 
  • Arizona SB1670: This bill would create the Public Employee Bargaining Act, which would give public employees the right to join a union and meet and confer with a public employer through an exclusive representative without interference or discrimination. The bill would establish a public employee labor relations board to designate appropriate bargaining units, certify exclusive representatives, and hear complaints. The bill would allow public employers besides the state to establish local labor relations boards. The bill would prohibit strikes. 
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • Introduced, read first time, and referred to Senate Government Committee and Senate Rules Committee Feb. 7. Senate read second time Feb. 9.
  • Arizona SCR1030: This bill would refer a measure to the 2024 general election ballot to repeal Article XXV of the Arizona Constitution, titled “Right to Work or Employment without Membership in Labor Organization.”  
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced, read first time Feb. 2. Assigned to Senate Commerce and Rules Committees Feb. 2. Senate read second time Feb. 9.
  • California AB1: This bill would establish the “Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act,” which would allow state legislative employees to organize and bargain collectively. The act would go into effect on July 1, 2024. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee Jan. 26.
  • 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. 
    • Introduced, read first time, referred to Senate Rules Committee for assignment Feb. 7.
  • 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. 
    • Introduced, referred to Senate Local Government & Housing Committee Jan. 31.
  • Connecticut HB06285: This bill would make it a discriminatory practice for any employer to ask an employee whether they had previously been a union member. The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities would be responsible for enforcement.  
    • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Joint Labor and Public Employees Committee Jan. 19. Reserved for subject matter public hearing Jan. 26. Public hearing Feb. 7.  
  • Connecticut SB00482: This bill would require collective bargaining agreements and notices for state and municipal employees to include “a clear and conspicuous statement of an employee’s right to not be a member of an employee organization.”  
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Joint Labor and Public Employees Committee Jan. 18. 
  • Connecticut SB00650: This bill would repeal a section of law allowing the terms of state employee collective bargaining agreements and arbitration awards to supersede conflicting state law.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Joint Appropriations Committee Jan. 18. 
  • Connecticut SB00912: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to probate court employees as of Oct. 1, 2023.
    • Committee-introduced bill. 
    • Referred to Joint Labor and Public Employees Committee Jan. 26. Public hearing Jan. 31.
  • Hawaii HB334 and Hawaii SB1049: These companion bills 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. 
    • HB334 introduced, passed first reading Jan. 20. Referred to House Labor & Government Operations and House Finance Committees Jan. 25. Labor & Government Operations Committee hearing Feb. 7. Committee recommendation: pass with amendments.
    • SB1049 introduced Jan. 20, passed first reading Jan. 23. Referred to Senate Labor and Technology/Public Safety and Intergovernmental and Military Affairs and Senate Ways and Means Committees Jan. 27.
  • 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.
    • Introduced, passed first reading Jan. 25. Referred to House Labor & Government Operations Committee and House Finance Committee Jan. 30. 
  • 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. 
    • Sent to the governor Feb. 3. 
  • 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. 
    • First reading, referred to House Rules Committee Jan. 12. 
  • 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. 
    • First reading, referred to House Rules Committee Jan. 12.  
  • 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. 
    • Referred to House Labor & Commerce Committee Feb. 7.  
  • Illinois SB0292: This bill would require any charter school receiving state funding to enter into a labor peace agreement with a charter school employee union seeking such an agreement within 60 days of receiving notification of the union’s intention. The agreement would be required to prohibit the union from engaging in work stoppages, and it would be required to prohibit the charter school and union from harassing or coercing employees with regard to protected activities. The charter school would be required to allow union representatives to meet privately with employees.     
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • First reading Feb. 2. Referred to Senate Executive Committee Feb. 7.
  • Maryland HB65 and Maryland SB352: These companion bills would extend collective bargaining rights to certain county public library employees. The bills would prohibit employees from striking.  
    • Democratic sponsorship (HB65), bipartisan sponsorship (SB352).
    • HB65: House Appropriations Committee hearing Jan. 31. 
    • SB352: First reading Senate Finance Commitee and Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee Jan. 30. Finance Committee hearing Feb. 16.   
  • Maryland HB85 and Maryland SB206: These companion bills would repeal a provision that says maximum class size is not subject to collective bargaining negotiation.  
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HB85: House Ways and Means Committee hearing Feb. 1.
    • SB206: First reading Senate Finance Committee Jan. 20. Committee hearing Feb. 9. 
  • Maryland HB116 and Maryland SB284: These companion bills would extend collective bargaining rights to certain employees of the Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HB116: House Appropriations Committee hearing Jan. 24.
    • SB284: First reading Senate Finance Committee and Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee Jan. 27. Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 16.
  • Maryland HB183 and Maryland SB298: These companion bills 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. 
    • HB183: First reading House Appropriations Committee Jan. 18. Committee hearing Jan. 31. 
    • SB298: First reading Senate Finance Committee Jan. 27. 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: First reading House Appropriations Committee Jan. 25, hearing Feb. 14.
    • SB247: First reading Senate Finance Committee Jan. 25. Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 16.  
  • Maryland HB380 and Maryland SB218: These companion bills would require appropriations in the budget for implementing the terms of memoranda of understanding between the state and state employee unions. It would propose a constitutional amendment for the November 2024 ballot that would provide for related expenditures. The bill would require a neutral arbitrator to be selected to oversee collective bargaining negotiations. The bill would add fringe benefits, health benefits, and pension benefits as mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HB380: First reading House Appropriations Committee Jan. 26. House Appropriations Committee hearing Feb. 7. 
    • SB218: First reading Senate Budget and Taxation Committee and Senate Finance Committee Jan. 23. Senate Budget and Taxation Committee hearing Feb. 1. 
  • Maryland HB490 and Maryland SB230: These companion bills would require the Maryland Department of Health to disclose certain information about residential service agency employees providing home healthcare to a union upon request.
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • HB490: First reading House Health and Government Operations Committee Jan. 30. Hearing Feb. 23.
    • SB230: First reading Senate Finance Committee Jan. 23. Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 9.
  • 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: First reading House Appropriations Committee Feb. 3.
    • SB494: First reading Senate Finance Committee Feb. 3. Hearing March 3. 
  • 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: First reading House Appropriations Committee Feb. 3.
    • SB428: First reading Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Feb. 2. 
  • Maryland SB367: This bill, called the Public Employee Relations Act,  would consolidate and amend public employee collective bargaining laws. It would stipulate rights and duties of employers, employees, and unions. The bill would establish the Public Employee Relations Board and repeal other existing boards. The bill would stipulate that public school employers, employees, and unions are subject to Title 21 of the State Government Article, and it would authorize binding arbitration for public school employees.  
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • First reading Senate Finance Committee and Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee Jan. 31. 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.      
    • First reading Senate Finance Committee Feb. 6. Hearing March 10. 
  • Michigan HB4004 and Michigan SB0005: These companion bills would repeal a section of law prohibiting public employees from being required to join or financially support a union. The bills stipulate 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. 
    • HB4004: Introduced, first reading, referred to House Labor Committee Jan. 12. 
    • SB0005: Introduced, referred to Senate Labor Committee Jan. 12. 
  • Minnesota HF827 and Minnesota SF680: These companion bills 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. 
    • HF827 introduction and first reading, referred to House Education Policy Committee Jan. 25. 
    • SF680 introduction and first reading, referred to Senate Education Policy Committee Jan. 25. Hearing Feb. 1. 
  • Minnesota HF859 and Minnesota SF1400: These companion bills would remove a limitation on what counts as covered salary for retirement contributions for teachers working for a union. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduction and first reading, referred to House State and Local Government Finance and Policy Committee Jan. 25. 
    • SF1400: Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee Feb. 8. 
  • Minnesota SF771: 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.
    • Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate Education Policy Committee Jan. 26. 
  • Minnesota SF857: This bill would repeal statutory language allowing public employee labor organizations to collect fair share fees or otherwise referring to fair share fees.  
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee Jan. 27.
  • Minnesota SF1406: 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.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Introduction and first reading, referred to Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee Feb. 8. 
  • Minnesota SF1506: 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 Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee Feb. 9. 
  • Missouri SB54: This bill would bar employers from requiring employees to join or refrain from joining a union as a condition of employment in counties that adopt the provisions of the section.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Referred Senate General Laws Committee Jan. 12.
  • Montana HB216: This bill would state that public employees may not be required to join or financially support a union as a condition of employment. It would allow public employees to cancel their union membership and cease financial support at any time. It would prohibit public employers from withdrawing union dues from employees’ pay without informing employees annually that union membership and financial support are voluntary and without receiving annual affirmative written consent for dues deductions.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Referred to House Judiciary Committee Jan. 13. Hearing canceled, referred to House State Administration Committee Jan. 16. Hearing Jan. 24. Tabled in committee Feb. 6.  
  • 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 public hearing Feb. 6. 
  • 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 public hearing Jan. 26.
  • 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 public hearing Feb. 7. 
  • 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. 
    • Introduced Jan. 19. Referred to Senate Commerce Committee Jan. 24. Hearing Feb. 7. 
  • New York A03655: This bill would remove not continuing the terms of an expired collective bargaining agreement from a list of improper practices for public employers.
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • Referred to Assembly Governmental Employees Committee Feb. 3.
  • New York A03757: This bill would prohibit public employers from taking adverse action against an employee who is elected or appointed to represent a union or who comments on matters affecting the union.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Assembly Governmental Employees Committee Feb. 7.
  • New York A03762: This bill would require the New York state power authority and the union representing power authority employees to submit disputes to a public arbitration panel.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Assembly Governmental Employees Committee Feb. 7.
  • New York S01500: 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 Senate Civil Service and Pensions Committee Jan. 12. 
  • Ohio SB47: This bill would prohibit public employers from providing paid leave or compensation to employees in order for the employee to engage in political or lobbying activities on behalf of a union. 
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Introduced Feb. 7, referred to Senate Judiciary Committee Feb. 8. 
  • Oklahoma HB1761: This bill would require school districts to continue to pay and maintain benefits for school employees during an approved leave of absence to hold office in a union. 
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • First reading Feb. 6. Second reading referred to House Common Education Committee Feb. 7. 
  • 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.
    • First reading Feb. 6. Second reading referred to House Government Modernization and Technology Committee Feb. 7.
  • Oklahoma HB2529: This bill prohibits school districts from deducting union dues from employee pay. 
    •  Republican sponsorship.
    • First reading Feb. 6. Second reading referred to House Rules Committee Feb. 7.
  • 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.
    • First reading Feb. 6. Second reading referred to House Appropriations and Budget Committee Feb. 7.
  • Oklahoma SB75: This bill would require annual authorizations for payroll dues deductions for school employees. It would require school employees to sign an annual authorization form before school districts may deduct union dues or political contributions from employee paychecks. The bill would prescribe the wording of the authorization form. It would also require school districts to confirm authorizations by email before deducting dues. 
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • First reading Feb. 6. Second reading referred to Senate Education Committee Feb. 7.
  • Oklahoma SB928: This bill would prohibit public schools from recognizing a union as a collective bargaining unit and entering into a collective bargaining agreement with a union.
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • First reading Feb. 6. Second reading referred to Senate Education Committee Feb. 7.
  • 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 public hearing Jan. 25. 
  • 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. 
    • Referred to House Education Committee with subsequent referral to House Ways and Means Committee Jan. 13. 
  • 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.  
    • Referred to House Business and Labor Committee Jan. 16. Public hearing Jan. 30. 
  • Oregon HB2934: This bill would prohibit a public employer from deducting union dues or fees from public employee pay.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Referred to House Business and Labor Committee Jan. 16. 
  • Oregon HB3149: This bill would add job safety issues and staffing levels as mandatory subjects of collective bargaining for public employees. 
    • Committee-introduced bill.   
    • First reading, referred to speaker’s desk Jan. 26. Referred to House Business and Labor Committee Jan. 30.
  • Oregon HB3165: This bill would change the definition of “supervisory employee” to exclude the following public employees prohibited from striking: emergency communications workers, correctional institution or mental hospital guards, and police officers.
    • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
    • First reading Jan. 31. Referred to House Business and Labor Committee Feb. 2.
  • Oregon SB187: This bill would repeal ORS 243.738, which prohibits mass transit district employees, transportation district employees, and municipal bus system employees from striking.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Senate Labor and Business Committee Jan. 13.
  • Oregon SB194: This bill would exclude certain Oregon State Police employees from being defined as supervisory employees for collective bargaining purposes.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Referred to Senate Labor and Business Committee Jan. 13. Public hearing Jan. 31. Public hearing and work session Feb. 7. 
  • Oregon SB845: This bill would require a panel of three arbitrators to adjudicate public employment disputes, with the public employer and exclusive representative each selecting one arbitrator, and the third arbitrator being selected jointly. The bill would stipulate that the panel should consider employee working conditions, as defined in the bill, when determining their findings and opinions. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced Feb. 2, referred to Senate Labor and Business Committee Feb. 3.  
  • Rhode Island H5180: This bill would establish a dispute arbitration method for municipal employees. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced, referred to House Labor Committee Jan. 19. 
  • 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. 
    • Received by the secretary of the Senate, filed Feb. 7.
  • 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. 
    • First reading in House Rules Committee Jan. 20. Fiscal note received from analyst Jan. 24 
  • 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. 
    • Introduced, first reading in House Jan. 20. Fiscal note received from analyst Jan. 24. Referred to House Transportation Committee Jan. 26. House Transportation Committee hearing Feb. 2, favorable report. Second reading Feb. 3. Third reading Feb. 6, House passed and sent to Senate. First reading in Senate Rules Committee Feb. 7. Senate Business and Labor Committee hearing Feb. 8, bill not considered.  
  • Washington HB1122 and Washington SB5141: These companion bills would remove statutory language excluding certain Washington management service members from collective bargaining units.  
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • HB1122: House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee passed substitute bill Jan. 20. Referred to House Appropriations Committee Jan. 24. House Appropriations Committee public hearing Feb. 1, executive session Feb. 8. 
    • SB5141:  Senate Labor & Commerce Committee public hearing Jan. 23, executive session Jan. 31, substitute bill passed. Referred to Senate Ways and Means Committee Feb. 1. 
  • Washington HB1200 and Washington SB5273: These companion bills 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. 
    • HB1200: House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee executive session Jan. 27, substitute bill passed. Referred to Rules 2 Review Jan. 31.
    • SB5273: Senate Labor & Commerce Committee public hearing Jan. 23. 
  • Washington HB1307: This bill would grant collective bargaining rights to resident and fellow physicians at public university medical schools. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • First reading, referred to House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee Jan. 13. Public hearing Jan. 25. Executive session Feb. 3, passed. Referred to House Appropriations Committee Feb. 7. 
  • Washington HB1429: This bill would prohibit certificated school district employees from participating in a strike. It would prohibit school districts from paying employees while they strike. It would also prohibit school districts from agreeing to compensation or benefit increases in response to a strike. The bill would give school employees interest arbitration rights. 
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • First reading, referred to House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee Jan. 18. 
  • 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: First reading, referred to House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee Feb. 6. Public hearing Feb. 14. Executive session Feb. 17. 
    • SB5694: First reading, referred to Senate State Government & Elections Committee Feb. 3. Public hearing Feb. 14. Executive session Feb. 17.
  • Washington SB5085: This bill would grant principals and assistant principals the right to bargain for working conditions rather than being limited to bargaining for compensation and hours and days of work.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee passed substitute bill Jan. 19. Referred to Senate Rules Committee Jan. 20 for second reading. Senate Rules Committee placed on second reading calendar Jan. 25.
  • Wisconsin SB28: This bill would prohibit county jailers from being treated as public safety employees for the purpose of collective bargaining.
    • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
    • Introduced, read first time, and referred to Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee Feb. 3. 

Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.



House Republicans ramp up ESG opposition

By Ballotpedia staff
In Newsletters
February 7, 2023 at 3:00 PM

Economy and Society is Ballotpedia’s weekly review of the developments in corporate activism; corporate political engagement; and the Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) trends and events that characterize the growing intersection between business and politics.

Have a minute and an opinion? Take our 2023 reader survey!

ESG Developments This Week

In Washington, D.C.

House Republicans ramp up ESG opposition

House Republicans are moving to push back against ESG with their majority in the chamber. The House Financial Services Committee on February 3 announced the formation of what Fox News called a first-of-its-kind ESG working group:

Republican leaders on the House Financial Services Committee are creating a first-of-its-kind task force to coordinate their response to various proposals related to the environmental, social and governance (ESG) movement.

Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., said Friday that the ESG working group would lead the Republican effort to combat the threat ESG policies pose to U.S. capital markets. He added that Financial Services Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., would lead the initiative and appointed another eight GOP committee members to serve on the working group.

“Progressives are trying to do with American businesses what they already did to our public education system—using our institutions to force their far-left ideology on the American people,” McHenry said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital. “Their latest tool in these efforts is environmental, social, and governance proposals. This is why I am creating a Republican ESG working group led by Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee Chair Bill Huizenga.” …

According to McHenry, the working group will be focused on reining in regulatory overreach from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), reinforce the materiality standard — which requires corporations to disclose key information to investors — “as a pillar” of the financial disclosure regime and hold those who misuse the proxy process that gives shareholders a saying in company decisions accountable.

The task force will ultimately organize Republican efforts to fight back against the ESG movement, educate congressmen on the issues and develop policy proposals. …

In addition to Huizenga, fellow committee members Reps. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., Bryan Steil, R-Wis., Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., Byron Donalds, R-Fla., Monica De La Cruz, R-Texas, Erin Houchin, R-Ind., and Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., will serve on the working group.

SEC considers modification of proposed climate disclosure rules 

The Wall Street Journal on February 3 reported that Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Gary Gensler and his supporters on the commission might be considering reducing the amount of climate data publicly traded companies will have to disclose under its proposed climate rules:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is considering a softening of planned rules requiring companies to disclose the effects of extreme weather and other costs related to global warming when the regulator completes its climate-change proposals, people close to the agency said.

The Wall Street regulator is looking again at the financial reporting aspect of the climate-disclosure plan it issued last year, following pushback from investors, companies and lawmakers, the people said. 

The final version of the SEC rules, expected this year, will likely still mandate some climate disclosures in financial statements, according to the people close to the agency. But the commission is weighing making the requirements less onerous than originally proposed, the people said, such as by raising the threshold at which companies must report climate costs.

Gary Gensler‘s climate proposals would require publicly traded companies to disclose the greenhouse-gas emissions from their operations, energy consumption and—in some cases—suppliers and customers. 

The climate package, a signature measure of Mr. Gensler’s SEC leadership, is expected to face legal challenges from industry groups or Republicans. Dialing back the financial-reporting rules could bolster the agency’s legal defense by allowing it to demonstrate that it has listened to business concerns and reduced the forecast multibillion-dollar annual cost of the new system. Evan Williams, senior director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, said the SEC needs to adjust the proposal if it wants to produce “a court-durable final rule.”

The proposed reporting rules would require public companies to include a raft of climate data in their audited financial statements. The mandated disclosures cover everything from costs caused by wildfires to the loss of a sales contract because of climate regulations, such as a cap on carbon emissions.

Companies would have to analyze climate-related costs and risks for each line item of their financial statements, such as revenue, inventories or intangible assets. Any climate costs that are 1% or more of each line item total would have to be reported….

SEC officials have been taken aback by the strength of opposition to their financial- reporting proposals, people close to the agency said. Many companies said the changes would bring high costs, complexity and potential unintended consequences.

SEC commissioner shares ESG concerns

SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda on January 27 gave a speech in which he addressed what he views as the failures of ESG. Some analysts have claimed that Uyeda’s remarks put forth a legislative and legal roadmap for ESG opponents to follow:

SEC Commissioner Uyeda delivered an address in which he “focus[ed] on issues related to asset managers’ use of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment strategies.”  While his talk addressed many aspects of ESG investing, including “[t]he [g]rowth of ESG [i]nvesting,” the thrust of his talk concerned “three factors” that “complicated” “ESG investing.”  Specifically, these factors were defined as:

(1) “[T]he inability to objectively define ‘ESG’ or any of its components.”

(2) “[T]he temptation . . . [for] regulators . . . [to] favor specific ESG goals or objectives.”

(3) “[T]he desire of certain asset managers to use client assets to pursue ESG-related goals without obtaining a mandate from clients.” …

[T]he overall thrust of Commissioner Uyeda’s argument is that the SEC’s proposed rulemaking with respect to ESG issues–the focus of substantial attention by both regulators and commentators over the past year–is unnecessary because “the federal securities laws already have standards in place” and that “full and fair disclosure” is already required by the relevant regulatory framework.

But Commissioner Uyeda’s speech is not simply a re-hashing of conservative complaints about ESG investing.  Instead, it serves as a road map for arguments–both legal and otherwise–likely to be advanced in the courtrooms and Congress against any further attempts to increase the salience of ESG factors.

In the states

Indiana lawmakers join ESG pushback

Members of the Indiana General Assembly’s House Financial Institutions Committee on February 2 passed a bill that would require the state to remove all pension funds from management by financial firms that support ESG or consider ESG criteria in investments:

A House committee on Thursday approved a bill requiring the state’s public pension system to divest from and terminate business relationships with firms or funds that use non-financial “ESG” factors in decisions, such boycotting gun manufacturers and fossil fuel companies.

The prohibition is part of a GOP effort to crack down on the environmental, social and governmental framework known as ESG investing.

“These types of policies undermine the security that we seek,” author Rep. Ethan Manning, R-Logansport, told the House Financial Institutions Committee on Thursday. “We need to focus our pension investments on financial factors and leave the politics and the social and ideological considerations out of it.”

Proponents say House Bill 1008 ensures that managers investing on behalf of the Indiana Public Retirement System make returns-based decisions, and supports businesses in controversial industries who’ve found themselves cut off from financing, insurance and shipping options. …

INPRS uses external money managers to make investment decisions for its $45 billion-plus portfolio. A team of more than 20 INPRS employees then manage those investment managers.

The legislation turns scrutiny on them.

It says portfolio company engagement, votes and other actions involving a range of topics could constitute furthering ESG interests. That includes disclosing, lowering or offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, looking at things like hiring practices and divesting from a list of protected industries.

Oklahoma treasurer inquires about financial companies’ ESG policies, eligibility for state contracts 

Oklahoma State Treasurer Todd Russ (R) sent a letter to more than 100 financial services companies to determine their positions on ESG and, by extension, their suitability for state contracts:

Republican State Treasurer Todd Russ of Oklahoma sent a letter to over 100 financial institutions to determine if their Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) policies disqualify them from working with the Oklahoma government, Russ’ office announced Wednesday.

Companies will have until March 31 to respond to a series of 19 questions that the state of Oklahoma will use to determine if the company is violating Oklahoma law by engaging in a boycott of energy companies, according to the letter obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. Russ specifically mentioned BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager and frequent target of GOP criticism for its consistent support of ESG investing, which Republican critics allege violates its fiduciary duty to its clients, in a statement to the DCNF.

“This list is crucial to provide accountability for our government entities, including organizations responsible for pension funds such as the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS), Teachers Retirement System (TRS) to ensure our constituents’ tax dollars are only invested in secure and verified financial companies that comply with Oklahoma law,” Russ told the DCNF. “OPERS alone has more than 60 percent of their portfolio totaling more than $10 billion managed by Blackrock, a well-known adversary of energy businesses.”…

The debate around financial managers’ use of ESG policies has intensified in recent months, as several Republican states pulled billions from BlackRock. The company was also among those who received a letter from Democratic New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who threatened to pull $43 billion from the firm, and more from others, if they failed to support shareholder resolutions that promoted “net zero” investment strategies. 

Proxy advisors push back against pushback

The two largest proxy advisory services – Institutional Shareholder Service (ISS) and Glass-Lewis – responded on January 31 to an inquiry into the services’ ESG policies launched last month by 21 state attorneys general. Both companies stood by their approaches to considering certain ESG factors in client voting recommendations:

Top U.S. proxy advisers Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services on Tuesday defended their corporate voting recommendations on environmental and social matters, with both saying they remain focused on long-term shareholder value.

The two companies were questioned by Republican attorneys general from 21 states earlier this month about whether their guidance on issues like climate change or boardroom diversity violate their duties to clients.

In a response letter dated Jan. 31, Glass Lewis Executive Chairman Kevin Cameron pushed back on the suggestion and said that under the firm’s benchmark policy it routinely recommends against shareholder proposals “that — however worthwhile as a social goal — have not demonstrated a nexus to shareholder value.”

In addition, Cameron wrote that issues like how companies manage the risks and opportunities presented by climate change “is widely recognized as a material risk-return factor today.” Nearly all companies in the S&P 500 now publish sustainability reports using various third-party standards, he noted. …

In a separate letter provided by a spokesman, ISS Chief Executive Gary Retelny wrote that while environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations have grown more important to investors, “fulfilling our fiduciary and contractual responsibilities to our clients remains the foundation of our business.”



Weekly Brew: February 3, 2023

By Ballotpedia staff
In Newsletters
February 3, 2023 at 4:06 PM

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 January 30- February 3.

How 2024’s presidential election timeline compares to 2020 and 2016

If history is any indication, the bulk of 2024 presidential candidate announcements will likely occur in the next few months. In the 2020 cycle, 87% (27) of the noteworthy candidates announced their campaigns by June 2019. And in the 2016 cycle, 77% (17) had by that time in 2015.

Read more

An update on the partisan composition of state legislatures

At the end of January 2023, 54.85% of all state legislature seats in the United States are Republican while 44.45% of seats are Democratic. There are 7,386 state legislative seats in the country.

Democrats hold 854 state Senate seats, gaining six Senate seats since last month, while Republicans hold 1,108 state Senate seats, gaining three seats since last month. Independent or third-party legislators hold three state Senate seats. Eight state Senate seats are vacant. 

When it comes to state House seats, Democrats hold 2,429, a gain of 31 seats since last month, while Republicans hold 2,943 seats, a gain of 25 seats since last month. Independent or third-party legislators hold 20 state House seats. Twenty-one state House seats are vacant. 

Read more

Three Pennsylvania House special elections on Feb. 7

Voters in three Pittsburgh-area districts will head to the polls on Feb. 7 to fill three vacancies in the narrowly-divided Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

Last November, Democrats won a 102 to 101 majority in the chamber, switching majority control for the first time since 2010.

But three Democratic districts became vacant after the election, giving Republicans a functional 101-99 majority when the legislative session began in early January.

Those three vacant districts are:

  • District 32: Former Allegheny Democratic Committee Director Joe McAndrew (D) and pastor and Army veteran Clay Walker (R) are running. Incumbent Anthony DeLuca (D) died on Oct. 9, 2022. DeLuca’s name remained on the ballot, and he was re-elected, creating a vacancy.
  • District 34: Attorney Abigail Salisbury (D) and former law enforcement officer Robert Pagane (R) are running. Incumbent Summer Lee (D) was re-elected but was also elected to the U.S. House. Lee resigned on Dec. 7, 2022.
  • District 35: McKeesport chief finance officer Matthew Gergely (D) and former school board member Don Nevills (R) are running. Incumbent Austin Davis (D) was re-elected but was also elected lieutenant governor. Davis resigned on Dec. 7, 2022.

Read more



Final party committee campaign finance reports show Democratic committees outraised Republican committees in the 2022 election cycle

By Ballotpedia staff
In Uncategorized
February 3, 2023 at 11:17 AM
Image of donkey and elephant to symbolize the Democratic and Republican parties.

Six party committees raised a combined $1.8 billion during the 2022 election cycle according to final Federal Election Commission reports for the cycle. The Democratic committees raised a cumulative $966 million and spent $980 million, while the Republican committees raised a cumulative $875 million and spent $943 million.

The DSCC outraised the NRSC with $295 million in cumulative receipts to the NRSC’s $250 million. In the 2020 election cycle, the NRSC led in cumulative fundraising with $346 million to the DSCC’s $304 million. 

Cumulatively in the 2022 election cycle, the DCCC outraised the NRCC with $363 million to the NRCC’s $289 million. In the 2020 election cycle, the DCCC also raised more than the NRCC with $346 million, while the NRCC had raised $281 million.

The RNC outraised the DNC in the 2022 election cycle. The RNC raised $335 million to the DNC’s $307 million. The RNC also raised more than the DNC during the 2020 election cycle, but by a larger margin. The RNC raised $890 million in cumulative receipts to the DNC’s $491 million.

Additional reading



Weekly Brew: January 27, 2023

By Ballotpedia staff
In Uncategorized
January 27, 2023 at 5:00 PM

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 January 23 – January 27.

At least 121 new state legislative leaders elected so far

So far in this year’s state legislative sessions, legislators have re-elected 57% of leaders (162) to their previous posts. In another 38% (108), they elected a different leader from the same party as the previous leader. The remaining 5% of posts (13) changed party control completely due to changes in chamber control.

Read more

Mississippi’s statewide filing deadline is Feb. 1

In Mississippi, the filing deadline to appear on the ballot in the Aug. 8 statewide primaries is February 1.

The Magnolia State is one of four states—along with Louisiana, New Jersey, and Virginia—holding regularly-scheduled state legislative elections this year. It is also one of three states—along with Kentucky and Louisiana—holding statewide elections for executive positions this year

Read more

Five measures certified in three states for the 2023 ballot  

As of Jan. 25, five statewide measures have been certified for the ballot in three states. That’s one more than the average number certified at this point in odd-numbered years from 2011 to 2021. 

Three new measures were certified last week:

Read more

Republican U.S. House candidates outperformed 2020’s presidential results in 327 districts last year

Republicans in 327 congressional districts last year outperformed Donald Trump’s (R) 2020 vote totals in those same district boundaries.Democratic House candidates, meanwhile, outperformed Joe Biden in 68 districts (16%).

Florida’s 26th Congressional District saw the largest swing towards the same party. Incumbent Mario Diaz-Balart (R) improved on Trump’s margin of victory in the district by 23.5 percentage points.

Alaska’s at-large congressional district saw the largest swing in a district that changed party control. Incumbent Mary Peltola (D) won the state by 10 percentage points in 2022 after Trump won the state by 10.1 percentage points in 2020, resulting in a 20.1 percentage point swing towards Democrats.

In two districts, the margins of victory in the 2020 presidential election and 2022 midterms matched: Texas’ 9th and Texas’ 35th.

Read more



Fifth Circuit declines to apply Chevron deference in bump stock ruling

By Ballotpedia staff
In Uncategorized
January 26, 2023 at 10:00 AM

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 a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in which the en banc court declined to apply Chevron deference to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) interpretation of its statutory authority to issue a bump stock ban; the introduction of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act in the 118th Congress; a district court ruling affirming President Biden’s authority to raise the federal contractor minimum wage; and new recommendations from the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) aimed at improving federal regulatory procedures.

At the state level, we take a look at the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision to limit Chevron deference in the state; a new state office in Ohio tasked with what lawmakers view as monitoring federal overreach; and a moratorium on new agency rulemaking in Iowa.

We also highlight legal commentary seeking clarity from the U.S. Supreme Court on appropriate applications of Chevron deference by the federal courts. This month, we wrap up with our year-end Regulatory Tally, which features information about the 2,044 proposed rules and 3,168 final rules added to the Federal Register in 2022 and OIRA’s regulatory review activity.

In Washington

Fifth Circuit declines to apply Chevron deference in bump stock ruling

What’s the story?

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 13-3 on January 6, 2023, that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority when it adopted a rule banning bump stock devices. Since the rule implemented criminal penalties for those found in violation, the court departed from prior appellate court reasoning on the issue and declined to apply Chevron deference to the agency’s changed interpretation of the underlying statutes. 

Following guidance issued by President Donald Trump (R) in 2018, the ATF changed its interpretation of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act to find that bump stocks qualify as machine guns and can therefore be prohibited. Gun owners and organizations challenged the rule, arguing in multiple lawsuits that the agency lacked the authority under federal law to issue the rule. Three appellate courts upheld the ban and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reconsider the decisions—leaving in place a district court ruling that applied Chevron deference to the ATF’s changed interpretation of the law.

After a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld the ban in December 2019, the en banc court voted to enjoin the ATF rule. The majority concluded in part that the imposition of criminal penalties by a federal agency prompts the rule of lenity to supersede Chevron deference. Judge Jennifer Elrod, writing for the majority, argued that “Chevron deference shifts the responsibility for lawmaking from the Congress to the executive, at least in part. That tradeoff cannot be justified for criminal statutes, in which the public’s entitlement to clarity in the law is at its highest.”

The resulting circuit split could lead the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case and resolve the question. The ATF had not commented on the ruling as of January 19, 2023. 

Want to go deeper?

REINS Act reintroduced in 118th Congress

What’s the story?

Congresswoman Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) on January 11, 2023, reintroduced the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act) in the 118th Congress. Filed as H.R. 277 with more than 170 Republican cosponsors, the REINS Act would require Congress to approve new major rules proposed by executive branch agencies before they can be enforced. 

The REINS Act is a proposal designed to amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996. Under the CRA, Congress has the authority to issue resolutions of disapproval to block new agency regulations. The REINS Act would broaden the CRA to not only allow Congress to issue resolutions of disapproval, but to also require congressional approval of major agency regulations (those with an economic impact of $100 million or more, among other considerations) before those regulations take effect.

Republican lawmakers have introduced the REINS Act during every session of Congress since the 112th Congress (2011-2012).

Wisconsin implemented the REINS Act at the state level in 2017. Florida enacted legislation with provisions similar to the REINS Act in 2010.

Want to go deeper?

District judge upholds president’s authority to increase federal contractor minimum wage

What’s the story?

Judge John J. Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on January 6, 2023, rejected a challenge from a coalition of states and held in State of Arizona v. Walsh that President Joe Biden (D) did not exceed his authority when he issued an executive order directing the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to promulgate regulations increasing in the minimum wage for federal contractors.

President Biden issued Executive Order (EO) 14026 in April 2021 requiring the DOL to issue regulations increasing the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 an hour. Five states (Arizona, Indiana, Idaho, Nebraska, and South Carolina) in February 2022 challenged the order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, arguing in part that the executive order violated the clear notice requirement of the U.S. Constitution’s spending clause because states were not fully aware of the new contracting conditions under the order; that the order exceeded the president’s authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (FPASA); and that the FPASA unconstitutionally delegates congressional authority to the president in violation of the nondelegation doctrine.

Judge Tuchi ruled in part that the executive order, in his view, did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s spending clause because the clause is not applicable to federal contracts; that the order did not exceed the president’s statutory authority under the FPASA because the order speaks to the FPASA’s federal contracting goals; and that the FPASA does not violate the nondelegation doctrine because it provides the president with an intelligible principle to guide executive action.

The states can appeal the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but no appeal had been filed as of January 12, 2023.

Want to go deeper?

ACUS adopts recommendations on federal regulatory procedures

What’s the story?

The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an independent federal agency tasked with recommending procedural improvements for federal regulatory processes, adopted three recommendations during the 78th Plenary Session in December 2022 aimed at what the organization views as improving “the efficiency, transparency, and fairness of administrative programs.”

The recommendations, published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2023, put forth what ACUS considers to be best practices regarding precedential decision-making in agency adjudication, the use and availability of regulatory enforcement manuals, and public accessibility to settlement agreements made during agency enforcement proceedings.

Want to go deeper?

In the states

Ohio Supreme Court limits Chevron deference

What’s the story? 

The Ohio Supreme Court on December 29, 2022, ruled against applications of Chevron deference in the state. In TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors, the court found that state courts do not need to defer to state agency interpretations of the law—a deference doctrine known as Chevron deference at the federal level. 

​​Lower courts in TWISM deferred to the Ohio Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors’ interpretation of its engineering certification rules, which denied TWISM Enterprises’ application to provide professional engineering services because the company’s designated licensed engineer was an independent contractor rather than an employee. TWISM Enterprises appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that the agency’s interpretation of the governing statute was flawed because the law does not specify that the licensed engineer must be an employee of the business.

Justice Patrick DeWine (with Justices Sharon L. Kennedy, Patrick F. Fischer, and Michael P. Donnelly concurring) disagreed with the agency’s interpretation of the statute and argued that the judicial branch has the authority to determine whether the statutory interpretations of state agencies are lawful. DeWine, writing for the court, argued “that it is the role of the judiciary, not administrative agencies, to make the ultimate determination about what the law means. Thus, the judicial branch is never required to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law.” DeWine added that “an agency interpretation is simply one consideration a court may sometimes take into account in rendering the court’s own independent judgment as to what the law is.”

Justices Maureen O’Connor, Melody Stewart, and Jennifer Brunner concurred in the judgment only. 

Ohio joins 13 other states identified by Ballotpedia that have limited judicial deference practices through either legislation, court rulings, or voter-approved initiatives.

Want to go deeper?

Ohio law creates state office to monitor potential federal overreach

What’s the story? 

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) on January 3, 2023, signed a law establishing a Tenth Amendment Center in the Ohio Solicitor General’s Office aimed at monitoring “federal executive orders, federal statutes, and federal regulations for potential abuse or overreach, including assertion of power inconsistent with the United States Constitution,” according to the text.

The center is tasked with reporting to the state solicitor general any federal actions that, in the center’s view, encroach on the powers of the state. The solicitor general must then advise the state attorney general on further action.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) said he supported the legislation and that he believed the law would allow the state to better check federal action and preserve the principle of federalism.

Want to go deeper?

Iowa governor calls for rulemaking pause, regulatory review

What’s the story? 

Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds (R) on January 10, 2023, signed an executive order that placed a moratorium on new state agency rulemaking and directed state agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of all administrative regulations.

“Iowa’s Administrative Code contains over 20,000 pages and 190,000 restrictive terms, putting undue burden on Iowans and the state’s economy, increasing costs for employers, slowing job growth, and impacting private sector investments,” stated Reynolds in a press release. “In Iowa, we’re taking a commonsense approach that gets government out of the way and leads to a more robust economy in every community.” 

The moratorium on new rulemaking (with certain exceptions) takes effect on February 1 and extends through the review period for existing regulations determined by the state’s Administrative Rules Coordinator (ARC). Following the review process, state agencies seeking to renew existing rules must re-promulgate them through the rulemaking process outlined in the state’s Administrative Procedure Act.

Want to go deeper?

Seeking clarity on Chevron deference

In recent commentary for the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice and Comment blog, Cato Institute attorney Isaiah McKinney argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to Chevron deference through the application of statutory tools of construction has left lower courts without clear guidance on when to apply the doctrine, resulting in inconsistent approaches to Chevron deference across the federal courts.

“The Supreme Court rigorously applies the canons of statutory construction, finding ambiguity only when it has truly exhausted those canons. That rigorous approach is itself precedential and binding on the lower courts. But the Supreme Court’s lack of specific guidelines on how to determine whether a statute is ambiguous and how far lower courts must push the canons have unfortunately left the lower courts with little to work with, leading to this discrepancy in the outcomes of Chevron cases.

“This discrepancy is itself a problem. If the Supreme Court does not overrule Chevron, it should at least provide clarity on when to find ambiguity. As then-Judge Kavanaugh urged, rather than quickly resorting to finding ambiguity, courts should ‘find the best reading of the statute by interpreting the words of the statute, taking account of the context of the whole statute, and applying any appropriate semantic canons.’”

Want to go deeper? 

  • Click here to read the full text of “At the Supreme Court, Chevron Deference Has Morphed into the Application of the Tools of Construction,” by Isaiah McKinney

Regulatory tally

Federal Register

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

OIRA’s 2022 regulatory review activity included the following actions:

  • Review of 485 significant regulatory actions. 
  • Forty rules approved without changes; recommended changes to 415 proposed rules; 24 rules withdrawn from the review process; five rules subject to a statutory or judicial deadline.
  • As of January 3, 2023, OIRA’s website listed 100 regulatory actions under review.
  • Want to go deeper? 


Hall Pass: Your Ticket to Understanding School Board Politics, Edition #46

By Ballotpedia staff
In Uncategorized
January 25, 2023 at 3:30 PM

Welcome to Hall Pass, a newsletter written to keep you plugged into the conversations driving school board politics and governance.

In today’s edition, you’ll find:

  • On the issues: The debate over ChatGPT in schools
  • In your district: Budgets
  • School board filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
  • Florida Department of Education rejects African American Studies course
  • Extracurricular: education news from around the web
  • Candidate Connection survey

Email us at editor@ballotpedia.org to share reactions or story ideas!

On the issues: The debate over ChatGPT in schools

In this section, we curate reporting, analysis, and commentary on the issues school board members deliberate when they set out to offer the best education possible in their district.

ChatGPT is an online artificial intelligence program, released to the public in November 2022, that can respond to questions and requests in a smooth and often convincingly human manner. It can quickly write essays, code, and solve difficult math problems. Media outlets across the world have covered ChatGPT, highlighting the discussions and debates over the use of artificial intelligence programs in business, education, and beyond. 

Educators have responded to ChatGPT in varying ways. Districts in Los Angeles and New York City have already banned the service out of a concern that it could assist students in cheating. Other districts, like Chicago Public Schools, have not banned ChatGPT. 

Angela Duckworth and Lyle Ungar write that schools should not rush to ban ChatGPT in classrooms. They say such bans are impossible to enforce and students will still find ways to use the program if schools try to prohibit it. Duckworth and Unger say schools and teachers should instead work with students to develop assignments that incorporate ChatGPT but still require deeper critical thinking from students. 

The Chicago Tribune Editorial Board writes that schools should act quickly to ban ChatGPT in classrooms until educators develop a clear idea of how it might be incorporated into lessons without hurting students. The Editorial Board says allowing artificial intelligence programs in schools could tempt students to cheat since ChatGPT responses can sometimes pass plagiarism checks and teacher scrutiny. 

Op-Ed: Don’t ban chatbots in classrooms — use them to change how we teach | Angela Duckworth and Lyle Ungar, Los Angeles Times

“Banning such use of artificial intelligence from the classroom is an understandable but nearsighted response. Instead, we must find a way forward in which such technologies complement, rather than substitute for, student thinking. One day soon, GPT and similar AI models could be to essay writing what calculators are to calculus. … Banning ChatGPT is like prohibiting students from using Wikipedia or spell-checkers. Even if it were the “right” thing to do in principle, it is impossible in practice. Students will find ways around the ban, which of course will necessitate a further defensive response from teachers and administrators, and so on. It’s hard to believe that an escalating arms race between digitally fluent teenagers and their educators will end in a decisive victory for the latter. … [W]e must also figure out how to do something new: How to use tools like GPT to catalyze, not cannibalize, deeper thinking. Just like a Google search, GPT often generates text that is fluent and plausible — but wrong. So using it requires the same cognitive heavy lifting that writing does: deciding what questions to ask, formulating a thesis, asking more questions, generating an outline, picking which points to elaborate and which to drop, looking for facts to support the arguments, finding appropriate references to back them up and polishing the text.”

Editorial: Did your kid write that essay? Or did ChatGPT? | The Editorial Board, Chicago Tribune

“CPS is right to review the merits of student and teacher use of ChatGPT, but it’s wrong in not taking the same route as New York and Los Angeles. Cheating is as synonymous with classrooms as chalk and erasers. Yesteryear techniques ranged from crib sheets cupped in a student’s palms to a simple peek over the shoulder of a classmate. Today’s digital age takes the potential for cheating to new levels, and ChatGPT makes it far too easy for struggling students to lean on AI-generated writing in place of what comes out of their own heads. What’s especially worrisome is that ChatGPT’s syntax appears to be polished and natural enough to elude not just anti-plagiarism software but even the most seasoned educator’s scrutiny. We’re not Luddites, and we believe that technology must always be given space to advance the educational experience at every level, from preschool to university. ChatGPT may well have undeniable utility in a variety of classroom circumstances. First, however, school districts must determine how to best use ChatGPT without allowing its exploitation of student learning. Only then should it make its way into classrooms. … ChatGPT, and the myriad other manifestations of AI, should be welcomed for what they are — game-changers that help us live better lives. But in classrooms, care must always be taken to ensure that a new means of educating helps rather than harms.”

In your district: Budgets

We recently asked readers the following question:

What are your thoughts on the current and the proposed budget for your school district?

Today, we’re sharing a handful of those responses. 

A school board member from Wisconsin wrote: 

I would love to see a greater focus on funds directed towards long term capital improvements. There is not enough allowable funds to support our students and buildings.

A school board member from New Jersey wrote:

I am in New Jersey. We are experiencing about 7% inflation but are limited to no more than a 2% raise to the budget. Services will have to be cut, class sizes will grow, new teachers will have to find employment elsewhere.

A teacher from Virginia wrote:

The proposed budget includes a 5% salary increase partially funded by the state, which is nice, but a greater increase would be nice in the face of a retention crisis and inflation. Greater increases are being discussed at the state level, so we’ll see what happens. The budget also addresses mental health services and maintenance needs, which are both needed expenses.

A school board member from Vermont wrote:

We are a small district with about 420 students and shrinking. Faculty and learning support staff continues to grow to where our employed adults to students is 1:3 and our per student costs exceed $30,000! We are only able to ask tuition of 67% of our per student costs, yet much of the Board is willing to bet that voter indifference will enable continuation of this spiraling upward cost cycle. The change back to in-person town meeting, versus inclusion of all voters by mail, underlies their assumption that budget increase in excess of 10% will continue to fly and we see elementary classes of less than 10 students with three teachers in the room. How can we provide quality education on a smaller scale? Private schools seem to be able to do so. Why can’t we?

A community member from New Jersey wrote:

“School budgets in Stanhope New Jersey, in my view, the board voted without resident approval to remove public involvement in voting for the budget. They put a cap of two to three percent on budget escalation. They elected to establish Capital improvement bonds for future use as the chairman stated so as to maintain the present tax levy ratio and only initiate Capital repairs on a needs basis on select capital projects. The bonds are voted residence un-itemized, meaning voters were not allowed to pick and choose which specific items they supported for a bond. Stanhope board did not elect to have the vote take place at the same time as a general election intentionally so as to minimize voter turnout. This is the same practice used when School board elections take place intentionally to minimize turnout. Voters in the town are about 2480 some 300 voted with 200 approving the bond. How unrepresentative can an election be when voter turnout is under roughly 10% and approval is 8%.

It is time to remove school boards and place control in the hands of the county or state because school board members do not bring any special expertise to the board and members are manipulated by its chairman an ex vice principal along with the superintendent. Charter schools and parent choice should be the only consideration given by States so as to educate the children of that state.”

Thank you to all who responded. We’ll be back with a new question next month. If you have ideas for a question you’d like to see us ask, reply to this email to let us know!

School board update: filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications

Ballotpedia has historically covered school board elections in about 500 of the country’s largest districts. We’re gradually expanding the number we cover with our eye on the more than 13,000 districts with elected school boards.

Upcoming school board elections

Ballotpedia is covering all school board elections in Oklahoma on Feb. 14, which districts hold primaries. General elections are on April 4. Some of the districts holding elections include:

Ballotpedia is also covering a special school board election to fill a vacancy on the Charleston County School District Board of Trustees on Feb. 7. Two candidates are running for the District 6 seat—Daron Lee Calhoun II and Lee Runyon.

On Feb. 21, Ballotpedia will cover school board primaries in Wisconsin. We’ll have more to say about those elections in the coming weeks. 

Click here to learn more about 2023 school board elections.

Florida Department of Education rejects African American Studies course

On Jan. 12, the Florida Department of Education’s Office of Articulation announced in a letter to the College Board, an education nonprofit that oversees the Advancement Placement (AP) program in high schools, that a pilot AP African American Studies course “is inexplicably contrary to Florida law and significantly lacks educational value” and would not be included in state curricula. The letter said the state would be willing to reopen discussions with the College Board if it revised the course. 

Florida law requires public schools to teach African American history. 

AP courses allow public high school students to receive college credit. The African American Studies course is currently being tested in 60 schools across the country, with the aim of offering the course in all high schools in the 2024-2025 school year. 

The College Board said “the interdisciplinary course reaches into a variety of fields—literature, the arts and humanities, political science, geography, and science—to explore the vital contributions and experiences of African Americans.” According to the College Board, students in AP classes are expected to analyze issues from different perspectives but are not required to agree with any point of view. 

The Florida Department of Education letter did not cite the law the AP African American Studies course is alleged to have violated. In 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed House Bill 7, which regulates how schools and businesses can teach topics like race and gender. The law prohibits schools and businesses from requiring students or employees to participate in trainings or classes that teach “an individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.” DeSantis has referred to the law as the Stop WOKE Act. 

On Nov. 17, 2022, U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida Judge Mark E. Walker blocked a part of the law regulating discussions of race in colleges and universities. That case is ongoing. Former President Barack Obama (D) appointed Walker in 2012.

Reactions to the Florida Department of Education’s decision largely played out along partisan lines. 

Florida state Sen. Shevrin Jones (D) said “Gov. DeSantis’ whitewashing of history and book bans are his latest assault on American history and our First Amendment rights. Horrifyingly, it is our vulnerable and underrepresented students who will suffer the most as a result.”

DeSantis said, “We believe in teaching kids facts and how to think, but we don’t believe they should have an agenda imposed on them when you try to use Black history to shoehorn in queer theory, you are clearly trying to use that for political purposes.”

On Jan. 20, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre criticized the decision, saying: “Let’s not forget, [the Florida Department of Education] didn’t block AP European history, they didn’t block music history or art history, but the state chooses to block a course that is meant for high-achieving high school students to learn about their history of arts and culture.”

Florida Commissioner of Education Manny Diaz, whom DeSantis recommended for the position in 2021, tweeted: “Despite the lies from the Biden White House, Florida rejected an AP course filled with Critical Race Theory and other obvious violations of Florida law. We proudly require the teaching of African American history. We do not accept woke indoctrination masquerading as education.”

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a term that has been used by academics in scholarly works dating back to the 1970s. The term has come into widespread use among politicians, journalists, and others in recent years, particularly in debates about K-12 curriculum outside academia. Since its early development, the term has taken on a wider variety of perceived meanings.

Diaz released a chart highlighting parts of the course the Department of Education found objectionable, including topics focused on Intersectionality and Activism, the Reparations Movement, and Black Queer Studies. The chart said the section on Intersectionality and Activism was a concern because “Intersectionality is foundational to CRT, and ranks people based on their race, wealth, gender and sexual orientation.” The chart said the section on the Reparations Movement was a concern because “All points and resources in this study advocate for reparations. There is no critical perspective or balancing opinion in this lesson.”

For some, like Jason Nichols, a senior lecturer in the University of Maryland College Park’s African American Studies Department, the concern is that the refusal to approve the course is a form of censorship. Nichols said, “Most of all, Americans who are concerned about free speech should be terrified by reactionary government officials like DeSantis, whose answer to complicated questions is authoritarian censorship, book banning, and curtailing academic freedoms.”

Writing for National Review, Stanley Kurtz faulted the College Board for refusing to release to the public the course material, saying, “This secrecy validates long-standing concerns about the College Board’s acting as a de facto unelected national school board.” Kurtz said other states should decline to approve the course until the College Board publicly shares the course content. 

The College Board said: “The process of piloting and revising course frameworks is a standard part of any new AP course, and frameworks change significantly as a result. We look forward to publicly releasing the updated course framework as soon as it is completed and well before this class is widely available in American high schools.”

Ballotpedia has covered a range of CRT- and CRT-adjacent issues. Click the links below to read more of our coverage:

Extracurricular: education news from around the web

This section contains links to recent education-related articles from around the internet. If you know of a story we should be reading, reply to this email to share it with us! 

Take our Candidate Connection survey to reach voters in your district

We’re featuring survey responses from school board candidates who won their races on Nov. 8. 

Today, we’re looking at responses from Adaline Villneurve Rutherford (R), who won outright in the primary for St. Tammany Parish School Board District 3 in Louisiana, and Terri Knudsen, who won in the general election for Morgan Hill Unified Board of Education Trustee Area 3 in California.

Louisiana is one of four states that automatically allow partisan school board board elections or party labels to appear on the ballot. 

Here’s how Rutherford answered the question, “Please list below 3 key messages of your campaign. What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?”

  • “Our children deserve better! We need to get back to being the best! At one time the St. Tammany Parish School System was TOP, but now we are ranked 18th. Clearly, we are not utilizing our supportive community resources to maximize our teachers’ potential. I want to see CHANGE!
  • We need to address teacher and substitute shortages. We need to work harder to retain our teachers. We also need to quickly do background checks and get people signed up to substitute. We can’t have this continue the way it is.
  • Accountability and transparency are key. My priorities would be to hold the school board accountable fiscally, to be an accessible voice for my constituents and district employees, and move forward in a positive direction.”

Click here to read the rest of Rutherford’s answers.

Here’s how Knudsen answered the question, “Please list below 3 key messages of your campaign. What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?”

  • I will advocate for responsible budgets that directly impact the classroom. We need to attract and retain excellent teachers and have smaller class sizes.
  • If elected, I will listen and seek input from all stakeholders, including students and their families, community members and school staff, before decisions are made.
  • Our schools need to identify and provide support for all students, especially those who struggle, such as LGTBQ, socio-economically disadvantaged, students of color and students with disabilities. As a board member, I will only approve policies that will be in the best interest of all of our students and schools.

Click here to read the rest of Knudsen’s answers.



Weekly Brew: January 20, 2022

By Ballotpedia staff
In Uncategorized
January 20, 2023 at 4:20 PM

Updates regarding redistricting litigation in five states

In the aftermath of the 2022 redistricting cycle, at least 82 lawsuits challenging congressional and state legislative maps across the country have been filed. According to the American Redistricting Project, 22 states have ongoing litigation regarding either their congressional or legislative redistricting (or both).

We looked at ongoing redistricting litigation in Thursday’s Brew. You can read that edition here.

Read more

2024 presidential candidate filings currently at the third-highest level in forty years

Five hundred and thirty-one people have filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to run for president in 2024 as of Jan. 17. The list includes 77 Democratic candidates (14.5%), 145 Republican candidates (27.3%), and 309 nonpartisan or minor party candidates (58.2%). This is the third-highest number of candidates to file to run since the 1980 presidential election.

Read more

Less than 10% of all bills introduced to change ballot initiative processes passed in 2022

In 2022, Ballotpedia tracked 232 bills that would change the citizen-initiated ballot measure processes, the most since 2014.

Twenty-three proposals (9.9% of them) were signed into law, the lowest percentage over that timespan.

Since 2014, lawmakers have introduced an average of 189 bills affecting ballot measure processes. Twenty-seven tend to pass, with an average passage rate of 14.2%.

Read more

Listen to our interview with pollster and political analyst Scott Rasmussen for On the Ballot, our weekly podcast

On the Ballot, our weekly podcast, takes a closer look at the week’s top political stories.

In this week’s episode, Ballotpedia’s Editor-in-Chief Geoff Pallay interviews pollster Scott Rasmussen, the president of RMG Research and the author of the Number of the Day column for Ballotpedia.


Listen here

Subscribe to Hall Pass to stay up to date on school board politics and education policy

Hall Pass is a weekly newsletter that keeps you informed about the conversations driving school board politics and education policy. New editions reach your inbox Wednesday afternoons. Stories featured in this week’s edition included:

  • The debate over using school suspensions to discipline students
  • Orange County districts fire superintendents
  • Eight state executive candidates endorsed 106 school board candidates in Ballotpedia’s coverage scope in 2022

Click the link below to read the Jan. 18 edition and subscribe to the Hall Pass newsletter.

Read more



Hall Pass: Your Ticket to Understanding School Board Politics

By Ballotpedia staff
In Uncategorized
January 18, 2023 at 3:30 PM

Welcome to Hall Pass, a newsletter that keeps you plugged into the conversations driving school board politics and governance.

In today’s edition, you’ll find:

  • On the issues:  The debate over using school suspensions to discipline students
  • In your district: Budgets  
  • School board filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications
  • Eight state executive candidates endorsed 106 school board candidates in Ballotpedia’s coverage scope in 2022
  • Orange County districts fire superintendents 
  • Extracurricular: education news from around the web
  • Candidate Connection survey

Email editor@ballotpedia.org to share reactions or story ideas!

On the issues: The debate over using school suspensions to discipline students 

In this section, we curate reporting, analysis, and commentary on the issues school board members deliberate when they set out to offer the best education possible in their district.

Should schools suspend students for misbehavior? 

Max Eden writes that suspensions protect other students and ensure a focused learning environment. He says trying to reduce racial disparities through non-suspension policies can result in exposing students to more violence. Eden also says that while suspensions can harm students, disruptive peers who are not removed from classrooms can harm other students and their ability to focus and learn.  

Linda Stamato and Sandy Jaffee write that suspensions harm students and disproportionately affect children of color and children from lower-income families. Stamato and Jaffee say suspensions do not reduce bad behavior and that most behavioral problems are best dealt with at school. Stamato and Jaffee say that most disputes are resolvable and that faculty should try to help students better process their feelings. They call the in-school mediation process restorative justice and say it can reduce suspensions and promote racial equity.

In Defense of Suspensions | Max Eden, EducationWeek

“[I]f we pursue wholesale policy changes on the assumption racial bias is solely responsible for the disparity (the assumption behind the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” guidance on discipline) then we run a strong risk of overcorrecting. Rapid overhauls of the entire system might well breed rampant disorder in schools—and in places where that approach has been taken, the results aren’t looking pretty. … [W]hile claims of the benefits of not suspending disruptive students are likely oversold, the harm done to students by disruptive peers is certainly underappreciated. … It’s fair to question whether suspensions are truly the best tool to maintain classroom order. But it’s important to recognize that any major policy change is likely to have tradeoffs, harming some students even as it helps others. … We simply don’t have enough data to evaluate the effects of discipline changes in most American school districts. That means that the policymakers pushing suspension-reduction reforms are doing so quite literally ignorant of the consequences of their actions for poor and minority students who are just trying to behave, learn, and have a fair opportunity at life.”

Suspending students isn’t the answer. Restorative justice programs in schools are a better solution. | Opinion | Linda Stamato and Sandy Jaffee, NJ.com

“Suspensions raise a number of issues, not least how to deal with disruptive behavior, equitably and effectively, to understand its causes, and to identify and address conditions that may be contributing factors. The critical question is this: Does removing students from school reduce the incidence of aberrant behavior? The short answer is no. Suspended students are more likely to be suspended more than once, to drop out of school, moreover, and to end up in court accused of crimes. And yet, schools have relied on suspension as the primary means of dealing with discipline problems. … Restorative justice attempts to reach beyond punitive measures to solve problems before they escalate and threaten the fabric of the school community. … Critical in these efforts is the recognition that students with behavioral problems are unlikely to be helped by removing them from school and providing no support services or establishing any conditions to be met before they return to classes. Conflict, after all, involves bullying, disrespect, harassment and fights often mask prejudice, attitudes, hurts and fears that contribute to tensions that clearly require attention. While conflict may be natural, schools need to provide constructive avenues for students’ expression and management.”

In your district: Budgets 

School districts around the country face diverse issues and challenges. We want to hear what’s happening in your school district. Complete the very brief survey below—anonymously, if you prefer—and we may share your response with fellow subscribers in an upcoming newsletter.

Today’s question:

 What are your thoughts on the current and proposed budget for your school district? 

Click here to respond!

School board update: filing deadlines, election results, and recall certifications

Ballotpedia has historically covered school board elections in about 500 of the country’s largest districts. We’re gradually expanding the number we cover with our eye on the more than 13,000 districts with elected school boards.

Upcoming school board elections

Ballotpedia is covering all school board elections in Oklahoma on Feb. 14. On that day, Oklahoma districts will hold primary elections. General elections will be held April 4. Some of the districts holding elections include:

Click here to learn more about 2023 school board elections. 

Eight state executive candidates endorsed 106 school board candidates in Ballotpedia’s coverage scope in 2022

Governors and other state executive officials rarely make endorsements in school board elections, as those elections are local and typically nonpartisan. But in 2022, state executive officials and candidates made at least 106 school board candidate endorsements. Endorsements included official statements, appearances at campaign rallies, and direct participation in campaign ads and materials. The state executives and candidates to make endorsements were:

  • Arizona: Gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake (R) and Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate Shiry Sapir (R)
  • California: Attorney general candidate Eric Early (R)
  • Florida: Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist (D), and Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez (R)
  • Maryland: Gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox (R)

DeSantis was the only executive whose full slate of candidates won. Across all 106 endorsements, candidates had a 56.6% success rate.

To view a full list of endorsements for each candidate, click here.

Orange County districts fire superintendents

On Jan. 6, the Orange Unified School District school board in Orange County, Calif., voted 4-3 to fire Superintendent Gunn Marie Hansen. The board deliberated behind closed doors, and did not explain its decision. Hansen became superintendent of Orange Unified School District in 2017, having previously served as the district’s superintendent of educational services. 

Hansen is the second Orange County public school superintendent fired in the last three weeks. 

On Dec. 21, 2022, the Capistrano Unified School District school board voted 4-3 to fire Superintendent Kirsten Vital Brulte. Board President Krista Castellanos said in an email: “It is important to mention that the action taken was not for cause. We are grateful for her leadership and wish her the best in her future endeavors.” Brulte became superintendent in 2014.  

In November, the ideological balance of the Orange Unified Board of Education school board shifted when Madison Miner defeated Kathryn Moffat, a 22-year incumbent, in the general election for Orange Unified Board of Education Trustee Area 4. Miner completed Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey. In the survey, Miner said she planned to, “Cut wasteful spending and return tax dollars to the classrooms where they belong. Protect our parents’ rights with medical and school choice decisions. Adopt better options to replace the current ethnic studies and sex ed curriculum.” 

Orange Unified and Capistrano are on our list of districts where candidates in the 2022 elections took positions on race in education/critical race theory, responses to the coronavirus pandemic, or sex and gender in schools. Click here to read more about our project tracking conflicts in school board elections. 

In addition to tracking conflicts in school board elections, we also track instances in which school boards have fired superintendents. Recently, some superintendent dismissals have been related to race in education/critical race theory, responses to the coronavirus pandemic, or sex and gender in schools. 

Here is a list of recent noteworthy K-12 public schools superintendent dismissals:

  • Brevard Public Schools, Florida: On Nov. 22, 2022, the Brevard Public Schools school board voted 3-2 to move forward with terminating Superintendent Mark Mullins’ contract with the district. Mullins agreed to resign. Brevard was on our list of 2022 school board battlegrounds. Candidates Gene Trent and Megan Wright were elected, giving Republicans a 4-1 majority. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), endorsed Wright. 
  • Sarasota County Schools, Florida: On Dec. 13, the Sarasota County Schools school board voted 4-1 to remove Superintendent Brennan Asplen. Sarasota was on our list of districts where candidates took on a stance on race in education/critical race theory, responses to the coronavirus pandemic, or sex and gender in schools. The November elections changed the partisan composition of the board, with Republicans gaining a 4-1 majority (Democrats had a 3-2 majority before the election). Florida Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez (R) endorsed two Sarasota candidates who won their elections—Bridget Ziegler and Timothy Enos. 
  • Broward County Public Schools, Florida: On Nov. 14, 2022, the Broward County Public Schools school board voted 5-4 to remove Superintendent Vickie Cartwright. Gov. DeSantis (R) appointed all five members in August 2022. However, on Dec. 13, the board voted 5-3 to rescind the dismissal. Board member Allen Zeman said he voted to undo the firing because the board had promised Cartwright 90 days to address the board’s concerns but had voted to dismiss her before that time had elapsed. Cartwright will face another vote on Jan 24. 
  • Berkeley County School District, South Carolina: On Nov. 15, the Berkeley County School District school board voted 6-3 to remove Superintendent Deon Jackson. In the Nov. 8, 2022, elections, the local county Republican Party endorsed all six board members who voted to remove Jackson. The board also voted 6-2 on the same evening to ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory. 

We’ll have more about this project of tracking superintendent firings in a future edition.

Extracurricular: education news from around the web

This section contains links to recent education-related articles from around the internet. If you know of a story we should be reading, reply to this email to share it with us! 

Take our Candidate Connection survey to reach voters in your district

We’re featuring survey responses from school board candidates who won their races on Nov. 8. 

Today, we’re looking at responses from Linfeng Chen (R), who won in the general election for Howard County Public Schools Board of Education At-large in Maryland, and Diana Hawley, who won election for Cecil County Board of Education District 5 in Maryland.

Here’s how Chen answered the question, “Please list below 3 key messages of your campaign. What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?”

  • “My vision: A Successful public school system nurtures students’ well-being, creates a sense of belonging and safety, provides every student with necessary resources to succeed.
  • Platform: Commit to quality of public education; Invest in school infrastructure; Prioritize students’ physical and mental health; Promote strength of diversity; Utilize taxpayer money responsibly
  • Better Education for All, Vote for Chen!”

Click here to read the rest of Chen’s answers.

Here’s how Hawley answered the question, “Please list below 3 key messages of your campaign. What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?”

  • “I will continue to advocate for a responsible budget that allows for safe and functional facilities, student and staff resources (including addressing mental health needs), and smaller class sizes
  • I am a CCPS parent who continues to promote positive parent involvement, curriculum transparency, and productive communication
  • I will continue to work to provide equitable opportunities for ALL students, including the needs of marginalized populations. It is important to continue to work to provide academic rigor, increased early intervention opportunities, and a quality college and career readiness program.”

Click here to read the rest of Hawley’s answers.



Democrats push back against the ESG pushback

By Ballotpedia staff
In Uncategorized
January 17, 2023 at 2:30 PM

ESG Developments This Week

In Washington, D.C.

Democrats push back against the ESG pushback

In response to House Republicans’ plans to use their new majority to investigate the ESG movement, three Democratic senators penned an op-ed accusing their GOP colleagues of overstepping. The three senators—Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)—also accused Republicans who oppose ESG of being anti-capitalist:

There is a cohort of elected officials in the United States presently engaged in an anti-capitalist crusade against free-market principles. No, they are not socialists. They are congressional Republicans, and they are attempting to prevent financial institutions from allocating capital in accordance with investor preferences and risk management principles. This attempted crackdown is purely ideological in nature — it is an exercise in political pressure to force a gross government overreach into U.S. capital markets.

This campaign, which should offend anyone with even a modicum of pro-market sensibilities, is being championed from within the Republican Party. Republican state lawmakers and members of Congress are attempting to stifle the growth of sustainable investing and to punish corporate efforts at climate-related financial risk management….

Elected officials should ensure that financial regulatory agencies properly account for risks in their financial stability and supervisory work. Climate change poses unambiguous risks to the financial system, and regulated financial institutions do not have the luxury of picking which risks to manage and which risks to ignore.

But Republicans are engaged in an entirely different pursuit. They are attempting to bully financial institutions and regulators into ignoring market demand and market risk. Imagine elected officials telling investment firms they cannot offer large-cap or small-cap funds, or emerging market funds, or value funds — or, for that matter, sector funds with exposure to energy companies.

That would be considered preposterous. It is similarly bizarre to tell asset managers they are not allowed to reflect the preferences of their investors in their investment stewardship and proxy voting, or to tell regulators that they are not allowed to consider a major source of economic and financial risk.

This isn’t how the free market works. This is picking winners and losers, in this case putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the fossil fuel industry and completely disregarding the overwhelming risks that climate change poses to our economy and financial system.

In the states

Virginia governor expresses concerns about ESG investing

Most government activity supporting or opposing ESG investing has taken place in states with Republican or Democratic trifectas. 

Virginia has a divided government with a Republican governor and House of Delegates and a Democratic state Senate. Gov. Glen Youngkin (R)—who worked for most of his career in financial services (private equity), where he eventually became co-CEO of the Carlyle Group— signaled last week that he, like many of his Republican colleagues, has some concerns about ESG:

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, who ran one of the nation’s biggest investment firms before he took office, said ESG investing is under fire because it has morphed from a philosophy for picking stocks into a weapon for penalizing companies that don’t make the cut.

“Is having world-class transparency and governance a good thing? Yes, it’s a really good thing,” Youngkin, a Republican and the former co-head of Carlyle Group Inc., said during a Bloomberg News editorial board meeting on Monday. But the definition of what’s good for the environment, social goals and governance isn’t one-size-fits all, he added.

ESG “means different things to different people. It just does,” Youngkin said. Amid this swirl of criteria, he continued, investment firms are telling companies, “If you don’t do X, then we’re going to penalize you, as opposed to just not invest with you.”

At the end of the day, the economics of returns should justify the investment decisions, Youngkin said.

On Wall Street and in the private sector

Disney’s past political involvement could create future difficulties, according to New York Post columnist

On January 14, New York Post business columnist Charles Gasparino wrote a piece arguing that Disney’s history of what he describes as political activism has created problems that will follow the company’s old and new CEO Bob Iger going forward:

Investor appetite for woke corporatism has its limits and it usually begins with a declining share price. For further proof, look at what’s going down at Disney.

For years the “House of Mouse” was the epicenter of political correctness. Investors largely ignored this circus (including a same-sex kissing scene in children’s programming) because Disney’s stock soared.

No longer. After longtime CEO Bob Iger retired in 2020, successor Bob Chapek proved to be far less adept as a manager and a seller of wokeness. Pandemic theme-park closures didn’t help. Plus he was also crushed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for opposing a law that prevented schools from teaching sex ed to 6-year-olds and lost Disney’s special tax status.

Much of his programming turned out to be a dud and his streaming strategy floundered. Disney’s stock collapsed so much that Chapek was shown the door just about two years into the job.

Iger, 71, made his return to right the ship and got more grief….

A duo of nettlesome activist investors are now circling the company like vultures. Dan Loeb’s Third Point and Nelson Peltz’s Trian Partners are unlike passive fund managers in that they use their ownership positions to advocate for changes they believe will lead immediately to a higher share price, current management be damned.

Both have big stakes in Disney and, for starters, both want Iger to focus less on programming that appeals to AOC and more on stuff that appeals to Middle America,. They want a coherent streaming strategy, cost cuts and much more.

ESG inflows continue in Europe

In contrast to American investors who pulled money out of ESG funds on net last year amid generally below-average returns, European investors are still buying shares in ESG funds, according to the numbers:

Exchange traded funds aligned with environmental, social and governance outcomes accounted for 65 per cent of all net inflows into European ETFs in 2022, even as ESG strategies underperformed.

The ESG ETFs gathered €51bn over the year out of total flows to European-domiciled ETFs of €78.4bn. The overall totals were down on 2021 when investors poured €160bn into European ETFs, but ESG’s share jumped significantly from the 51 per cent recorded then.

There is now €249bn in ESG-aligned ETFs in Europe, representing 18.8 per cent of total assets.

“In principle, this speaks of a long-term structural change,” said Jose Garcia-Zarate, associate director of passive fund research at Morningstar. He noted that 2022 was not a year to be investing in ESG for those purely focused on near-term returns. Instead a more sensible tactical approach might have been to focus on fossil fuel firms or weapons manufacturers. “I guess it tells us that investors are taking the long-term view,” he said.

Morningstar data show that “sustainable” large-cap equity ETFs in Europe have underperformed their traditional large-cap equity ETF counterparts over the 12 months to the end of December, but also on a three-year and five-year annualised measure….

The increasing relative popularity of ESG strategies in Europe is particularly eye-catching given that it has also coincided with a hard year in terms of ESG’s public image, particularly in relation to accusations of greenwashing.

In 2022, asset managers downgraded scores of “dark green” Article 9 ESG funds holding tens of billions of client money to their lighter green Article 8 counterparts under the EU’s sustainability classification.

Growing concerns over greenwashing in Europe have coincided with a strengthening anti-ESG movement, particularly in the US, against “woke capitalism”….

Garcia-Zarate said Morningstar analysis of the US market at the end of October revealed that while about 20 per cent of ETF holdings in Europe were ESG-related, the comparative figure in the US was only around 1 per cent.

Vanguard’s climate aftermath

Last month, Vanguard—the second largest asset management company in the world and one of the Big Three passive asset managers—announced that it was leaving the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative to guarantee its investment flexibility. On January 12, Reuters published an analysis speculating why Vanguard left the initiative but the other two Big Three asset managers—BlackRock and State Street—have not:

Vanguard Group’s decision last month to quit a key climate change coalition underscores how the retail investors who dominate its client base focus less on environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) priorities than institutional investors.

Vanguard said last month it would drop out of the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative, whose members commit to making their investment portfolios emission-neutral by 2050. It said 80% of its close to $8 trillion in assets are in its index funds, which primarily attract retail investors.

These funds generally do not have discretion to include or exclude stocks beyond a pre-set mandate, and most do not account for carbon emissions.

Vanguard did not explain what changed since 2021, when it joined NZAM, but said it was responding to a desire of its clients to provide “clarity” and make its independence clear.

Vanguard’s biggest competitors, BlackRock Inc (BLK.N) and State Street Corp’s (STT.N) asset-management arm, rely more on institutional investors including pension funds and foundations. Both BlackRock and State Street have stuck with NZAM.

At BlackRock and State Street, mutual funds and exchange-traded funds – the investment vehicles popular with retail investors that include many types of index funds – account for around 41% and 30% of assets, respectively, according to data from Morningstar Direct and company disclosures. At Vanguard, that figure is 88%….

Vanguard’s NZAM participation was modest to begin with. It said 4% of its assets would be aligned by 2030 with a goal of net-zero emissions, compared with State Street committing 14% of its assets. BlackRock has said it expects more than half its assets to meet the 2030 target, but it has not made a firm commitment.

“You wonder why Vanguard signed up in the first place,” said Hortense Bioy, global director of sustainability research at fund ratings firm Morningstar Inc (MORN.O).

Vanguard representatives said the company looks forward to continuing constructive conversations with policymakers….

Vanguard’s exit from NZAM has not fully spared it from the ESG backlash. A coalition of 13 Republican state attorneys general are pressing on with a motion asking federal energy regulators to limit Vanguard’s ability to invest in public utilities.