Author

Janie Valentine

Janie Valentine is a staff writer at Ballotpedia. Contact us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

CUNY professors challenge exclusive representation under New York’s Taylor Law

UnionStationHeader.png

Six City University of New York (CUNY) professors filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 12 challenging the constitutionality of a state law allowing a union to become the exclusive representative for all public-sector employees within a mandatory bargaining unit. The professors, five of whom are Jewish, accuse the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) of anti-Semitism and allege that the union cannot represent them fairly.  

About the lawsuit

The plaintiffs are CUNY professors Avraham Goldstein, Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano. The Fairness Center and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation represent the plaintiffs.  

The defendants are the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), the City University of New York (CUNY), the chairman and members of the New York Public Employee Relations Board in their official capacities, the city of New York, and the New York State Comptroller.

According to their complaint, the plaintiffs “strongly object to being exclusively represented by PSC … [and] object to being forced to associate with PSC in any manner, to having PSC speak for them in any manner, and to providing support to PSC in any form.” The plaintiffs allege that being required to be included in a bargaining unit represented by PSC violates their first Amendment rights. 

In June 2021, PSC adopted a “Resolution in Support of the Palestinian People,” which the plaintiffs consider to be “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel.” According to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, “In the months since the Resolution, PSC members have held chapter-level discussions … [that] encourage support for the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions] movement among rank-and-file members of PSC … The Jewish Plaintiffs believe the Resolution, and related conduct by PSC, sets them and their co-religionists apart and singles them out for disparate treatment, opprobrium, and hostility, based solely upon their religious, ethnic, and moral beliefs and identity, including their support for Israel, the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare that “the certification and recognition of PSC as Plaintiffs’ exclusive representative … violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights of free speech and free association and are unconstitutional,” and to declare that “Section 204 of the Taylor Law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent that it requires or authorizes PSC to be Plaintiffs’ exclusive representative and compels Plaintiffs to associate with other employees in the bargaining unit for purposes of speech and expressive activities.”

About the Taylor Law

New York’s Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act, known as the Taylor Law, governs public-sector labor relations in the state. The New York State Public Employment Relations Board administers the act, which can be found in Article 14 of the New York Civil Service Law. Regarding exclusive representation, the law says: 

“Where an employee organization has been certified or recognized … it shall be the exclusive representative … of all the employees in the appropriate negotiating unit, and the appropriate public employer shall be, and hereby is, required to negotiate collectively with such employee organization in the determination of, and administration of grievances arising under, the terms and conditions of employment of the public employees … and to negotiate and enter into written agreements with such employee organizations in determining such terms and conditions of employment.” 

Perspectives 

PSC representative Fran Clark said:

“This meritless lawsuit, brought by faculty who are not members of our union and funded by the notoriously right-wing National Right to Work Legal Foundation, is just another attempt to erode the power of organized labor to fight for better pay and working conditions and a more just society. PSC members—and non-member free-riders such as the plaintiffs—have good health insurance, benefits, due-process rights, contractual raises and salary steps because of the union’s contract negotiations. The ‘Right to Work’ agenda is rooted in white supremacy; it will find little purchase at CUNY, the nation’s largest, most diverse urban university system.” 

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, said

“It is no surprise that PSC union officials have immediately resorted to ad hominem attacks and baseless name-calling as opposed to defending their coercive monopoly ‘representation’ powers, which have historically been used to discriminate against or otherwise harm rank-and-file workers. Such baseless accusations are page 1 of Big Labor’s playbook when their coercive forced unionism power is exposed by the very workers they claim to represent. No American worker should be forced under the representation of a union they oppose, and it’s high time that federal courts protect this basic aspect of workers’ freedom of association.”

The case name and number are Goldstein et al. v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY et al. (1:22-cv-00321).

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has 24 active judges and four vacancies. Of the active judges on the court, Democratic presidents nominated 17—Bill Clinton nominated two, and Barack Obama nominated 15—and Republican presidents nominated seven—George W. Bush nominated three, and Donald Trump nominated four. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over this court.

Bureau of Labor Statistics releases annual union membership estimates

On Jan. 20, 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 33.9% of public-sector workers nationwide were union members in 2021, roughly five and a half times the membership rate in the private sector (6.1%). In 2020, public-sector union membership was estimated at 34.8%, and in 2019, it was 33.6%.
  • An estimated 40.2% of local government workers were union members in 2021, down from 41.7% in 2020.
  • An estimated 29.6% of state workers were union members in 2021, down from 29.9% in 2020.
  • An estimated 24.9% of federal workers were union members in 2021, down from 26.0% in 2020.

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 75 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.

  • Delaware SB201: This bill would apply the Delaware Public Employment Relations Act to employers with 10 or more full-time employees, rather than 100 or more full-time employees.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Senate Labor Committee hearing held Jan. 19. 
  • Florida S1458: This bill would require certain public employees to sign an authorization form before joining a union acknowledging that union membership is not a condition for employment and that membership and dues are voluntary. It would require unions to allow certain public employees to end their membership by a written request. The bill would also prevent employers from deducting dues from certain employees’ paychecks. It would also amend requirements for bargaining agent recertification and union registration renewal. 
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Introduced Jan. 18. 
  • Maine LD555: This bill would grant most public-sector employees the right to strike. Select public safety and judicial employees would not be allowed to strike. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Joint Standing Committee on Labor and Housing held a public hearing and work session on Jan. 19. Divided report anticipated. 
  • Maryland SB118: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to certain graduate students within the University System of Maryland, Morgan State University, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Senate Finance Committee hearing scheduled for Jan. 27.
  • New Hampshire HB1041: This bill would extend the public employee labor relations act to cover nonpartisan employees of the New Hampshire Legislature. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • House Legislative Administration Committee public hearing held Jan. 19.   
  • Oklahoma SB1380: This bill 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.
    • Introduced Jan. 19, first reading scheduled for Feb. 7. 
  • Oklahoma SB1404: This bill would require that school employee unions submit to secret-ballot elections in order to continue on as collective bargaining agents. A majority of employees must vote in favor in order for the employee union to continue to represent the unit. 
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • Introduced Jan. 19, first reading scheduled for Feb. 7.
  • Virginia SB264: This bill would allow state and local government employees, other than exempted employees, to organize and bargain collectively, and it would create a Public Employee Relations Board. It would require public employers and employee organizations to negotiate in good faith.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Stricken at request of patron in Senate Commerce and Labor Committee on Jan. 17.
  • Washington HB1771: This bill would allow family child care providers to bargain collectively over defined contribution retirement benefits.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Executive session in the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee held Jan. 21.


2022 rundown: Public-sector labor legislation in the states

UnionStationHeader.png

We’re off to the races in 2022! Thirty-two state legislatures are currently in session. Today, we’re taking a look at bills related to public-sector labor policy that have been introduced so far this year. 

Overview

We’re currently tracking 71 pieces of legislation related to public-sector labor policy in the states. Twenty-four of those bills have been introduced this year, and the rest were carried over from 2021. Since 2019, we’ve tracked an average of 107 bills per year.   

Of the bills introduced so far this year, Democrats and Republicans have each sponsored 12. Seven of the Republican-sponsored bills were introduced in Republican trifecta states, and five of the Democratic-sponsored bills were introduced in a Democratic trifecta state. Nine bills were introduced in states with divided government, and three Democratic-sponsored bills were introduced in states with Republican trifectas. 

Bill details

The following bills have been introduced in 2022:

  • Florida H1197 and S1458: These bills would require certain public employees to sign an authorization form before joining a union acknowledging that union membership is not a condition for employment and that membership and dues are voluntary. The bills would require unions to allow certain public employees to end their membership by a written request. The bills would also prevent employers from deducting dues from certain employees’ paychecks. Both proposals would also amend requirements for bargaining agent recertification and union registration renewal. Republican sponsorship.  
  • Kentucky HB111: This bill would remove current restrictions on public employee collective organizing and strikes. It would repeal requirements for dues deduction authorizations. It would prevent state law from prohibiting public employers and local governments from requiring union membership for employment. Democratic sponsorship.
  • Maryland SB118: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to certain graduate students within the University System of Maryland, Morgan State University, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland. Democratic sponsorship
  • Missouri HB2121 and SB728: These bills would establish the “Public Employee Janus Rights Act.” They would require public employees to give written, informed consent before union dues or fees may be withheld from their paychecks. Employees must also give written, informed consent for unions to use fees or dues for political purposes. Republican sponsorship.
  • Missouri HB2122 and SB880: These bills would bar employers from requiring employees to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of a union as a condition of employment. Republican sponsorship.
  • Missouri SB706: This bill would bar employers from requiring employees to join or not join a union as a condition of employment in counties that adopt the provisions of the bill. Republican sponsorship.
  • New Hampshire HB1041: This bill would extend the public employee labor relations act to cover nonpartisan employees of the New Hampshire legislature. Democratic sponsorship.
  • New Hampshire HB1472: This bill would prohibit employers from taking certain actions against employees involved in legal strikes or collective bargaining preceding a legal strike. It would also prohibit employers from “[engaging] in anti-union training of any kind.” Democratic sponsorship.   
  • Vermont H0621: This bill would allow certification of collective bargaining representatives through majority employee sign-up and voluntary employer recognition. Democratic sponsorship.  
  • Virginia HB335: This bill would allow public employees to bargain independently. It would prevent collective bargaining agreements from applying to non-member employees. Republican sponsorship.  
  • Virginia HB336: This bill would require a 51% vote of public employees in a collective bargaining unit to certify a bargaining representative in localities that have authorized collective bargaining. Republican sponsorship.
  • Virginia HB337: This bill would prohibit collective bargaining agreements from having a public employer provide compensation or compensated leave time for union activities. It would require unions to compensate public employers if union activities infringe upon their time or resources. Republican sponsorship.
  • Virginia HB341: This bill would require public employees to give consent before employers may deduct union dues from their pay, and it would allow employees to stop paying dues at any time. It would require annual reconfirmation of consent for union membership and dues deductions. Republican sponsorship.
  • Virginia HB790: This bill would prevent localities from entering collective bargaining agreements with law enforcement employee associations if the agreements do not meet certain criteria. Republican sponsorship.
  • Virginia SB264: This bill would allow state and local government employees, other than exempted employees, to organize and bargain collectively, and it would create a Public Employee Relations Board. It would require public employers and employee organizations to negotiate in good faith. Democratic sponsorship.
  • Washington HB1764: This bill would stipulate new requirements for collective bargaining negotiations and arbitration between the University of Washington School of Medicine and residents and fellows who have the right to bargain collectively. Democratic sponsorship
  • Washington HB1771: This bill would allow family child care providers to bargain collectively over defined contribution retirement benefits. Democratic sponsorship. 
  • Washington HB1806 and SB5773: These bills would give state legislative branch employees the right to bargain collectively. Democratic sponsorship.  
  • Washington SB5579: This bill would give Washington Management Service personnel the right to bargain collectively. Democratic sponsorship
  • West Virginia HB3124: This bill would outline rights and procedures for public employee collective bargaining. Democratic sponsorship

As always, an overview of the current legislation we’re tracking and a list of legislative actions from the past week are included at the end of this newsletter.

To view spreadsheets with information about all of the public-sector labor bills we’ve tracked since 2018, click here

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 71 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.

  • Delaware SB201: This bill would apply the Delaware Public Employment Relations Act to employers of 10 or more full-time employees, rather than 100 or more full-time employees.
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • Senate Labor Committee hearing scheduled for Jan. 19. 
  • Florida H1197: This bill would require certain public employees to sign an authorization form before joining a union acknowledging that union membership is not a condition for employment and that membership and dues are voluntary. It would require unions to allow certain public employees to end their membership by a written request. The bill would also prevent employers from deducting dues from certain employees’ paychecks. It would also amend requirements for bargaining agent recertification and union registration renewal. 
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • Referred to House State Affairs Committee (Government Operations Subcommittee), first reading Jan. 11. 
  • Florida S1458: This bill would require certain public employees to sign an authorization form before joining a union acknowledging that union membership is not a condition for employment and that membership and dues are voluntary. It would require unions to allow certain public employees to end their membership by a written request. The bill would also prevent employers from deducting dues from certain employees’ paychecks. It would also amend requirements for bargaining agent recertification and union registration renewal.
    •  Republican sponsorship.
    • Referred to Senate Judiciary, Governmental Oversight and Accountability, and Appropriations Committees Jan. 12. 
  • Maine LD555: This bill would grant most public-sector employees the right to strike. Select public safety and judicial employees would not be allowed to strike. 
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • Hearing scheduled for Jan. 19. 
  • Maryland SB118: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to certain graduate students within the University System of Maryland, Morgan State University, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Senate Finance Committee hearing scheduled for Jan. 27.
  • Missouri SB706: This bill would bar employers from requiring employees to join or not join a union as a condition of employment in counties that adopt the provisions of the bill.
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • Second read, referred to Senate Small Business and Industry Committee on Jan. 10.
  • Missouri SB728: This bill would establish the “Public Employee Janus Rights Act.” It would require public employees to give written, informed consent before union dues or fees may be withheld from their paychecks. Employees must also give written, informed consent for unions to use fees or dues for political purposes. 
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • Second read, referred to Senate General Laws Committee on Jan. 13.
  • New Hampshire HB1041: This bill would extend the public employee labor relations act to cover nonpartisan employees of the New Hampshire legislature. 
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • House Legislative Administration Committee hearing scheduled for Jan. 19.
  • New Jersey A5862: This bill would expand the terms and conditions negotiable between government employers and public-sector unions to those that “intimately and directly affect employee work and welfare,” with certain exceptions. It would also allow a public-sector union to charge a non-dues-paying employee for the cost of representation in arbitration proceedings, and to decline to represent those who do not agree to pay.
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • Substituted by S3810 on Jan. 10.
  • New Jersey S3810: This bill would expand the terms and conditions negotiable between government employers and public-sector unions to those that “intimately and directly affect employee work and welfare,” with certain exceptions. It would also allow a public-sector union to charge a non-dues-paying employee for the cost of representation in arbitration proceedings, and to decline to represent those who do not agree to pay.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Substituted for A5862, passed both chambers Jan. 10.
  • Vermont H0621: This bill would allow certification of collective bargaining representatives through majority employee sign-up and voluntary employer recognition.
    • Democratic sponsorship.   
    • Read first time, referred to House General, Housing, and Military Affairs Committee on Jan. 13.
  • Virginia HB335: This bill would allow public employees to bargain independently. It would prevent collective bargaining agreements from applying to non-member employees.
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • Introduced Jan. 11, committee referral pending.
  • Virginia HB336: This bill would require a 51% vote of public employees in a collective bargaining unit to certify a bargaining representative in localities that have authorized collective bargaining. 
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • Introduced Jan. 11, committee referral pending.
  • Virginia HB337: This bill would prohibit collective bargaining agreements from having a public employer provide compensation or compensated leave time for union activities. It would require unions to compensate public employers if union activities infringe upon their time or resources. 
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • Introduced Jan. 11, committee referral pending.
  • Virginia HB341: This bill would require public employees to give consent before employers may deduct union dues from their pay, and it would allow employees to stop paying dues at any time. It would require annual reconfirmation of consent for union membership and dues deductions.
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • Introduced Jan. 11, committee referral pending.
  • Virginia HB790: This bill would prevent localities from entering collective bargaining agreements with law enforcement employee associations if the agreements do not meet certain criteria.
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • Introduced Jan. 11, committee referral pending.
  • Virginia SB264: This bill would allow state and local government employees, other than exempted employees, to organize and bargain collectively, and it would create a Public Employee Relations Board. It would require public employers and employee organizations to negotiate in good faith.
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • Referred to Senate Commerce and Labor Committee Jan. 11.
  • Washington HB1764: This bill would stipulate new requirements for collective bargaining negotiations and arbitration between the University of Washington School of Medicine and residents and fellows who have the right to bargain collectively.
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • Public hearing in the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee held Jan. 14.
  • Washington HB1771: This bill would allow family child care providers to bargain collectively over defined contribution retirement benefits.
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • Public hearing in the House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee held Jan. 14.
  • Washington HB1806: This bill would give state legislative branch employees the right to bargain collectively. 
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    •  First reading, referred to House Labor & Workplace Standards Committee Jan. 10.
  • Washington SB5579: This bill would give Washington Management Service personnel the right to bargain collectively.   
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • First reading, referred to Senate Labor, Commerce & Tribal Affairs Committee Jan. 10.
  • Washington SB5773: This bill would give state legislative branch employees the right to bargain collectively. 
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • First reading, referred to Senate Labor, Commerce & Tribal Affairs Committee Jan. 11.
  • West Virginia HB3124: This bill would outline rights and procedures for public employee collective bargaining. 
    • Democratic sponsorship.
    • Referred to House Government Organization Committee Jan. 12.


2021 recap: Public-sector labor legislation in the states

Happy New Year! Today we’ll look back at what happened to public-sector labor bills during the 2021 legislative year. Next week, we’ll give you a rundown of bills filed in 2022.

Highlights

  • State legislatures either introduced or carried over from earlier sessions 112 bills related to public-sector labor policy in 2021.
  • Fifteen relevant bills were enacted. 
  • Democrats and Republicans sponsored a similar number of bills, with Republicans sponsoring 51 and Democrats sponsoring 50. The rest either had nonpartisan legislative backing, were bipartisan, or were committee bills.  

Overview

The following map shows which states considered public-sector labor legislation in 2021, with darker colors representing a higher number of bills.

Legislators in Maryland introduced the most public-sector labor bills in 2021—10—followed by Pennsylvania with nine and Oregon and Connecticut tied with seven. 

This chart shows the legislative status of each bill at the end of 2021:

Enacted legislation

The following 15 bills were enacted in 2021:

  • Arkansas SB341: This bill prohibits collective bargaining on the part of certain public-sector employees. Read our coverage of the bill’s passage here
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) signed on April 8, 2021.       
  • Connecticut SB00908: This bill requires public employers to furnish unions with personal information of employees belonging to the bargaining unit. It also requires employers to grant unions access to new employee orientations.
    • Originally introduced by the General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee. 
    • Gov. Ned Lamont (D) signed on June 4, 2021. 
  • Delaware HB237: This bill grants select law enforcement officers the right of organization under the Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Employment Relations Act.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Gov. John Carney (D) signed on Sept. 10, 2021. 
  • Illinois HB2521: This bill allows electronic signatures on petitions submitted for selecting an exclusive bargaining representative. It allows certification elections to be conducted electronically. It also prohibits an employer from promising or taking action against an employee for participating in a strike.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) signed on Aug. 27, 2021.
  • Illinois SJRCA0011: A legislatively referred constitutional amendment that would guarantee employees the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives they choose. Read more about this amendment here and here.
    • Bipartisan sponsorship. 
    • The Illinois House and Senate adopted this joint resolution in May 2021.
  • Indiana SB0251: This bill establishes that a school employee can leave a union at any time. It also requires employees to annually authorize any payroll deductions of union dues. Read more about this bill here and its aftermath here
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) signed on April 22, 2021.  
  • Maine LD52: This bill allows educational policies related to preparation and planning time and transfer of teachers to be subjects of collective bargaining negotiations.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Gov. Janet Mills (D) signed on June 8, 2021.
  • Maryland SB138: This bill extends collective bargaining rights to employees of the Baltimore County Public Library. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Enacted May 30, 2021.
  • Maryland SB556: This bill establishes a separate collective bargaining unit for teachers at the Maryland School for the Deaf.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Enacted May 30, 2021.
  • Oklahoma HB2747: This bill eliminates the Public Employees Relations Board. It directs municipal public employers to recognize unions as the exclusive bargaining agents for police officers or firefighters upon a majority vote of the members of the bargaining unit. 
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed on May 5, 2021. 
  • Oregon SB580: This bill amends the law’s definition of “employment relations” to include class size and caseload limits as mandatory collective bargaining subjects for school districts. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed on July 14, 2021. 
  • Tennessee SJR0002: A legislatively referred constitutional amendment that would bar any person, corporation, or governmental entity from denying employment due to an individual’s affiliation status with a union or other employee organization. Read more about this amendment here
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • The speakers of the Senate and House signed the joint resolution in May 2021. 
  • Washington SB5133: This bill amends the definition of a “confidential employee” for the purposes of collective bargaining. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed on May 3, 2021. 
  • West Virginia HB2009: This bill prohibits state, county, and municipal governments from deducting public union dues from paychecks. Read more here, here, and here.
    • Republican sponsorship.
    • Gov. Jim Justice (R) signed on March 30, 2021. 
  • West Virginia SB11: This bill prohibits public-sector employees from striking. Read more about this bill here.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Enacted on March 16, 2021. 

Compared to years past

This chart shows the number of public-sector labor bills Ballotpedia tracked each year from 2019 to 2021 and the number of those bills that were enacted each year: 

This chart shows a breakdown of the partisan affiliation of bill sponsors by year. The percentage of bills sponsored by Republicans increased in 2021.

To view spreadsheets with information about all of the public-sector labor bills we’ve tracked since 2018, click here

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 59 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.

  • Florida H1197: This bill would require certain public employees to sign an authorization form before joining a union acknowledging that union membership is not a condition for employment and membership and dues are voluntary. It would require unions to allow certain public employees to end their membership by a written request. The bill would also prevent employers from deducting dues from certain employees’ paychecks. It would also amend requirements for bargaining agent recertification and union registration renewal. 
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Filed Jan. 5.
  • Florida S1458: This bill would require certain public employees to sign an authorization form before joining a union acknowledging that union membership is not a condition for employment and membership and dues are voluntary. It would require unions to allow certain public employees to end their membership by a written request. The bill would also prevent employers from deducting dues from certain employees’ paychecks. It would also amend requirements for bargaining agent recertification and union registration renewal. 
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Filed Jan. 4. 
  • Kentucky HB111: This bill would remove current restrictions on public employee collective organizing and strikes. It would repeal requirements for dues deduction authorizations. It would prevent state law from prohibiting public employers and local governments from requiring union membership for employment. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Introduced Jan. 4. 
  • Maine LD555: This bill would grant most public-sector employees the right to strike. Select public safety and judicial employees would not be allowed to strike.  
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Hearing scheduled for Jan. 19. 
  • Maryland SB118: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to certain graduate students within the University System of Maryland, Morgan State University, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Senate Finance Committee first reading scheduled for Jan. 12. 
  • Missouri HB2121: This bill would establish the “Public Employee Janus Rights Act.” It would require public employees to give written, informed consent before union dues or fees may be withheld from their paychecks. Employees must also give written, informed consent for unions to use fees or dues for political purposes. 
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Read second time Jan. 6.
  • Missouri HB2122: This bill would bar employers from requiring employees to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of a union as a condition of employment. 
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • Read second time Jan. 6.
  • Missouri SB706: This bill would bar employers from requiring employees to become or refrain from becoming members of a union as a condition of employment in counties that adopt the provisions of the section.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • First read Jan. 5. 
  • Missouri SB728: This bill would establish the “Public Employee Janus Rights Act.” It would require public employees to give written, informed consent before union dues or fees may be withheld from their paychecks. Employees must also give written, informed consent for unions to use fees or dues for political purposes. 
    •  Republican sponsorship. 
    • First read Jan. 5. 
  • Missouri SB880: This bill would bar employers from requiring employees to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of a union as a condition of employment.
    • Republican sponsorship. 
    • First read Jan. 5. 
  • Nebraska LB684: This bill would prohibit public school employers and unions from placing restrictions on when employees can join or leave unions.
    • Carried over Jan. 5.
  • New Jersey A5862: This bill would expand the terms and conditions negotiable between government employers and public-sector unions to those that “intimately and directly affect employee work and welfare,” with certain exceptions. It would also allow a public-sector union to charge a non-dues-paying employee for the cost of representation in arbitration proceedings, and to decline to represent those who does not agree to pay.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing Jan. 6. 
  • New Jersey S3810: This bill would expand the terms and conditions negotiable between government employers and public-sector unions to those that “intimately and directly affect employee work and welfare,” with certain exceptions. It would also allow a public-sector union to charge a non-dues-paying employee for the cost of representation in arbitration proceedings, and to decline to represent those who does not agree to pay.
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Senate Budget and Appropriations hearing Jan. 6.


An overview of the public-sector labor lawsuits tracked by Ballotpedia

UnionStationHeader.png

Note: The next edition of Union Station will be on Jan. 7, 2022. Until then, happy holidays!

Overview of federal lawsuits related to public-sector labor policy

Since late 2019, Ballotpedia has tracked 160 federal lawsuits related to public-sector labor policy. Today, we’ll look at an overview of these cases. We’ll also highlight seven Supreme Court decisions that these cases commonly reference. 

Overview 

The majority of these lawsuits ask one or more of the following questions:

  • Whether public-sector unions can be held liable for refunding agency fees paid before the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME;  
  • Whether public-sector unions may continue to collect union dues from an employee who leaves the union if there is a pre-existing agreement for fees deduction throughout a given time period; 
  • Whether exclusive bargaining representation laws violate non-union members’ First Amendment rights; 
  • Whether mandatory bar association dues should be reconsidered in light of Janus.

The map below shows the cases we’re tracking by the U.S. district court in which they originated. The three districts with the highest number of cases are the Central District of California (16 cases), the Middle District of Pennsylvania (16 cases), and the District of Oregon (13 cases).    

Here’s the breakdown by circuit:

And by case status (pending cases are divided by court level, and cases that have been dismissed, settled, or otherwise resolved are counted together):   

Finally, this chart shows the cases we’ve tracked by the year they were filed. The earliest case we’ve tracked was filed in 2014. 

Commonly referenced Supreme Court decisions

The following Supreme Court decisions are commonly referenced in these types of cases. Here’s a quick rundown of each decision, in chronological order: 

  • Lathrop v. Donohue (1961)
    • Appealed to the Supreme Court from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. 
    • Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices William Brennan, Tom Clark, Potter Stewart, John Marshall Harlan II, Felix Frankfurter, and Charles Evans Whittaker formed the majority. Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas dissented.  
    • Justice Brennan wrote: “We are persuaded that … we have no sound basis for deciding appellant’s constitutional claim insofar as it rests on the assertion that his rights of free speech are violated by the use of his money for causes which he opposes. Even if the demurrer is taken as admitting all the factual allegations of the complaint, even if these allegations are construed most expansively, and even if, like the Wisconsin Supreme Court, we take judicial notice of the political activities of the State Bar, still we think that the issue of impingement upon rights of free speech through the use of exacted dues is no more concretely presented for adjudication than it was in [Railway Employees’ Dept. v. Hanson (1956)]. ”
  • Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977)
    • Appealed to the Supreme Court from the Michigan Court of Appeals.
    • Unanimous decision.
    • Justice Potter Stewart wrote: “There can be no quarrel with the truism that, because public employee unions attempt to influence governmental policymaking, their activities — and the view of members who disagree with them — may be properly termed political. But that characterization does not raise the ideas and beliefs of public employees onto a higher plane than the idea and belief of private employees. … The differences between public and private sector collective bargaining simply do not translate into differences in First Amendment rights.” 
    • Overturned in Janus v. AFSCME (2018).
  • Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986)
    • Appealed to the Supreme Court from the Seventh Circuit.  
    • Unanimous decision.
    • Justice John Paul Stevens wrote: “We hold today that the constitutional requirements for the Union’s collection of agency fees include an adequate explanation of the basis for the fee, a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decisionmaker, and an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute while such challenges are pending.”
  • Keller v. State Bar of California (1990)
    • Appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court from the Supreme Court of California. 
    • Unanimous decision. 
    • Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote: “Here the compelled association and integrated bar is justified by the State’s interest in regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services. The State Bar may therefore constitutionally fund activities germane to those goals out of the mandatory dues of all members. It may not, however, in such manner fund activities of an ideological nature which fall outside of those areas of activity. The difficult question, of course, is to define the latter class of activities.”
  • Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union Local 1000 (2012)
    • Appealed to the Supreme Court from the Ninth Circuit. 
    • Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas formed the majority. Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented.
    • Justice Alito wrote: “In this case, we decide whether the First Amendment allows a public-sector union to require objecting nonmembers to pay a special fee for the purpose of financing the union’s political and ideological activities. […] Public-sector unions have the right under the First Amendment to express their views on political and social issues without government interference. … But employees who choose not to join a union have the same rights. … Therefore, when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh Hudson notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.”
  • Harris v. Quinn (2014)
    • Appealed to the Supreme Court from the Seventh Circuit. 
    • Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas formed the majority. Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. 
    • Justice Alito wrote: “This case presents the question whether the First Amendment permits a State to compel personal care providers to subsidize speech on matters of public concern by a union that they do not wish to join or support. […] [W]e refuse to extend Abood in the manner that Illinois seeks. If we accepted Illinois’ argument, we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support. The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from personal assistants in the Rehabilitation Program who do not want to join or support the union.”
  • Janus v. AFSCME (2018)
    • Appealed to the Supreme Court from the Seventh Circuit.  
    • Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch formed the majority. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.
    • Justice Alito wrote: “Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsidize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining and related activities. We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern. We upheld a similar law in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed. … and we recognize the importance of following precedent unless there are strong reasons for not doing so. But there are very strong reasons in this case. Fundamental free speech rights are at stake. Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations that Abood has countenanced for the past 41 years. Abood is therefore overruled.”

To view a spreadsheet with information about all of the lawsuits we’re tracking, click here.

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 110 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.

  • New Jersey A5862: This bill would expand the terms and conditions negotiable between government employers and public-sector unions to include those that “intimately and directly affect employee work and welfare,” with certain exceptions. It would also allow a public-sector union to charge a non-dues-paying employee for the cost of representation in arbitration proceedings, and to decline to represent a non-dues-paying employee who does not agree to pay the cost of representation. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Assembly Labor Committee hearing held Dec. 13. 


U.S. Supreme Court asked to reconsider mandatory bar association dues

Two petitions ask the Supreme Court to apply Janus v. AFSCME ruling to mandatory bar dues 

Attorneys from Oklahoma and Texas are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider mandatory bar association dues in light of its 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME

In 1990, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld mandatory bar dues, ruling in Keller v. State Bar of California that “the compelled association and integrated bar is justified by the State’s interest in regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services.”  A majority of states have mandatory bar associations. Bar dues are fees paid by attorneys in a state as required for membership in the state bar association.   

Schell v. Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices

Plaintiff Mark Schell, an Oklahoma attorney, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in March 2019, claiming the Oklahoma Bar Association’s compulsory membership and mandatory dues violated attorneys’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Goldwater Institute, which describes itself as a “free-market public policy research and litigation organization,” and attorneys from Jones Day are representing Schell. 

The defendants are the Chief Justice and Justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Board of Governors, and Oklahoma Bar Association Executive Director John M. Williams. Attorneys from Maye Law Firm and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP represent the defendants.

U.S. District Court Judge Joe Heaton ruled in favor of the defendants in September 2019 and March 2020. In the September ruling, Heaton wrote: “To the extent that plaintiff contends the recent case of [Janus v. AFSCME] requires a different result, the court is unpersuaded. Janus involved the payment of agency fees by non-members of a public employee union. While there are some parallels between Janus and the circumstances here, there are also differences. There is also no suggestion in Janus that either [Lathrop v. Donohue (1961)] or [Keller v. State Bar of Calif. (1990)] were overruled or otherwise called into question. In such circumstances, the court is obliged to follow the cases which most directly control, and therefore declines to speculate as to whether the Supreme Court might reach some different result if it were to revisit either Lathrop or Keller.” President George W. Bush (R) nominated Heaton to the court.

Schell appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in April 2020.

On June 29, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit—Judges Carolyn McHugh, Harris Hartz, and David Ebel—upheld the lower court’s ruling on mandatory bar dues but reversed and remanded the ruling on mandatory bar membership, finding that the lower court “erred by relying upon Lathrop and Keller to dismiss Mr. Schell’s freedom of association claim.” President Barack Obama (D) nominated McHugh, George W. Bush nominated Hartz, and President Ronald Reagan (R) nominated Ebel.

Schell appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 22. In the petition, Schell’s attorneys wrote: 

“In the wake of Janus, a handful of plaintiffs have filed petitions asking this Court to ‘overturn’ its decision in Keller v. State Bar of California … which addressed a First Amendment challenge to mandatory bar dues. […] 

“In this case, by contrast, Petitioner recognizes that there is no need to ‘overturn’ Keller in order to strike down compulsory subsidies for bar associations’ political speech. In fact, Keller itself squarely held that compulsory bar dues and union fees must be subject to the ‘same constitutional rule’ of First Amendment scrutiny. … And under Janus, the ‘constitutional rule’ is now exacting scrutiny. […]

“This Court should grant certiorari because the Tenth Circuit’s decision directly conflicts with the holdings of Keller and Janus. Keller held that bar dues and union fees must be subject to the “same constitutional rule.” … And Janus held that the rule is ‘exacting scrutiny.’ … In light of those holdings, the Tenth Circuit was wrong to follow Keller’s dicta about how bar dues might be analyzed under the now-defunct rule of [Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.]. Since Janus overturned Abood, the only way to be faithful to Keller’s core holding is to make clear that both mandatory bar dues and compulsory union fees are subject to the same rule of exacting scrutiny.” 

The question presented is, “Are mandatory bar dues that subsidize the political and ideological speech of bar associations subject to ‘the same constitutional rule’ of exacting First Amendment scrutiny that applies to compulsory union fees under Janus?” 

The defendants filed waivers of their right to respond on Dec. 2. 

The case name and number are Schell v. Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices (21-779). 

McDonald v. Firth

The plaintiffs, Texas attorneys Tony McDonald, Joshua Hammer, and Mark Pulliam, filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in March 2019. The suit challenged the requirement for attorneys to join the State Bar of Texas as a condition of practicing law, alleging that mandatory membership violates the First Amendment. Attorneys from Consovoy McCarthy PLLC represent the plaintiffs.

The defendants are the members of the State Bar of Texas’ Board of Directors in their official capacities. Attorneys from Vinson & Elkins LLP represent the defendants.

In May 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel ruled in favor of the defendants, writing: “Because the Bar has adequate procedural safeguards in place to protect against compelled speech and because mandatory Bar membership and compulsory fees do not otherwise violate the First Amendment, Plaintiffs’ claim that the Bar unconstitutionally coerces them into funding allegedly non-chargeable activities without a meaningful opportunity to object necessarily fails as a matter of law.” George W. Bush nominated Yeakel to the court.

The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in June 2020.  

On July 2, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit—Judges Don Willett, Jerry E. Smith, and Stuart Kyle Duncan—ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning the district court’s ruling, remanding the case back to the lower court, and blocking the state bar from requiring membership or dues of the plaintiffs while the case is pending in the lower court. President Donald Trump (R) nominated Willett and Duncan to the court. Reagan nominated Smith. 

The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 24. Their petition says

“This case implicates the same types of First Amendment harms that were at issue in Janus. Petitioners are three Texas attorneys who are compelled to join and financially support the State Bar of Texas in order to practice their chosen profession. The Bar uses their coerced funds to support an extensive array of highly ideological and controversial activities, including lobbying for legislation; promoting identity-based programming and affinity groups; and supporting legal aid and pro bono initiatives that often touch on controversial matters such as immigration policy. Petitioners do not support these activities yet are compelled to associate with the Bar and fund its activities if they wish to continuing practicing law in Texas [sic]. […] 

“This Court should grant certiorari and hold that members of a mandatory bar cannot be compelled to finance any political or ideological activities, and cannot be compelled to join a bar that engages in such activities.” 

The question presented is, “Does the First Amendment prohibit a state from compelling attorneys to join and fund a state bar association that engages in extensive political and ideological activities?” 

The defendants filed a waiver of their right to respond on Dec. 2. The case was distributed for conference on Jan. 7, 2022. 

The case name and number are McDonald v. Firth (21-800).

About the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court receives around 7,000 to 8,000 petitions every year. During its past five terms, the court has agreed to hear an average of 71 cases per term. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.   

To subscribe to Robe & Gavel, Ballotpedia’s federal courts newsletter, click here

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 110 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.

  • New Jersey A5862: This bill would expand the terms and conditions negotiable between government employers and public-sector unions to include those that “intimately and directly affect employee work and welfare,” with certain exceptions. It would also allow a public-sector union to charge a non-dues-paying employee for the cost of representation in arbitration proceedings, and to decline to represent a non-dues-paying employee who does not agree to pay the cost of representation. 
    • Democratic sponsorship. 
    • Assembly Labor Committee hearing on Dec. 13.


Party control of mayor’s office in Columbia, S.C., flips from Democratic to Republican in runoff

Daniel Rickenmann defeated Tameika Isaac Devine in the runoff election for mayor of Columbia, South Carolina, on Nov. 16. Rickenmann received 52% of the vote to Devine’s 48%. Both Rickenmann and Devine are members of the Columbia City Council.

While mayoral elections in Columbia are nonpartisan, Rickenmann is affiliated with the Republican Party. Incumbent Mayor Stephen K. Benjamin, a Democrat, did not run for re-election. Benjamin endorsed Devine, also a Democrat, in the runoff.

Fifteen state capitals held mayoral elections in 2021. Before these elections, 14 officeholders were Democrats and one was nonpartisan. As a result of the 2021 elections, 12 mayoral offices will remain under Democratic control (Atlanta, Georgia, will hold a runoff election between two Democrats on Nov. 30). The election in Columbia flips one office from Democratic to Republican control. One office continues to be held by a nonpartisan mayor, and one newly-elected mayor has not responded to inquiries.

Currently, the mayors of 39 state capitals are affiliated with the Democratic Party. Four are Republicans, one is independent, and two are nonpartisan. Four mayors have not responded to inquiries about their partisan affiliation.

In cities where mayoral elections are nonpartisan, Ballotpedia uses one or more of the following sources to identify each officeholder’s partisan affiliation: (1) direct communication from the officeholder, (2) current or previous candidacy for partisan office, or (3) identification of partisan affiliation by multiple media outlets.

Additional reading:



No partisan changes occurred in Nov. 2 mayoral elections for top-100 cities

Mayoral elections on Nov. 2 did not result in partisan changes in any of the 100 largest cities by population. Two elections are upcoming: the Atlanta, Georgia, mayoral election advanced to a Nov. 30 runoff, and New Orleans, Louisiana, will hold a mayoral election on Nov. 13, with a possible second election on Dec. 11.

Two partisan changes in top-100 mayoral offices occurred earlier in 2021:

  • North Las Vegas Mayor John J. Lee announced that he was changing his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican on April 6, 2021.
  • David Bronson (R) assumed office as mayor of Anchorage, Alaska on July 1, 2021, replacing nonpartisan acting mayor Austin Quinn-Davidson, who assumed office following the resignation of Ethan Berkowitz (D).

Twenty-eight of the 100 largest cities are holding mayoral elections this year. In 19 of those 28 cities, the incumbent was Democratic at the start of 2021. Seven incumbents were Republican, one was independent, and one was nonpartisan.

Currently, 63 of the 100 largest cities’ mayors are Democrats, 26 are Republicans, and 10 are either nonpartisan or independent. One mayor’s affiliation is unknown.

In cities where mayoral elections are nonpartisan, Ballotpedia uses one or more of the following sources to identify each officeholder’s partisan affiliation: (1) direct communication from the officeholder, (2) current or previous candidacy for partisan office, or (3) identification of partisan affiliation by multiple media outlets.



A look at mayoral partisanship ahead of Nov. 2 elections

Image of a red sign with the words "Polling Place" a pointing arrow.

Seventeen of the 100 largest U.S. cities by population and 10 state capitals outside of the top-100 cities are holding general elections for mayor on Tuesday, Nov. 2.

In these 27 cities, 26 incumbent mayors are Democrats, and one is a Republican. Fourteen of these incumbents are not on the general election ballot: 10 did not run for re-election, and four lost in primaries. Between 2014 and 2020, 18% of top-100 incumbent mayors that sought re-election were defeated.

In total, 28 top-100 cities and 12 state capitals outside the top-100 cities are electing mayors in 2021. Eleven of these cities have already held their mayoral elections. Two cities will hold general elections after Nov. 2.

One of the 11 mayoral elections held so far this year resulted in an office changing partisan control. In Anchorage, Alaska, David Bronson (R) was elected to succeed nonpartisan acting mayor Austin Quinn-Davidson, who assumed office following the resignation of Ethan Berkowitz (D).

One other party change has taken place this year. In April, North Las Vegas, Nevada, Mayor John J. Lee announced that he was changing his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican.

Currently, 63 top-100 mayors are affiliated with the Democratic Party, 26 are affiliated with the Republican Party, four are independents, six identify as nonpartisan or unaffiliated, and one mayor has not responded to inquiries about his partisan affiliation.

The mayors of 39 capital cities are affiliated with the Democratic Party. Three are Republicans, one is independent, and two are nonpartisan. Five capital mayors have not yet responded to inquiries.

In cities where mayoral elections are nonpartisan, Ballotpedia uses one or more of the following sources to identify each officeholder’s partisan affiliation: (1) direct communication from the officeholder, (2) current or previous candidacy for partisan office, or (3) identification of partisan affiliation by multiple media outlets.

Additional reading:



All candidates for Academy School District 20 school board in Colorado complete Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey

All 10 candidates for three at-large seats on the Academy School District 20 school board in Colorado have completed Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey. The survey asks candidates questions aimed to help voters learn why candidates are running and what they hope to achieve in office.

Each of the candidates running in the Nov. 2 nonpartisan election responded to questions such as, “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?” and “What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?” 

To read candidates’ responses to these and other questions, click here.

The Academy District 20 Board of Education consists of five voting members elected to four-year terms and one non-voting liaison to the U.S. Air Force Academy. Board members are elected at large. Elections are held on a staggered basis in November of odd-numbered years. Board members elected on Nov. 2 will begin their term on Jan. 1, 2022. One incumbent, Thomas LaValley, is running for re-election. 

Academy School District 20 is located in El Paso County, Colorado. The district contains 40 schools. 

Additional reading:



All candidates for Colorado Springs School District 11 school board complete Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey

All nine candidates for four at-large seats on the Colorado Springs School District 11 school board have completed Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey. The survey asks candidates questions aimed to help voters learn why candidates are running and what they hope to achieve in office.

Seven candidates are running in the Nov. 2 regular election for three at-large seats. The three individuals elected to these seats will serve four-year terms. Two candidates are running in a special election for one at-large seat. The winner of that election will serve a two-year term. Three incumbents are running for re-election.

Each of the candidates responded to questions such as, “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?” and “What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?” 

To read candidates’ responses to these and other questions, click here.

The Colorado Springs School District 11 school board consists of seven members elected to four-year terms. Elections are held on a staggered basis in November of odd-numbered years.

The district is located in El Paso County, Colorado, and contains 55 schools.

Additional reading: