CategoryNewsletters

Critics blame ESG for Silicon Valley Bank failure


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.


ESG Developments This Week

On Wall Street and in the private sector

Critics blame ESG for Silicon Valley Bank failure

California regulators shut down Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) on March 10, making it the second-largest bank failure in American history. In the wake of the collapse and the fear of contagion, some in politics and the media have criticized the bank’s loans to ESG-related companies and its in-house ESG policies. For example, Congressman James Comer (R-Ky.), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said SVB was “one of the most woke banks” in America:

GOP Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, slammed Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB, as “one of the most woke banks” in the US.

“We see now coming out they were one of the most woke banks in their quest for the ESG-type policy and investing,” Comer said, referring to environmental, social, and governance policies.

“This could be a trend and there are consequences for bad Democrat policy,” the Kentucky congressman continued on Sunday’s episode of Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Comer did not explain which environmental sustainability-linked investments would have caused SVB’s failure, or how they would have done so.

The New York Post ran a piece on March 11 detailing some of the ESG programs in which the bank participated:

A head of risk management at Silicon Valley Bank spent considerable time spearheading multiple “woke” LGBTQ+ programs, including a “safe space” for coming-out stories, as the firm raced toward collapse.

Jay Ersapah, the boss of financial risk management at SVB’s UK branch, launched initiatives such as the company’s first month-long Pride campaign and a new blog emphasizing mental health awareness for LGBTQ+ youth.

“The phrase ‘You can’t be what you can’t see’ resonates with me,’” Ersapah was quoted as saying on the company website. …

In addition to instituting SVB’s first “safe space catch-up” — which encouraged employees to share their coming-out stories — and serving on LGBTQ+ panels around the world, Ersapah spent time over the last year serving as a director for diversity role models and volunteering as a mentor for migrant leaders. …

On Saturday, Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus insinuated that “woke” policies like the ones launched by Ersapah could have led to SVB’s dramatic failure. …

“These banks are badly run because everybody is focused on diversity and all of the woke issues and not concentrating on the one thing they should, which is, shareholder returns,” Marcus said.

“Instead of protecting the shareholders and their employees, they are more concerned about the social policies. And I think it’s probably a badly run bank.

“They’ve been there for a lot of years. It’s pathetic that so many people lost money that won’t get it back.”


Strive Asset Management CIO questions the role of ESG in SVB’s failure

Matt Cole, the chief investment officer and global head of fixed income at the post-ESG investment firm Strive Asset Management, pushed back against those who blamed ESG for SVB’s collapse. Cole wrote that “[t]here probably isn’t an investor with a more defined bearish view on the cost of Stakeholder Capitalism/ESG on equity returns than myself,” but he questioned the claims that ESG caused the bank’s failure:

The SVB failure had about as much to do with ESG/Stakeholder Capitalism as ESG/Stakeholder Capitalism has to do with making money – nothing….

SVB was caught up in the ESG game, but were about average with respect to the banking sector as a whole based on ESG ratings. The too big to fail banks are all significantly worse with respects to ESG. SVB stood out in taking stupid investment risks, period.


Companies that support ESG underperform, according to WSJ op-ed

The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Mike Edelson and Andy Puzder on March 10 arguing that “corporations that remain neutral on social and political issues outperform companies that lean left.” The two argued the following:

Woke capitalism makes its way into financial markets through an ill-defined concept known as environmental, social and governance investing. Huge investment managers use their ownership of shares to pressure companies to jump on the ESG train. But while individual investors are free to support whatever causes they wish with their dollars, those who invest other peoples’ money have a fiduciary duty to focus solely on clients’ financial interests. Thus it’s important to know whether politically focused companies actually do produce superior financial results.

To answer this question, we used research from 2ndVote Analytics Inc., a company that scores U.S. large-cap and midcap companies on their social and political engagement on five-point scale. Analytics evaluates company data on six social/political issues—the environment, education, abortion, Second Amendment rights, other basic constitutional freedoms and support for a safe civil society—and also generates a composite score. Company scores, updated quarterly, range from 1 (most liberal) to 5 (most conservative), with 3 meaning neutral or unengaged.

On average, roughly a quarter (or 221) of the S&P 900 large/mid-cap companies studied scored 3—taking no political or social stance on any of these six issues—during the period from June 30, 2021 (when the data was first available), through Jan. 31, 2023. Of the remaining companies, the political tilt was strongly to the left. More than 59% scored liberal, and under 15% conservative (with only one company higher than 4).

We used a neutral score of 3 as a proxy for companies that focus on investors’ returns rather than activism. We then compared the performance of those neutral companies with the market (represented by the S&P 500 and Russell 1000) as well as major ESG-registered funds. The point is to demonstrate how well a portfolio of business-focused politically neutral companies performs compared with those potentially distracted by political issues.

In making this comparison, we used a third-party index-calculation agent and market-value weighting in a manner similar to the S&P 500 and Russell 1000 benchmarks (total returns). The ESG products’ returns include the effect of fees; the neutral-universe and benchmark indexes don’t. The analysis covers the full period for which company scores were available, including the market runup in the last half of 2021, the 2022 bear market and the early-2023 rebound.

The results are compelling. The market was down overall, by 1.8% for the S&P 500 and 3.2% for the Russell 1000. ESG funds performed worse, with most losing 2.5% to 6.3%. A simple index composed of only neutral companies gained 2.9%, significantly outperforming both broad-market and ESG indexes in up and down markets. Notably, the benchmarks include the outperforming neutral companies—indicating that the politically active companies further underperformed. …

For a longer view, we compared the performance of the more than 200 companies that remained neutral over our data period with the benchmarks over the past 10 years. The neutral portfolio’s cumulative return (334%) outgained the market (230%); the results were substantially more compelling using equal-weighted returns as an alternative method.

One interesting result is the point at which performance notably begins deviating—2017-18, around the time companies (and perhaps their profits and returns) began feeling pressure from the power and influence of supposedly passive asset managers such as BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, as those behemoths’ push into ESG intensified.


In the states

Harvard Law summarizes the last year of state-level ESG engagement 

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance published a summary article on March 11 detailing the rise in state-level support for and opposition against ESG over the last year:

When it comes to ESG in the United States, among the most dramatic developments is an ideological battle unfolding at the state level, pitting liberal-leaning state governments that have embraced ESG-focused investing against conservative-led states that would seek to exclude it. …

[O] the past year, the picture has shifted. States have stepped up their lawmaking, defining the future of the ESG-related regulatory environment with widely divergent approaches.

These measures focus primarily on the investment of state-level public retirement system assets. New varietals of these and other ESG-focused laws are becoming regular events. Individually and collectively, the developments are further fracturing an already complicated landscape for financial services companies, including private investment managers that invest money on behalf of state pensions. Meanwhile multistate initiatives are taking aim at individual asset managers, banks and proxy advisory services perceived to be driving ESG growth.  In at least one state, banks are fighting back.

Much attention has focused on so-called “anti-ESG measures”—those prohibiting the consideration of ESG factors when investing state retirement funds or targeting companies that “boycott” industries such as fossil fuel or firearms companies—and the organizations behind them. A smaller but significant number of “pro-ESG” measures seek different outcomes and are gaining traction.  Other measures perhaps best described as “ESG-neutral” have led to or appear to be leading to pro- or anti-ESG legislative outcomes. …

More extreme measures on both sides, anti- and pro-ESG, have prompted some observers to sound the alarm that the United States may be straying from the fundamental purpose of ESG factors—as a valuation metric to gauge corporate success.

Whether, how long and to what extent the shift in ESG regulatory power remains with the states is yet to be seen. For now, in the United States, the term “ESG” is remarkable in its political divide.


Around the world

Sweden requires ESG investing for pension funds

Bloomberg reported on March 13 that Sweden is allocating over one-tenth of its pension funds to ESG investments:

Sweden is inviting international asset managers to help allocate 1 trillion kronor ($90 billion) of pension savings, but says it won’t accept applications from firms that don’t incorporate ESG into their strategies.

The new framework will replace a system tainted by an embezzlement scandal that infuriated Swedish taxpayers and triggered calls for a more robust setup. The upshot is that only investment firms that integrate environmental, social and governance goals into their work need apply, according to the Office of the Swedish Fund Selection Agency, which is overseeing the process.

“Unlike in the current system, there will be a requirement that the manager systematically integrates sustainability aspects into its operations,” Erik Fransson, executive director of the office, said in an interview. 

The move underscores the wildly divergent approaches different jurisdictions are taking as they figure out how big a role ESG should play in mainstream investing. In Europe, ESG is currently being hardwired into financial regulations. In the US, lawmakers just voted to block the pension industry from taking ESG risks into account. …

Sweden is now enshrining its ESG requirements for pension managers into law, under which investment firms must show an “exemplary approach to sustainability through responsible investment and responsible ownership.”

International investment firms interested in applying for the pool of pension savings, which represents just over 10% of Sweden’s total public retirement assets, need to be able to document their ESG claims. That includes showing they have processes in place to prevent portfolio funds being linked to violations of the United Nations’ Global Compact, the OECD’s guidelines for multinational corporations, or the UN’s guiding principles for human rights, according to a draft provided by the Office of the Swedish Fund Selection Agency.

And firms will only be allowed to offer investment products that are registered as ESG fund classes under Europe’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, namely Articles 8 and 9, the draft shows. The first selection process is set to take place in the second quarter, and Sweden expects to choose a total of 150 funds.



ICYMI: Top stories of the week

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


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

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

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

Read more


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

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

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

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

Read more


Virginia General Assembly elections will determine state’s trifecta status

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

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

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

Read more



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

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


In today’s issue, you’ll find: 

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

Legislative activity

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

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

5 bills were defeated in committee or by floor vote.

  • Republican trifectas: 5

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

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

12 bills advanced from committee. 

  • Democratic trifectas: 3
  • Republican trifectas: 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

The big picture

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


Legislative status 

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

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

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

Concentration of activity

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

Partisan affiliation of sponsor(s)

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

Bills by topic

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


Recent news

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

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


Three more states withdraw from voter data organization

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



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

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


About the bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perspectives

Support

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

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

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

Opposition

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

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

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


Michigan HB 4004 update

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

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

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

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

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

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

Litigation updates

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon 

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

U.S. Supreme Court


What we’re reading


The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 163 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

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


Recent legislative actions

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

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

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



Day 5 of our Top 15 stories to watch in 2023 – looking to 2024

Welcome to the Friday, March 10, Brew. 

All this week, we celebrated Ballotpedia’s 15th Anniversary by bringing you to the top 15 political stories to keep an eye on this year.

Today, we’re looking ahead at how what happens in 2023 might affect elections in 2024.


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

  1. Legislators have introduced more than 1,700 election-related bills this year
  2. Republican presidential primary debates to begin in August
  3. Ballot measures in 2023 and beyond
  4. Eleven members of Congress are not seeking re-election in 2024

Legislators have introduced more than 1,700 election-related bills this year

Before we get to the who’s and what’s of 2024, let’s look at how state legislative activity this year might affect how elections operate next year.

We have tracked 1,742 pieces of election-related state legislation this year through our Election Administration Legislation Tracker. State legislators introduced these bills this year or crossed them over from last year’s legislative sessions.

Of these bills:

  • 59 have advanced from committee but not from the chamber where they were introduced;
  • 98 passed one chamber;
  • 28 passed both chambers; and,
  • 24 were defeated in committee or by a chamber vote.

Governors in six states have signed nine election-related bills into law, including:

  • Michigan’s SB13, which sets the state’s presidential primary on the fourth Tuesday of February and establishes qualifications for parties to participate; 
  • Minnesota’s HF28, which restores voting rights to individuals charged or convicted of a felony who are not currently incarcerated; and,
  • Wyoming’s HB79, which allows voters to use a valid concealed carry permit as a form of voter identification.

We’ve tracked the most election-related legislation across the 17 states with Democratic trifectas at 887.

In the 22 states with Republican trifectas, we’ve tracked 685 pieces of legislation and identified 170 bills in the 11 states with divided governments.

Among states with Democratic trifectas, legislators in New York have introduced the most election-related legislation at 248 bills, also the nationwide high. Among those with Republican trifectas, legislators in Texas have introduced 106 bills. In states with divided governments, legislators in Arizona top the list with 43 bills introduced.

Legislators in Louisiana, Massachusetts, and West Virginia have not introduced any election-related legislation to date.

Party sponsorship is roughly equal, with Republican legislators sponsoring 45% of the bills and Democratic legislators sponsoring 42%. A combination of Republicans and Democrats have sponsored 5% of these bills, and partisan sponsorship for 8% is unavailable.

In 2022, legislators introduced 2,596 election-related bills, 266 of which (10%) became law. 

Keep reading 


Republican presidential primary debates to begin in August

The first debate of the 2024 presidential election cycle is five months away, with Republican candidates set to debate in Milwaukee, Wisc., sometime this August.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) selected the location and month at their Feb. 23 meeting, though the specific date has yet to be determined.

The Associated Press’ Steve Peoples reported that the RNC is planning 10 to 12 debates between August 2023 and the Republican National Convention, which begins on July 15, 2024.

To qualify for these debates, the RNC is considering a number of donors threshold, a polling threshold of 1 or 2%, and a pledge from each candidate that they will support the party’s nominee in the general election.

As of March 9, Ballotpedia has identified four noteworthy candidates seeking the Republican nomination, but the field is expected to grow in the coming months. This list includes former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, former Montana Sec. of State Corey Stapleton, and former President Donald Trump.

National Democrats have not announced any plans for primary debates. Incumbent Joe Biden (D) has not yet declared his candidacy, though Marianne Williamson, who sought the party’s nomination in 2020, recently announced a primary bid.

In 2020, the Democratic Party held 11 primary debates, two of which took place over two nights to account for the large candidate field at the start of the race. Republicans held no primary debates since then-incumbent Donald Trump (R) was seeking re-election.

In 2016, the presidency was open. Democrats held nine primary debates, and Republicans held 12.

Keep reading 


Ballot measures in 2023 and beyond

Looking ahead through 2023 and into 2024, we expect to see notable ballot measures relating to marijuana, law enforcement, abortion, minimum wage, and ranked-choice voting.

Already, we are tracking more than 30 potential ballot measures for 2023, including initiatives relating to:

  • Abortion, minimum wage increases, and marijuana legalization in Ohio
  • Right-to-repair, campaign finance, and energy in Maine;
  • An amendment to re-establish the initiative process in Mississippi; and,
  • Six constitutional amendments in Pennsylvania.

And five measures already qualified for the 2023 ballot in three states:

  • Oklahoma, where voters defeated a recreational marijuana legalization initiative 62-38% on March 7; 
  • Wisconsin, which has three measures—two constitutional amendments and one advisory question—on its April 4 ballot; and,
  • Louisiana, where voters will decide a constitutional amendment regarding gubernatorial deadlines and legislative veto sessions on Nov. 18.

Looking ahead to 2024, 17 measures have been certified in eight states.

Seven of those measures are on the ballot in California, including propositions increasing the state’s minimum wage to $18 per hour, changing laws governing labor violations, and requiring all new taxes to receive a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval before enactment.

Nevada voters will decide on two constitutional amendments. One would repeal language allowing slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishment, a popular ballot measure topic in recent years. The other would create a top-five primary system and ranked-choice voting. Voters approved this measure in 2022, 53-47%. Since it is an initiated constitutional amendment, voters must approve it in two consecutive elections to be enacted.

New Yorkers will decide on a measure to amend the Equal Protection Clause, adding “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy” as protected classes.

Arizona, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming voters will also have measures on their 2024 ballots.

Looking at some of the most popular topics, there were six abortion-related measures on statewide ballots in 2022, the most ever. So far, there are two potential abortion-related measures for 2023 (Pennsylvania and Ohio), and three potential measures for 2024 (Florida, Iowa, and south Dakota).

Voting policy changes, like ranked-choice voting, have also been filed in Missouri and Oregon, in addition to the measure set for Nevadans’ 2024 ballots.

Minimum wage increases will likely be on several statewide ballots in the coming years. In addition to the measure set to go before Californians in 2024, proponents for one measure in Michigan have submitted signatures, and proponents are gathering signatures for others in Arizona and Missouri.

From 2011 to 2021, voters decided an average of 33 statewide ballot measures in odd-numbered years. Over the last decade, voters have decided an average of 161 statewide measures in even-numbered years.

Click here for 2023 measures and here for those in 2024.

Keep reading


Eleven members of Congress are not seeking re-election in 2024

Over the next 12 months, we will learn who is and who is not seeking re-election to Congress in 2024. Most retirement announcements come during the odd-numbered year before and the first few months of the election year, setting the stage for some of the most competitive primaries and general elections.

As of March 9, 11 members of Congress—three U.S. Senators and eight U.S. Representatives—have announced they will not seek re-election in 2024.

This includes seven Democrats—U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and five House members—as well as four Republicans—U.S. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and three House members.

Fewer Senators have announced their retirements this year than at the same point in the 2022 election cycle (four) but more than the number at this point in the 2020 (two) and 2018 (none) election cycles.

More House members have announced their retirements this year than at the same point in the 2022 election cycle, when only Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) had announced her retirement. Retirements in this election cycle also currently exceed those at the same point in the 2020 (two) and 2018 (four) election cycles.

Of the Senators not running for re-election, Feinstein and Stabenow are retiring from public office. Braun is running for governor of Indiana.

Seven of the eight U.S. House members not running for re-election are running for the U.S. Senate, including five running for the open seats in California, Michigan, and Indiana, specifically:

  • Reps. Barbara Lee (D), Katie Porter (D), and Adam Schiff (D) are running to replace Feinstein;
  • Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D) is running to replace Stabenow; and,
  • Rep. Jim Banks (R) is running to replace Braun.

And two other House members are challenging incumbent senators:

  • Rep. Alex Mooney (R) is running against Sen. Joe Manchin (D) in West Virginia, though Manchin has not yet announced whether he will seek re-election; and,
  • Rep. Rubén Gallego (D) is running against Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I) in Arizona.

Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) is the only House incumbent to announce retirement from public office.

Keep reading 



Day 4 of our Top 15 stories to watch in 2023 – local elections

Welcome to the Thursday, March 9, Brew. 

All week, we will be celebrating Ballotpedia’s 15th Anniversary by bringing you the top 15 political stories to keep an eye on this year.

Today, we tackle some of the most interesting local elections in 2023.


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

  1. San Antonio voters to decide on a measure regarding abortion, marijuana, and police actions
  2. Ballotpedia is covering more than 8,700 school board seats up for election across 28 states
  3. One school board recall effort connected to COVID-19 so far in 2023
  4. Twelve candidates are running (so far) for mayor in Memphis, Tennessee

San Antonio voters to decide on a measure regarding abortion, marijuana, and police actions

Let’s start in San Antonio, where voters will decide on a charter amendment regarding abortion, marijuana, and police actions on May 6, 2023.

If approved by voters, the charter amendment would:

  • end enforcement of low-level marijuana possession (Class A or B misdemeanor offenses)
  • prohibit San Antonio police officers from investigating or making arrests for abortions, as well as prohibit them from enforcing any state law that criminalizes abortion
  • ban no-knock warrants
  • ban law enforcement use of chokeholds
  • use citations instead of arrests for low-level, nonviolent crimes

The measure would also allow the City Council to appoint a Justice Director. The role of the Justice Director would include reducing incarceration and mitigating law enforcement practices. The position would report directly to the City Council.

The San Antonio City Council voted on Feb. 16 to place the charter amendment on the ballot after certifying that organizers submitted 20,973 valid signatures – above the 20,000 signature requirement to certify the initiative for the ballot.

ACT 4 SA, a nonprofit organization, worked to place the initiative on the ballot along with other advocacy groups, like Ground Game Texas. Ananda Tomas, executive director of ACT 4 SA, said: “We will be saving money, keeping families together, stopping the unnecessary overcrowding of jails — but most of all, we will be saving lives through these policies.”

The San Antonio Police Officers Association opposes the amendment. Danny Diaz, president of the union, said no-knock warrants and chokeholds are already prohibited unless a life is at serious risk. Diaz also said the proposed charter amendment is in direct conflict with state law regarding abortion and marijuana cases.

“The decriminalization of marijuana and abortion are handled at the state and federal level of government,” Diaz said in a statement, “This is not a decision that can be implemented at a local level.”

The Texas Alliance for Life, a nonprofit organization that describes itself as pro-life, sued the San Antonio City Clerk and the San Antonio City Council on Feb. 9, alleging the proposed charter amendment violates the Texas Local Government Code, which prohibits multiple-subject charter amendments. The single-subject rule requires ballot initiatives to address a single subject, topic, or issue. Of the 26 states that provide for citizen-initiated ballot measures, 17 of those states have single-subject rules. While Texas does not provide for statewide citizen initiatives, Texas law requires local charter amendments to include only one subject.

The Texas Alliance for Life said: “[Our] emergency petition for writ of mandamus shows that the proposed charter amendment, which contains six distinct amendments shoe-horned into one proposition, violates state law and must be blocked and separated into distinct proposals.”

Mike Siegel, the political director and co-founder of Ground Game Texas, told the San Antonio Report: “Every day, police departments decide what they’re going to enforce and what they’re not going to enforce, and this represents the people of San Antonio saying: these are not our priorities for our scarce public dollars.” Siegel added, “The roots of the Texas Constitution are in local self-control [and] self-determination. So that’s why we have charter cities that have this authority to adopt their own charters and decide their own laws.”

Keep reading


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

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

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

We’re covering all school board elections in the following 10 states this year:

  • Colorado
  • Kansas
  • Minnesota
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • Pennsylvania
  • South Dakota
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • Wisconsin

Elections will happen throughout the year. The first set of statewide primaries happened in Oklahoma on Feb. 14, followed by Wisconsin on Feb. 21. Those states will hold general elections on April 4.

Here’s a snapshot of where we’ll be covering school board elections a little later in the year:

  • Texas will hold general elections on May 6. 
  • Oregon will hold general elections on May 16.
  • Kansas will hold primary elections on Aug. 1. 
  • Sixteen states will hold general elections on Nov. 7. 

A diverse assortment of concerns has always motivated people to run for seats on their local school board. However, over the last few years, especially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, school board elections have increasingly mirrored concerns found in partisan state and national politics. In 2021 and 2022, we tracked 1,998 districts in 49 states where school board candidates took a position on one or more of the following topics—race in education/critical race theory, responses to the coronavirus pandemic, and sex and gender in schools. 

Although most school board elections are officially nonpartisan, political parties, national political organizations, and incumbent state officeholders have endorsed candidates in some races. To take two recent examples from February: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) released a list of incumbents he is targeting for defeat in 2024, and the Democratic Party of Illinois said it plans to release a list of over 100 candidates it opposes in the state’s April 4 elections.  

From 2018 to 2022, we covered elections for 3,319 school board seats in 1,141 school districts. We found that:

  • Between 24% and 40% of elections were unopposed each year
  • Incumbents won between 51% and 61% of seats each year
  • Between 79% and 89% of incumbents who sought reelection won each year.

If you’d like to learn more, subscribe to Hall Pass, our weekly education newsletter, to stay up to date on school board elections and education policy. New editions reach your inbox on Wednesday afternoons.

Keep reading 


One school board recall effort connected to COVID-19 so far in 2023

Let’s now turn to school board recall efforts. So far in 2023, one school board recall effort has been related to COVID-19, and it started in the spring of 2022. 

Three school board members in the Richland School District in Washington were named in recall petitions that said the members violated the state’s Open Public Meetings Act; violated district policies, procedures, and code of ethics; and voted to make masks optional while a statewide mask requirement was in place. All three board members denied any wrongdoing. The recall petitions went through multiple court hearings before the Washington Supreme Court approved them for circulation on Feb. 9, 2023.

Ballotpedia tracked 131 recall efforts related to COVID-19 or government responses to the pandemic in 2021 and 34 in 2022. School board recall efforts accounted for 54 of those efforts in 2021 (41%) and 22 in 2022 (65%). Ballotpedia tracked 92 total school board recalls in 2021, more than in any year over the previous decade, with the increase driven largely by COVID-related recall activity.

Twenty-three states allow for the recall of school board members.

One recall election against one school board member has been held so far this year. Voters approved it, which removed the member from office. Another member resigned after a recall effort was started against her, and efforts against six members ended before going to a vote. 

Ballotpedia has tracked 10 school board recall efforts against 18 board members so far in 2023. In 2022, we tracked 52 efforts against 120 school board members. In 2021, we tracked 92 efforts against 237 school board members.  

One of the efforts underway is happening in the Sandusky Community School District in Michigan. A group called Save the Redskins Logo is circulating recall petitions against three of the seven members of the school board. The group said the three members failed “to represent and listen to the voice of the public to retain the Redskin logo and voted to change the logo to the wolves on Nov. 28, 2022.” Jason Trepkowski, one of the members named in the recall petitions, said there were no lies or deceit involved with the name change. “We had eight meetings before we changed this name, and it was all out in the open,” Trepkowski said.

We’ve tracked an average of 28 recall efforts against an average of 66 school board members each year between 2009 and 2022.

Keep reading 


Twelve candidates are running (so far) for mayor in Memphis, Tennessee

Finally, let’s turn to Memphis, Tennessee, where voters will elect a new mayor on Oct. 5, 2023. Incumbent Jim Strickland (D), in office since 2016, is term-limited.  

The filing deadline for the election is July 20, 2023. Twelve candidates had declared their candidacy as of March 8, 2023, including six Democrats, three Republicans, and two independents. In 2019, twelve candidates ran. 

While the election is officially nonpartisan, many candidates (and officeholders) are affiliated with a political party. 

The candidates who have received the most media attention are: 

  • Floyd Bonner (D), Shelby County sheriff; 
  • Joe Brown (I), former Shelby County Criminal Court judge and host of the reality court show ‘’Judge Joe Brown’’; 
  • Karen Camper (D), Tennessee House Minority Leader; 
  • Frank Colvett (R); Memphis City council member and former council chairman; 
  • J.W. Gibson (D), former Shelby County commissioner and businessman; 
  • Willie Wilbert Herenton (D), former Memphis mayor (1992-2009);  
  • Michelle McKissack (D); member of the Shelby County Board of Education and a former broadcast journalist;
  • Van Turner (D), former Shelby County commissioner and president of the NAACP Memphis branch, and;
  • Paul Young, CEO of the Downtown Memphis Commission. 

According to University of Memphis professor Otis Sanford, the issues of crime and police conduct will have an outsized effect in the October election. “[…] The race for mayor will come down [to] who has the clearer and most convincing message — not just about fighting crime, but changing the culture in the police department in light of the police killing of Tyre Nichols,” Sanford said.

Memphis, the 27th largest city in the U.S., has had a Democratic mayor since 1992. That year, Willie Herenton (also a candidate for mayor this year) defeated then-incumbent Richard Hackett by 146 votes. Herenton was elected to five consecutive terms before he resigned in 2009.

As of March 2023, the partisan breakdown of the mayors of the 100 largest U.S. cities was 62 Democrats, 26 Republicans, three independents, and seven nonpartisans. Two mayors’ partisan affiliations were unknown. 

Based on 2020 population estimates, 76.1% of the population of the top 100 cities lived in cities with Democratic mayors, and 16.2% lived in cities with Republican mayors at the start of 2022.

The Memphis mayoral election is one of 40 mayoral elections Ballotpedia is covering in 2023. These include all mayoral elections in the 100 largest U.S. cities and all mayoral elections in state capitals. 

Memphis is also holding elections for county clerk and all 13 seats on the city council in 2023. 

Keep reading



Day 3 of our Top 15 stories to watch in 2023 – SCOTUS

Welcome to the Wednesday, March 8, Brew. 

All week, we will be celebrating Ballotpedia’s 15th Anniversary by bringing you the top 15 political stories to keep an eye on this year.

Today, we tackle some of the most interesting U.S. Supreme Court cases in 2023.


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

  1. SCOTUS to decide if Alabama’s redistricting plan violates the Voting Rights Act 
  2. U.S. Supreme Court expected to issue opinion in Moore v. Harper by summer
  3. SCOTUS to decide legality of using race as a factor in higher education admissions decisions 

SCOTUS to decide if Alabama’s redistricting plan violates the Voting Rights Act 

Merrill v. Milligan concerns the Voting Rights Act and redistricting. The Court, which heard arguments in the case on Oct. 4, 2022, will decide whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven congressional districts violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Voting Rights Act is a federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. The act was passed in 1965 with the intent of enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Section 2 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race.

The Court is expected to issue its ruling before the end of  June.

The plaintiffs are a group of Alabama voters and organizations who allege the congressional map that Gov. Kay Ivey (R) enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, unfairly distributed Black voters, diluting their votes. They asked the district court to order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The lower court granted in part a motion for a preliminary injunction, temporarily preventing then-Secretary of State John Merrill (R) from conducting congressional elections in 2022.

A three-judge federal court sided with the plaintiffs, issuing a preliminary injunction on Jan. 24 stopping Merrill from conducting the state’s 2022 congressional elections using the 2021 redistricting plan. The ruling said: “Black Alabamians are sufficiently numerous to constitute a voting-age majority in a second congressional district,” and “Black voters have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress.” 

A representative for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) wrote that “the Attorney General’s Office strongly disagrees with the court’s decision and will be appealing in the coming days.”

On Feb. 7, 2022, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to block the injunction, with Justices Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas in the majority and Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the minority. This allowed the 2022 congressional elections to proceed using the lines approved in 2021. The Court’s majority did not post a full opinion in the case.

As of March 7, the Court has agreed to hear 64 cases this term. One case was dismissed. 

Click below to read more about Merrill v. Milligan

Keep reading 


U.S. Supreme Court expected to issue opinion in Moore v. Harper by summer

Let’s turn to another case before the Court that came out of the redistricting process. In this case, North Carolina’s redistricting process. 

Moore v. Harper concerns the elections clause in Article I, section 4, of the Constitution and whether state legislatures alone can regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts. The Republican-controlled North Carolina General Assembly adopted new congressional district boundaries in 2021, which Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations subsequently challenged in court. SCOTUS eventually agreed to hear the case. You can read more about the case’s timeline here

Depending on how the Court rules, the power and authority to regulate federal elections could become more concentrated in state legislatures and with the federal judiciary in the event of appellate review.

At issue is the independent state legislature theory or doctrine (ISL), which states that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the authority to regulate federal elections. According to the theory, checks on state legislatures’ power to regulate federal elections come from federal courts and the U.S. Congress. State constitutions, state judges, and state executives cannot intervene to change federal election rules that state legislatures have established.

After SCOTUS agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, Carrie Campbell Severino wrote in National Review that “The alarmism around Moore v. Harper comes from liberals who cherry-pick their grievances in states whose constituents favor Republicans and selectively use liberal activist state courts to give Democrats advantages they cannot get democratically.” Richard Hasen wrote in Slate that “This case has the potential to fundamentally rework the relationship between state legislatures and state courts in protecting voting rights in federal elections. It also could provide the path for election subversion in congressional and presidential elections.”

Here’s a look at how legal scholars have approached the ISL theory: 

  • Florida State University College of Law professor Michael Morley, a proponent of ISL, wrote, “The U.S. Constitution grants authority to both regulate congressional elections and determine the manner in which a state chooses its presidential electors specifically to the legislature of each state, rather than to the state as an entity.”
  • Vikram David Amar, a University of Illinois law professor, and Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale University law professor, who oppose ISL, wrote, “The theory invokes constitutional provisions designed to protect states against federal interference (including interference from federal courts) and instead uses these provisions to disrespect both the wishes of the state peoples who create, empower, and limit their legislatures, and the wishes of the elected legislatures themselves.”

The ISL theory first appeared in 19th century case law. Chief Justice William Rehnquist—joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—cited it in his concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore (2000). Rhenquist said the state courts acted outside their constitutional authority when ordering a recount in the election because the recount conflicted with the election deadlines the state legislature established. Since then, four current Supreme Court justices have cited the doctrine in opinions in cases asking federal courts to prevent states from changing election dates and procedures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court directed all parties in Moore v. Harper to file supplemental briefs by March 20 regarding SCOTUS’ jurisdiction in light of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision on Feb. 3 to rehear the case. Amy Howe at SCOTUSBlog wrote that SCOTUS’ order asking for the briefs “raised questions about whether it would reach a decision in” Moore v. Harper.

Learn more about the case at the link below.

Keep reading


SCOTUS to decide legality of using race as a factor in higher education admissions decisions  

Finally, let’s turn to the last case we’re looking at today.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard concerns whether institutions of higher education can use race as a factor in admissions. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on Oct. 31, 2022. A decision is expected by June.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA), the plaintiff, alleged that race-conscious admissions violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The plaintiff alleges that Harvard is violating the Equal Protection Clause as a public university and Title VI by penalizing Asian-American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race, and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.

In 2003, the Supreme Court found in its Grutter v. Bollinger decision that the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions program did not violate the 14th Amendment or Title VI. The court upheld the use of such race-conscious programs so long as the use of race is “narrowly tailored to further compelling government interests.” The court said a narrowly tailored program must be flexible and non-mechanical, and it cannot use a quota system. It must also make a good faith consideration of race-neutral alternatives. The program also can’t “unduly burden individuals who are not members of the favored racial and ethnic groups,” and the program must be limited in duration.

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard, SFFA appealed to the Supreme Court on Feb. 25, 2021, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that found Harvard’s admissions program did not violate Title VI.

U.S. Rep. Michelle Steel (R) joined 81 other members of Congress in filing a brief urging the Court to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and to overturn the Grutter decision. Steel wrote, “Discrimination of any kind has no place in our country, and that includes discrimination in the halls of our schools and universities. I’ve worked for decades to bring fairness to our education system because students deserve to be judged on their hard work and commitment to learning, not by their race.”

U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott (D) joined 64 other members of Congress in filing a brief urging the Court to rule in favor of Harvard’s defense and to uphold the Grutter decision. Scott wrote, “Narrowly tailored admissions policies that recognize race as one criterion — out of many criteria for evaluating prospective students — are a key tool to realize diverse learning environments and address continued educational inequity.”

Learn more about the case at the link below. 

Keep reading 



Robe & Gavel: Federal Judicial Vacancy Count released for March 1

Welcome to the March 7 edition of Robe & Gavel, Ballotpedia’s newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S.

We’re starting our March SCOTUS sitting with a bang as we dive into the new federal judicial vacancy count. Let’s gavel in!

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


We #SCOTUS and you can, too!


Grants

SCOTUS accepted two new cases since the Feb. 27 edition. To date, the court has agreed to hear 60 cases for the 2022-2023 term. SCOTUS dismissed one case after it was accepted. One case has yet to be scheduled for arguments.

Click the links below to learn more about these cases:

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited concerns the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Pulsifer v. United States concerns 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) and the First Step Act of 2018. The case originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.


Arguments

The Supreme Court will not hear arguments in any cases this week. Click here to read more about SCOTUS’ current term.


Opinions

SCOTUS issued two new opinions since our Feb. 27 edition. The court has issued rulings in seven cases so far this term. Fifty-five cases are still under deliberation.

Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS ruled on since our Feb. 27 issue:

Feb. 28, 2023

Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin was argued before the court on Oct. 3, 2022.

The case: Several states sued Delaware in U.S. District Court, disputing Delaware’s acquisition of unclaimed funds from MoneyGram official checks. Delaware moved for the U.S. Supreme Court to review the cases as part of its original jurisdiction.


The outcome: The court remanded the decision to the Special Master in a 9-0 ruling.

  • To remand means to return a case or claim to a lower court for additional proceedings.

Bittner v. United States was argued before the court on Nov. 2, 2022.

The case: The case concerns the Bank Secrecy Act. The question presented is “Whether a ‘violation’ under the Act is the failure to file an annual FBAR [Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts form] (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or whether there is a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported.”

The outcome: The court reversed and remanded the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a 5-4 ruling.

  • To reverse a case means to overturn a lower court’s decision.

Upcoming SCOTUS dates

Here are the court’s upcoming dates of interest:

  • March 17, 2023: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices.

The Federal Vacancy Count

The Federal Vacancy Count tracks vacancies, nominations, and confirmations to all United States Article III federal courts in a one-month period. This month’s edition includes nominations, confirmations, and vacancies from Feb. 2 to March 1.  


Highlights

  • Vacancies: There have been four new judicial vacancies since the February 2023 report. There are 80 vacancies out of 870 active Article III judicial positions on courts covered in this report. Including the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States territorial courts, 82 of 890 active federal judicial positions are vacant.  
  • Nominations: There were three new nominations since the February 2023 report. 
  • Confirmations: There were 12 new confirmations since the February 2023 report.

Vacancy count for March 1, 2023

A breakdown of the vacancies at each level can be found in the table below. For a more detailed look at the vacancies in the federal courts, click here.

*Though the United States territorial courts are named as district courts, they are not Article III courts. They are created in accordance with the power granted under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. Click here for more information.


New vacancies

Four judges left active status since the previous vacancy count, creating Article III life-term judicial vacancies. The president nominates individuals to fill Article III judicial position vacancies. Nominations are subject to U.S. Senate confirmation.

The following chart tracks the number of vacancies in the United States Courts of Appeals from President Joe Biden’s (D) inauguration to the date indicated on the chart.


U.S. District Court vacancies

The following map shows the number of vacancies in the United States District Courts as of March 1, 2023.


New nominations

There were no new nominations since our Feb. 27 issue.


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


New confirmations

The Senate has confirmed six nominees since our Feb. 27 issue. As of March 1, the Senate has confirmed 109 of President Biden’s judicial nominees. 

Comparison of Article III judicial appointments over time by president (1981-Present)

  • Presidents have made an average of 93.7 judicial appointments through March 1 of their third year in office.
  • President Bill Clinton (D) made the most appointments through March 1 of his third year with 128. President Barack Obama (D) made the fewest with 69.
  • President Donald Trump (R) made the most appointments through four years with 234. President Ronald Reagan (R) made the fewest through four years with 166.
  • President Ronald Reagan (R) made the most appointments through one year in office with 41. President Barack Obama (D) made the fewest with 13.
  • President Bill Clinton (D) made the most appointments through two years with 128. President Barack Obama (D) made the fewest with 62.

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

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


Looking ahead

We’ll be back on March 20 with a new edition of Robe & Gavel. Until then, gaveling out! 


Contributions

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



Congress rejects ESG in retirement plans


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.


ESG Developments This Week


In Washington, D.C.

Congress rejects ESG in retirement plans

The House of Representatives voted on February 28 to pass a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to rescind the Biden Labor Department rule permitting the use of ESG investing in ERISA-governed retirement plans. Republicans then used their temporary majority and the support of two Democrats to pass the bill in the Senate on March 1:

A Republican bill to prevent pension fund managers from basing investment decisions on factors like climate change cleared Congress on Wednesday, setting up a confrontation with President Joe Biden, who is expected to veto the measure.

The U.S. Senate voted 50-46 to adopt a resolution to overturn a Labor Department rule making it easier for fund managers to consider environmental, social and corporate governance, or ESG, issues for investments and shareholder rights decisions, such as through proxy voting.

The outcome highlighted Republicans’ willingness to oppose their traditional allies in Wall Street and corporate America that adopt what party lawmakers characterize as “woke”, liberal practices.

Two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin and Jon Tester, voted with Republicans. Both face reelection in Republican-leaning states in 2024. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the bill on Tuesday. …

Republicans claim the rule, which covers plans that collectively invest $12 trillion on behalf of 150 million Americans, would politicize investing by allowing plan managers to pursue liberal causes, which they say would hurt performance.


Biden promises to veto resolution, maintain ESG rule

President Biden promised to veto the CRA resolution, which will mark the first veto of his presidency. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board called the veto announcement revealing:

The Biden rule reversed a Trump-era clarification of the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Erisa), which required retirement plan fiduciaries to consider solely “pecuniary” factors that have a “material effect” on investment risk or return. Erisa is intended to prevent retirement funds from using savings for their own purposes.

The Biden rule protects fiduciaries from lawsuits for considering ESG factors that could be “relevant” to investment performance such as a company’s greenhouse-gas emissions or workforce diversity. This broad standard would essentially let managers invest retirement savings however they want.

The rule would also augment the power of proxy advisory duopolists Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) by directing fiduciaries to “rely on efficient structures” such as “proxy advisors/managers that act on behalf of large aggregates of investors.” ISS and Glass Lewis are voting force multipliers on ESG shareholder resolutions. The rule would drive more savings into ESG funds that typically charge higher fees by letting retirement sponsors offer them as default options in 401(k) plans. Workers can opt out of default plans but usually don’t. Why isn’t Mr. Biden lambasting ESG funds for charging “junk fees”? …

Mr. Biden claimed in a veto threat that returning to the Trump rule “would be interfering with the market,” supposedly because asset managers want free rein to consider ESG factors. Sorry, what’s good for BlackRock isn’t always good for workers, and protecting retirement savings isn’t interfering in markets.


Senator Cruz explains the Senate’s pushback against the Labor Department rule

After the Senate vote on March 1, Texas Republican Ted Cruz went on Fox News to explain why he and 49 other senators opposed the Labor Department rule and why he believes ESG poses a threat to retirement savings and capital markets:

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, joined “Varney & Co” on Thursday to discuss what impact the Biden administration’s “politicization” efforts could have on Americans’ investments. 

“This is your retirement that Joe Biden has said his politics matters more than your retirement, and he’s perfectly happy for you to take the hit,” Cruz said. 

GOP senators discussed the legislation during a press conference Wednesday, saying the Biden administration’s move with the ESG rule had “a certain irony,” given the administration’s rhetoric of working for the American public. 

“And there’s a certain irony here, since [the Biden administration] always billed themselves as actually caring about the person who’s struggling. People are going to struggle more because of this rule,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said during the press conference.

“This weaponizes their retirement accounts against both their future, but also their present,” he continued.

Cruz said Thursday that the ramifications on Americans’ investment accounts would be detrimental, putting politics over helping Americans.

“‘Global ESG funds have underperformed the broader market in the past five years, returning an average of 6.3% a year, compared with 8.9% for broader funds, which means an investor who put $10,000 into an average global ESG fund in 2017 would have $13,573 today, roughly $1,720 less than if they’d put it into a non-ESG portfolio,'” Cruz said, quoting an article from Bloomberg. …

“The Senate stood together with a bipartisan vote yesterday and reversed this and said you ought to be able to save for your retirement without politicians impacting and hurting your savings,” Cruz said. 

Cruz claimed that the proposed ESG rule highlights a larger trend of politicization within the Biden administration, specifically the politicization of the Justice Department.


CNBC blames wealthy conservative donors for the pushback against ESG

CNBC published a piece on March 1 arguing that wealthy GOP donors were responsible for driving the federal and state pushback against ESG investing:

More than a half dozen conservative groups have helped to drive the criticism of Wall Street’s ESG investing methods — and some have little-known ties to longtime conservative donors or lawyers who have aided Trump himself.

Members of the State Financial Officers Foundations are all powerful state Republican officials, many of whom have scrutinized ESG practices or pulled back billions of dollars from investing firms. They include Oaks, who last year announced he would move $100 million in state funds from BlackRock to other money managers, and Florida’s GOP Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis, who in December said the state treasury would pull out $2 billion in assets previously managed by BlackRock.

A representative for the State Financial Officers Foundation did not return a request for comment.

Behind the scenes, a larger network of conservative interest groups is helping to fund the organization’s events or send representatives to attend.

Conservative leaning groups including the 1792 Exchange, the Heritage Foundation, Consumers’ Research, American Legislative Exchange Council and Mercatus Center, were among the attendees of the private February meeting of the State Financial Officers Foundation in New Orleans, according to the attendee list reviewed by CNBC.

Some of those organizations participated in a similar State Financial Officers Foundation gathering in Washington D.C. in November 2022, according to an agenda. The meeting in D.C. focused, in part, on pushing back on ESG investment standards. The foundation announced at the time a targeted ESG campaign that features a website and an initial six-figure digital marketing effort. …

A growing list of Republican donors, including other Trump allies, along with a massive donor advisory fund have helped to provide funding for the anti-ESG fight. …

Marble Freedom Trust is led by former Trump judicial advisor Leonard Leo, who helped to coordinate campaigns to confirm the former president’s Supreme Court nominees. The group received a $1.6 billion donation in 2021 from Barre Seid, an electronics manufacturing mogul, according to The New York Times.


In the states

Idaho House votes three times against ESG

The Idaho House of Representatives passed three bills on March 2 intended to restrict the use of ESG investments:

House lawmakers Thursday gave the green light to a trio of bills allowing the state to boycott businesses and financial institutions which follow environmental, social and governance standards, known as ESG.

The standards are guidelines that companies adopt for the way they conduct themselves, or who they choose to do business with. In the financial sector, the standards can guide decisions on where investments may or may not be made.

The bills sailed through on a wide margin, with Democrats and a handful of Republicans voting no on each. Rep. Barbara Ehardt (R-Idaho Falls) sponsored two and fought back against arguments that the legislation allows the state to pick winners and losers.

“We are not telling businesses how to run their business,” she said on the house floor. “There’s nothing remotely in here that says that, that would be a misdirection, a false narrative.”

Nationwide, Republicans have attacked these standards as ‘woke ideology.’ Ehardt says the state needs to protect its industries targeted by ESG reforms. …

The three bills now head to the Senate.


On Wall Street and in the private sector

Journalist alleges continued anti-Israel bias at Morningstar/Sustainalytics

The Washington Free Beacon published an article by senior writer Adam Kredo last month arguing that the financial company Morningstar is not living up to a promise it made to purge anti-Israel bias from its Sustainalytics ESG ratings service. Morningstar has been under increasing pressure from state attorneys general regarding this matter:

The financial ratings giant Morningstar has failed to follow through on promises to eradicate anti-Israel bias from its corporate ratings system and is still blacklisting companies that work with Israel.

Morningstar subsidiary Sustainalytics—which rates companies based on Environmental, Social, and Corporate (ESG) governance guidelines—placed at least two companies on its investment watchlist for their work with Israel’s security sector: Motorola Solutions and Elbit Systems, both of which provide counterterrorism surveillance technology that helps the Jewish state combat terrorism, an issue that is taking on renewed importance as Israel faces a new wave of Palestinian violence.

Sustainalytics has faced accusations that it promotes the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which wages economic warfare on Israel, by downgrading companies that work with Israel. Media attention on the issue, including a series of reports by the Washington Free Beacon, forced Morningstar to announce a sweeping number of reforms that it claimed would combat anti-Israel bias. But several months after this announcement, Middle East experts and former U.S. officials are concerned that Sustainalytics is penalizing companies for the work they do to prevent terrorism in Israel. Sustainalytics’s ratings serve as a guide to investors concerned about social issues, and any company placed on its watchlist can suffer as a result….

While Morningstar said last year that it initiated a company-wide process to eradicate anti-Israel bias, Motorola Solutions and Elbit Systems remain on the watchlist for their work with Israel’s security sector, according to an analysis reviewed by the Free Beacon that summarized Morningstar and Sustainalystics’s updated ratings….

“Morningstar says Motorola has a human rights problem because its technology is used to track Palestinian movements. What the company leaves out is that the technology is tracking the movement of Palestinian terrorists attempting to infiltrate Jewish areas, like the terrorists who murdered the Fogel family back in 2011,” said Richard Goldberg, a former White House National Security Council official who serves as a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank. “Morningstar’s position is that Motorola should withdraw its operations and let terrorists stab more Jewish children to death.”

Goldberg, who was one of the first analysts to expose alleged anti-Israel bias at the company, said Sustainalytics continues to bolster the BDS movement as it tries to penalize companies for working alongside Israel. A Morningstar spokeswoman would not answer Free Beacon questions about why these two companies remain flagged.



Our top 15 stories of 2023 for BP’s 15th anniversary

Welcome to the Monday, March 6, Brew. 

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

  1. Introducing our top 15 most interesting and consequential political stories of 2023

Introducing our top 15 most interesting and consequential political stories of 2023

In the context of politics, odd-numbered years—like 2023—are sometimes called off-cycle election years. At first blush, the expression makes sense—there are fewer elections compared to congressional midterm or presidential election years. But the expression is also something of a misnomer, suggesting there’s not much going on in politics.

Over the next week, we’re going to dedicate the Brew to detailing the top 15 most interesting and consequential political stories we’re following this year. We’ll take a deep dive into U.S. Supreme Court cases, statewide ballot measures, state legislative, mayoral, and school board elections, and more. There’s a lot to look into.

Today, we’ll briefly outline the 15 stories. The rest of the week, we’ll go into expanded detail on each one.

Without further ado, here are the 15 important political stories we’ll cover over the next week, along with a short explanation for why each one made our list: 

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court election – The April election will determine ideological control of the court. Wisconsin voters will also decide three ballot measures – ones that could affact turnout.
  • Merrill v. Milligan – Will decide whether Alabama’s 2021 congressional redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act.
  • Moore v. Harper –  Will decide whether state courts may exercise oversight of state legislatures’ regulation of federal elections.
  • Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard – Will decide whether universities may use race as a factor in admission decisions.
  • Start of presidential debates – The GOP candidates first debate will be in August in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, site of the 2024 Republican National Convention. 
  • 2024 ballot measure certifications – Ohio voters are already set to decide measures on abortion and marijuana. More issues in more states will make their way to the ballot in the months ahead.
  • Virginia General Assembly elections  – A possible bellwether for 2024, Republicans are defending the 52-48 House majority they won in 2021 while Democrats are seeking to maintain a 22-18 Senate majority. In the background: how the outcome of those races affects the national prospects of Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R).
  • Kentucky gubernatorial election – Gov. Andy Beshear and Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman are the only Democrats holding statewide office. There will be a competitive Republican primary for the GOP gubernatorial nomination.
  • Louisiana gubernatorial election – An open race with no incumbent as Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) is term-limited.
  • San Antonio May abortion and marijuana 2023 ballot measure – A charter amendment that tackles marijuana law, abortion laws, no-knock warrants, chokeholds, and more. Putting all these separate issues into one measure is a first-of-its-kind approach.
  • Assessing the 2024 congressional election landscape – Keeping a close eye on retirements, recruitment, and retention in the House and Senate.
  • School board recalls – School board recall elections have taken on a bigger role in the national political discussion. 
  • Memphis, Tennessee mayoral election – Against the backdrop of the Tyre Nichols’ killing, 12 candidates have declared their candidacy.
  • Election administration legislation activity –  More than 2,500 bills were introduced in the 2022 state legislative sessions. Election administration remains a busy topic in state legislatures, with legislators from both parties introducing bills to shape how America governs its elections. 
  • School board elections – Ballotpedia is covering elections for 8,750 school board seats in 3,211 school districts across 28 states – 36% of all school board elections this year. We are also covering all school board elections in ten states: Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin.

With so much to cover, we’ll include three to four expanded versions of the above stories in each issue this week. We’ll kick things off tomorrow with a preview of the upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court election and a rundown of state legislative elections in Virginia, Kentucky, and Louisiana.

In the meanwhile, click the link below to read our full press release explaining more about our top 15 political stories to watch. See you tomorrow!
Keep reading