Welcome to the Wednesday, May 10, 2023, Brew. 

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

1. Virginia’s legislative elections have most open-seat races since at least 2011
2. Previewing Pennsylvania’s May 16 statewide primaries
3. Twenty-four upcoming vacancies among Article III judges

Virginia’s legislative elections have most open-seat races since at least 2011

Virginia is one of four states, along with Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Jersey, that are holding regular state legislative elections this year. Now that the candidate filing period has closed, let’s see what we can learn from the candidate lists.

• 43 districts—or 31% of the state’s 140-member General Assembly—are open-seat races as the incumbent is not running for election. 
  • This is the most open state legislative seats in Virginia – which does not have term limits – since at least 2011, when 20 districts, or 14.3%, were open.
  • Of the retiring incumbents, 22 are Democrats, and 21 are Republicans. Two districts have incumbent versus incumbent primaries this year:
    • House District 47, with a Republican primary between Reps. Marie March (R) and Wren Williams (R); and,
    • Senate District 18, with a Democratic primary between Sens. Louise Lucas (D) and Lionell Spruill (D).

This is Virginia’s first state legislative elections using district boundaries adopted after the 2020 census. The Virginia Supreme Court unanimously approved legislative district maps for both chambers after the Virginia Redistricting Commission missed its deadline for approving map proposals. The number of open districts tends to increase after redistricting.

In addition to the increase in open districts, other competitiveness metrics—like the number of contested primaries—increased compared to previous election cycles. This year, there are 47 contested primaries, representing 20.9% of all possible primaries, up from 14.5% in 2021. These figures do not include the 55 districts that Ballotpedia has identified that are holding non-primary nominating contests, like conventions, all for Republicans. In Virginia, local party committees can choose to hold conventions instead of primaries to select nominees for office.

Overall, 279 major party candidates are running for state legislative offices in Virginia—154 Democrats and 125 Republicans.

Virginia has had divided government since Republicans won the governorship and the House of Delegates in 2021. Republicans currently have a 50-46 majority in the House with four vacancies. Democrats hold a 22-18 majority in the Senate.

Virginia’s state legislative primaries are on June 20.

Keep reading

Previewing Pennsylvania’s May 16 statewide primaries 

Pennsylvania is one of eight states electing statewide offices in 2023 and one of three—along with Washington and Wisconsin—where judicial races are at the top of the ballot. The state is holding party primaries on May 16 for one seat on the state supreme court, two judgeships on the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and one seat on the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. 

Voters will also decide special elections in two state House districts that could determine partisan control of the chamber, as well as local primaries.

Pennsylvania’s primaries for judicial and municipal offices are closed, meaning only voters registered with a particular party may vote in them. Independent and unaffiliated voters can vote on ballot measures and in special elections.

Here’s all of what’s on Pennsylvania’s ballot on May 16.

State Supreme Court

We previewed the Democratic and Republican primaries for one seat on the state supreme court on Monday. The outcome of this election will not affect the court’s governing majority. But it will set the stage for the upcoming 2025 elections when three judges’ terms—all Democrats—are set to expire. If Democrats retain the vacant seat this year, Republicans would need to win at least two of the three seats in 2025 to gain a majority. If Republicans win this year, they would only need to win one seat in 2025.

Democrats have controlled the Pennsylvania Supreme Court since 2015, when they established a 5-2 majority. Both of this year’s primaries have two candidates.

Other statewide courts

The Pennsylvania Superior Court and Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court are the state’s two intermediate appellate courts.

Two Pennsylvania Superior Court judges face retention elections, and another two seats on that court are up for partisan election this year. The Democratic primary for the two seats up for partisan election has three candidates, and the Republican primary has two candidates. The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviews most of the civil and criminal cases that are appealed from the courts of common pleas in the state’s 67 counties. 

One judgeship on the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court is also up for partisan election. Both of this year’s primaries have two candidates. Cases heard by the Commonwealth Court are generally determined by what the case is about and the identity of the parties to the lawsuit. The Commonwealth Court usually takes cases involving state and local government and regulatory agencies and cases involving certain specific topics, such as banking, taxation, and elections.

Judges on all of Pennsylvania’s appellate courts, including the state supreme court, run initially in partisan elections for 10-year terms. After a judge’s first term, he or she must run in a retention election to serve subsequent terms. Pennsylvania is one of eight states that uses partisan elections for both its supreme court and intermediate appellate courts.

Mayor of Philadelphia

As we previewed on April 17, nine candidates are running in the Democratic primary for mayor of Philadelphia. The winner will face David Oh—the only candidate seeking the Republican nomination—in the Nov. 7 general election. Philadelphia has not elected a Republican mayor since Bernard Samuel, whose term ended in 1952. Incumbent Jim Kenney (D), first elected in 2015, is term-limited.

Jeff Brown, Allan Domb, Helen Gym, Cherelle Parker, and Rebecca Rhynhart lead in fundraising and media attention. 

Philadelphia voters will also decide partisan primaries for the register of wills, sheriff, city council, city commissioners, court of common pleas judges, and municipal court judges. In addition, there are also four local ballot measures. More information about the elections for the municipal offices can be found here, and information on the local ballot questions is here. 

State legislative special elections

Voters in two Pennsylvania House of Representatives districts will decide special elections that will determine partisan control of that legislative chamber. These elections will fill vacancies after the resignations of Lynda Schlegel Culver (R) and Michael Zabel (D). Culver ran unopposed in every election since 2018, including most recently in her 2022 re-election bid, while Zabel won re-election in 2022 with 64.3% of votes. We previewed these races in the Brew on April 25.

Other municipal elections

Ballotpedia is also covering primaries for controller and city council in Pittsburgh, city council primaries in the state’s capital of Harrisburg, and primaries for the following offices in Allegheny County—where Pittsburgh is located: County chief executive, controller, district attorney, treasurer, county council, court of common pleas judges, and magisterial district judges.

As part of our expanded coverage in 10 states, we’re covering all school board primary races in Pennsylvania on May 16. All districts in Pennsylvania are holding elections this year, with approximately half of the state’s 4,491 seats on the ballot. Pennsylvania holds school board elections every two years in odd-numbered years.

Keep reading 

Twenty-four upcoming vacancies among Article III judges

There are 24 total announced upcoming vacancies for Article III judgeships, according to the latest data from U.S. Courts. This is in addition to the 76 current federal judiciary vacancies out of the 870 such judgeships. 

These positions are not yet vacant but will be at some point in the future, with every judge having announced his or her intent to either leave the bench or assume senior status. In the meantime, these judges will continue to serve in their current positions. The president does not need to wait for a seat to become vacant before starting the confirmation process for a successor. 

The next upcoming scheduled vacancy will take place on May 15, 2023, when U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Barbara Lynn assumes senior status.

Article III judgeships refer to federal judges who serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of International Trade, or one of the 13 U.S. courts of appeal or 94 U.S. district courts. These are lifetime appointments made by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

President Biden has nominated 160 individuals to federal judgeships on Article III courts. As of May 3, 121 have been confirmed, and 34 are going through the confirmation process. Of those going through the confirmation process, 22 are awaiting a vote in the U.S. Senate, seven are awaiting a committee vote, and five are awaiting a committee hearing. Since Reagan, presidents have made an average of 103 judicial appointments through May 1 of their third year in office. President Bill Clinton (D) made the most appointments through May 1 of his third year with 137. President George H.W. Bush (R) made the fewest with 74.

Keep reading 

Welcome to the Tuesday, May 9, Brew. 

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

1. A roundup of May 6 Texas election results
2. Twenty state executive officials have left office early in 2023
3. 37 candidates filed for federal and statewide offices last week

A roundup of May 6 Texas election results

Last week, we previewed local elections taking place across Texas on Saturday, May 6. Those elections have come and gone, so let’s take a broad look at what happened, beginning with ballot measures.

Ballot measure elections 

In total, we covered 47 ballot measures on May 6. That was nearly three times more than we covered in May Texas elections in 2019 and 2021, mainly due to an increase in bond measures and charter amendments this year.  

We’re still collecting results for some of the 47 measures (as of this writing, not all have been officially called). Those that received the most media attention were voted on in San Antonio, El Paso, and Austin.

San Antonio

Voters rejected Proposition A 71.63% to 28.37%. The amendment, a citizen-initiated measure, would have made the following changes: 

• Established a city justice director appointed by the mayor and city council; 
• Prohibited police from issuing citations or making arrests for certain misdemeanor marijuana possession offenses;
• Prohibited police from enforcing criminal abortion laws;
• Banned law enforcement use of no-knock warrants and chokeholds; and

The San Antonio Police Officers Association opposed the measure. President Danny Diaz said, “This wasn’t a party issue. This was a community issue. The work doesn’t stop tonight. The work continues so that we go out into the community so that they understand what we’re doing as police officers for them to make sure they are safe.”

Act 4 SA led the effort to get the measure on the ballot. Its Executive Director, Ananda Thomas, criticized the measure opponents, saying, “lies and the misinformation that were put out there backed by over $2 million. We know at the end of the day, in the long run, the people will always win over big-money interests.”

El Paso

Voters decided 11 charter amendments, including Proposition K, a citizen initiative related to the climate. Voters rejected Proposition K 83.5% to 16.47%. 

Among other things, Proposition K would have established the Climate Department and the Climate Director, which would have carried out the amendment’s three policy goals—“to reduce the City’s contribution to climate change; second, to invest in an environmentally sustainable future; and third, to advance the cause of climate justice.” 

El Paso Matters’s Diego Mendoza-Moyers said, “the Climate Charter sparked fierce opposition – and heavy campaign spending – from business groups such as the El Paso Chamber and the Houston-based Consumer Energy Alliance, which collectively poured over $1 million into television and web advertisements and campaign mailers urging voters to oppose the measure. Supporters of the Climate Charter spent about $30,000 in the election.”

Austin

Voters decided two competing initiatives related to police oversight. Voters supported Proposition A 79.86% to 20.14% and rejected Proposition B 81.09% to 18.91%. Equity Action sponsored Proposition A, while the Austin Police Association-backed Voters for Oversight and Police Accountability sponsored Proposition B. 

Proposition A authorizes the Office of Police Oversight to investigate anonymous complaints, gather evidence and directly interview witnesses, and conduct a preliminary investigation of every complaint and determine whether a full investigation is warranted. The measure allows the Office of Police Oversight to analyze all force incident data and conduct random audits of body camera video.

Under Proposition B, certain provisions regarding the Office of Police Oversight would have been removed from the city Code of Ordinances, including a provision of the Office of Police Oversight to receive anonymous complaints. 

On Saturday night, the Austin Police Association tweeted they were “taking immediate action to determine the city’s intentions regarding the implementation and enforcement of the illegal provisions contained in Prop A.” 

According to Community Impact’s Ben Thompson, “The face-off between the ballot measures is the latest in 

a series of high-profile policing decisions in the city through recent years, following a 2021 vote in which Austinites rejected a police staffing requirement and voted to ban low-level marijuana enforcement and no-knock raids in the city in last spring’s election. This year, the pending outcome of this May’s proposition election also led City Council to hold off on approving a new labor agreement with the police union.”

Mayoral and municipal elections

We covered mayoral elections in six cities on May 6. Incumbents in all six cities were running for re-election, and all incumbents were re-elected. 

Three of those cities—Fort Worth, Garland, and Irving—have Republican mayors, while Dallas has a Democratic mayor. San Antonio’s mayor is an independent. We have been unable to verify the partisan affiliation of Arlington’s mayor. 

We’re covering 40 mayoral elections this year, including upcoming elections on May 16 in Jacksonville, Fla., and Philadelphia, Pa. 

We also covered city council and other elections on May 6 in the following cities and counties. Click to see results. 

• Arlington: City council
• Dallas: City council
• Fort Worth: City council
• Garland: City council
• Irving: City council
• Plano: City council
• San Antonio: City council
• Collin County: Community college board of trustees
• El Paso County: Community college board of trustees
• Tarrant County: College board and regional water district board

Click below to see more of our Texas election coverage this year. 

Keep reading

Twenty state executive officials have left office early in 2023   

Since the start of the year, we’ve tracked 20 state executive officials who’ve left office early—the sixth highest number since we began tracking such unscheduled office changes in 2012. 

When officials leave office before their terms expire we call that an irregular office change, which can occur when an official resigns or dies. 

In 2023, four Republicans, four Democrats, and 12 nonpartisan officeholders have left office early thus far. Here’s how that breaks down by office type:

• 2 lieutenant governors
• 3 secretaries of state
• 2 attorneys general
• 1 treasurer
• 8 superintendent of schools/commissioner of education
• 3 agricultural commissioners 

The latest state executive irregular office change happened May 8, when Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan (D) officially resigned. Fagan left office following the Willamette Weekly’s reporting that a cannabis company was paying her for consulting services. In a statement announcing her resignation, Fagan said: “While I am confident that the ethics investigation will show that I followed the state’s legal and ethical guidelines in trying to make ends meet for my family, it is clear that my actions have become a distraction from the important and critical work of the Secretary of State’s office.” 

Fagan is the third secretary of state to leave office early this year, following former Maryland Secretary of State John Wobensmith (R) and former Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug Follette (D). 

Since we began tracking irregular office changes in 2012, there have been 39 irregular changes in public service commissioner offices—the most of any office. This is followed by the offices of secretary of state, with 25, and superintendent of public instruction, with 24. Since 2012, the most irregular office changes in a single state in a single year was in 2013 in Indiana. In total, Indiana, with 12, is the state with the most overall irregular office changes since 2012. Montana, with one in 2015, is the state with the fewest irregular office changes. 

Click here to learn more about state executive irregular office changes. 

Keep reading 

37 candidates filed for federal and statewide offices last week

Last week, 37 candidates filed to run for congressional and state offices—including for elections in 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026. Two weeks ago, we tracked 33 candidates who declared for congressional and state offices.

This year, we’ve tracked 612 declared candidates for federal and statewide offices. 

Here’s a breakdown of the candidates who declared last week:

Of the partisan nature of the declared candidates: 

• 20 are Democrats.
• 14 are Republicans.
• Three are minor-party candidates.

Of the offices tracked:

• 25 candidates filed for Congress.
• Eight candidates filed for state legislature.
• Two candidates filed for governorships.
• Two files for a lower state executive office. 

Between March 6 and March 27, we tracked an average of 21 candidates who filed for federal or state elections. Between April 3 and April 24, that average increased to 33 candidates.

We cover elections for tens of thousands of offices across the country, and part of that work includes keeping tabs on the candidates who file to run for those offices. We’ll periodically bring you updates on how many candidates are signing up to run for state and congressional offices. We process both official and declared candidates.

Click here to read more about our definition of candidacy. Click the link below to see a list of all declared candidates for federal elections in 2024. 

Keep reading 

Welcome to the Monday, May 8, Brew. 

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

1. Pennsylvania Democrats, Republicans to pick state supreme court nominees on May 16
2. SCOTUS to hear case challenging Chevron deference
3. Eleven election-related bills enacted this past week

Pennsylvania Democrats, Republicans to pick state supreme court nominees on May 16

On May 16, Democratic and Republican voters in Pennsylvania will make their picks for the state’s upcoming supreme court election in November.

These upcoming primaries will determine the major party candidates running to fill a vacancy on the court created after Chief Justice Max Baer (D) died last year. The winner in November will be elected to a 10-year term on the court.

Democrats have controlled the Pennsylvania Supreme Court since 2015 when they established a 5-2 majority. Today, with Baer’s vacancy, the makeup is a 4-2 Democratic majority.

The outcome of this election will not affect the court’s governing majority. But it will set the stage for the upcoming 2025 elections when three justice’s terms—all Democrats—are set to expire.

If Democrats retain the vacant seat this year, Republicans would need to win at least two of the three seats in 2025 to gain a majority. If Republicans win this year, they would only need to win one seat in 2025.

Spotlight PA’s Kate Huangpu wrote, “The state Supreme Court takes on relatively few cases, but its rulings can have a major impact on politics and policy in Pennsylvania. In recent years, the court has decided cases on reproductive rights, mask mandates, and election disputes.”

Both of this year’s primaries have two candidates.

Deborah Kunselman and Daniel McCaffery, both judges on the Pennsylvania Superior Court, are running in the Democratic primary.

In a Candidate Connection survey submitted to Ballotpedia, Kunselman said, “I believe in equal access to justice and transparency in our court system … regardless of income, race, gender, national origin, age, religion or sexual orientation.”

Kunselman received endorsements from #VoteProChoice and the Pennsylvania Working Families Party.

In a questionnaire submitted to the Pennsylvania Bar Association, McCaffery said, “Democratic Institutions including the judiciary are under duress … [M]y priority will be to approach every case in a non-partisan manner … to restore faith in the judicial branch.”

McCaffery received endorsements from the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and the Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters.

Patricia McCullough and Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio are running in the Republican primary. McCullough is a judge on the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. Carluccio is a judge on Montgomery County’s Court of Common Pleas.

On her campaign website, McCullough said her “character, wisdom and temperament make her the People’s Judge” and that she is “[n]ever willing to compromise justice … stands for election integrity,” and is a “courageous, strict constitutionalist judge.”

McCullough received endorsements from state Sen. and 2022 gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano (R) and the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation.

In a Candidate Connection survey submitted to Ballotpedia, Carluccio said, “I am impartial and apply the law as it is written. I will not legislate from the bench … I ensure that everyone is treated with dignity and respect when they come before me.”

Carluccio received endorsements from the Pennsylvania Republican Party and the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry.

Pennsylvania is one of eight states that use partisan elections for state supreme court justices. And it’s one of two states holding supreme court elections this year. Wisconsin voters elected a new justice on April 4.

Keep reading 

SCOTUS to hear case challenging Chevron deference

On May 1, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a case that could curb or clarify future applications of Chevron deference in federal courts.

Chevron deference is an administrative law principle courts have cited in thousands of opinions since 1984. 

Under this principle, if federal law is unclear or doesn’t address a specific issue, the agency responsible for its implementation can interpret the law and create rules to fill the gaps. If a court finds the agency’s interpretation reasonable, it will accept the agency’s view rather than replace it with its own interpretation.

Supporters of Chevron deference say it prioritizes agency expertise, while opponents say it prevents judges from exercising their constitutional duty to interpret the law independently. 

In recent years, inconsistent applications of Chevron deference have led some scholars and judicial commentators to question the doctrine’s longevity and anticipate rulings limiting its scope.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo centers around a group of commercial fishermen. In this case, a lower court applied Chevron deference to uphold an agency interpretation of a federal fishery law requiring the fishermen to pay for compliance monitors.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Petitioners asked the court to decide whether it should overturn Chevron or at least clarify when and how Chevron should be applied.

Any adjustments to Chevron deference could affect the doctrine’s future application by federal courts in cases relating to administrative law.

If you want to learn more, Ballotpedia has you covered with all the info on Chevron deference, compiled as part of our Administrative State Project. This research contains everything from the legal history of the original case to the present day, as well as federal and state applications of the doctrine, arguments for and against it, and much more!

Keep reading 

Eleven election-related bills enacted this past week

State legislators enacted 11 new election-related bills over the past week, including:

• Senate Bill 259 in Michigan, which changes the state’s absentee/mail-in voting deadline from received by Election Day to postmarked by Election Day. Voters now have to place their ballots in the mail no later than the election rather than have them delivered to election officials by that time;
• House Bill 598 in Montana, prohibiting the use of ranked-choice voting in federal, state, or local elections; and, 
• Senate Bill 410 in Oklahoma, which modifies the list of activities prohibited near polling places. It bars any person other than election officials or those voting from remaining in or near a polling place, including exit pollsters.

In addition to these three newly-enacted bills, 57 other bills have moved further along in the legislative process over the past week: 14 passed both chambers and are awaiting final approval, and 43 passed one chamber, moving on to the next.

As of May 4, legislators across the country have enacted 116 election-related bills this year, roughly the same as the 113 such bills enacted at this point in 2022.

Of this year’s 116 enacted bills, Republicans sponsored 63, or 56%, up from 50% of the total enacted at this point last year. Democrats sponsored 16%, down from 21% in 2022. Bills with bipartisan sponsorship make up 14% of the total enacted, down from 19% last year. Those with unclear partisan sponsorship are up to 14% from 10% in 2022.

You can view a full list of enacted bills this year here.

To stay up-to-date with the latest news in election-related legislation, subscribe to The Ballot Bulletin, our weekly newsletter—dropping every Friday afternoon—that delivers the latest updates on election policy. Every week, we track legislative activity, big-picture trends, recent news, and in-depth data from our Election Administration Legislation Tracker.

Keep reading 

Welcome to the Friday, May 5, Brew. 

By: Samuel Wonacott

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

1. Local elections tomorrow throughout Texas
2. Update on this year’s ballot measure certifications
3. #FridayTrivia: What percentage of recall efforts in 2023 have been directed at school board members?

Local elections tomorrow throughout Texas 

Most elections in the U.S. are held on a Tuesday. But on May 6—a Saturday!—voters in cities and counties across the Lonestar State will make their way to the polls to decide a raft of local elections and ballot measures. 

Here’s a look at our coverage of tomorrow’s elections in Texas.

Municipal and county elections

We’re covering municipal elections in seven cities and three counties on May 6. Five of those cities are holding mayoral elections. 

• Arlington: Mayor and city council
• Dallas: Mayor and city council
• Fort Worth: Mayor and city council
• Garland: Mayor and city council
• Irving: Mayor and city council
• Plano: City council
• San Antonio: Mayor and city council
• Collin County: Community college board of trustees
• El Paso County: Community college board of trustees
• Tarrant County: College board and regional water district board

Of the five cities holding mayoral elections on May 6, three—Fort Worth, Garland, and Irving—have Republican mayors, while Dallas has a Democratic mayor. San Antonio’s mayor is an independent. We have been unable to verify the partisan affiliation of Arlington’s mayor. Incumbents in all five cities are running for re-election. 

School board elections

We’re covering general elections in 58 school districts, including in some of the largest in the state. The following school districts with more than 75,000 students are holding elections on Saturday:

• Dallas Independent School District
• Northside Independent School District (Bexar County)
• Fort Worth Independent School District
• Katy Independent School District
• Fort Bend Independent School District

Dallas Independent School District is the state’s second-largest district by enrollment, with an estimated 154,000 students. The state’s largest district, Houston Independent School District, is holding general elections on Nov. 7. 

You can stay up to date on all things school board elections by subscribing to Hall Pass, our weekly education-related newsletter. 

Ballot measures

We’re covering 47 ballot measures in seven counties on May 6. Five are citizen initiatives, and for the other 42, local governing boards referred the measures to the ballot. 

This year’s ballot has nearly three times the number of measures as those we covered in the May 2019 and 2021 elections. In 2019, there were 15 measures on the May ballot in Texas. In 2021, there were 16 measures.

A greater number of bond measures and charter amendments has led to the 2023 increase. 

Here’s a look at some of the measures that have received the most attention.

In San Antonio, voters will decide on one citizen-initiated measure — Proposition A. The charter amendment would change law enforcement on abortion, marijuana, and police actions. The changes include:

• establishing a city justice director appointed by the mayor and city council; 
• prohibiting police from issuing citations or making arrests for certain misdemeanor marijuana possession offenses;
• prohibiting police from enforcing criminal abortion laws;
• banning law enforcement use of no-knock warrfants and chokeholds; and
• using citations instead of arrests for certain misdemeanors.

El Paso voters will decide on 11 charter amendments, including Proposition K, a citizen-initiative related to the climate. Proposition K would create a new article titled Climate Policy in the charter “to reduce the City’s contribution to climate change; second, to invest in an environmentally sustainable future; and third, to advance the cause of climate justice.” The article would create a Climate Department and Climate Director to advance the new article’s goals. The article would also require the city to use 100% renewable energy sources by 2045.

Austin voters will be deciding on competing police-related ballot initiatives—Propositions A and B. Proposition A is sponsored by Equity Action, and Proposition B is sponsored by Voters for Oversight and Police Accountability, which is supported by the Austin Police Association. Both propositions make changes to the Office of Police Oversight (OPO) but differ in the exact powers granted to investigate police conduct. Proposition A would authorize preliminary investigations into all complaints including anonymous complaints, while Proposition B would not. Proposition B does not include a requirement for random assessment reviews of department use of force, which is included in Proposition A. Under Proposition A, OPO would also be authorized to determine the training requirements for members of the Community Police Review Commission. 

Click the link below to learn more about Texas’ May 6 elections. Click here to view your sample ballot.  

Keep reading 

Update on this year’s ballot measure certifications 

Speaking of ballot measures, here’s an update on statewide measures. 

As of May 2, seven statewide measures have been certified for the ballot in four states for elections this year. That’s the same as the average number certified at this point in other odd-numbered years from 2011 to 2021. 

Here’s an update on the latest 2023 ballot measure activity.

One new measure was certified for the 2023 ballot last week:

• Texas Authorize Conservation and Reclamation Districts in El Paso County Amendment

Signatures were verified for five indirect initiatives in Maine and Ohio, and the initiatives are now before legislators:

• Maine “Right to Repair Law” Vehicle Data Access Requirement Initiative (2023)
• Maine Creation of Pine Tree Power Company Initiative (2023)
• Maine Prohibit Foreign Spending in Elections Initiative (2023)
• Maine Voter Approval of Borrowing Above $1 Billion by State Entities and Electric Cooperatives Initiative (2023)
• Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2023)

For 2024, 32 statewide measures have been certified in 16 states. That’s six more measures than the average number certified at this point from 2010 to 2022.

Click here to learn about statewide ballot measures in 2024. Click below to learn more about statewide ballot measures in 2023. 

Keep reading 

#FridayTrivia: What percentage of recall efforts in 2023 have been directed at school board members?

In the May 3 Brew, in anticipation of our forthcoming mid-year recall report, we looked at how this year’s recall efforts compare to those in previous years. This year, we’ve identified 149 recall efforts nationwide. 

What percentage of the 149 recall efforts so far in 2023 have been directed toward school board members?

1. 70%
2. 7%
3. 39%
4. 21%

Welcome to the Thursday, May 4, Brew. 

By: Juan Garcia de Paredes

In a political galaxy far, far away, a team of dedicated researchers and writers toiled to provide their readers with unbiased information on elections, politics, and policy…

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

1. States consider 24 bills related to private funding of elections so far in 2023, down from 40 at this point in 2022
2. Florida marijuana legalization initiative has 94% of signatures needed to appear on 2024 ballot
3. President Joe Biden issues four executive orders in April, bringing his total to 113

…and May the 4th be with you! Brush up on some of the most important but lesser known galactic influencers in the Star Wars universe.

States consider 24 bills related to private funding of elections so far in 2023, down from 40 at this point in 2022

This year, Ballotpedia’s Election Administration Legislation Tracker has followed 24 bills related to the private funding of election administration, down from 40 at this point in 2022. Republican legislators sponsored 21 of the bills, while Democratic legislators sponsored one. Two bills in Oregon were introduced without legislative sponsorship at the request of the Democratic secretary of state. 

Private funding of elections refers to the practice of non-governmental entities providing funds for election administration efforts and expenses. In 2022, state legislatures considered 67 bills related to this practice.

Of the 21 bills Republicans sponsored this year, 20 aimed to introduce new restrictions or amend existing ones on non-governmental entities funding election administration. One, Minnesota’s SF905, would require that parties requesting post-election audits cover the audit’s cost.

Twenty-four states have enacted legislation restricting the use of private funds in election administration since 2021, including 21 of the 28 states where Republicans currently control both legislative chambers. The seven Republican-controlled legislatures that have not done so are Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Montana, Louisiana, and North Carolina are currently considering such legislation. 

In Louisiana,  HB311 would place a measure on the October 14, 2023, ballot asking voters to decide whether to prohibit the use of private funding for election administration. In North Carolina, H641 would direct that all costs associated with state and local elections must be paid for with public funds. In Montana, SB117 would prohibit soliciting or accepting funds from an individual or corporation to fund election administration. SB117 passed both legislative chambers and was sent to Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) on April 24.

Montana has a Republican governor, while Louisiana and North Carolina have Democratic governors. 

Separately, Wisconsin passed SJR101 in 2021, a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit using private funds for election administration. To amend Wisconsin’s constitution, a measure must be adopted in two successive legislative sessions, and the state’s electorate must subsequently ratify it. As of May 2, SJR101 has not been introduced for second consideration.

Six of the bills considered so far this year aimed to amend private funding legislation enacted over the last two years. In Arkansas and Georgia, (SB255) and (SB222) expand the definition of elections officials prohibited from accepting funds or donations from non-state entities, while a bill in Mississippi would have clarified that all “expenses relating to conducting elections shall be paid for with public funds.” Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) signed SB255 into law on March 24, 2023, while the Georgia Legislature sent SB222 to Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for his approval on April 5.

Twenty of the 24 states that have enacted legislation restricting the use of private funds for election administration had Republican trifectas at the time of enactment. Of the remaining four, three had Republican-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors, while in Virginia, Democrats controlled the Senate, and Republicans controlled the House of Delegates and the governorship.

The Democratic-sponsored bill, Illinois’s SB2555, would allow residents to contribute to an Election Integrity Fund. The proceeds would be used for all required election audit expenses. The two bills introduced in Oregon direct the secretary of state to conduct studies on election funding and make recommendations by September 15, 2024.

In the run-up to the November 3, 2020, general election, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan, donated a total of $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and $50 million to the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) to fund election administration efforts. Those donations led to much of the legislative activity surrounding the practice. 

Keep reading

Florida marijuana legalization initiative has 94% of signatures needed to appear on 2024 ballot

Smart & Safe Florida, a campaign supporting a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in Florida, has collected 841,130 valid signatures, 94% of the 891,523 valid signatures needed to be placed on the ballot in 2024.

The initiative would legalize marijuana for adults 21 years old and older. Individuals would be allowed to possess up to three ounces of marijuana (about 85 grams), with up to five grams in the form of concentrate. Existing Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers would be authorized under the initiative to sell marijuana to adults for personal use. The Florida Legislature could, by state law, license entities other than existing Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers to cultivate and sell marijuana products.

As of May 2023, 21 states and Washington, D.C., have legalized the possession and personal use of marijuana for recreational purposes. In seven states, bills to legalize marijuana have been enacted. In 15 states and Washington, D.C., voters approved ballot measures to legalize recreational marijuana for adult use. The average yes vote was 57.86%, and the average no vote was 42.21%, with an average margin of victory of 15.65%.

Initiatives in Ohio and Nebraska are currently collecting signatures to appear on the 2023 and 2024 ballots, respectively. Voters in Oklahoma defeated a measure to legalize recreational marijuana in March.

Of the 15 approved marijuana legalization ballot measures, four received a vote of approval of 60% or higher. The measure with the highest margin of victory was Washington, D.C.’s 2014 initiative, which was approved by a vote of 70.06% to 29.94% for a margin of victory of 40.12%. The measure with the lowest margin of victory was Maine’s 2016 initiative, which was approved by a vote of 50.26% to 49.74% for a margin of victory of 0.52%.

The Florida initiative was cleared for signature gathering on Aug. 23, 2022. Since then, the campaign has collected an average of 23,360 valid signatures each week.

According to Florida law, the signatures must be collected from at least half (14) of the state’s 28 congressional districts, and they must equal at least 8% of the district-wide vote in the last presidential election. So far, the signature distribution requirement has been met in 12 districts. The campaign has collected 99.86% of the signatures needed in District 5, which includes Duval and St. Johns counties, and 88.97% of the required signatures in District 13, which includes Pinellas County. The campaign will likely meet those districts’ distribution requirements after the next monthly signature update.

The campaign has raised $30.5 million, all from Trulieve Cannabis Corp., a marijuana business that operates in several states, including Florida. The campaign has spent $27.42 per valid signature collected so far. According to campaign reports covering information through March 31, 2023, Smart and Safe Florida had paid $23.07 million to Axiom Strategies and Vanguard Field Strategies for signature gathering. 

This cost is 463% more expensive than the average cost of signature drives in Florida in 2016, which was $4.1 million. The cost of running successful initiative signature drives in Florida was $4.6 million in 2018 and $6.7 million in 2020. No initiatives qualified for the Florida ballot in 2022. In four states with marijuana legalization initiatives in 2022, signature drives cost between $68,000 and $3.66 million.

Across all states with an initiative process, the average cost of a petition drive increased 297% from $1.03 million in 2016 to $4.09 million in 2022. The average cost-per-required signature increased from $6.93 to $12.70 in that time span. 

Voters in Florida legalized medical marijuana through a ballot initiative in 2016, which was approved by a vote of 71.32% in favor and 28.68% opposed. To pass a constitutional amendment in Florida, a supermajority of 60% is required. This requirement was added to the state constitution through voter approval of Amendment 3 in 2006. Since then, nine constitutional amendments, including a 2014 medical marijuana initiative, received a majority of votes in favor but failed to meet the 60% threshold, resulting in their defeat.

Keep reading 

President Joe Biden issues four executive orders in April, bringing his total to 113

President Joe Biden (D) issued four executive orders in April, bringing his term total number to 113.

The four orders he issued last month were:

• Executive Order on Authority to Order the Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces to Active Duty to Address International Drug Trafficking (April 27, 2023)
• Executive Order on Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All (April 21, 2023)
• Executive Order on Increasing Access to High-Quality Care and Supporting Caregivers (April 18, 2023)
• Executive Order on Modernizing Regulatory Review (April 6, 2023)

Biden issued 25 executive orders in January 2021, more than any other month of his presidency. He did not issue any executive orders in November 2022 and January 2023.

Biden is averaging 48 executive orders per year, tied with Ronald Reagan (R) for second-most among presidents since 1981. Donald Trump (R) averaged 55 executive orders per year, the most in that time. Obama (D) averaged 35 per year, the fewest in that time.

Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) issued 307 executive orders per year on average, the most of all U.S. presidents. William Henry Harrison (Whig) averaged the fewest, issuing none during his one month in office. Three presidents issued only one executive order each: James Madison (Democratic-Republican), James Monroe (Democratic-Republican), and John Adams (Federalist).

Keep reading