|
RNC outraises DNC by two-to-one, Democratic Hill committees outraise Republican counterparts
The Republican National Committee (RNC) outraised the Democratic National Committee (DNC) by more than two-to-one last month, according to June 2020 campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission June 20. This was the second month in a row in which the RNC outraised the DNC.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) raised $11.2 million and spent $7.7 million last month, while the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) raised $10.1 million and spent $7.9 million. So far in the 2020 cycle, the NRSC has raised 7.0% more than the DSCC ($119.6 million to $111.5 million). The NRSC’s 7.0% fundraising advantage is down from 8.8% in May and matches its 7.0% advantage in April.
On the House side, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) raised $10.9 million and spent $7.1 million, while the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) raised $10.6 million and spent $7.7 million. So far in the cycle, the DCCC has raised 26.2% more than the NRCC ($190.7 million to $146.5 million). The DCCC’s 26.2% fundraising advantage is down from 27.8% in May and 30.0% in April.
At this point in the 2018 campaign cycle, Democrats led in both Senate and House fundraising, although their advantage in the House was smaller than in this cycle. The DSCC had raised 15.9% more than the NRSC ($81.3 million to $69.3 million), while the DCCC had raised 24.6% more than the NRCC ($162.2 million to $126.7 million).
Last month, the RNC raised $27.2 million and spent $22.0 million to the DNC’s $11.7 million in fundraising and $12.4 million in spending. So far in the 2020 cycle, the RNC has raised 72.9% more than the DNC ($372.9 million to $173.7 million). The RNC’s 72.9% fundraising advantage is up from 72.4% in May, but down from 73.9% in April.
At this point in the 2016 campaign cycle (the most recent presidential cycle), the RNC had a smaller 40.4% fundraising advantage over the DNC ($163.4 million to $108.5 million).
So far in the 2020 cycle, the RNC, NRSC, and NRCC have raised 29.3% more than the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC ($639.0 million to $475.9 million). The Republican fundraising advantage is up from 28.9% in May and 28.4% in April.
Additional reading:
- Democratic National Committee
- Republican National Committee
- Fundraising in Congressional elections, 2018
Coronavirus Weekly Update: June 25th, 2020
Since March 18, 2020, Coronavirus Daily Update provided a daily summary of major changes due to the coronavirus pandemic in politics, government, and elections. Now, we cover those same stories in a weekly format sent out on Thursday afternoons.
Today, you will find updates on the following topics, with comparisons to our previous edition released on June 18:
- Stay-at-home orders
- Federal responses
- Lawsuits about state actions and policies
- Election changes
- Ballot measure changes
- School closures and reopenings
- Travel restrictions
- State legislation
- State legislative sessions
- State courts
- Prison policies
- Eviction and foreclosure policies
- Diagnosed or quarantined public officials
For daily news on state reopening plans and which industries and activities are permitted across the country, subscribe to Documenting America’s Path to Recovery.
State stay-at-home orders
Overview:
As of June 25, stay-at-home orders have ended in 39 states. Nineteen of those states have Republican governors and 20 have Democratic governors (including Wisconsin, where the state Supreme Court invalidated the stay-at-home order).
The four states with active stay-at-home orders have Democratic governors. They are (with expiration date):
- New York (June 27)
- New Mexico (June 30)
- California (no set expiration date)
- Kentucky (no set expiration date)
The 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic
Read more: 1918 influenza pandemic (Spanish Flu) and the 1918 midterm election cycle
The United States held midterm elections as scheduled during the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic. More than 50 million people perished from the disease worldwide, including about 675,000 in the U.S., making it one of the deadliest pandemics in recorded history. Each week, we’ll look back at a story from the 1918 elections to see how America met the challenges of holding elections during a national health emergency.
On Nov. 4, 1918, the Oakland Enquirer reported that health officials assured voters in Oakland, California that voting would be safe, so long as masks were worn:
“The fear that danger lurks in visiting the polls and exercising the right of franchise has been dissipated. [H]ealth authorities have assured the public that as long as masks are worn, and this precaution being compulsory, is certain to be observed, there is perfect safety in going to the various polling booths and carrying on the election tomorrow.”
Federal responses
Read more: Political responses to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
- On June 24, The Department of Health and Human Services announced it was ending support for 13 federally-managed coronavirus testing sites, and encouraging states to take them over. Five states, including Texas, have drive-in sites.
- On June 22, President Donald Trump (R), citing economic disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic, signed a proclamation restricting the issuance of some visas that permit immigrants to work in the United States. Visas affected include L-1s, H-1Bs, H-4s, H-2Bs, and J-1s. The restrictions take effect on June 24 and expire on Dec. 31.
- On June 19, the Department of Defense lifted travel restrictions on additional installations in 46 states and eight host nations, allowing military and civilian personnel to travel to those locations.
Lawsuits about state actions and policies
Read more: Lawsuits about state actions and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- To date, Ballotpedia has tracked 278 lawsuits in 45 states dealing in some way with the COVID-19 outbreak. Court orders have been issued, or settlements have been reached, in 93 of those lawsuits.
- Since June 18, we have added an additional 49 lawsuits to our database. We have also tracked an additional 21 court orders and/or settlements.
- Ballotpedia has separately followed another 116 lawsuits, in 36 states, dealing with election issues during the COVID-19 outbreak. Court orders have been issued, or settlements have been reached, in 55 of those lawsuits.
Here are 3 lawsuits that have garnered either significant national media attention or involve major advocacy groups:
- Auracle Homes, LLC v. Lamont: On June 16, a group of eight Connecticut landlords sued Gov. Ned Lamont (D) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking to block two executive orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Executive Order 7G, issued on March 19, suspends non-critical court operations. Executive Order 7X, issued on April 10, prohibits landlords from initiating new evictions through July 1, provides an automatic 60-day grace period for April rent, and a 60-day grace period for May rent upon request. It also mandates landlords allow tenants who paid a security deposit in excess of one month’s rent be allowed to use that excess amount toward April, May, or June rent. Attorneys for the landlords argue these orders “illegally deprived them of their constitutional right to private contract, right to due process of law, right to equal protection under the law, and right against having their property taken for public use without just compensation.” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong defended the executive orders, saying they “have been very clearly constitutional and fully legally justified.” The case is assigned to Judge Victor Bolden, who was appointed to the court by President Barack Obama (D).
- R.V. v. Mnuchin: On June 19, Judge Paul Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that a group of children, who are U.S. citizens, and their parents, who are not, had standing to sue the Trump administration over the denial of benefits under the CARES Act. Plaintiffs seek to “challenge the allegedly intentional and discriminatory denial to U.S. citizen children of the benefits of emergency cash assistance distributed … in response to the COVID-19 pandemic solely because one or both of a child’s parents are undocumented immigrants.” Grimm dismissed the government’s argument that, because the children would not directly receive the benefits, the plaintiffs lacked standing to file suit. Instead, Grimm found that each child should be construed as a “qualifying child” under the CARES Act and, “but for the discrimination against them based on their parents’ alienage,” would “have the opportunity to benefit from the economic impact payments.” As such, Grimm found that the court has proper subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims, the plaintiffs have standing to sue, and the plaintiffs have adequately alleged an equal protection claim. The government was given until July 10 to file an answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint. Grimm was appointed to the court by President Obama.
- Pletcher v. Giant Eagle, Inc.: On May 26, the first of 35 lawsuits challenging supermarket chain Giant Eagle’s mandatory face mask policy was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuits, which Judge Nora Barry Fischer, a George W. Bush (R) appointee, has combined, accuse Giant Eagle of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act by requiring all customers to wear face coverings while inside stores. The chain instituted the policy to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. But plaintiffs allege their physical and/or mental impairments, including respiratory diseases, anxiety disorders, and past traumas, prohibit their ability to wear face coverings while shopping inside. They argue that barring entry into stores for failure to wear a mask violates the ADA because the law “expressly prohibits, among other things, discrimination on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of . . . services [and] public accommodation.” The plaintiffs also allege Giant Eagle has misinterpreted a state order mandating that businesses require face coverings except where customers “cannot wear a mask due to a medical condition.” Giant Eagle representative Dick Roberts said the “lawsuits have no merit,” and noted the chain offers curbside and delivery service.
Election changes
Overview:
- Twenty states have postponed state-level primary or special elections.
- No new states have postponed elections since June 18.
- Eighteen states have modified their candidate filing requirements.
- One new state has made modifications since June 18.
- Thirty-five states have made modifications to their voting procedures.
- No new states have made modifications since June 18.
- Political parties in 19 states have made modifications to party events on a statewide basis.
- No state parties have made modifications to party events since June 18.
Details:
- Maryland – On June 19, the Maryland State Board of Elections and the Green Party of Maryland reached a settlement in Maryland Green Party v. Hogan. Under the terms of the settlement, the petition signature requirement for obtaining party status for the Green and Libertarian parties was reduced from 10,000 to 5,000 signatures. The terms of the settlement applied only to 2020.
Ballot measure changes
Overview:
- At least 15 lawsuits were filed in 12 states seeking court orders suspending or changing signature requirements and deadlines.
- No new lawsuits have been filed since June 18.
- Rulings or settlements have been issued in 14 cases.
- One ruling has been issued since June 18.
- Ballotpedia has tracked 25 statewide initiative petition drives that suspended signature gathering.
- Two new petition drive suspensions since June 18.
- Seven states and D.C. changed ballot measure procedures through executive orders or legislative action.
- No new changes have been enacted since June 18.
- At least three initiative campaigns initially targeting 2020 reported they would shift their focus to 2022.
Details:
- Nebraska: On June 24, Nebraskans for Independent Redistricting, the campaign behind the Nebraska Redistricting Commission Initiative, announced it was ending its effort to put the initiative on the November ballot.
- Idaho: On June 23, United States District Court Judge Lynn Winmill ruled that Idaho officials must either allow Reclaim Idaho, the campaign sponsoring Idaho Income Tax Increases for Education Funding Initiative, to gather signatures electronically or place the initiative on the November ballot.
- Ohio: On June 18, Ohioans for Secure and Fair Elections, sponsors of the Ohio Voting Requirements Initiative, announced it was ending its signature gathering campaign.
School closures
Read more: School closures in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- In March and April, 48 states closed schools to in-person instruction for the remainder of the 2019-2020 academic year. Those states accounted for 99.4% of the nation’s 50.6 million public school students. Montana and Wyoming did not require in-person instruction for the year. Montana schools were allowed to reopen on May 7 and Wyoming schools were allowed to reopen on May 15.
- Five states (Alabama, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, and Wyoming) have reopened their campuses for students and staff.
- No new states have reopened campuses since June 18.
- Ten states have announced schools will reopen in the fall.
- Three new states have made reopening announcements since June 18.
- Officials in 13 other states have released guidance for reopening schools to in-person instructions, but have not indicated when or whether they plan to do so.
- Three new states have released guidance for reopening schools since June 18.
Details:
- Arkansas – On June 24, Arkansas Department of Education Commissioner Johnny Key released updated guidance for schools. The new guidance recommends that students older than 10 wear face coverings while riding on the bus and that younger students wear face coverings whenever practical.
- Illinois – On June 23, Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) released guidance for reopening schools. The guidance requires face coverings for all students and staff, prohibits gatherings of more than 50 people, and establishes temperature screenings and social distancing protocols.
- Massachusetts – On June 24, Gov. Charlie Baker (R) released guidance for reopening schools. The guidance requires all staff and students in second grade or higher to wear masks, social distancing of desks in classrooms, and students to eat breakfast and lunch in their classrooms.
- New Mexico – The Public Education department released rules and guidance for schools reopening in the fall. Public schools must begin the year using a hybrid in-person and online model with classrooms limited to 50% capacity.
- South Carolina – On June 22, Superintendent of Education Molly Mitchell Spearman released recommendations on reopening schools in the state. The recommendations included required face coverings for all students and staff, social distancing protocols, one-way hallways, staggered arrivals and dismissals, and buses operating at 50 percent capacity.
- Texas – On June 18, Education Commissioner Mike Morath said the state’s schools would open to students in the fall. Morath said guidance for schools would be released in the future.
- Wisconsin – On June 22, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction released reopening guidance for schools. Superintendent Carolyn Stanford Taylor said schools would reopen to in-person instruction for the fall. The guidance outlined several scenarios for physical distancing, including four-day school weeks, a two-day rotation, an a/b week rotation, and virtual learning.
Travel restrictions
Read more: Travel restrictions issued by states in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- Governors or state agencies in 24 states issued executive orders placing restrictions on out-of-state visitors. At least 11 of those orders have been rescinded.
- Since June 18, three states have implemented travel restrictions.
Details:
- Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York – Govs. Ned Lamont (D-Conn.), Phil Murphy (D-N.J.), and Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) announced on June 24 that travelers arriving in their states from states with a high infection rate must quarantine for 14 days. The infection rate is based on a seven-day rolling average of the number of infections per 100,000 residents. As of June 24, the states meeting the threshold are: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.
- Hawaii – Gov. David Ige (D) announced that beginning Aug. 1, out-of-state travelers can bypass the 14-day quarantine requirement if they can present a recent negative COVID-19 test at the airport. Travelers will be unable to get tested upon arrival and will need to quarantine for 14 days without a negative test.
State court changes
Read more: State court closures in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- Thirty-four states suspended in-person proceedings statewide
- Since June 18, three courts have extended restrictions on in-person proceedings and the suspension of jury trials.
- Two states extended the suspension of jury trials.
- Arkansas announced it was lifting restrictions on jury trials.
- New Jersey courts moved into a new phase of reopening
- Florida extended the term of their COVID Workgroup
- Sixteen states suspended in-person proceedings at the local level
Details:
- Alaska – The Alaska Supreme Court issued a statewide order on visitor health precautions for people entering court facilities. Precautions include requiring face masks and screening visitors as they enter the facility. The court also extended jury trials through Sept. 1.
- Arkansas – The Arkansas Supreme Court will lift the suspension of jury trials on July 1. The order does not mandate in-person proceedings to resume, but only lifts the previous restrictions.
- Colorado – The Colorado Supreme Court extended its suspension of jury trials through Aug. 3.
- Florida – Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Canady issued an order on June 15 which extended the term of the COVID-19 Workgroup through the end of the year. The Workgroup is charged with recommending ways state courts can return to full operation following the coronavirus pandemic.
- New Hampshire – The New Hampshire Supreme Court extended restrictions on in-person proceedings and the suspension of jury trials in the Circuit Court, Superior Court, and Supreme Court through July 6.
- New Jersey – On June 22, the New Jersey Judiciary moved into phase 2 of reopening. Under that phase, 10% to 15% of judges and staff are to be onsite. Suspended jury trials, sentencings, guilty pleas, and violations of monitoring and probation for defendants in custody may resume in Phase 2. Most proceedings will continue to be held remotely.
- Rhode Island – The Rhode Island Supreme Court extended restrictions on in-person proceedings and the suspension of jury trials through Sept. 7.
- Wyoming – The Wyoming Supreme Court extended restrictions on in-person proceedings and the suspension of jury trials through Aug. 3.
Prison inmate responses
Overview:
- Twenty-one states have released inmates at the state level.
- No states have released inmates at the state level since June 18.
- Twelve states have released inmates on the local level.
- Eleven states have not released inmates due to coronavirus.
- Two states have prohibited the release of certain inmate populations.
- Four states have temporarily released certain populations of inmates.
Eviction and foreclosure policies
Overview:
- Twenty-eight states have current moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures.
- Since June 18, Virginia announced an end date to the state’s eviction moratorium.
- New York ended one moratorium on evictions.
- Fourteen states have ended moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures.
- California has current local moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures.
- Seven states did not issue a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures on the state or local level.
Details:
- New York – One of the state’s moratoriums on evictions expired June 20, allowing housing courts to resume eviction proceedings. Another moratorium is set to expire in August for people unable to pay rent due to financial difficulties resulting from the coronavirus.
- Virginia – Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Donald Lemons issued an order on June 22 that will allow state courts to resume eviction hearings on June 29. A second order allows state courts to immediately resume eviction hearings that are unrelated to nonpayment.
State legislative responses
Read more: State laws in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- To date, 2,269 bills related to the coronavirus pandemic have been introduced in state legislatures.
- We have tracked 189 additional bills since June 18.
- Of these, 212 significant bills have been enacted into law, about 9.3 percent of the total number that has been introduced. This total omits ceremonial resolutions and legislation providing for procedural changes to legislative business.
- We have tracked 22 additional significant bills since June 18 (also omitting ceremonial resolutions and legislation providing for procedural changes to legislative business.)
State legislative session changes
Read more: Changes to state legislative session dates in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- Eleven state legislatures have suspended their sessions. Ten of those have since reconvened. One (Nebraska) has not.
- Two legislatures that had suspended their sessions have adjourned since June 18.
- Thirty-three legislatures have either adjourned or are not scheduled to be in regular session this year.
- Four legislatures have adjourned regular or special sessions since June 18.
- Five state legislatures are in regular session.
- One state legislature (Utah) is in special session.
- Two legislatures have adjourned special sessions since June 18.
Details:
- Minnesota – A special session of the Minnesota Legislature adjourned on June 19.
- New Mexico – A special session of the New Mexico Legislature adjourned on June 22.
- Tennessee – The Tennessee Legislature adjourned on June 19.
Diagnosed or quarantined politicians identified by Ballotpedia
We have tracked the deaths, diagnoses, and quarantines of political incumbents, candidates, and government officials resulting from COVID-19. At this time, tracked incumbents, candidates, and government officials are limited to those within Ballotpedia’s scope of coverage.
- Federal
- Seven members of Congress have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
- Forty federal officials quarantined after possible exposure to COVID-19.
- State
- Four state-level incumbents or candidates have died of COVID-19.
- Forty-one state-level incumbents or candidates have been diagnosed with COVID-19
- Seventy-four state-level incumbents or candidates quarantined after possible exposure to COVID-19.
- Local
- At least two local incumbents or candidates have died of COVID-19.
- At least 16 local incumbents or candidates have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
- At least 26 local incumbents or candidates quarantined after possible exposure to COVID-19.
Since June 18, one state representative tested positive for coronavirus.
Details:
- S.C. State Rep. and candidate for the U.S. House Nancy Mace (R) announced she tested positive for the virus on June 23.
Coronavirus Weekly Update: June 18th, 2020
Since March 18, 2020, Coronavirus Daily Update provided a daily summary of major changes due to the coronavirus pandemic in politics, government, and elections. Now, we cover those same stories in a weekly format sent out on Thursday afternoons.
Today, you will find updates on the following topics, with comparisons to our previous edition released on June 11:
- Stay-at-home orders
- Federal responses
- Lawsuits about state actions and policies
- Election changes
- Ballot measure changes
- School closures and reopenings
- Travel restrictions
- State legislation
- State legislative sessions
- State courts
- Prison policies
- Eviction and foreclosure policies
- Diagnosed or quarantined public officials
For daily news on state reopening plans and which industries and activities are permitted across the country, subscribe to Documenting America’s Path to Recovery.
State stay-at-home orders
Overview:
As of June 18, stay-at-home orders have ended in 38 states. Nineteen of those states have Republican governors and 19 have Democratic governors (including Wisconsin, where the state Supreme Court invalidated the stay-at-home order).
The five states with active stay-at-home orders have Democratic governors. They are (with expiration date):
- New York (June 27)
- New Mexico (June 30)
- California (no set expiration date)
- Kentucky (no set expiration date)
- Oregon (no set expiration date)
Details:
- New Hampshire – Gov Chris Sununu’s (R) stay-at-home order expired on June 15 at 11:59 p.m.
The 1918 influenza pandemic
Read more: 1918 influenza pandemic (Spanish Flu) and the 1918 midterm election cycle
The United States held midterm elections as scheduled during the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic. More than 50 million people perished from the disease worldwide, including about 675,000 in the U.S., making it one of the deadliest pandemics in recorded history. Each week, we’ll look back at a story from the 1918 elections to see how America met the challenges of holding elections during a national health emergency.
An Oct. 20, 1918, a Seattle Daily Times article reported that candidates needed to find ways to reach individual people because in-person meetings had been banned.
“The campaign that Chairman Sam Walker of the Republican state committee’s planning does not call for any public meetings. With the ban on such gatherings still on, Chairman Walker believes that there is little prospect it will be lifted before election day, November 5, a little more than two weeks distant. So Walker will work out a new scheme to reach the voters.”
Federal responses
- On June 16, acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf announced that the U.S. would keep restrictions limiting non-essential travel to or from Mexico and Canada in place through July 21.
Lawsuits about state actions and policies
Read more: Lawsuits about state actions and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- To date, Ballotpedia has tracked 229 lawsuits, in 44 states, dealing in some way with the COVID-19 outbreak. Court orders have been issued, or settlements have been reached, in 72 of those lawsuits.
- Since June 11, we added an additional 25 lawsuits to our database. We have also tracked an additional 31 court orders and/or settlements.
- Ballotpedia has separately tracked another 108 lawsuits in 36 states dealing with election issues during the COVID-19 outbreak. Court orders have been issued, or settlements have been reached, in 50 of those lawsuits.
Noteworthy lawsuits:
- Don’t Shoot Portland v. Portland: On June 9, Judge Marco A. Hernandez, of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, issued a temporary restraining order limiting the use of tear gas as a crowd control method in Portland, Oregon. The plaintiffs, a group named Don’t Shoot Portland, alleged the city had violated members’ First and Fourth Amendment rights when law enforcement officials used tear gas to disperse the group’s protest. Hernandez agreed, writing, “[Given] the effects of tear gas,” which is “specifically designed to irritate the respiratory system and to cause people to expel mucus and aspirated saliva,” a principal method of COVID-19 transmission, “Plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood that Defendant engaged in excessive force contrary to the Fourth Amendment.” Hernandez added the plaintiffs had presented “at least a serious question as to whether they have been deprived of their First Amendment rights.” Hernandez said his order did not bar the use of tear gas altogether, but instead limited use “to situations in which the lives or safety of the public or the police are at risk.” As of June 16, the city had not indicated whether it intended to appeal the decision.
- Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker: On June 15, the Illinois Republican Party and three local Republican groups sued Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs said their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated because, “unlike churches, political parties are barred from gathering in groups greater than 10 under the Governor’s Executive Order 2020-38.” Plaintiffs said “[w]hen the state grants access to one set of speakers, it must give equal access and treatment to all speakers of a similar character,” contrasting their treatment to both that of churches and protesters. Plaintiffs asked the court to prevent the state from enforcing Executive Order 2020-38 against political parties. Pritzker’s spokeswoman, Jordan Abudayyeh, said, “[As] the Republicans who attended protests against the public health guidance are well aware, the State has never prevented people from exercising their First Amendment rights.”
Election changes
Overview:
- Twenty states have postponed state-level primary or special elections.
- No new states postponed elections since June 11.
- Seventeen states have modified their candidate filing requirements.
- One new state made modifications since June 11.
- Thirty-five states have made modifications to their voting procedures.
- Six new states made modifications since June 11.
- Political parties in 19 states have made modifications to party events on a statewide basis.
- No state parties made modifications since June 11.
Details:
- Alabama – Judge Abdul Kallon, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, issued a preliminary injunction barring election officials from enforcing witness and photo ID requirements for select voters casting absentee ballots in the July 14 runoff elections.
- Illinois – Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed SB 863 and HB2238 into law, requiring local election officials to deliver vote-by-mail applications to all general election voters who cast ballots in the 2018 general election, the 2019 consolidated election, or the 2020 primary election.
- Louisiana – Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) signed HB751 into law, extending the candidate qualifying deadline for the Nov. 3 election to July 24.
- Minnesota – As the result of a lawsuit settlement, the absentee ballot postmark deadline in Minnesota for the Aug. 11 primary election was extended to Aug. 11. The receipt deadline for absentee ballots was extended to Aug. 13. The witness requirement for absentee ballots was also suspended.
- Missouri – Gov. Mike Parson (R) signed SB631 into law, permitting any registered voter to cast an absentee ballot in any 2020 election, subject to a notarization requirement.
- New York – Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed into law a bill extending the submission deadline for absentee ballots in the June 23 election to June 23.
- North Carolina – Gov. Roy Cooper (D) signed HB1169 into law, reducing the witness signature requirement on completed absentee ballots from two to one.
Other news:
- California – California Judge Perry Parker, of the Sutter County Superior Court, issued a temporary restraining order suspending Executive Order N-67-20, which had authorized counties to consolidate polling places in the Nov. 3 general election, provided they offer three days of early voting.
Ballot measure changes
Overview:
- At least 15 lawsuits were filed in 12 states seeking court orders suspending or changing signature requirements and deadlines.
- No new lawsuits have been filed since June 12.
- Rulings or settlements have been issued in 13 cases.
- One ruling has been issued since June 12.
- Ballotpedia has tracked 23 statewide initiative petition drives that suspended signature gathering.
- No new petition drives were suspended since June 12.
- Seven states and D.C. changed ballot measure procedures through executive orders or legislative action.
- No new changes have been enacted since June 12.
- At least two initiative campaigns reported they had enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, but are delaying submitting those signatures in order to appear on their state’s 2022 ballot.
Details:
- North Dakota – On June 15, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte said he would not allow electronic signature gathering for a North Dakota initiative petition campaign. North Dakota Voters First, sponsors of the North Dakota Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting, Redistricting, and Election Process Changes Initiative, filed a lawsuit on May 6 arguing that North Dakota’s requirement that petitioners physically witness each signature is unrealistic, difficult, and dangerous amid the coronavirus pandemic. The group sought a ruling that would allow signatures to be gathered electronically online.
School closures and reopenings
Read more: School closures in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- In March and April, 48 states closed schools to in-person instruction for the remainder of the 2019-2020 academic year. Those states accounted for 99.4% of the nation’s 50.6 million public school students. Montana and Wyoming did not require in-person instruction for the year. Montana schools were allowed to reopen on May 7 and Wyoming schools were allowed to reopen on May 15.
- Five states (Alabama, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, and Wyoming) have reopened their campuses for students and staff.
- Seven states have announced schools will reopen in the fall.
- Officials in 10 other states have released guidance for reopening schools to in-person instructions, but have not indicated when or whether they plan to do so.
Details:
- Connecticut – On June 11, Gov. Ned Lamont (D) said he expected schools to reopen for classes in the fall.
- Vermont – On June 17, the Vermont Agency of Education released a 25-page guidance document for reopening schools. The guidance includes health checks on entry, staggered drop-off and pickup times, and hand sanitizing stations at entrances.
- Washington – On June 11, Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal released guidance for reopening schools. The guidelines require face coverings for all students and staff and the development of alternate instruction plans for each school. Reykdal said that his expectation was for schools to reopen to in-person instruction in the fall.
Travel restrictions
Read more: Travel restrictions issued by states in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- Governors or state agencies in 21 states issued executive orders placing restrictions on out-of-state visitors. At least 11 of those orders have been rescinded.
- Since June 11, one travel restriction has expired.
- Since June 11, one travel restriction has expired.
Details:
- Arkansas – The 14-day quarantine requirement for out-of-state travelers expired on June 14.
- Hawaii – Self-quarantine requirements were lifted for inter-island travelers on June 16. Travelers need to fill out a mandatory Travel and Health Form. The quarantine requirement for out-of-state travelers remains.
- Oklahoma – There is no longer a quarantine requirement in place for out-of-state travelers. On March 29, Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) issued the sixth amendment to Executive Order 2020-07 which required people entering Oklahoma from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Louisiana, and Washington to self-quarantine for two weeks. The quarantine requirement was written into six subsequent executive orders but was last mentioned in the Fifth Amended Executive Order 2020-13, issued April 30.
State legislative responses
Read more: State laws in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- To date, 2,080 bills related to the coronavirus pandemic have been introduced in state legislatures.
- Of these, 190 significant bills have been enacted into law, about 9 percent of the total number introduced. This total omits ceremonial resolutions and legislation providing for procedural changes to legislative business.
State legislative session changes
Read more: Changes to state legislative session dates in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- Thirteen state legislatures have suspended their sessions. Twelve of those have since reconvened. One (Nebraska) has not.
- Twenty-nine legislatures have either adjourned or are not scheduled to be in regular session this year.
- Five state legislatures are in regular session.
- Three state legislatures are in special session.
Details:
- Colorado – The Colorado Legislature adjourned on June 15.
- Iowa – The Iowa Legislature adjourned on June 14.
- Minnesota – The Minnesota Legislature convened a special session on June 12.
- New Mexico – The New Mexico Legislature convened in special session on June 18.
- Utah – The Utah legislature convened in special session on June 18.
State court changes
Read more: State court closures in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- In-person proceedings were suspended in 34 states.
- Since June 11, two state supreme courts announced that state courts could resume more operations.
- Since June 11, Three states allowed courts to move into a new phase of reopening.
- Since June 11, one state extended its judicial emergency.
- Sixteen states suspended in-person proceedings at the local level.
Details:
- California – Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Kevin Brazile issued an order allowing some court operations to resume on June 22. That day, mental health courtrooms, juvenile dependency courtrooms, juvenile delinquency courtrooms, and complex personal and civil injury courtrooms may resume full operations. Probate courtrooms, civil courtrooms (except for small claims and collections), and family law can begin phased reopening on June 22. On June 25, the Appellate Division will resume full operations and arguments. Unlawful Detainer courtrooms can resume law and motion and ex-parte applications on June 29. The Criminal Division will begin a phased reopening on July 6. Nonessential court business remains closed through July 9.
- Georgia – Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Harold Melton issued an order extending the state’s judicial emergency through July 12. Melton laid out a plan to reimpose deadlines, time schedules, and filing requirements imposed on litigants by statute, rules, and regulations beginning July 14. Melton also encouraged courts to continue using and increasing the use of technology to conduct remote proceedings. The order authorizes courts to use their discretion to hold in-person proceedings, except petit and grand jury proceedings, if they comply with public health guidance. Jury trials and grand jury proceedings are still prohibited.
- Hawaii – The Hawaii Judiciary announced that state district courts on Oahu would reopen for court business, including proceedings and business with the Traffic Violations Bureau and the Legal Documents Branch, on June 15. Face masks are required for anyone entering a court facility, and courthouses have put social distancing measures in place. Those who have symptoms, have come into contact with someone with coronavirus, or who have traveled within a 14-day period will not be permitted to enter court facilities.
- Maine – The Maine Judicial Branch moved into Phase 2 of reopening on June 15. Under this phase, the court may begin handling more matters. Anyone entering the courthouse must wear a mask and sanitize their hands upon entrance and exit. Social distancing measures are expected to be followed, including limiting courtroom gatherings to no more than 10 people, including staff. Phase 2 is in effect through July 2. The Judicial Branch is expected to move into Phase 3 on July 6, which will remain in effect through July 31. Under that phase, grand juries may resume. Phase 4 is expected to begin Aug. 3 and run through Sept. 4. Jury trials may resume in Phase 5, which is expected to begin on Sept. 7.
- New Jersey – The New Jersey Supreme Court approved a post-pandemic plan that will allow state courts to move from Phase 1, in which courts remain closed to the public, to Phase 2 beginning June 22. In Phase 2, some proceedings will be able to resume in-person, including five jury trials that began before courthouses were closed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Under the plan, many proceedings will continue to be conducted remotely.
- New York – The New York Unified Court System announced that courts outside of New York City could move into Phase 2 of reopening on June 12. Under this phase, essential family matters can be conducted in-person. Nonessential proceedings, mediation and alternative dispute matters, and “criminal, juvenile delinquency and mental hygiene law proceedings pertaining to a hospitalized adult” will continue to be held virtually. Face masks and face coverings are required. Other safety measures include social distancing and the regular sanitation of court facilities.
Prison inmate responses
Overview:
- Twenty-one states have released inmates at the state level.
- Since June 11, Oregon issued criteria for the early release of inmates on the state level.
- Hawaii ended a program for the early release of inmates on the state-level
- In North Carolina, a judge denied a request to release inmates on the state-level.
- Twelve states have released inmates on the local level.
- Eleven states have not released inmates due to coronavirus.
- Two states have prohibited the release of certain inmate populations.
- Four states have temporarily released certain populations of inmates.
- Since June 11, Pennsylvania temporarily released inmates on the state-level.
Details:
- California – The California Judicial Council voted 17-2 to rescind the coronavirus emergency bail schedule, effective June 20. The emergency bail schedule, adopted April 6, set bail at $0 for almost all misdemeanor and low-level felonies. The Judicial Council suggested courts could keep the emergency schedule or reduced bail schedules where appropriate. Since the beginning of the pandemic, more than 20,000 defendants accused of lower-level offenses have been released pre-trial. On June 16, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation announced that inmates in state prisons for nonviolent offenses with less than 180 days left on their sentences are eligible for supervised release effective July 1.
- Hawaii – The Hawaii State Supreme Court announced that it ended a program granting early release to inmates held in state jails implemented to slow the spread of coronavirus. The program began in early April when the state Supreme Court ordered state law enforcement authorities to quickly release as many nonviolent offenders from the state’s eight jails as possible. The court also announced it appointed a Special Master to assist prosecutors and public defenders in determining which inmates would be granted early release.
- North Carolina – U.S. District Judge Louise W. Flanagan for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied a request from 11 inmates at Butner Federal Prison to compel prison officials to release medically vulnerable inmates and to institute additional safety measures. Flanagan said the plaintiffs did not prove Butner and the Bureau of Prisons treated the inmates with “deliberate indifference” in their effort to slow the spread of coronavirus in the facility. Flanagan said, “The court agrees with petitioners that the public interest is served by preventing unnecessary illness and death and slowing the spread of the virus…Respondents, however, have made reasonable efforts to achieve those goals…Particularly in the absence of substantial evidence showing respondents were deliberately indifferent to the spread of COVID-19, the record at this stage does not present ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying judicial intervention in the management of FCC-Butner’s response to the virus.”
- Oregon – Governor Kate Brown (D) provided the Oregon Department of Corrections with criteria for the agency to use in creating a list of inmates who may be eligible for early release. Criteria include medically vulnerable inmates, those not serving a sentence for crimes against another person, and those who have served half of their sentences. The Department of Corrections reported that about 100 inmates fit the criteria.
- Pennsylvania – Since the beginning of Gov. Tom Wolf’s (D) Temporary Program to Reprieve Sentences of Incarceration, 159 inmates have been temporarily released due to the coronavirus pandemic. The program was established in April and is scheduled to end either when Wolf’s Disaster Declaration expires or he decides the coronavirus pandemic has been mitigated. When the program ends, those inmates will return to prison to finish their sentences.
Eviction and foreclosure policies
Overview:
- Forty-one states have implemented policies related to evictions or foreclosures on either the state or local level.
- Since June 11, Michigan extended their eviction moratorium.
- New Hampshire announced an end date to eviction and foreclosure policies.
- California delayed the decision to end the state’s eviction moratorium.
- Massachusetts and Los Angeles, California face legal challenges to eviction and foreclosure policies implemented due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Details:
- California – The California Judicial Council delayed its decision to end the judiciary’s moratorium on evictions and foreclosures during the coronavirus pandemic. The Council was considering ending the halt on evictions and judicial foreclosures in August, ahead of its original timeline. In April, the Judicial Council voted to suspend evictions and foreclosures until 90 days after the expiration of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) state of emergency, which remains in effect. California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said, “After discussions with the Governor, legislative leaders, and Judicial Council members—as well as hearing from residents with many different viewpoints—I have suspended for the time being the vote on the emergency rules dealing with evictions and judicial foreclosures.”
- The state’s largest landlord organization, The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, filed a federal lawsuit challenging Los Angeles’ eviction policies implemented due to the coronavirus pandemic, including a Los Angeles City Council measure which halted rent increases for more than 600,000 apartments covered by the city’s rent stabilization program. The group alleges the policies violate its 5th Amendment rights against their property being taken by the government without just compensation.
- The state’s largest landlord organization, The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, filed a federal lawsuit challenging Los Angeles’ eviction policies implemented due to the coronavirus pandemic, including a Los Angeles City Council measure which halted rent increases for more than 600,000 apartments covered by the city’s rent stabilization program. The group alleges the policies violate its 5th Amendment rights against their property being taken by the government without just compensation.
- Massachusetts – Two landlords petitioned Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court challenging the state’s moratorium on evictions during the coronavirus pandemic. In April, Gov. Charlie Baker (R) signed a law that halted most nonessential housing removals through Aug. 18 or 45 days after the expiration of his state of emergency. Baker could choose to extend the moratorium for 90 days, so long as it is not more than 45 days past the expiration of the state of emergency. The plaintiffs allege the moratorium left them unable to recoup financial losses. They also alleged the law violates both Massachusetts and the U.S. Constitution as it infringes on their rights to access state courts and enforce contracts.
- Michigan – Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) extended the state’s eviction moratorium through June 30.
- New Hampshire – Gov. Chris Sununu (R) issued Emergency Order #51, which will end protections granted in Emergency Orders #4 and #24 on July 1. Executive Order #4 prohibited landlords from initiating eviction proceedings and prohibited nonjudicial and judicial foreclosures during the coronavirus pandemic. Executive Order #24 provided exceptions for landlords to begin eviction proceedings for lease or law violations, property damage caused by tenants, or substantial adverse impact on the health and safety of the other person. The order also allowed for eviction proceedings to be started in cases where a tenant abandons their rental unit or space.
Diagnosed or quarantined politicians identified by Ballotpedia
Overview:
We have tracked the deaths, diagnoses, and quarantines of political incumbents, candidates, and government officials resulting from COVID-19. At this time, tracked incumbents, candidates, and government officials are limited to those within Ballotpedia’s scope of coverage.
- Federal
- Seven members of Congress have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
- Forty federal officials quarantined after possible exposure to COVID-19.
- State
- Four state-level incumbents or candidates have died of COVID-19.
- Thirty-five state-level incumbents or candidates have been diagnosed with COVID-19
- Sixty-seven state-level incumbents or candidates quarantined after possible exposure to COVID-19.
- Local
- At least two local incumbents or candidates have died of COVID-19.
- At least twelve local incumbents or candidates have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
- At least 23 local incumbents or candidates quarantined after possible exposure to COVID-19.
Since June 11, one member of Congress tested positive for coronavirus, and one member of Congress tested negative for coronavirus. One state-level officeholder tested positive for the virus.
Federal officeholders or candidates who tested positive for coronavirus
- Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.)
Federal officeholders or candidates who tested negative for coronavirus
- Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Tx.)
State officeholders or candidates who tested positive for coronavirus
- Attorney General of Illinois Kwame Raoul (D)
Checks and Balances: June 2020
The Checks and Balances Letter delivers news and information from Ballotpedia’s Administrative State Project, including pivotal actions at the federal and state levels related to the separation of powers, due process and the rule of law.
This edition:
In this month’s edition of Checks and Balances, we review the potential implications of the coronavirus pandemic for the repeal of agency rules under the Congressional Review Act; President Donald Trump’s (R) executive order concerning procedural rights in administrative adjudication; a new quorum at the Federal Election Commission; and an order from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration that highlights the role of federal agency in preemption decisions.
At the state level, we review a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that struck down the state’s stay-at-home order, litigation across the country challenging executive orders that limit religious gatherings in response to the coronavirus pandemic, and a lawsuit in Maine that questions whether voters can overturn state agency orders.
We also highlight a review of administrative law scholar Richard Epstein’s new book The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law as well as new findings from Ballotpedia’s survey of all 50 state constitutions and administrative procedure acts regarding the executive power to remove agency officials. As always, we wrap up with our Regulatory Tally, which features information about the 192 proposed rules and 236 final rules added to the Federal Register in May and OIRA’s regulatory review activity.
Documenting America’s Path to Recovery #34: June 12, 2020
|
Coronavirus Weekly Update: June 11th, 2020
Welcome to the first edition of Ballotpedia’s Coronavirus Weekly Update. Since March 18, 2020, Coronavirus Daily Update provided a daily summary of major changes due to the coronavirus pandemic in politics, government, and elections. Starting June 11, we’ll cover those same stories in a weekly format sent out on Thursday afternoons.
Today, you will find updates on the following topics, with comparisons to our previous edition released on June 5:
- Stay-at-home orders
- Federal responses
- Lawsuits about state actions and policies
- Election changes
- Ballot measure changes
- School closures and reopenings
- Travel restrictions
- State courts
- Prison policies
- Eviction and foreclosure policies
- State legislative sessions
- Diagnosed or quarantined public officials
For a free, daily summary of reopening activities and plans, please subscribe to Documenting America’s Path to Recovery.
State stay-at-home orders
Overview:
As of June 11, stay-at-home orders have ended in 37 states. Eighteen of those states have Republican governors and 19 have Democratic governors (including Wisconsin, where the state Supreme Court invalidated the stay-at-home order). Since the last coronavirus daily update on June 5, one state (New Jersey) ended its stay-at-home order.
Of the six states with active stay-at-home orders, five have Democratic governors and one has a Republican governor. They are (with expiration date):
- New Hampshire (June 15, Republican governor)
- New York (June 27, Democratic governor)
- New Mexico (June 30, Democratic governor)
- California (no set expiration date, Democratic governor)
- Kentucky (no set expiration date, Democratic governor)
- Oregon (no set expiration date, Democratic governor)
Details:
- New Jersey – On June 9, Gov. Phil Murphy (D) announced he was lifting the stay-at-home order, effective immediately. Murphy issued the order on March 21. It had no set expiration date. New Jersey was the third state to issue a stay-at-home order and the 37th to lift one.
The 1918 influenza pandemic
Read more: 1918 influenza pandemic (Spanish Flu) and the 1918 midterm election cycle
The United States held midterm elections as scheduled during the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic. More than 50 million people perished from the disease worldwide, including about 675,000 in the U.S., making it one of the deadliest pandemics in recorded history. Each week, we’ll look back at a story from the 1918 elections to see how America met the challenges of holding elections during a national health emergency.
A Nov. 7, 1918, Oakland Tribune article reported how voters were required to wear masks. Those that didn’t were fined $10—the equivalent of $169.79 in 2020.
“Heated discussion of election returns is not in violation of law, provided the participant keeps his flu mask properly adjusted; but should he overlook that important matter trouble awaits him. That is the verdict of ten or twelve men fined $10 each after being arrested in the county clerk’s office. Many alibis were offered by the offenders, who maintained that they were seriously handicapped by their masks in arguments over election returns with more fluent talkers. The arm of the law refused to accept any excuses, contending that epidemics could not be checked through the wearing of masks for bibs.”
Federal responses
Read more: Political responses to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
- On June 9, the Department of Defense announced it was lifting travel restrictions on installations in 38 states, Washington D.C., and five countries (Bahrain, Belgium, Germany, the U.K., and Japan). Service members could travel between those areas without needing permission. Travel restrictions remain in place in 12 states.
Lawsuits about state actions and policies
Read more: Lawsuits about state actions and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- To date, Ballotpedia has tracked 204 lawsuits in 37 states on government actions undertaken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Court orders have been issued, or settlements have been reached, in 41 of those lawsuits.
- Since June 5, we tracked 102 new lawsuits. Orders were issued, or settlements reached, in seven lawsuits.
- Ballotpedia has separately tracked another 95 lawsuits in 33 states, dealing with election administration. Court orders have been issued, or settlements have been reached, in 43 of those lawsuits.
Here are two noteworthy decisions:
- Talleywhacker, Inc. d/b/a Arizona Pete’s Country Music Saloon et al v. The Honorable Roy A. Cooper, III – On June 8, Judge Louise Wood Flanagan for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied a temporary restraining order filed on behalf of at least 28 strip clubs in seven counties. The restraining order would have allowed clubs to reopen during litigation. The clubs filed a complaint challenging Cooper’s Executive Order 141, which authorized the state to move into Phase 2 of Cooper’s reopening plan. Under that phase, gyms, bars, or entertainment venues remain closed. Flanagan ruled that the plaintiffs lacked the same urgency to reopen as restaurants. Flanagan wrote: “(Gov. Roy Cooper) has taken intricate steps to craft reopening policies to balance the public health and economic issues associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, while recognizing the continued severe risks associated with reopening, and where neither the court nor plaintiffs are better positioned to second-guess those determinations, the public interest does not weigh in favor of injunctive relief.”
- Martinko et al v. Whitmer – On June 5, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed a lawsuit challenging Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s (D) executive orders which directed individuals to stay home unless performing essential activities and placed restrictions on non-essential businesses. Friedman said the U.S. Constitution prevents citizens from suing states in federal court. This means plaintiffs could not sue Whitmer in her role as governor. Friedman also said the case was moot, as the orders in question had been rescinded and that possibilities of Whitmer reimposing restrictions were speculation. Whitmer lifted the stay-at-home order on June 1.
Election changes
Overview:
- Twenty states have postponed state-level primary or special elections.
- No new states have postponed state-level primary or special elections since June 5.
- Sixteen states have modified their candidate filing requirements.
- No new states have modified their requirements since June 5.
- Twenty-nine states have made modifications to their voting procedures.
- No new states have made modifications since June 5.
- Political parties in 19 states have made changes to party events on a statewide basis.
- No state parties have made changes since June 5.
Ballot measure changes
Overview:
- At least 15 lawsuits were filed in 12 states seeking court orders suspending or changing signature requirements and deadlines.
- Two new lawsuits have been filed since June 5.
- Rulings or settlements have been issued in 12 cases.
- One ruling has been issued since June 5.
- Ballotpedia has tracked 23 statewide initiative petition drives that suspended signature gathering.
- No new petition drive suspensions since June 5.
- Seven states and D.C. changed ballot measure procedures through executive orders or legislative action.
- No new changes have been enacted since June 5.
- At least two initiative campaigns reported they had enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, but are delaying submitting those signatures in order to appear on their state’s 2022 ballot.
Details:
- Michigan – Court of Claims Judge Cynthia D. Stephens granted Fair and Equal Michigan—the campaign behind an initiative to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression—an additional 69 days to collect signatures to qualify for the 2022 ballot. Michigan’s stay-at-home order was in place for 69 days. In Michigan, initiative campaigns have 180 days to collect signatures, with a requirement of 340,047 valid signatures for 2020/22. Judge Stephens did not grant the campaign’s other requests to reduce the signature requirement or to extend the submission deadline of May 27 to make the 2020 ballot, which was the campaign’s initial target.
- California – The Coalition to Authorize Regulated Sports Wagering, which is backing the California Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative for the 2022 ballot, sued Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) on June 9. The lawsuit seeks to extend the deadline to file signatures beyond July 20, 2020. In California, campaigns have 180 days to collect signatures. The campaign suspended paid signature gathering in March 2020 in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
- Idaho – Reclaim Idaho, sponsors of the Idaho Income Tax Increases for Education Funding Initiative, filed a lawsuit on June 6 against Gov. Brad Little (R) seeking a preliminary injunction to grant the campaign 48 more days to gather signatures and temporary permission to use electronic signatures.
School closures
Read more: School closures in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- In March and April 2020, 48 states closed schools to in-person instruction for the remainder of the 2019-2020 academic year. Those states accounted for 99.4% of the 50.6 million public school students in the country. The two states that did not close schools to in-person instruction for the academic year were Montana and Wyoming. Montana schools were allowed to reopen on May 7 and Wyoming schools were allowed to reopen on May 15.
- Five states (Alabama, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, and Wyoming) have reopened their campuses for students and staff.
- Seven states have announced their intentions to reopen schools in the fall.
- Officials in seven other states have released guidance for reopening schools to in-person instructions, but have not indicated when or whether they plan to do so.
Details:
- California – On June 8, the California Department of Education released a 55-page guidance document for reopening schools to public instruction. The guidance includes temperature checks before entering schools or buses, face coverings for staff and students, and physical distancing requirements.
- Florida – On June 11, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) announced that he expected schools to reopen at full capacity in August. The Florida Department of Education released guidance for schools including social distancing guidelines, the conversion of common spaces (such as libraries, gyms, and auditoriums) into classroom areas, and disinfection protocols.
- Indiana – On June 5, Health Commissioner Dr. Kris Box released guidelines for schools to consider before reopening. The guidelines include requiring face coverings and social distancing rules. Schools in Indiana are allowed to reopen for in-person instruction beginning July 1.
- Kansas – On June 10, the Kansas State Board of Education announced that it was expecting to reopen schools in August and that it would deliver guidance to schools in early July.
- Massachusetts – On June 8, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education released preliminary guidance for reopening schools. The memo outlined a face-covering requirement for both teachers and students, desks spaced six feet apart, and classroom size restrictions of 12.
- Mississippi – On June 10, the Mississippi Department of Education released optional guidance for schools reopening in the fall. It contained recommendations for school districts to choose and implement one of three learning schedules: traditional, hybrid, or online.
- Missouri – On June 9, Missouri Education Commissioner Margie Vandeven announced fall reopenings for schools would occur at the discretion of county and school board officials.
- Nevada – On June 9, Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) signed an executive order allowing schools to reopen buildings and athletic facilities effective immediately.
- North Carolina – On June 8, the North Carolina State Board of Education released guidance for reopening schools to in-person instruction. The guidance includes more frequent cleanings, a temperature check for all individuals entering buildings or buses, and physical distancing guidelines.
- Oregon – On June 10, The Oregon Department of Education released guidelines for schools to reopen for the 2020-2021 school year. Under the plan, individual public and private schools will need to submit an Operational Blueprint for Reentry to their local public health authority before they reopen.
- Virginia – On June 9, Gov. Ralph Northam (D) announced that schools would reopen to in-person instruction for the 2020-2021 school year. The state released guidance for a three-phase reopening. Phase One has remote learning as the dominant teaching strategy, while Phase Two allows in-person instruction for preschool through third grade, and Phase Three allows in-person instruction for all students.
Travel restrictions
Read more: Travel restrictions issued by states in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- Governors or state agencies in 21 states issued executive orders placing restrictions on out-of-state visitors. At least nine have been rescinded.
- These totals did not change since June 5.
Details:
- Florida – Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) announced on June 5 that travelers from Louisiana no longer need to self-quarantine for 14 days. The requirements remained in effect for visitors from Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey.
- Maine – Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) announced on June 8 that out-of-state visitors from New Hampshire and Vermont were no longer required to self-quarantine for 14 days. Beginning June 12, visitors from those states can stay in lodging establishments throughout Maine. Mills also announced that effective July 1, visitors from all other states will need to quarantine for 14 days unless they have recently received a negative COVID-19 test. Travelers will need to fill out a Certificate of Compliance at lodging establishments, including hotels and short-term rentals.
- Vermont – Gov. Phil Scott (R) announced that the quarantine requirement will be lifted for out-of-state travelers from counties across New England with similar COVID-19 caseloads to Vermont starting June 8.
State court changes
Read more: State court closures in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- Thirty-four states suspended in-person proceedings statewide.
- Sixteen states suspended in-person proceedings on the local level.
- One court extended the suspension of jury trials since June 5.
Details:
- Florida – On June 8, Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Canady issued an order extending the suspension of civil and criminal jury trials through July 17. Jury trials were first suspended on March 13. The court subsequently extended that order, first through April 17, then through May 29, and again through July 2.
Prison inmate responses
Overview:
- Twenty-one states have released inmates at the state level.
- Twelve states have released inmates at the local level.
- Eleven states have not released inmates due to coronavirus.
- Two states have prohibited the release of certain inmate populations.
- Four states have temporarily released certain populations of inmates.
- Since June 5, two states have announced the release of inmates on the state-level.
- In two states, judges denied temporary restraining orders compelling the release of inmates from state facilities.
- One state reached a settlement to expedite the release of certain inmates.
Details:
- Connecticut – As part of a settlement from a federal lawsuit, the Connecticut Department of Corrections is required to identify inmates who are 65 years or older who meet specific medical criteria to expedite release consideration.
- Maine – U.S. District Judge John Woodcock denied a temporary restraining order requested by two inmates at the Mountain View Correctional Facility. Woodcock wrote, “The Court is not prepared — prior to an evidentiary hearing and without a showing that disaster is truly imminent — to substitute its judgment for that of the MDOC and Commissioner Liberty when it comes to administration of their facilities.” The temporary restraining order would have required Maine Department of Corrections officials to review cases of all medically vulnerable inmates for release to allow them the ability to social distance due to the coronavirus pandemic.
- Michigan – According to the Prison Policy Initiative, the number of inmates paroled from Michigan state prisons reportedly increased by about 1,000 people per month to curb the spread of coronavirus. The Michigan Department of Corrections reported June 5 that the overall inmate population has been reduced five percent since March 20.
- New York – On June 8, the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision reported that 898 inmates had been released due to the coronavirus pandemic. The releases follow a March 28 announcement from Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) that up to 1,100 people being held in jails and prisons in the state could be released with community supervision.
- North Carolina – On June 8, Wake County Superior Court Judge Vince M. Rozier Jr. issued a preliminary injunction against prison officials in North Carolina. In his ruling, Rozier stated, “…this Court finds that [the] Defendant’s acted in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ‘deliberate indifference test’…The Court notes that [the] Defendant failed to provide substantial COVID-19 testing to accompany the crowded and communal social distancing protocols, transferring inmates between facilities without properly protecting those inmates or preventing the spread of COVID-19 in contradiction to CDC guidelines, and providing disparate levels of COVID-19 protection as between different facilities. These actions, at the very least, lie ‘somewhere between the poles of negligence at one end and purpose or knowledge at the other.’” Rozier outlined steps for prison officials to implement “until the substantial risk of COVID-19 has been satisfactorily diminished.” Steps include reopening the application process for homes, facilities, and programs willing to participate as partners in early release for approved inmates, and requiring coronavirus testing before transferring inmates between facilities.
Eviction and foreclosure policies
Overview:
- Forty-one states have implemented policies related to evictions or foreclosures on either the state or local level.
- This total did not change since June 5.
- This total did not change since June 5.
Details:
- California – The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a measure on June 9 permanently prohibiting landlords from evicting tenants for failing to pay rent due to the coronavirus pandemic. The law only applies to payments missed while the city is actively under the state of emergency Mayor London Breed declared in February.
- Maryland – On June 9, Baltimore County announced it was launching a new eviction prevention program using $1 million in federal and state emergency assistance funds. The program will help pay the past-due rent for tenants facing eviction after the expiration of Maryland’s state of emergency and the end of the temporary statewide ban on evictions and foreclosures.
- Virginia – On June 8, Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Donald Lemons issued a statewide order pausing evictions and foreclosures through June 28. The order follows a letter Gov. Ralph Northam (D) sent to Lemons requesting that the court suspend eviction proceedings due to the coronavirus pandemic.
State legislative session changes
Read more: Changes to state legislative session dates in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020
Overview:
- Sixteen state legislatures have suspended their sessions. Thirteen of those have since reconvened.
- Twenty-eight legislatures have either adjourned or are not scheduled to be in regular session this year.
- Five state legislatures are in regular session.
Details:
- Kansas – The Kansas legislature adjourned a special session on June 4 that began on June 3.
- New Hampshire – The House reconvened June 11, ending its suspension.
Diagnosed or quarantined politicians identified by Ballotpedia in the last week
Overview:
We have tracked the deaths, diagnoses, and quarantines of political incumbents, candidates, and government officials resulting from COVID-19. At this time, tracked incumbents, candidates, and government officials are limited to those within Ballotpedia’s scope of coverage.
- Federal
- Six members of Congress have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
- Forty federal officials quarantined after possible exposure to COVID-19.
- State
- Four state-level incumbents or candidates have died of COVID-19.
- Thirty-four state-level incumbents or candidates have been diagnosed with COVID-19
- Sixty-seven state-level incumbents or candidates quarantined after possible exposure to COVID-19.
- Local
- At least one local incumbent or candidate has died of COVID-19.
- At least twelve local incumbents or candidates have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
- At least 23 local incumbents or candidates quarantined after possible exposure to COVID-19.
Since June 5, one state-level candidate has tested positive for coronavirus. One state officeholder announced he had tested positive for coronavirus antibodies.
State politicians who tested positive for coronavirus
- Jon Huntsman (R), candidate for Utah governor, announced on June 10 that he tested positive for COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.
- Utah Senate President Stuart Adams (R) announced that he had tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies, though he said he never realized he was infected with the novel coronavirus.
Documenting America’s Path to Recovery #33: June 11, 2020
Documenting America’s Path to Recovery: June 10, 2020 #Edition #32
|
Click here to learn more.
Documenting America’s Path to Recovery #31: June 9, 2020
|
Click here to learn more.
