|
Jim Hood wins Democratic nomination for governor of Mississippi
Attorney General Jim Hood won the Democratic nomination for governor of Mississippi, according to the Associated Press. As of 10:30 p.m. Central Time, Hood had received 70.1% of the vote with 40% of precincts reporting. Hood was followed by Michael Brown at 9.9% of the vote and Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith at 7.6%.
Hood has served as state attorney general since 2004. He says that he will focus on the state economy and public education system and would expand Medicaid if elected. Smith has said that his candidacy was based in part on Hood’s office having brought him to trial on criminal charges three times between 2016 and 2018. Smith said the charges had a racial motivation. His policy priorities included expanding access to healthcare and raising the minimum wage.
Hood will face the winner of the Republican primary in the November 5 general election. In order to win election as governor of Mississippi, a candidate must win both a majority of the statewide vote and a majority of state House districts. If no candidate meets both requirements, the state House decides the winner. No Democrat has won election as governor of Mississippi since Ronnie Musgrove in 1999.
Bold Justice: 21 federal judicial nominees confirmed in July
| Welcome to the August 5 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia’s newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S. Starting with this issue, I’m handing the reins to Sara Reynolds, our top SCOTUS expert on staff. You’ll be in good hands with her knowledge and insight of the federal court system.
Enjoy the rest of summer stress-free knowing we’ve got your back when it comes to news! Follow us on Twitter or subscribe to the Daily Brew for the most up-to-date political information. |
The SCOTUS justices are on their summer recess. The 2019-2020 term will begin October 7. Click here to read more about SCOTUS’ upcoming term. |
 The Federal Vacancy Count tracks vacancies, nominations, and confirmations to all United States Article III federal courts in a one-month period. This month’s edition includes nominations, confirmations, and vacancies from June 27 to July 31, 2019. Highlights
Vacancy count for July 31, 2019A breakdown of the vacancies at each level can be found in the table below. For a more detailed look at the vacancies on the federal courts, click here.
New vacanciesThe following judges left active status, creating Article III vacancies. As Article III judicial positions, they must be filled by a nomination from the president. Nominations are subject to Senate confirmation.
Courts with the most vacanciesThe Central District of California, the District of New Jersey, and the Southern District of New York have the most vacancies of the U.S. District Courts.
For more information on judicial vacancies during President Trump’s first term, click here.
New nominationsPresident Trump has announced two new nominations since the June 2019 report.
The president has announced 193 Article III judicial nominations since taking office January 20, 2017. The president named 69 judicial nominees in 2017 and 92 in 2018. For more information on the president’s judicial nominees, click here. New confirmationsBetween June 27 and July 31, 2019, the Senate confirmed 21 of the president’s nominees to Article III courts.
Since January 2017, the Senate has confirmed 144 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—99 district court judges, 43 appeals court judges, and two Supreme Court justices. Need a daily fix of judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? Click here for continuing updates on the status of all federal judicial nominees. Or, if you prefer, we also maintain a list of individuals President Trump has nominated. |
|
|
Ohio public-sector worker appeals decision denying a refund for previously paid union fees
On July 25, Nathaniel Ogle, an Ohio public-sector worker who is seeking a refund of previously paid union fees, appealed his case to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit after a U.S. District Court ruled against him.
- Who are the parties to the suit? Ogle is the plaintiff. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTWLDF) represents him in the case. The defendant is the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA), an affiliate of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. The Ohio Civil Service Employees Association represents approximately 30,000 state and local government employees.
- What is at issue? Ogle’s attorneys, citing Janus, argue union fees previously deducted from his and other employees’ paychecks should be refunded. Janus established that compelling public-sector workers to pay union dues and/or fees violates their free-speech and associational rights under the United States Constitution.
- How did the lower court rule? On July 17, U.S. District Court Judge George Smith ruled the union had acted in good faith when it collected fees from Ogle and other employees because, before Janus, judicial precedent had upheld the legality of compulsory fees. Smith wrote, “Because OCSEA collected fees under a presumptively valid statute and pursuant to then-valid Supreme Court precedent, there is no way that OCSEA ‘knew or should have known that the statute upon which they relied was unconstitutional.’ Put another way — OCSEA was simply following presumptively valid law.” Smith was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan (R).
- What are the responses?
- Mark Mix, NRTWLDF president, said, “In this case and others being litigated with Foundation legal aid, workers seek the return of just a few years’ worth of unconstitutionally seized forced union fees as the statutes of limitations permit, which represents just a fraction of the fees union bosses have illegally collected from workers for decades.”
- In response to a request for comment by The Center Square, Sally Meckling, communications director for OCSEA, said she could not comment on ongoing litigation.
- The case name and number are Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11 (2:18-cv-01227).
The big picture
Number of relevant bills by state
We are currently tracking 101 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking.
Number of relevant bills by current legislative status
Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s)
Recent legislative actions
Below is a complete list of legislative actions on relevant bills since the beginning of the year. Bills are listed in alphabetical order, first by state and then by bill number.
- Massachusetts H3854: This bill would authorize employers to disclose personal employee information to unions. It would also permit unions to require non-members to pay for the costs associated with grievance and arbitration proceedings. It would require employers to provide unions with access to employees, and it would allow for dues deduction authorizations to be irrevocable for a period of up to one year.
- House and Senate rejected governor’s proposed amendments. Returned to governor July 31.
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R) announces retirement; fourth Congressional Republican from Texas in two weeks
U.S. Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) announced he would not seek re-election in 2020. He has represented Texas’ 24th Congressional District since 2009 and won re-election in 2018 by 3.1 percentage points. His Dallas-area seat was already rated as competitive by three major race rating outlets.
Marchant is the fourth Congressional Republican from Texas to announce his retirement in the last two weeks. Pete Olsen (22nd District), Mike Conaway (11th), and Will Hurd (23rd) have all announced they would not be seeking re-election in 2020.
So far, 14 members of the U.S. House—three Democrats and 11 Republicans—have announced that they would not be seeking re-election in 2020. Eleven of those members are retiring from political office, while two are seeking a seat in the U.S. Senate and another is running for governor.
Marianne Williamson leads Democratic candidates in pageviews again following second presidential debate
Each week, we report the number of pageviews received by 2020 presidential campaigns on Ballotpedia. These numbers show which candidates are getting our readers’ attention.
Marianne Williamson’s (D) campaign received 7,588 pageviews on Ballotpedia the week of July 28-August 3 when the second round of Democratic presidential debates took place.
Williamson’s pageviews represented 8.1% of the pageviews for all Democratic presidential campaigns. Tulsi Gabbard received 7.0% of Democratic candidate pageviews for the week, while Joe Biden received 6.8%.
This is Williamson’s second time leading Democratic candidates in pageviews. The first time was the week of the first round of Democratic debates.
Gabbard’s campaign page had the largest increase in pageviews over the previous week, jumping 375.27%. Every Democratic candidate except Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris registered a pageview increase of 100% or more.
Pete Buttigieg’s campaign still leads Democrats in lifetime pageviews with 97,150. Andrew Yang again has the second-most lifetime pageviews after surpassing Kamala Harris last week. Harris’ lifetime pageviews had surpassed Yang’s the week before. Yang currently has 84,124 pageviews to Harris’ 83,846.
On the GOP side, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld had 26,651 pageviews to President Trump’s 2,354.
Resolution aims to block Trump administration guidance that gave states more flexibility from Obamacare requirements
On July 31, U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) introduced a resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that would repeal a guidance document that gave states more flexibility when applying for waivers from Obamacare requirements. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued the guidance on October 24, 2018. The guidance aims to allow states to innovate within their individual health insurance markets.
Senator Warner’s CRA resolution, if passed and signed into law, would undo the health insurance waiver guidance and attracted 44 Democratic cosponsors and the two independent U.S. senators. U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said that the guidance gives states the authority to allow health insurers to offer short-term plans that do not cover pre-existing conditions. Under the CRA, the resolution would need to pass both houses of Congress and receive President Trump’s signature to repeal the guidance.
On July 15, 2019, the Government Accountability Office concluded that the guidance document was a rule according to the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA gives Congress a chance to review and reject any new regulatory rules created by federal administrative agencies. Since the law’s creation in 1996, 17 out of the over 90,767 rules published in the Federal Register during that time have been repealed using the CRA. 13 additional attempts either failed to pass through Congress or were vetoed.
Guidance is a term in administrative law used to describe documents created by administrative agencies to explain rules, laws, and procedures. Guidance documents affect how agencies administer regulations and programs. However, they are not supposed to be legally binding in the same way as rules issued through the rulemaking processes of the Administrative Procedure Act. Congress used the CRA to repeal a guidance document for the first time on May 21, 2018.
Additional reading:
Federal Register weekly update; 2019 page total falls behind year-to-date 2018 page total from Caitlin Styrsky
The Federal Register is a daily journal of federal government activity that includes presidential documents, proposed and final rules, and public notices. It is a common measure of an administration’s regulatory activity.
During the week of July 29 to August 2, the number of pages in the Federal Register increased by 1,500 pages, bringing the year-to-date total to 37,954 pages. The week’s Federal Register featured a total of 619 documents, including 488 notices, five presidential documents, 60 proposed rules, and 66 final rules.
Two proposed rules were deemed significant under E.O. 12866—meaning that they may have large impacts on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. Significant actions may also conflict with presidential priorities or other agency rules.
During the same week in 2018, the number of pages in the Federal Register increased by 1,846 pages for a year-to-date total of 38,244 pages. As of August 2, the 2019 total trailed the 2018 total by 290 pages.
The Trump administration has added an average of 1,224 pages to the Federal Register each week in 2019 as of August 2. Over the course of 2018, the Trump administration added an average of 1,301 pages to the Federal Register each week. During the Obama administration, the Federal Register increased by an average of 1,658 pages per week.
According to government data, the Federal Register hit an all-time high of 95,894 pages in 2016.
Ballotpedia maintains page counts and other information about the Federal Register as part of its Administrative State Project. The project is a neutral, nonpartisan encyclopedic resource that defines and analyzes the administrative state, including its philosophical origins, legal and judicial precedents, and scholarly examinations of its consequences. The project also monitors and reports on measures of federal government activity.
Click here to find yearly information about additions to the Federal Register from 1936 to 2016: https://ballotpedia.org/Historical_additions_to_the_Federal_Register,_1936-2016
DNC clarifies qualifying period for October debate
|
|
|
2020 candidates respond to El Paso, Ohio mass shootings
 |
|
|
