A new state legislative special election has been added to our list. The special election is for the District 148 seat in the Texas House of Representatives on November 5, 2019. There is no primary, and the filing deadline is on September 4.
Eight file for Richmond City Council special election
Eight candidates have filed to run in a special election for the District 5 seat on the Richmond City Council in Virginia. They had until August 16 to file for the seat, and the special election is on November 5.
The special election was called after Councilman Parker Agelasto announced his resignation in April as a condition struck with then-Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael Herring to avoid legal action for moving out of the district he represented. His resignation will be effective on November 30, 2019. Agelasto has served on the city council since 2013. The winner of the special election will serve the last year of Agelasto’s four-year term.
The eight candidates vying for the seat are Nicholas Da Silva, Stephanie Lynch, Jer’Mykeal McCoy, Robin Mines, Chuck Richardson, Graham Sturm, Mamie Taylor, and Thad Williamson. Richardson previously served on the city council from 1977 to 1995, while Taylor served as a Richmond school board member from 2012 to 2016.
Richmond is the fourth-largest city in Virginia and the 100th-largest city in the U.S. by population.
Additional reading:
Last week, Andrew Yang led in Ballotpedia pageviews for the first time since March
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.
Andrew Yang’s campaign page on Ballotpedia received 5,656 pageviews for the week of August 11-17. Yang’s pageview figure represents 10.2% of the pageviews for all Democratic candidates during the week. Joe Biden had 8.2% of pageviews for the week, followed by Elizabeth Warren with 6.7%.
Of the 23 noteworthy Democratic candidates, all but seven had fewer Ballotpedia pageviews last week than the week before. The three largest week-over-week increases were Tom Steyer (13.30%), Wayne Messam (7.89%), and Andrew Yang (5.78%).
The leader in overall pageviews this year is Pete Buttigieg with 102,790, followed by Yang with 95,127 and Kamala Harris with 90,653.
On the GOP side, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld had 16,895 pageviews to President Trump’s 1,844.
Triplex status at stake in three states in 2019
A state government triplex occurs when a state’s governor, attorney general, and secretary of state are all members of the same political party. In states where these officers are not all from the same party, differing political views can bring them into direct conflict with one another.
Three states—Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi—are holding elections in 2019 for all three triplex offices—governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. Currently, none of these three states has a triplex.
In Kentucky, Democrats hold the attorney general and secretary of state offices while Republican Matt Bevin (R) is governor. Attorney General Andy Beshear (D) is running against Bevin in the gubernatorial election, leaving his seat open, while Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) is term-limited. Bevin’s election as governor in 2015 broke a Democratic triplex which had existed since 2011.
In Louisiana, Republicans hold the attorney general and secretary of state offices while Democrat John Bel Edwards (D) is the governor. Edwards, Attorney General Jeff Landry (R), and Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin (R) are all running for re-election this year. Edwards’ election as governor broke a Republican triplex which had been in place since 2011.
In Mississippi, Republicans hold the governorship and secretary of state’s office while Democrat Jim Hood (D) is attorney general. All three seats are open. Gov. Phil Bryant (R) is term-limited, while Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann (R) is running for lieutenant governor and Hood is running for governor. No party has held a triplex in Mississippi since Haley Barbour (R) was elected governor in 2003, breaking a Democratic triplex which had existed since the 1999 elections.
The last time these three states held elections where none of them had a triplex was in 2007. No triplexes formed as a result of elections that year.
Currently, there are 18 states with a Republican triplex, 17 states with a Democratic triplex, and 15 states that are under divided control. Heading into the 2018 elections, Republicans had 22 triplexes to Democrats’ 12. Democratic triplexes were formed in four states—Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, and Wisconsin—while Republican triplexes were broken in Arizona, Kansas, Nevada, and North Dakota.
Additional reading:
Ballotpedia’s Daily Brew: Ninth Circuit panel limits nationwide injunction of Trump immigration rule
|
Pence will remain Trump’s running mate in 2020
|
August 19, 2019: Donald Trump confirmed that he would keep Mike Pence as his running mate in 2020. Bernie Sanders released his latest policy platform on criminal justice. “When we hear the punditry talk about what happened in the Midwest, generally speaking they’ll say the Midwest swung toward Trump, right? Well, that’s only true in two states. In Iowa and Ohio, where Trump cracked 50%, you can genuinely say he won over voters in those states. The others — Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — Trump won those states by carrying only a plurality of the vote, and I would categorize that as a win by default. He won somewhere around 46 or 47% of the vote. The reason that neither candidate was above 50% was that a huge numbers of voters in those states cast what we call protest ballots, and in the polarized era, the average that goes to a protest ballot is about 1.5%. … So when you understand the role that third parties made in Trump’s victory there in the Midwest, and his inability to crack 50%, you realize that it’s a path to victory which was very complex.” – Rachel Bitecofer, assistant director of the Judy Ford Wason Center for Public Policy Democrats
Republicans
What We’re Reading
Flashback: August 19, 2015 Martin O’Malley held a press conference in front of Trump International Hotel Las Vegas on labor issues and the 2016 election. |
There are seven new candidates running since last week, including one Democrat, two Republicans, and one Libertarian. In total, 823 individuals are currently filed with the FEC to run for president.
Castro is 10th candidate to qualify for September and October debates
|
August 20, 2019: Julián Castro qualified for the third and fourth Democratic primary debates. Roughly half of the Democratic field will speak at the Frank LaMere Native American Presidential Forum. Since 1824, how many winning presidential candidates have lost their home state?“There’s a fundamental values gap between the mainstream Democratic Party, which tends to be more socially liberal and cosmopolitan in its outlook, and rural and small-town voters. Unless a candidate can build bridges across that gap on the basis of values, it’s very difficult to make any policy proposal matter. Right now, no one is building those bridges … [but] if you can move rural voters, even a few points, it becomes possible to win in states you can’t otherwise win.” – Mark Mellman, Democratic pollster Democrats
Republicans
What We’re Reading
Flashback: August 20, 2015 TIME published its cover story interview with Donald Trump about presidential temperament, immigration, tax policy, and other issues. |
Two public-sector labor bills vetoed by New Hampshire governor
On July 10 and July 12, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) vetoed two public-sector labor bills, SB18 and SB148.
- What would the bills do?
- SB18: This bill would allow public-sector employees to authorize voluntary wage deductions for insurance or employee benefits offered in conjunction with their membership in a recognized union. It would allow employees to withdraw authorization with 30 days written notice.
- SB148: This bill would require unions to notify new public-sector employees of their right to join or refrain from joining a union. The notification would also include the estimated annual cost of union membership. This bill would also require employers to provide unions with certain personal information about the employees it represents.
- Why did Sununu veto the bills?
- In his veto statement for SB18, Sununu said, “Continuing the payroll deduction for a month after a worker has chosen not to continue union membership falls outside the spirit of the Janus ruling and could potentially expose the state, counties, and municipalities to litigation.”
- In his veto statement for SB148, Sununu said, “Ensuring that public employees are informed of their options related to union membership is important. However, the other provisions laid out in this bill are items that should be negotiated through the collective bargaining process rather than enacted into law through the legislative process.”
- What is the political makeup of New Hampshire’s state government? Democrats control 58 percent of all House seats and 58 percent of all Senate seats, falling short of the two-thirds majorities required in each chamber to override a veto. Sununu, a Republican, was first elected in 2016 with a margin of victory of 2.3 percent. Sununu was re-elected in 2018 with a margin of victory of 7 percent.
- What comes next? Because they do not hold veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate, Democrats cannot act unilaterally to override Sununu’s vetoes. Lawmakers will not be able to consider a veto override until they reconvene in September.
The big picture
Number of relevant bills by state
We are currently tracking 102 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
No legislative actions have occurred since our last issue.
Proponents of 2020 California split-roll property tax initiative start over with revised version
In California, Schools & Communities First announced that it would file a new version of an initiative to require commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value. Currently, Proposition 13 (1978) requires the taxable value of residential, commercial, and industrial properties to be based on the property’s purchase price, with an annual adjustment equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower. The change was estimated to provide $6.5 billion to $10.5 billion in additional revenue. Both the version of the initiative that has already qualified for the 2020 ballot and the refiled version would allocate revenue from the increased commercial and industrial property taxes to local community college and school districts and to local governments.
In 2018, proponents spent $3.5 million to qualify their initiative for the 2020 ballot after initially targeting the 2018 ballot. They filed a new version of the initiative on August 13, however, and announced they would be focusing on a new signature petition drive to put the revised version on the ballot.
Tyler Law, a spokesperson for Schools & Communities First, said that the campaign would not officially withdraw the currently qualified initiative from the ballot until the refiled initiative qualifies. Law also said of the new effort, “The committee’s got the money. We’re going to get it on the ballot.”
What’s different about the new initiative?
- The qualified initiative would provide an exception from reassessment under the new rules for businesses with property value up to $2 million. The revised version would increase that exception threshold to $3 million.
- Both versions provide a full property tax exemption for businesses with 50 or fewer full-time equivalent employees. The new initiative would add additional requirements for a business to qualify for the exemption:
- independently owned and operated;
- located in California;
- owned by California residents; and
- no major statewide influence on its industry.
- Both initiatives allocate a portion of revenue to a fund for community college and local school districts, with the fund distributed to schools based on state formulas. The new initiative, however, specifies that 11% of the school fund would go to community colleges, and 89% would go to public schools, charter schools, and county education offices. It would also require a minimum of $100 per full-time student (adjusted annually based on revenue) for each community college and school.
- The currently qualified initiative would go into effect on January 1, 2020. The new version would go into effect on January 1, 2022, and would phase in the reassessment rules over up to three years for property at least 50% occupied by small businesses.
Another difference between the two initiatives is the signature requirement for qualifying them for the ballot. Based on the low turnout of 2014, the currently qualified initiative required 585,407 valid signatures. Proponents spent $3.5 million to collect 855,623 signatures, with 661,306 of them deemed valid. The revised initiative will need to qualify for the ballot according to requirements determined by turnout at the 2018 election. This means they’ll need 997,139 valid signatures, which is the largest initiative signature requirement in California’s history.
Ballotpedia’s aggregation of polling on the initiative that has qualified for the ballot showed support for the measure ranging from 46% to 56%, with an average of 51% and the most recent poll showing 54% approval.
Law said, “For forty years, California’s novel approach to taxing commercial and industrial property has starved funding for schools and local communities, disadvantaged small and startup businesses, and exacerbated our housing crisis.” Explaining the revised initiative effort, he said, “[A] robust statewide signature gathering organization began prior to the 2018 election, but the ultimate submission and qualification process placed the initiative on the 2020 ballot. As a result, we are refiling the initiative to substantively strengthen the measure, including expansive new small business tax relief, and widen the path to victory in November 2020.”
In response to the new initiative, California Business Roundtable President Rob Lapsley said, “This is just another, equally flawed measure aimed at dismantling Proposition 13. Proponents should at least withdraw their existing measure, which they now acknowledge is fatally flawed. However, there are no tweaks or amendments that can be made to this split roll measure that will prevent it from being a major, multi-billion-dollar tax on all Californians in the form of higher prices on everything we buy – from groceries and gasoline to diapers and day care.” Lapsley is the co-chair of Californians to Stop Higher Property Taxes, the committee registered to oppose the qualified initiative.
Additional reading:
Judge dismisses GOP petition challenge, leaving the Tucson sanctuary city initiative on the November ballot
On Friday, Pima County Superior Court Judge Douglas Metcalf rejected a lawsuit challenging the initiative signature petition for Tucson’s sanctuary city initiative. The ruling means the initiative will remain on the city’s November 5 ballot after being officially certified on August 6. If the initiative is approved, Tucson would become the first sanctuary city in Arizona.
The initiative would include in city code a declaration of the city’s sanctuary status and add a new section that includes provisions to:
- restrict law enforcement officers from actions to determine a person’s immigration status under certain conditions;
- prohibit officers from contacting federal law enforcement agencies to determine a person’s immigration status; and
- prohibit city employees from inquiring about a person’s immigration status, among other policies.
The group Tucson Families Free and Together submitted about 18,000 signatures for the initiative on July 3, 2019. They needed to collect 9,241 valid signatures by July 5 to qualify the initiative for the November general election ballot. Through a random sampling of 871 signatures, the Pima County Recorder found that a projected 71.8% of the submitted signatures were valid. This sent the initiative to the city council, which had two options: (1) approve the initiative, enacting it into law without an election, or (2) put it on the ballot.
Three Tucson voters, assisted by the Pima County Republican Party, filed a legal challenge against the sufficiency of the initiative petition. The lawsuit argued that the signature requirement calculated by the city clerk for the initiative of 9,241 was too low and that, according to state law, the requirement should be 12,821. The lawsuit also argued that the Pima County Recorder “only conducted a cursory review of the signatures submitted by the Petitioners, failed to satisfy his statutorily defined duties, and only disqualified 798 signatures despite thousands of facially invalid signatures.” Judge Metcalf rejected the arguments and confirmed that the measure had been properly certified for the ballot.
