A Movement for Tax Justice: Our Moment is Now

A Movement for Tax Justice: Our Moment is Now

By: Kyle Huelsman

The tax justice movement has arrived at a historic inflection point. One path leads toward massive cuts in government spending, divesting unprecedented levels of funding from our schools, our affordable housing stock, and our broader social safety net. The other path leads toward the ultrawealthy and corporations paying what they owe in taxes, enabling us to fund our future. The next two years will determine whether we can build together, across states and across movements, to fight for the second path, and realize a government that works for us all; or whether we will be overpowered by our opposition and become resigned to the worst possible outcome.   

The root of this crisis has two main causes: the loss of federal funds and declining state revenue. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was hailed as a once in a generation investment in states, and for good reason: it provided $350 billion in emergency funding to respond to the COVID-19 emergency. ARPA funds, however, are expiring. States have until the end of 2024 to designate those federal funds, and until 2026 to fully spend down the remaining balance. Simultaneously, structural budget imbalances are starting to appear across the country. California, New York, and Pennsylvania face dramatic, multi-billion dollar deficits heading into 2024, but are by no means the only states with serious issues. Based on budget analyses of states published in late 2023, roughly half of Americans live in states that report short-term budget gaps, potential long-term deficits, or both (Pew, 2024). Across the board, we are seeing systemic and chronic budget shortfalls, which will outlast even the best resourced rainy day fund. 

The collision of these two events has created the perfect storm for state government deficits. In no uncertain terms, there are only two possible choices as we move into 2025 and 2026: states can cut critical government programs or increase revenue. Let us be clear, if we do not act decisively to raise revenue from the ultra-wealthy and corporations, the default option is massive budget cuts. We need only look to the Great Recession, when states collectively extracted billions of dollars from their budgets, creating gaps in education funding that persisted over a decade later (CBPP, 2017). 

  For the 11 states participating in the Tax Justice Initiative cohort, our theory of change is simple: we must maintain and expand our power over 2023 and 2024 in order to be positioned, and strong enough, to win in 2025 and 2026. This frame will be critical to keep us focused on the medium-term objective, while also staying motivated in the face of unfavorable legislative environments throughout 2024. 

We know that transforming state tax systems often takes years, which is why SIX and State Revenue Alliance (SRA) are supporting a broad, multi-year effort. The investigative reporting piece from the Center for Public Integrity (The Long Struggle Over Taxing the Rich) lays out the rationale behind our multi-year, multi-state strategy to counter the entrenched power and resources of our opposition, sharpen the inside/outside the building strategy of our allies, and support tax justice across the country. If we were to judge the success of the Tax Justice Initiative on the outcomes of 2023 alone, we would see a modest level of success. In 2024, we are already surpassing the high watermark of the previous year, but will face challenging political headwinds in many states. However, if we step back into a multi-year orientation, we can see the essential building blocks of transformational change. Examples include: favorable polling (70%-78% support for wealth taxes in TJI cohort states), stronger revenue coalitions and legislative champions, and deeper penetration of our message – in 2023, we received 189 media mentions and stories on the Tax Justice Initiative, including top tier national press from:  The Washington Post; CBS News; Los Angeles Times; Yahoo! Finance; Bloomberg News; The Guardian; Business Insider; Associated Press; CBS News; Wall Street Journal; Forbes; In These Times; CNBC; and the New York Times in January 2024.

We saw important progress in 2023 with record numbers of cosponsors (256 total), and incredible efforts so far in 2024 - highlighting both the deep popularity of these reforms and the rewards of intentionally building power with legislative champions. Yet, our opposition hired more lobbyists, spent more on paid advertisements, and received more earned media coverage. No matter how popular our policies are outside state capitols, the disproportionate level of resources spent within legislative chambers create a real power imbalance. There is only one answer to this larger problem: we must relentlessly compete for more power because we don’t have enough today. Power is measurable, and we need to stay laser focused on our ability to increase the level of influence inside and outside the building. 

For the champion legislators and movement partners leading this work at the state level, we have your back. As legislative leadership and Governors dismiss your reforms as “radical” and “untimely”: know that there is a eleven state network moving forward toward a common goal; know that the biggest revenue measures of the past decades faced the same criticism in the years before passage; know that the pushback is a reflection of the power that you are amassing. The 2024 legislative sessions may largely be a difficult and frustrating time for folks on the ground, but every ounce of power we build this year will mean the difference between success and failure when the moment is ready in the next legislative session. When we build together, over the long-term, we are unstoppable!

States Leading the Way on Paid Family and Medical Leave

States Leading the Way on Paid Family and Medical Leave

By: Ian Pfeiffer

From the first moments of a child’s life to the last moments in the life of a loved one, we all need time to care for our families. No one should have to worry about losing their job for putting their family first during some of the most important moments in life. This simple sentiment is shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans in poll after poll, which makes it so confounding that the United States is one of just six countries on the face of the earth that does not guarantee paid leave for workers. 

In the three decades since the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was passed into law, which made some workers eligible for up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave, both corporations and extremist politicians–with support from their deep-pocket donors–have stood in the way of strengthening these benefits.  

Under FMLA, only 3 in 10 workers are eligible for and can afford to take unpaid leave, deepening divides between historically marginalized communities. A report produced by the National Partnership for Women and Children illustrates the severe racial disparities in wealth and wealth building between white families and Black and Latino families due to past and present institutionalized racism, which are only exacerbated when serious medical and family challenges arise.

In 2021, federal paid family and medical leave was included in the Biden Administration’s “Build  Back Better” legislation, coming the closest to enactment in the 30 years since the passage of FMLA. State lawmakers in 10 states and the District of Columbia had enacted legislation establishing a Paid Family and Medical Leave program leading up to this once in a generation moment to pass paid leave at the federal level.  State legislators demonstrated the feasibility of the program and led to incredible momentum within Congress. Unfortunately, a small group of conservative Democrats in a closely divided Senate doomed this vital program, frustrating the millions of families that need to support a loved one in need. 

State legislators have retaken the movement to pass PFML across the country in the wake of federal inaction.  We are seeing incredible movement in Red states passing legislation to extend paid family and medical leave to state employees, including South Carolina, Tennessee and Louisiana.  This is an opportunity to build towards a social insurance program, and particularly impactful as an important step towards gender and racial equity, as state employees are disproportionately women and Black workers. Not to be outdone, universal social insurance programs have been passed in Delaware, Maine, and Minnesota. SiX’s PFML Legislator cohort project is committed to help accelerate the second national push for federal PFML legislation, positioning passionate state legislators as national leaders in the fight for a more just economy.

The hard work in State Capitols across the country to discuss, debate, and advance paid leave legislation is vital to the lives of millions of Americans.  Each small step builds towards a tipping point in Washington, where eventually federal lawmakers will be forced to react to the community-driven policy-making on paid family and medical leave that has been built in the states.  

In an effort to accelerate the progress of these state-by-state fights by supporting and connecting the key legislative champions, SiX partnered with A Better Balance (ABB) and New America to organize a cross-state Paid Family Medical Leave (PFML) Legislator cohort.  

Launched in 2022 with 16 legislators from 7 states who joined together to share insights, coordinate cross-state actions, and strategize on shaping the narrative around PFML. We hold monthly meetings centered on in-state and cross-state strategies for long-term PFML advancement.  Legislators come to the table to discuss policy language, legislative strategy and any potential compromises, as well as implementation and enforcement challenges. 

Importantly, the cohort members are building relationships that allow them to share their personal lived experiences which initially brought them to champion paid leave, organically fostering cross-state peer-learning that influences how they approach their in-state political eco-systems going forward.

This curated space was impactful because the challenges the legislators face are so daunting.  They discuss how to navigate “knee-jerk” business opposition, while being encouraged by their business-owning colleagues to calculate and testify on the savings a proper PFML program would provide to actual small business owners. They also push back strongly against watered down versions of PFML designed to undercut our momentum and should be seen for what they are–an attempt to shift the debate in face of strong public opinion support and growing power. 

Particularly resonant was the PFML track at SiX’s Innovations Accelerator Conference in September 2023, which brought together legislators and partners together in one room from across 11 states (CO, GA, IL, ME, MI, MN, NV, NM, NY, PA, VT) to share lessons and insights grounded in the necessity of grassroots support behind policy and centering the leadership, experience, and stories of those most impacted by PFML. 

Since the PFML cohort was formed, initial cohort members in Minnesota and Maine have passed PMFL laws in their states, joining the now 13 states and Washington, D.C. who have done so. We expect the cohort will both help legislators continue passing these critical protections, including in states that have joined the cohort, Nevada and Georgia, and deepen the connection that leads to further areas of focus.

While the passage of the PFML bills creating these programs is a reason to celebrate, implementation and enforcement of the programs can be a multi-year odyssey.  Historically, not enough focus has been paid to how the programs are built in reality and the negative impact these delays have on those who need these important protections the most.  Legislative champions and advocates are doubling their efforts to “stay in the fight” to have the programs implemented as soon as possible.

The work that can be done in any state to extend these benefits to workers and their families is vital to this ongoing nationwide struggle. We invite you to join us in this important effort to fight back against those corporate interests that stand in our way while millions of families grapple with an impossible choice between keeping a job and caring for a loved one. 

Challenging Corporate Power Initiative

Challenging Corporate Power Initiative

By: Ida V. Eskamani

The consolidation of corporate power in the hands of the elite few impacts every facet of our lives; connected directly to expanding wealth disparities and the rising cost of living, the existential climate crisis and rampant expansion of authoritarianism, and to the very existence of the multiracial democracy we strive for. 

Ida V. Eskamani of State Innovation Exchange chats with her twin sister Representative Anna V. Eskamani of Orlando, Florida about challenging corporate power in the states.

The concentration of corporate power does not happen by accident; it’s not the result of inevitable forces. It is a product of deliberate policy choices over decades and centuries. Racism, sexism, and classism are entrenched within our current economic system, by design. As a result, Black, immigrant, Indigenous, working class and rural communities, women, and queer people are disproportionately exploited and denied prosperity by these policies.

But historically, state legislators, in collaboration with the communities most impacted by these policy choices, have led the fight challenging corporate power– organizing our communities and taking on the corporate lobby to build economies that empower people. 

Challenging corporate power not only advances justice; it is essential to our organizing, allowing us to build movements that cross racial and ethnic lines, geographies, and issue-silos. Regardless of your area of expertise and the communities you organize with– whether it be education, agriculture, climate, housing, healthcare, criminal justice; or rural, urban, and suburban; the harms of corporate influence tie us together. Challenging corporate power offers easily identified villains, which is critical to organizing; and diminishes our opponents’ power by allowing us to neutralize the faux populism leveraged in the so-called “culture wars,” and expose the corporate donors and billionaires who fund these extremist campaigns. 

And finally, challenging corporate power is an opportunity to restore people’s trust in government, by demonstrating that governments can improve the daily lives of people and work with, by, and for all people, versus the elite few. Faith in our public institutions is essential to protecting our democracy from the rising threat of authoritarianism and increasing people’s engagement in our governing system. This work is essential towards advancing racial, gender, and economic justice; and state legislators are uniquely positioned to lead the charge, and win. 

Understanding our opponents:

The abuse of corporate power is rampant in our state capitols, where despite public opinion and undeniable economic disparities, the corporate lobby sets the agenda, with bipartisan success. 

From seemingly infinite campaign contributions, to state-by-state coordination of model policy, corporate lobbying power is massive– outnumbering public interest lobbyists in every metric.  Corporate mergers, tax-giveaways, privatization, deregulation, abusive preemption, and undermining workers’ collective bargaining rights are just a few of the policy tools used to concentrate corporate power over our economy and our democracy. Increasingly, private equity and AI threaten our economic freedoms as well. 

The corporate lobby also thrives on anonymity. Corporations protect their brands by hiding behind industry associations, such as state-affiliates of the national Chambers of Commerce, Retail Federation, Restaurant Association and Apartment Association.. The agribusiness lobby is especially good at concealing its true interests; capitalizing on romantic ideals of family farms and the fact that the majority of Americans now live far from farm life. Groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation, a pro-big business insurance company, and state-based groups such as “Oregonians for Food and Shelter,” a front group for the agro-chemical lobby, acclaim to represent farmer interests while actually promoting policies that run roughshod over rural communities, the environment, and public health – meanwhile asserting that anyone who opposes them is an out-of-touch urbanite. All of these front groups lead efforts to lobby policymakers on behalf of a small group of multinational corporations, despite claims that they represent small businesses. 

Despite what their public relations teams may claim, major corporations are deeply entrenched in the so-called “culture wars” as well, designed to both divide communities and deny economic opportunity. The same coordinated network of extremist billionaires, think tanks, and corporations pushing state laws to privatize public education, bust public sector unions, and roll back child labor protections are also working to erase Black history and criminalize queer kids. Extremist billionaires like the DeVos family, the Uline family, and Koch brothers, and the think-tanks they finance like the Foundation for Government Accountability, The Heritage Foundation, the Alliance Defending Freedom and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are just a few of the players involved in this strategy. While rigging the economy to their benefit with model policy, this same network is dismantling our freedom to vote, fueling election denial conspiracies, and pushing for a radical rewrite of the United States constitution.

This network promotes a false narrative that “government doesn’t work,” to erode people’s trust in government, leading to less engagement and further justification for the privatization they profit from, with our public dollars. We argue that our government is working very efficiently, but not for people– for corporations and their shareholders. By challenging corporate power, we reclaim control of our public institutions and build governments that work with, by, and for people. 

How do we challenge corporate power? 

We know that corporate power poisons every industry and impacts every facet of our lives. So how do we effectively challenge corporate power in the states? Our strategy consists of five key pillars:

1) Educate: We consistently educate legislators and partners on the past and present crisis of corporate power in the United States. We demonstrate the interconnectedness of our fights, the long-term and cross-state coordination of the corporate agenda, identify emergent threats and opportunities, and connect the dots of the corporate agenda not just in the economy, but in strengthening white supremacy, ideological extremism, and threatening our democracy. We also dream and build an economy that puts people before corporate power. 

2) Name Opponents: Effective campaigns have clearly identified and tangible villains. We are up against a coordinated and cynical machine of corporations, billionaires, and extremist front groups who find power in anonymity. We must name who is financing these campaigns, as well as their financial contributions to lobbying and elections. By exposing the coordinated network we are up against, we weaken their power and undercut their divide-and-conquer tactics. 

3) Organize: We organize state legislators in collaboration with the communities most impacted by these policy choices. We build broad, people-centered, multi-racial and multi-issue coalitions that name corporate power at the root of our challenges. We organize in-state and cross-state to facilitate peer-learning and multi-state strategy taking on corporate power. Recognizing that corporate interests have long promoted rural/urban culture wars and antagonism as a way to strengthen their position, our Cohort for Rural Opportunity and Prosperity helps state legislators be bold champions for progressive policies in rural and agriculture spaces that are typically dominated by legislators beholden to corporate interests.  

4) Policy Campaigns: Policy campaigns come from the grassroots, reflecting the dreams of communities most impacted by corporate power. There are countless policy campaigns taking on corporate power, from workers rights, rent control and right to repair, to holding corporations accountable, ending private prison contracts and busting corporate monopolies; legislators should be key organizing partners with  communities leading the charge. All policy campaigns help to build a cohesive state and national narrative. Defensive fights undermine the faux populist narrative leveraged by extremists and create a platform that speaks directly to the material needs of working families. Offensive campaigns offer real-world models for how the government can offer meaningful services directly to people.

5) Collaborative Governance: Our organizing model centers directly-impacted people working alongside and acting as key decision-makers with state policymakers. This includes policy drafting, passage, and implementation. Co-governance advances racial, gender, and economic justice while restoring trust in a government, by improving the material conditions of people and providing services better than corporations can. Ultimately, we seek to build an economy that serves people by promoting public options, fully-funded safety nets, and well-resourced state agencies. 

The work ahead: 

It’s hard to overstate the influence of corporations in every aspect of our lives. From our freedom to vote to the price of groceries; the cost of housing and healthcare to the curriculum we teach in schools; child labor and the right of workers to organize; the climate crisis, immigrant detention, and mass incarceration– you will find corporate influence at nearly at every level of government , undermining our public institutions to centralize power and profits at the expense of our livelihoods and freedoms. 

After a year of planning, partner cultivation, and strategy development, SiX formally launched our Challenging Corporate Power Initiative at our 2023 Accelerator Conference. We organized legislators and partners from across 16 states and DC to learn about the far-reaching impacts of corporate monopolies on workers, consumers, and local businesses, and how we can build an economy that works for us all.

We began the convening with a history of corporate power in the United States, fromour Rural, Agriculture & Food Systems team. The presentation links the concentration of corporate power to white supremacy and the foundation of the US economy, including the genocide of and landgrab from Indigenous people and the exploitation of Africans and Black Americans trafficked into the slave trade. With that foundation, we demonstrated how both everyday people and elected officials have successfully taken on corporate power to advance justice, how corporate power has fought back, and brought us to the present crisis we are in now. 

With legislators inspired by the convening, we launched a sign-on letter in partnership with the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), rallying legislators behind the federal government's draft corporate merger guidelines. In less than a week, we secured 56 state legislators from 22 states in support of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed corporate merger guidelines.

As legislative sessions grind on, our team is on the ground and working across state lines to organize lawmakers, workers, and local businesses and leverage legislatures to fight back in ways that advance justice and build long term, durable power. We invite you to join us in this effort to challenge corporate power in our state capitols and our communities, towards a future where people, not multinational corporations, have what they need to thrive.

Acknowledgement: Gratitude to our Agriculture & Food Systems team members Kendra Kimbirakuskas and Siena Chrisman, for their work, and contributions to this piece. 

How States Can Stop the Corporate Campaign To Roll Back Child Labor Protections

BI AB010 ORGANI M 20150707112322

How States Can Stop the Corporate Campaign To Roll Back Child Labor Protections

Download the Report
SIXlogo horizontal RGB highres
EARN EPI combined logo

Executive Summary

The enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938 marked the passage of the first federal standards for child labor in the U.S., prohibiting the long hours, dangerous jobs, and abusive practices that many children suffered at the time. Now, nearly nine decades later, state legislatures, spurred by political operatives working on behalf of deep-pocketed corporate interests, are the epicenters of a national campaign to turn the clock back on child labor protections. 

Since 2021, at least 61 bills to roll back child labor protections have been introduced in 29 states, and at least 17 bills have been enacted in 13 states. The proposals, some of which would directly conflict with federal standards, include provisions that would repeal work permit requirements, extend work hours, legalize employment in hazardous occupations, allow children to be paid less than the state minimum wage, lower the minimum age for alcohol service, and preempt the passage of stricter child labor protections at the local level. Without adequate federal or state enforcement capacity, the recent onslaught of legislative activity to bring back 19th-century child labor standards promises to intensify a growing national crisis of child labor violations, especially among migrant youth.

State lawmakers and advocates have the power to organize and push back against these coordinated attacks and to put forward a different vision for the future where labor policies safeguard the safety, well-being, and education of children. This publication is intended to serve as a resource to legislators and state advocates in resisting efforts to deregulate child labor protections. It offers policy options that can strengthen labor protections for young workers. A stronger framework for child labor standards at the state level should consider the following:

  1. Enhancing child labor protections. States can and should establish labor protections that go above and beyond federal standards for young workers. Examples include time and hour restrictions for 16- and 17-year-olds, prohibitions on hazardous occupations, rest or meal break requirements, work permit requirements, repealing youth subminimum wage laws, and strengthening protections for children in agricultural work.
  2. Enhancing enforcement and penalties. States should adopt an enforcement strategy that maintains a credible ability to enforce against violations and includes a penalty regime that provides effective deterrence.
    • State lawmakers can establish strong civil and criminal penalties, including minimum penalties and damages payable to workers, in addition to enhanced penalties for egregious violations. 
    • Legislators can also enhance enforcement by establishing anti-retaliation protections, extending the statute of limitations on violations, expanding agency enforcement powers, and boosting enforcement capacity, particularly by adding language and cultural capacity to appropriately support migrant children.
    • State legislators can consider strategies that support enforcement on behalf of the state, like community enforcement programs, private attorneys general laws that authorize aggrieved employees to bring enforcement actions on behalf of the state, or dedicated grant funding to local prosecutors to support labor enforcement actions.
    • Lawmakers can ensure that children have appropriate legal remedies when they are harmed by child labor violations by ensuring that injured or killed workers are not limited to workers’ compensation as an exclusive remedy and by establishing a private right of action.
  3. Extend liability to all entities that profit from child labor. State lawmakers should modernize child labor protections to account for 21st-century business structures that often allow the most powerful entities to evade accountability. Examples include laws that hold lead corporations responsible for violations committed within their supply chains and laws that establish joint liability for franchisors and franchisees.
  4. Establish public procurement compliance requirements. States can set a standard for strict compliance with child labor protections through the procurement process by requiring contractors to disclose child labor violations and maintaining compliance with child labor protections as a condition for eligibility for public contracts.
  5. Support education, outreach, and service coordination efforts. Legislators can also enable improved enforcement outcomes by supporting education and outreach efforts that ensure that children and their families are adequately informed of their rights under the law and by facilitating coordination among labor officials, public education systems, social services, and immigrant legal services to ensure that investigations of violations do not leave families without access to material and legal support.

The scheme to deregulate child labor state by state is inseparable from attacks on workers’ rights, safety net programs that help families get back on their feet during hard times, the right to an honest and quality education, a fair tax system where wealthy corporations pay what they owe, and our freedom to vote and our right to fair representation. Altogether, these conjoined efforts—driven by insatiable corporate greed and bolstered by outsized elite influence over our democracy—paint a bleak future of an endless race to the bottom for cheap labor, enshrined by the exploitation of children at the expense of their health, safety, and education.

Introduction

In recent years, state legislatures have been the focus of a national operation to repeal laws that protect young people’s health, safety, and educational rights. The campaign to drag labor protections back in time to the 19th century is part of a sweeping, multi-issue effort to further concentrate corporate power, undermine worker rights, and dismantle government regulation, all while cementing wealth inequality by stratifying access to public education and tearing down anti-poverty programs. Since 2021, at least 61 bills to weaken child labor protections have been introduced across 29 states, including 17 bills that have been enacted in 13 states.

The ultimate intent of the corporate lobby is clear: to pave a path to national deregulation of child labor, one state at a time. State lawmakers have the power to put a stop to the plot to build an economy that allows businesses to profit on the backs of children, even in the most dangerous jobs. This publication is intended to serve as a resource to legislators and advocates in responding to the ongoing efforts in state capitols to deregulate child labor. In addition to examining the industry-backed actors behind the corporate conspiracy to roll back child labor protections, the publication outlines the types of regressive legislation that states have considered and passed in recent years and offers potential policy options that legislators may consider to further strengthen state protections for young workers.

History Repeats Itself: A Look Behind the Curtain of the Campaign To Roll Back Child Labor Protections

In the years following the proposal of a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to regulate child labor in 1924, a new organization called the Farmers’ States Rights League (FSRL) distributed over a quarter-million pieces of literature opposing the amendment, spreading false claims that children would be prevented from doing chores around the home and family farm. The propaganda spread through half-page advertisements in small-town newspapers, leaving readers with the misguided impression that the campaign was funded organically by a group of farmers who came together in opposition to the amendment.

In reality, the FSRL was operated by David Clark, a frontman for wealthy Southern textile factory bosses—an industry that thrived on child labor—to create the facade of public resistance to the amendment in rural America. Clark, a virulent white supremacist who frequently railed against integration as the publisher of the influential Southern Textile Bulletin, was also the mastermind behind a litigation strategy to stonewall new child labor protections. His efforts, which included selecting a friendly federal judge and cajoling young cotton mill workers to serve as plaintiffs in lawsuits he paid for, resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down two newly enacted federal child labor protections. One of the plaintiffs handpicked by Clark, when interviewed by a reporter years later, reflected: “I’d been a lot better off if they hadn’t won it. Look at me! A hundred and five pounds, a grown man and no education.”

While the proposed amendment was never ratified, Congress eventually enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938, prohibiting children from being employed in certain types of hazardous work, establishing a minimum age of 16 for most types of work, and limiting the number of hours and the time of day that children are allowed to work to protect school attendance. Nearly a century later, a different set of actors, funded by the newest generation of billionaire industrialist barons, are playing the same cast of characters in another astroturfing production to fabricate the illusion of widespread support for policies that only serve to line the pockets of the wealthy through increasingly dangerous child labor.

Industry Fronts: Agribusiness, the Foundation for Government Accountability, and the Opportunity Solutions Project

Agricultural industry groups continue to be outspoken proponents of weakening child labor protections. In the same model as the FSRL, they point to these protections as being burdensome for family farmers when, in truth, these groups represent multinational agribusiness corporations. Groups opposing a proposed federal rule to increase child protections in the FLSA in 2011, for example, included some of the biggest actors in the industry, such as pesticide trade group CropLife America, the National Cotton Council, and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). The AFBF, in particular, was founded in 1919 as a contemporary of the FSRL but has remained a powerful lobby group in the century since—calling itself “the voice of agriculture” while representing large agribusiness interests. In addition to advocating for weaker child labor protections, the AFBF supported the repeal of both the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Affordable Care Act while consistently pressing for policies that harm the independent family farmers it claims to represent. 

Other proponents of child labor rollbacks in statehouses across the country reflect a similar array of lobbyists and trade associations for other businesses and industries that stand to benefit most from child labor, including the restaurant, hospitality, and retail industries. During a hearing on a bill to repeal work permits in Arkansas, the legislative sponsor acknowledged that the legislation came from a Florida-based organization called the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA). At the same time, emails obtained by reporters revealed that similar bills were sent by FGA lobbyists to Florida and Missouri lawmakers.

Before the organization turned its attention to making it easier for businesses to exploit child labor in recent years, the FGA spent over a decade parachuting into statehouses on behalf of corporate interests—in the past seven years, the FGA and its advocacy arm, the Opportunity Solutions Project (OSP), have deployed 130 lobbyists into 29 state capitols. The group’s parallel efforts to gut public assistance programs (which primarily serve children experiencing poverty and their families), push the long-discredited idea of work requirements for safety net eligibility, and weaken state unemployment benefits illustrate a clear agenda: to ensure that low-wage workers are forced to accept poverty wages or abusive working conditions. More recently, to dilute the political power of voters and lock states in minority rule, the FGA has also waged attacks on our freedom to vote and direct democracy.

Reflecting on its work during the 2021 legislative session in states across the country, the FGA boasted in its annual report that thanks to the expansion of its “Super State strategy, which involves doubling down in key states to drive national change with big reforms,” Arkansas legislators enacted 48 “FGA reforms,” while Florida had implemented 26 of the organization’s solutions. Just two years later, lawmakers in Arkansas and Florida, in addition to two of the newest FGA Super States, Iowa and Wisconsin, passed bills to weaken child labor protections.

The FGA and OSP are funded by a number of ultra-wealthy industrialists who have funneled billions into a vast network of organizations to do the bidding of large corporations and conservative extremists. Some known funders of the FGA and OSP are also behind other industry investments to capture judicial and legislative power:

The similarities between the tactics of modern pro-child labor groups and their forebears are striking: front organizations are financed by a wealthy network of elites to create the pretense of citizen-driven campaigns for policies that make benefactors even more profitable in their industries. When paired with the ongoing crusade to push our democracy, state by state, into crisis, policies designed to enact economic oppression on the most vulnerable workers promise to ensure that the power to hoard wealth and opportunity remains a feature of our nation’s laws for generations to come.

Federal and State Enforcement Capacity is Insufficient Amidst Increased Violations and Conflicting State Laws

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that federal law takes supremacy over conflicting state laws. While states may enact laws that provide legal protections above federal law, they may not lower the “floor” set by federal law. State legislatures have a long tradition of establishing and enforcing higher labor standards for their residents, including establishing some of the country’s first child labor protections a century before the passage of the FLSA.

States that roll back state child labor standards are actively diminishing their important, long-standing roles in enforcing child labor protections, leaving more and more of the enforcement burden to an already short-staffed federal Department of Labor (DOL) at a time when employer violations are sharply increasing. Weakening state standards signals to unscrupulous employers that child labor violations are less likely than ever to be investigated in a certain state while creating new confusion, even for well-intentioned employers, about what is and is not legal, increasing the likelihood of additional violations.

During the 2023 legislative session, federal DOL officials responded to a request from Iowa lawmakers regarding a bill (2023 IA SF 542), which has since been enacted into law, to confirm that several provisions were inconsistent with federal law. The DOL more recently alerted employers that they remain legally obligated to comply with federal child labor protections rather than newly enacted and weaker state laws, reminding employers that “[w]here a state child labor law is less restrictive than the federal law, the federal law applies. Where a state child labor law is more restrictive than the federal law, the state law applies.”

Despite the legal impotence of some provisions contained in new state child labor laws, they are deliberately intended to introduce confusion to the existing regulatory framework, take advantage of a vastly under-resourced and understaffed federal labor enforcement agency, and heighten conflicts between state and federal standards to build a case for lowering standards nationwide. The ultimate goal, as the FGA outlined in a recent report, is to “open the door to federal regulatory reform” by getting “enough states to successfully implement a reform.” 

In response to an 88% increase in child labor violations since 2019, federal officials have announced new enhanced enforcement efforts and provided additional guidance to local Wage and Hour Division (WHD) offices to ensure full utilization of the agency’s enforcement authority. Still, the WHD recently reported that it lost 12% of its staff between 2010 and 2019 due to its funding remaining flat. In 2019, WHD investigators were responsible for twice as many workers as they were four decades ago, while compliance officers with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) were responsible for three times as many workers over the same time period.

The Realities of the Child Labor Catastrophe

Proponents of weakening child labor protections frequently trot out feel-good stories suggesting that the rollbacks will open opportunities for teenagers working at the local movie theater or grocery store to save up for a prom dress when, in reality, these types of jobs are already fully legal options for teens as young as 14 in all states. Deregulation is instead aimed at stripping long-standing safety and scheduling standards that protect the health and education of children. Removing these guardrails will have the most dire, life-threatening consequences for children who are working to survive in some of the most dangerous and hidden jobs in our economy. This is made all the more urgent by a recent increase in unaccompanied migrant children driven from their home countries by economic desperation. State legislatures are the most important stopgap today for preventing the continued abuse, serious injury, and death of children in the workplace.

Compounded by violence and the disastrous effects of climate change, the economic fallout from the pandemic pushed many in Central America into a severe economic crisis. Many families facing extreme hunger and poverty had little choice but to send their children to the U.S. through a narrow opening in an otherwise broken immigration system that, until recently, closed the southern border to unauthorized arrivals and asylum seekers, except for children. 

Nearly 350,000 unaccompanied children were released by federal officials in a three-year period between 2020 and 2023—almost a 180% increase from the previous three years. Whereas the majority of unaccompanied minors in years past were primarily released to parents already living in the country, today, only one-third are sponsored by parents, with the remainder being sent to relatives, acquaintances, or strangers. Unaccompanied children are held temporarily at shelters under the care of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) while caseworkers vet sponsors to identify red flags for potential trafficking, such as sponsors that have claimed responsibility for dozens of unrelated children

About one-third of unaccompanied children who are identified as high-risk continue to receive case management services after release. In most instances, children are released to sponsors with the number of a national hotline and receive a phone call from federal officials within a month of release. In 2022, HHS reported not being able to contact one-third of minors in the month after their release to sponsors, while trafficking reports to the national hotline have increased by 1,300% in just five years. 

AdobeStock 389408806 scaled

Child Labor Violations Are Widespread and Largely Unchecked

The stories gathered from interviews with migrant children themselves, as well as the caseworkers, teachers, and community members around them, all bear strikingly repetitive refrains. Upon arriving in the country alone and without work permits, unaccompanied migrant children, often saddled with debt from their journey and with the obligation to support families back home, inevitably end up filling some of the most undesirable jobs that are often outsourced and persistently vacant due to the refusal of corporations to pay fair wages. These children frequently end up dropping out of school or never enrolling at all.

Though federal law prohibits children from being employed in many of these roles, employers frequently look the other way, as was in the case of a 13-year-old worker who presented documents that identified them as a 30-year-old. Even when multimillion-dollar corporations are caught in a federal investigation, the maximum civil penalty for child labor violations—less than 1% of the penalty for insider trading—is trivial to those corporations when balanced against the profits generated by ignoring labor protections. Some of the most egregious violations have been at worksites that are within the supply chain of major household brands like Tyson, Hyundai, and General Mills, which are insulated from liability by layers of subcontractors and third-party agencies.

Over and over, reporters and federal investigators have laid bare the widespread nature of child labor violations in today’s economy. Each story below, alongside many more, shares similar themes of exploitation and willful ignorance by employers, who often face little to no accountability, even in cases involving serious injury or death:

On its own, the idea of allowing children to work full-time or on graveyard shifts while attending school, to operate dangerous industrial equipment sharp enough to butcher cattle, to work in a bar at the age of 14, to toil in fields while inhaling toxic pesticides at 12, or to handle caustic cleaning solutions while wearing protective gear several sizes too large for less than minimum wage and without oversight is shocking and dangerous. But when taken together with the other priorities of the shadowy network of industry-funded groups that have cloaked their campaign to deregulate child labor as simply a matter of cutting “red tape,” the effort presents an existential threat to the future that most of us envision for our children.

Given the improbability of federal action on child labor, even in the face of rising violations, new conflicting state laws, and lack of federal enforcement capacity, state lawmakers have a central role to play in protecting the health and safety of children in the workplace. In addition to fighting back against continued child labor rollbacks, legislators can strengthen child labor standards and boost enforcement capacity at the state level.

The Campaign To Weaken Child Labor Protections

Since 2021, at least 61 bills to weaken child labor protections have been introduced across 29 states:

Recent legislation to weaken protections for children in the workforce has generally included some combination of the following provisions.

See Table 1 for a summary of legislation to weaken child labor protections that have been considered since 2021.

AdobeStock 521449699 scaled

Strategies for Organizing Against the Rollback of Child Labor Protections 

In organizing against the campaign to deregulate child labor, state legislators should consider the following strategies: 

Table 1. State Child Labor Legislation

Note: This table summarizes the provisions of state legislation related to child labor identified by the authors as of February 9, 2024. The status of each bill reflected in this table may not reflect its current status.

Opportunities To Strengthen Child Labor Protections

State lawmakers have the power to take immediate action to protect young workers against the staggering uptick in child labor violations, especially among children working in dangerous industries. The following sections include examples of provisions that lawmakers may consider in developing a stronger framework for child labor protections in their states, drawn from bills that have been considered at the federal and state levels. In addition to legislation specific to child labor, this section also includes enforcement approaches from other areas of labor law that may be effective against child labor violations.

See Table 1 for a summary of bills referenced in the following sections, in addition to other bills with similar provisions.

AdobeStock 334357363 scaled

Enhancing Labor Protections

State lawmakers have the power to counteract the spread of child labor deregulation by ensuring that state-level protections continue to prioritize the health, safety, and education of young workers. At a minimum, legislators in states where child labor protections are weaker than the FLSA should raise state standards to align with federal requirements.

Modernizing Agricultural Labor Protections

While federal law clearly identifies the certain occupations considered unsafe for children under 18, the law remains extremely weak when it comes to employment in agriculture: even children under the age of 12 can work on farms in certain circumstances. The exclusion of farmworkers from child labor protections, much like the exclusion of farmworkers and domestic workers from other areas of labor and employment law, has deep roots in slavery and subjugation in the name of profit. 

Much of the progress that has been made to improve conditions for farmworkers, including children, has been the result of decades of sustained organizing by farmworkers and their allies across the country. Some of these efforts have yielded legally binding codes of conduct between farmworkers and employers, which prohibit child labor and provide other important standards for worker safety and dignity. The Fair Food and Milk With Dignity Codes of Conduct are two models; these may offer inspiration for policy change. 

Lawmakers can bring protections for farmworkers into the 21st century by raising state standards to minimize the risks that children face in agricultural work.

AdobeStock 101026118 scaled

Enhancing Enforcement and Penalties

The growing incidence of egregious child labor violations suggests that existing enforcement mechanisms—and the likelihood that enforcement will occur at all—are insufficient to deter employers from violating the law. For profit-driven corporations, the decision is simple math: one analysis of DOL data found that federal penalties for minimum wage and overtime violations are “often relatively small when weighed against the small probability of detection of the violation for many firms.” In other words, an effective enforcement strategy must consider the cost of noncompliance in addition to maintaining a credible ability to enforce.

Increasing Penalties

Research shows that higher penalty amounts are an effective deterrent for labor violations; one study comparing minimum wage violations with state employment laws across all 50 states and the District of Columbia found that “the stronger the state’s employment laws, the lower the incidence of minimum wage violations…states that implemented the strongest penalties—treble damages—experienced statistically significant drops in violation rates.” 

Enhancing Enforcement

State lawmakers can also ensure that more employers are compelled to comply with child labor laws by the plausible belief that officials have the capacity to enforce the law. In order to be effective, an enforcement regime must give aggrieved workers the confidence that they will be protected and made whole throughout the process of an investigation.

Authorizing Enforcement on Behalf of the State

To add to state enforcement capacity, state legislators can also consider options that empower other entities to carry out enforcement actions on behalf of state officials. As recent reporting on the child labor crisis shows, migrant children and their families, concerned by the looming threat of deportation, are fearful of government officials. However, they may be eligible for programs like the Deferred Action for Labor Enforcement (DALE) program, which provides temporary protection against deportation and work authorization to noncitizen workers who have witnessed or been victims of labor violations.

As an additional layer of deterrence against the most grievous violations of child labor protections, lawmakers can also ensure that aggrieved children have pathways to seek adequate legal remedies against their employers. 

AdobeStock 136129814 scaled

Extending Liability to All Entities That Profit from Child Labor

The increasingly complex nature of businesses that utilize temporary workers, staffing agencies, contract workers, independent contractors, and other work structure strategies “challenge the nearly century-old workplace policies built around direct, bilateral employment relationships.” Federal employment law generally holds that more than one entity may be held responsible as joint employers for the purposes of labor violations. In announcing its Interagency Child Labor Task Force, the DOL recently signaled that its enhanced enforcement efforts would apply scrutiny to violations committed by entities within an employer’s supply chain, including contractors or staffing agencies. At the state level, legislators can extend liability to include the most powerful and well-resourced entities that have escaped accountability.

Establishing Public Procurement Requirements

State lawmakers can also amend public procurement processes to require strict compliance with child labor protections by government contractors and their supply chains.

Supporting Education, Outreach, and Coordination of Services

Adequate enforcement of any labor law requires that workers are supported with knowledge that empowers them to exercise their rights. In the case of children, who are new to the workforce and may be unaware of their rights under child labor laws, education and outreach efforts can yield long-term benefits in a workforce well-versed in their rights. States can also fill a critical role by identifying service gaps that exist for children vulnerable to labor exploitation, especially migrant children and children in families with language or literacy barriers. 

AdobeStock 82129123 scaled

Conclusion

Industry-driven attacks on child labor standards rely on a false narrative that children universally have the opportunity to “choose” a job where they can learn important lessons for adulthood and “sock away” savings in a Roth IRA. And yet, that narrative couldn’t be further from reality for the children who would be most affected by the deregulation of child labor. As recent reporting and data show, the children most subject to child labor violations have no good choices; they have only the choice to survive.

Trapped in the jaws of our nation’s profit-driven economy and brutally inhumane immigration system, both designed by a relentless corporate lobbying machine that has captured statehouses and courts, migrant children are pushed into the shadows where they are exploited without recourse. In some of the most shocking investigations, employers receive a slap on the wrist, if any at all, and continue operating with their reputations and profit margins intact. Even in cases of injury and death, these children’s families are not afforded the dignity of any measure of accountability or care. 

In defending against the corporate conspiracy to deregulate child labor, state legislators should be clear that the campaign is just one piece of a massive and generational project to remake the economy into one that gives corporations license to extract exorbitant profits from increasingly unregulated and dangerous child labor. Other critical pieces of the destructive plan seek to eviscerate the social safety net to ensure that workers have no choice when faced with unsafe and abusive working conditions; to dismantle critical institutions like public schools by robbing taxpayer coffers to pay for colossal corporate tax subsidies; and by demonizing and punishing immigrants, to create a class of workers who suffer violations in silence for fear of deportation and family separation.

Additional Resources

Economic Policy Institute

Migration Policy Institute

Acknowledgements

A special thank you to Jenn Round, the Director of Beyond the Bill at the Workplace Justice Lab@Rutgers University, for her insightful comments and valuable improvements to this publication.

A State Legislator's Guide to Direct Pay: Building Jobs & Sustainable Public Energy

A State Legislator's Guide to Direct Pay: Building Jobs & Sustainable Public Energy

Solar Panels 2 1 scaled e1701721940181Executive Summary

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) includes Direct Pay tax credits that have the potential to bring nearly unlimited funding for clean energy projects into the communities that need them most. Direct Pay tax credits will radically expand publicly owned energy, support communities transitioning away from polluting energy sources, generate affordable—and potentially free—electricity, and create good jobs for local communities. This guide is designed to help state lawmakers seize this historic opportunity for their communities through: 
  1. Community education and outreach: State legislators are trusted messengers who can spread the word about this opportunity to local governments, community organizations, and other eligible entities within their state. 
  2. Implementation: State legislators can ensure that the state government enthusiastically implements the IRA and secures Direct Pay funding for their state by implementing eligible projects across all levels of state government. 
  3. Funding and policy making: State legislators can help other eligible entities like local governments and nonprofits implement Direct Pay projects by providing matching funds, creating revolving funds or low/no-interest loans, creating technical assistance programs, and building in policy incentives to increase equity and protect workers within Direct Pay programs in the state. 
Direct Pay tax credits are available to tax-exempt entities like state governments, local governments, schools, hospitals, public utilities, houses of worship, and nonprofit organizations for the first time ever. Direct Pay tax credits can fund a wide range of renewable energy projects like solar arrays, wind turbines, electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, and storage resources like batteries. Every project that meets the Direct Pay requirements will receive the tax credit, so communities can implement project after project without competing for limited and dwindling funds. However, it will take robust leadership from state-level elected champions to fully realize this opportunity. State governments can receive Direct Pay tax credits, which can provide significant funding for state-owned green energy projects and can be used on an uncapped number of qualifying projects. In addition, state governments have a critical role to play in ensuring that state residents understand this opportunity and have the knowledge, financing, and technical support needed to seize this opportunity through policies like grants, revolving funds, and technical assistance. This guide is intended for state governments to use and to better understand how to use Direct Pay to help expand resilient, sustainable energy, lower energy costs, take action on the climate crisis, and create good-paying local jobs.

 

 

About Direct Pay

For the first time ever, thanks to the IRA, the federal government will give tax-free direct cash funding to tax-exempt entities like state governments, local governments, schools, hospitals, public utilities, houses of worship, and nonprofit organizations to build renewable energy projects like solar arrays, wind turbines, EV charging infrastructure, and storage resources like batteries. This provisioncalled Direct Pay, or sometimes Elective Paygives tax-free cash payments from the IRS. These Direct Pay tax credits create an opportunity to radically expand publicly owned energy, support communities transitioning away from polluting energy sources, generate affordable—and potentially free—electricity, and create good jobs for local communities.

Understanding the Funding Available Through Direct Pay

The funding available through Direct Pay can be unlimited! Direct Pay funds come in the form of refundable tax credits. Since eligible entities like state governments are tax-exempt, the tax credits are cash payments from the federal government and are paid directly to the eligible entity once the project begins generating energy. The credits last until 2032, and once the IRS determines that the project qualifies, the eligible entity will receive direct tax-free funds covering 30% to 70% of the project costs or an amount for each kilowatt generated. Every project that completes a pre-filing process and meets the IRS’ requirements will get Direct Pay funds. Projects that meet worker protection standards, buy American-made materials, and support communities with the greatest need will also qualify for more funding.  The state governments, cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, and other eligible entities can all access this funding simultaneously and do not need to compete with each other for it. Eligible entities are not limited in the number of eligible projects they can undertake. For example, state governments could put solar panels on state-owned buildings, invest in EV charging infrastructure for state fleets, and create a program to build state-owned solar panels and wind turbines in communities across the state. Each of these projects would be eligible for Direct Pay funding once completed, and there is no limit to the number of eligible projects that the state could complete. 

Expanding Racial and Economic Justice Through Direct Pay 

Creating Good Green Jobs

Eligible entities can maximize economic justice for working people by meeting the IRA’s requirements to pay workers a prevailing wage and use registered apprentices on projects so workers get the training they need to build careers. State and local governments can also ensure their projects create safe, high-quality jobs and that projects stay on time and budget by using union labor. State governments can also maximize their impact on economic justice by attaching additional worker protection requirements for Direct Pay-eligible projects that receive state grants or state technical assistance. See the Congressional Progressive Caucus Center’s (CPCC) FAQs on How to Protect Direct Pay Project Workers and Guide to IRA Worker Protection Requirements for more information. 

Lowering Energy Burdens

In addition to creating good green jobs, states can use Direct Pay to increase economic and racial justice by lowering the burden of high energy costs on low-income households. Twenty-five percent of all U.S. households struggle with a high energy burden (i.e., spend more than 6% of their income on energy bills), and 67% of low-income households face a high energy burden. Black households have a 43% higher rate of energy burden compared to non-Hispanic white households. Native American households face a 45% higher burden, and Hispanic households face a 20% higher burden than non-Hispanic white households. Renters and older people also face disproportionate burdens. Publicly owned clean energy infrastructure can play a critical role in lowering energy costs for households struggling to afford to heat and cool their homes because publicly owned energy can serve the public interest rather than shareholder profits, keeping costs down.  

Addressing Environmental Racism

Governments can maximize racial justice by taking on projects that serve the communities that have been hardest hit by racist policies, fossil fuel extraction, and pollution. Black, Indigenous, and other people of color are more likely to live in communities with high pollution burden, that are near dirty power plants, or that are facing catastrophic harm in the climate crisis. For example, the American Lung Association found that people of color are 3.7 times more likely than white people to live in a county with high levels of air pollution. People of color are also disproportionately likely to live in areas affected by heat or flooding and work in occupations where they are exposed to toxic conditions. A rapid and just green energy transition is critical to achieving racial justice. The unprecedented funding offered by Direct Pay is a critical opportunity to begin investing in the communities that have borne the greatest burden under the current extractive energy economy. For example, a state government might build publicly owned resilient power in communities prone to blackouts and outages. Similarly, a state government could build publicly owned utility-scale renewable energy projects to transition away from coal-fired power plants, install community solar for public housing units, or install public EV charging stations in frontline communities. 

Redressing Redlining and Bluelining

Environmental racism subjects communities of color to higher rates of toxic exposure and climate risk. Decades of disinvestment and racist policies like redlining also mean that these same communities are more likely to need help securing the up-front funding to pay for green energy projects. The impact of disinvestment and redlining is magnified in many communities by bluelining and systematic financial discrimination against communities because of perceived environmental risk. This financial discrimination could prevent communities of color and low-income communities from securing the financial resources to build clean energy infrastructure and benefit from the green energy economy. State governments can play an important role in ensuring an equitable implementation of Direct Pay by creating grant programs or revolving funds that provide no-cost or low-cost funding for green energy projects, especially by reserving funding for projects serving communities of color and other environmental justice communities. 

Centering Community Voices

Direct Pay is a perfect opportunity to engage directly with frontline communities so that state-run and state-funded projects reflect the needs and demands of communities themselves. Governments can also prioritize workers of color when hiring for Direct Pay project jobs. Tools like pre-hire collective bargaining agreements can include hiring targets for workers of color, women, workers with disabilities, or veterans. These agreements bring jobs to target communities and shrink racial and gender pay disparities. 

The Role for State Elected Champions

State-level elected champions can help their communities seize this historic opportunity in three key ways
  1. Community education and outreach: State legislators are important and trusted messengers who can spread the word about this opportunity to local governments, community organizations, and other eligible entities within their state. 
  2. Implementation: State legislators can ensure that the state government enthusiastically implements the IRA and pursues Direct Pay projects across the state government and state agencies. 
  3. Funding and policy making: State legislators can use their policy-making function to help other eligible entities implement Direct Pay projects by providing matching funds, creating revolving funds or low/no-interest loans, creating technical assistance programs, and building in incentives to increase equity and protect workers within Direct Pay programs in the state. 

Community Education and Outreach 

Many eligible entities are unaware of the Direct Pay provision in the IRA and its potential to create good green union jobs, lower energy costs, clean up our air and water, and more. State legislators are trusted messengers who can help spread the word about this opportunity to city and county governments and other eligible entities among their constituencies, including school districts, public universities, nonprofit hospitals, houses of worship, and nonprofit community organizations. Opportunities to spread the word about Direct Pay include:
  • Host a town hall or public meeting on Direct Pay opportunities in your community.
  • Host a meeting with city and county officials, school board members, key community groups, and leaders of key anchor institutions in your district, such as large public universities, nonprofit hospitals, and school districts, to encourage them to take action with Direct Pay.
  • Host a meeting with utilities serving your district to encourage them to actively support Direct Pay projects by making interconnection agreements simple and equitable.
  • Host a meeting with local community foundations and other local philanthropists to encourage them to offer grants and funding to support the construction of Direct Pay projects by small eligible entities. 
  • Share information about Direct Pay on social media. 

Sample Direct Pay Communications Materials

  • The CPCC has created a partner toolkit on Direct Pay that includes sample messaging, sample social media posts, shareable graphics, and a shareable video explaining Direct Pay. 
  • CPCC has created a sample presentation on Direct Pay that you are free to use without attribution or adapt for your purposes however you see fit. 

State Implementation 

State governments and state agencies are eligible entities under the Direct Pay provisions. The scale of projects possible at the state level helps ensure that the promise of the IRA is made real.  Example state-level sustainable Direct Pay projects:
  • A state implements a 100% clean energy plan or other climate action plan and uses Direct Pay to supplement the cost of implementing widespread clean energy projects across the state. According to the Initiative for Energy Justice’s Environmental Justice Scorecard, New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (SB 6599) and Washington’s Clean Energy Transformation Act (SB 5116) reflected more environmental justice principles in the creation, implementation, and design of their programs than most existing state 100% clean energy plans. Many of the plans envisioned in these laws would now qualify (at least in part) for Direct Pay tax credits. 
  • A state uses Direct Pay to supplement the cost of electrifying the state fleet through building out solar-powered EV charging infrastructure for state-owned and -operated vehicles. Oregon, Hawaii, Minnesota, and Washington have announced plans to electrify state fleets. Today, building EV charging infrastructure as part of those plans would be eligible for Direct Pay tax credits, and many other parts of the IRA include funding for clean vehicles that could further supplement these plans. 
  • A school district in Batesville, Arkansas, installed solar panels and made its buildings more energy efficient, saving nearly $300,000 per year. The district then used the money saved to raise teacher pay. Today, adding solar panels to school buildings or other state-, city-, or county-owned buildings would also qualify for a Direct Pay tax credit, reducing the cost of the initial investment and creating even more savings that can be applied to teacher pay or other critical community priorities.
  • A state puts solar panels on state-owned buildings from the state house to state agencies, creating good green jobs and lowering energy costs for the state. States can add solar, wind, or other clean energy infrastructure to state-owned buildings directly and claim Direct Pay tax credits or create grant programs to add clean energy infrastructure to other publicly owned buildings. 
  • A state housing agency updates public housing and affordable housing units, including adding rooftop solar to lower energy costs. For example, investments in public housing such as the Massachusetts’ Affordable Homes Act could be expanded using Direct Pay.
  • A state supports state-funded schools to transition to electric buses by matching federal funds to transition local bus fleets and building solar-powered charging stations on school property. For example, Delaware and Maryland are among the states that are moving toward school bus electrification. The school system saves money and reduces dangerous diesel emissions that put our kids at risk. The school system would be able to claim a reimbursement for up to 70% of total project costs with Direct Pay credits for building EV charging stations and solar panels to help offset the costs of transitioning the school bus fleet and could match that with other federal funding for the purchase of electric vehicles.
  • A state builds publicly owned utility-scale renewable energy projects on state-owned land, including Brownfield land or equity-focused community solar projects, and uses that clean energy to transition away from coal- and natural gas-fired power plants. 

State Policy, Funding, and Incentives  

Eligible entities will face a number of challenges in seizing the Direct Pay opportunity, including navigating an unfamiliar process with the IRS, planning and implementing sometimes complex energy projects, and finding the up-front capital to cover the cost of construction and bridge the difference between project costs and the portion eligible for Direct Pay funds. State legislators have a central role in ensuring that their communities can fully embrace this opportunity to take urgent action on the climate crisis, lower energy costs, clean up our air and water, and create good-paying green jobs.  Beyond ensuring that state governments implement Direct Pay-eligible programs, state legislators have the opportunity to help other eligible entities make the benefits of the IRA real in their communities by using state funding and state policymaking tools to help other entities access Direct Pay tax credits. Policies like those that call for 100% sustainable energy by 2030 create the demand and market assurance necessary to fully maximize the benefits of the IRA, but only if they are created and implemented with a central focus on improving life for communities on the frontlines of the extractive energy economy and the climate crisis. This must include community participation in the lawmaking and implementation process and significant, measurable, and enforceable programs designed to restore the communities that have been most harmed.  Providing matching funding will be especially critical for communities with the least access to resources, including frontline and fenceline communities, communities of color, communities transitioning away from extractive economies, rural communities, and low-income communities. Below, we outline some possible examples of Direct Pay financing. We plan to update this when we have more information from the federal government. 

Funding for Direct Pay Projects

While Direct Pay tax credits can provide substantial funding for renewable energy, these projects will need additional funds to cover the full project completion costs. Eligible entities will have to cover the cost of project construction before they receive the tax credit. Depending on the exact Direct Pay tax credit, the payment will either be disbursed as a one-time credit covering between 6% and 70% of total project costs when the project is completed or as a payment based on electricity production over ten years. To learn more about the structure of the specific tax credits, see the CPCC’s in-depth explanation of how the investment tax credit (ITC), the production tax credit (PTC), and other bonus credits work here. The Center for Public Enterprise has produced a financial model that makes it possible to compare the ITC and the PTC for a planned project.   Many under-resourced communities must raise funds to complete a project before Direct Pay funding is available, which poses a significant obstacle. Access to reliable public funding to match federal funds is necessary for many communities to access the benefits of Direct Pay, or they may be vulnerable to predatory lending. State governments can dramatically increase the reach of the Direct Pay tax credits by providing direct funding through grants and by helping local governments and other eligible entities find safe, reliable, and low-cost financing options that do not undermine the public nature of the ownership of these new sustainable energy generation assets.  State funding for Direct Pay-eligible projects increases equity and justice in implementation by adding additional incentives or requirements to target funds toward projects that create good local union jobs and projects that serve frontline communities. The federal government set the floor with the IRA. Now, state legislators can break through the ceiling in achieving maximized benefits for vulnerable communities, the environment, and workers. For example, it is critical to prioritize projects that include community input and reflect community demands rather than simply defining projects by geography, which may unintentionally result in funding projects that disempower or further harm frontline communities.  For more information on how to define environmental justice communities in order to prioritize funding for the communities that have been harmed the most, see the Climate and Clean Energy Equity Fund’s report on defining environmental justice communities in policy Truly just and equitable implementation of Direct Pay will only be possible if policymakers ensure that frontline communities have access to nonpredatory funding. State policymakers can play a critical role in expanding access to Direct Pay in a number of ways, including: 

Direct State Funding

States can appropriate funding for grants to local governments or other eligible entities to cover the up-front costs of projects. States can maximize equity and justice in implementation by requiring projects that receive state funds to meet higher labor and community benefit standards. Additionally, they can prioritize grants for the communities that need them most, such as frontline communities and communities of color.  For example, several states have implemented grant programs to fund clean energy projects. Washington State’s Department of Commerce provides grants for school sustainability, and Minnesota has proposed a grant program to support the installation of solar panels on public buildings. Minnesota also established a state competitiveness grant fund to award grants to local and tribal governments, utilities, nonprofits, and other eligible entities when they required matching funds to access IRA funds. This type of state grant program is critical because it allows local governments or community nonprofits to finance their projects, and Direct Pay ensures that state funds go further. 

State Revolving Funds

To maximize state funds, states could provide funding in the form of a no- or low-cost loan from a revolving fund. While there is not a federally created revolving fund for clean energy, states can establish their own revolving funds to finance clean energy projects. Direct Pay makes those revolving funds considerably less risky, as eligible entities will have a head start on repayment with their Direct Pay reimbursement funds. A no- or low-cost revolving loan fund could work as follows:
  1. A state establishes a no- or low-cost revolving loan fund for local governments, tribal governments, and nonprofit entities within the state. States can add additional worker protections, community participation, and targeting for projects serving the hardest hit communities to the loan fund.
  2. Eligible entities apply to the state for a loan and use the loan funds to complete their project.
  3. The eligible entity pre-files with the IRS once their project is near completion and then applies for Direct Pay tax credits once their project is completed.
  4. The eligible entity receives their Direct Pay funds from the IRS and can apply that toward repaying their loan to the state.
  5. The state reinvests in the next eligible project. 
Many states already have an energy loan fund that supports the generation of clean energy projects or energy retrofits within the state. These loan funds could be expanded or modified to create more opportunities to fund Direct Pay-eligible projects and accelerate the clean energy economy. For example, Texas’ LoanSTAR Revolving Loan Fund currently supports energy efficiency retrofits but could be easily expanded to include Direct Pay-eligible EV charging stations and energy generation projects like rooftop solar or wind turbines.

State and Municipal Bonds for Matching Funds

States, cities, and other government entities can authorize the use of bonds to cover the costs of Direct Pay-eligible projects. States can use bonds to fund state-owned Direct Pay projects or authorize bonds to collectively fund smaller projects at the local level. More information on using bonds for renewable energy is available in the Department of Energy bond resource guide for state and local officials. In 2024, California voters will vote on a ballot measure to authorize $15.5 billion in bonds to finance projects for climate resilience, extreme heat mitigation, and clean energy programs, including a $500 million appropriation to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission for grants to assist in obtaining or receiving a state match to regional hubs for IRA funds. In addition to securing federal grant funds, many of the projects financed by this bond, if it passes, may be eligible for Direct Pay. 

State Green Banks

Some states have Green Banks, which are financial institutions designed to lower energy costs and encourage the construction of sustainable energy infrastructure by blending public and private capital and financing a broad range of sustainable energy projects. While “Green Bank” is often used as an umbrella term for many types of public-private partnerships that finance sustainable energy projects, the IRA contains specific requirements for Green Banks to be able to receive funding. Many states already have established some form of Green Bank, but some are still creating theirs or are still working to meet the new Green Bank requirements in the IRA. 

Using Other Federal Funding Sources

In some cases, eligible entities will be able to further supplement Direct Pay funding by using other sources of funding in the IRA (for example, using grant funding for rural electric co-ops) or using funding from other federal programs such as funding in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act or remaining American Rescue Plan funding.  

Going Beyond the Worker Protection Requirements in the IRA

State funding and state technical assistance programs offer an opportunity to support community uptake of Direct Pay, go beyond the IRA labor requirements, and impose additional protections as a condition of receiving state funds. For example, a state revolving fund to support renewable energy programs could require that programs that receive the state matching funds use union labor. Similarly, state funding could be contingent on the use of pre-hire agreements like local hire programs, Project Labor Agreements (PLAs), Community Workforce Agreements (CWAs), and Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs). It is critical that any state incentives or requirements include strong community input and strong enforcement mechanisms. For more information, please see the CPCC’s Guide to IRA Worker Protection Requirements and FAQs on How to Protect Direct Pay Project Workers States have a critical role to play in supporting workforce development efforts to build the diverse skilled workforce needed to fully embrace a green energy economy. In addition to the jobs created by the IRA and the growth in green energy infrastructure, more than 1.7 million workers are expected to retire over the next decade. Black, Latino, Native, and Asian individuals, and women are dramatically underrepresented in these growing fields, and state agencies must help build inclusive and equitable workforce development programs. The National Skills Coalition has published a report with recommendations for states in building a just workforce development plan.

Technical Assistance and Coordination 

States can maximize the number of eligible entities that can access Direct Pay by coordinating technical assistance programs. Creating programs that will qualify for the Direct Pay provisions often requires specialized planning, including conducting an energy audit, creating an interconnection agreement with a utility, and more. Many smaller nonprofit organizations, local governments, and communities that have been systematically excluded, like low-income communities and communities of color, will need help. 

Technical Assistance

State governments can reduce barriers by funding technical assistance that could include:
  • Public information campaigns about the opportunity 
  • Free energy audits 
  • Hands-on support in planning projects 
  • Support in creating interconnection agreements 
  • Help finding reputable high-road union contractors 
  • Support in completing pre-filing paperwork and IRS documentation. By definition, eligible entities do not usually file complex taxes with the IRS and may lack information and experience in navigating the process. 
Some states have established technical assistance programs to support their state’s access to IRA funds. For example, Washington established a statewide Building Energy Upgrade Navigator Program to support building owners in accessing electrification and energy efficiency services, with specific priority for low-income households, vulnerable populations, and overburdened communities. Washington also appropriated $2.5 million to support activities related to securing federal funds, including funding to help community-based organizations, local governments, and ports in overburdened communities apply for financial resources.  State-funded technical assistance programs can help increase equity with implementation efforts. Communities of color that have experienced high levels of contamination, communities transitioning away from extractive industries, tribal governments, rural communities, and other communities facing systemic exclusion are more likely to struggle to secure the up-front capital necessary to complete a Direct Pay-eligible project. State-funded technical assistance programs targeted to communities that need them most can ensure that all communities have equitable access to the benefits of the Direct Pay tax credits, including cleaner air and water, new green energy jobs, and lower energy costs.

State Direct Pay Coordination Program

Centralizing efforts within a state-run program or with a cross-agency coordinator can help maximize Direct Pay programs that would actively identify possible Direct Pay projects and build them using the state as the eligible entity. A state entity could actively search out Direct Pay-eligible opportunities within communities and build the projects directly (for example, put solar panels on all the schools in a local school district, perform energy retrofits on nonprofit-owned affordable housing units, or build utility-scale solar farms on Brownfield land). If the state retained ownership of the energy-generating facility, the state should claim the credit directly and lift the burden of paperwork from the smaller eligible entity. If the smaller entity plans to retain ownership of the energy-generating facility, the state could still carry out the project and receive funding by creating a side agreement with the eligible entity to transfer the credit to the state in exchange for the state completing the process.  Either of these models would streamline the need for many smaller governments and nonprofit organizations to take on the administrative burdens of designing and building eligible programs and navigating the process to receive the tax credit. These types of programs would be embedded within a relevant state agency such as a state department of energy and would need to work closely with local communities to identify projects that reflect community needs, desires, and priorities. This type of approach requires a larger commitment from state champions, but it could significantly increase the speed at which projects could be implemented, reduce administrative burdens on other eligible entities, and allow the state to prioritize projects that serve historically excluded communities. 

Further Resources

The Congressional Progressive Caucus Center will provide regular updates and further resources on Direct Pay. You can sign up for CPCC updates, including invitations to webinars, technical assistance to help your community get Direct Pay funds, resources to build support for Direct Pay projects, and more. You can also find additional materials, like FAQs on Direct Pay, on the CPCC’s website. You can also request technical assistance on a Direct Pay project through the CPCC’s website by filling out our technical assistance intake form The State Innovation Exchange (SiX) exists to advance a bold, people-centered policy vision in every state in this nation by helping vision-aligned state legislators succeed after they are elected. If you are working to strengthen our democracy, fight for working families, advance reproductive freedom, defend civil rights and liberties, or protect the environment, reach out to helpdesk@stateinnovation.org to learn more about SiX’s tailored policy, communications, and strategy support and how to join a network of like-minded state legislators from across the country. For a constantly updated roundup of resources on the Inflation Reduction Act, Direct Pay, and equitable implementation strategies, please visit the Direct Pay master resources list

 

A joint publication from:

CPCC LogoSIXlogo horizontal RGB highres

SiX Holds Innovations Accelerator Conference in Denver

SiX Holds Innovations Accelerator Conference in Denver

By: Ida Eskamani, Senior Director, Legislative Affairs

We just held our second-ever Innovations Accelerator Conference, bringing together over 150 legislators and movement partners from 29 states to strategize on our work to advance tax justice, gender justice, paid family and medical leave, and taking on corporate monopolies. 

image

SiX joins with movement partners and Legislators at the 2023 Accelerator Conference in Denver. 

We are incredibly proud of the diverse states we convened on various issue-specific tracks, from Alaska to Florida and everywhere in between.  

Here are a few highlights from the conference:

We are grateful to the state and national organizations we collaborated with to organize the conference – including the Progressive Governance Academy. We could not have done this work without our sponsors: the Economic Security Project, National Women’s Law Center, Women’s Democracy Lab, and State Revenue Alliance

As we continue building momentum from this conference, we invite you to explore our latest publication, “States Leading on Leave: A Playbook on Winning Paid Family and Medical Leave," released in partnership with A Better Balance and New America. Based on lessons learned from state lawmakers and advocates, the playbook outlines strategies around expanding paid family and medical leave (PFML) laws in state legislatures nationwide. It provides guidance for coalition building and management, campaign strategy, policy design, and planning for successful implementation, drawn from SiX’s experts and interviews with state legislators and advocates who have recently won PFML enactment in DE, ME, MD, MN, and OR. 

Check out the playbook at: https://stateinnovation.org/pfml.

States Leading on Leave: A Playbook on Winning Paid Family and Medical Leave

States Leading on Leave: A Playbook on Winning Paid Family and Medical Leave

Download Playbook PDF
SIXlogo horizontal RGB
ABB Logo
1200px New America logo

Introduction

No one should have to worry about losing their job for putting their family first during some of the most important moments in life. From the first moments of a child’s life to the last moments in the life of a loved one, we all need time to care for our families, and yet the United States is one of just six countries in the world that does not guarantee paid leave for workers. Although some workers are eligible for up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), just 39% of workers are eligible for and can afford to take six weeks of unpaid leave—workers of color, especially Hispanic immigrant workers, are the least likely to be able to access federal FMLA protections.

In the absence of federal action, lawmakers in 13 states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation establishing a social insurance program that most workers can access to take paid family and medical leave (PFML) to recover from a serious illness, to bond with a new child, or to provide care to a family member with a serious illness.

Momentum for paid family and medical leave legislation has grown rapidly, with eight PFML campaigns celebrating success in the last five years. This publication summarizes some of the lessons learned by the legislative champions and advocates who led the way in ensuring that no one has to choose between caring for their loved ones and the paycheck that their family relies on.

The Basics of Paid Family and Medical Leave

PFML insurance programs vary from state to state but generally cover leave taken by workers for some combination of the following purposes:

  • Medical leave to recover from a worker’s own serious illness;
  • Bonding leave for parents to bond with a new child, including for foster and adoptive parents and those standing in loco parentis to a child;
  • Caregiving leave to provide care for a family member with a serious illness;
  • Military family leave to address needs arising from a family member’s military service; and
  • Safe leave to address personal or family needs arising from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

In most states with PFML, workers are eligible for at least 12 weeks of benefits for covered purposes, often capped cumulatively for workers requiring multiple types of leave within the same year. Some of the earliest programs for paid leave were implemented by building on the infrastructure of an existing state temporary disability insurance (TDI) program. However, since only a handful of states had preexisting TDI programs, in most states, enacting a PFML law is only the beginning of a multi-year process of building administrative infrastructure, collecting payroll deductions, and conducting outreach to employers and employees before benefits can be distributed to workers. Typically, family leave costs are paid for by workers, while medical leave costs are shared between workers and employers.

Eligible workers apply for and receive a weekly benefit amount from the insurance pool that reflects a percentage of their average weekly wages. Most states utilize a progressive wage replacement calculation that ensures that lower-income workers receive a higher percentage of their wages, and in all states, benefits are capped at a maximum weekly rate that is adjusted annually. To ensure that all workers can access the benefits they are entitled to, PFML statutes also generally include provisions that protect workers from being fired or retaliated against by their employer for exercising their rights under the law. Critically, most states also give many workers the right to return to their job following a period of leave.

Click here for more information on the key elements of PFML policy.

Paid Family and Medical Leave Across the U.S.

Lessons Learned for Paid Family and Medical Leave Champions

This publication shares insights on campaign and strategy decisions gathered from interviews with legislators and advocates in states that have advanced PFML. This resource is intended to support champions who are leading on paid leave in their states in building and winning successful campaigns alongside community advocates and workers, as a complement to a wealth of existing literature on PFML, from its many social, health, and economic benefits, to resources that assess how proposals can be designed to promote equitable and inclusive access, particularly for workers of color and low-wage workers. 

The following sections synthesize key themes in coalition building and management, campaign strategy, policy design, and implementation shared in interviews with legislators and advocates in states that have won PFML enactment in Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Oregon.

Delaware Governor John Carney (seated) signs the state's PFML bill into law surrounded by legislators and supporters, including the bill's sponsor, Delaware State Senator Sarah McBride (center-left, in pink). Courtesy of Liz Richards

Section 1: Coalition Building and Management

A well-organized coalition is critical to the success of any legislative campaign, and paid leave champions consistently attribute their success to the many strengths that a diverse membership and a values-based approach to governance bring to a coalition. 

Diverse Membership and Capacity

The passage of PFML legislation was often the culmination of many years of organizing, trust- and relationship-building, and collaboration between lawmakers and coalition members. “The workload for this bill was very heavy, and the amount of information, the amount of conversations that needed to be had were certainly more than one person could handle. You have to have a core group of people who understand what the program is, understand what it does, understand the benefits, and they go out and they talk to people,” said Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann. “So I would reach out to coalition members regularly, even daily, to either ask them to talk to more people or to ask them again how the changes we were making as we went along would affect them.” 

For Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson, the diversity of the coalition brought strength to the campaign: “It takes a village to do this work and to do it well. In terms of the coalition that was built in Minnesota, one of the things that I loved about it was the diversity of the coalition because you had the voices of families with their powerful stories that were so important and critical to putting a face on this issue that can seem theoretical. Working with the faith community, labor, community-based nonprofits, those in the disability community, those who were focused on maternal health issues, our seniors—it was such a strong coalition because we were able to really show the breadth and the need for leave across the life span, and I think that was really powerful.”

It takes a village to do this work and to do it well. In terms of the coalition that was built in Minnesota, one of the things that I loved about it was the diversity of the coalition because you had the voices of families with their powerful stories that were so important and critical to putting a face on this issue that can seem theoretical.

Minnesota State Representative
Ruth Richardson

Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson (center-right, in green) and Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann (center-left, in floral) celebrates the passage of their PFML bill in the state House with supporters. Courtesy of Rep. Ruth Richardson

MINNESOTA Coalition HousePassage

Values-Based Governance

The Time to Care Oregon coalition included over 50 member organizations and had a smaller steering committee that was representative of the entire coalition and tasked with making and executing strategy decisions. “Before we ever got to thinking about how we would draft a specific bill, we wanted there to be an agreement on what the components were,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “When initially setting the table for a coalition, we’ll discuss and agree on policy principles and values.”

The shared understanding of values and goals within the coalition also extended to legislative sponsors in Oregon. “Lawmakers and advocates each play their own role, but in order for them to do it effectively on their own and in partnership, everyone needs to be working at the same level and have a discussion before a legislative session really takes off about the strategy,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “It’s really important that advocates and lawmakers also have that discussion and come to an agreement. That’s not to say that everyone’s going to get everything that they want. We had to negotiate a lot to get to the finish line, but there was an understanding and shared agreement on some core things.” 

MAINE Daughty Cloutier

We were really fortunate to have a coalition that, at the end of the day, put their trust in us to move the policy forward, to not give too much but to hold strong in the places where it was important to hold strong. That is ultimately what allowed us to get this over the finish line.

Maine State Representative
Kristen Cloutier

Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier (right) embraces Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry (left). Courtesy of Rep. Kristen Cloutier

For many legislators and advocates, the practice of developing shared values and principles over the course of years created the critical foundation of trust and relationships necessary to meet the urgent and time-sensitive demands of the legislative session. “One of the things that I’m really thankful for—and I think this is really hard when you’re working with a coalition or any group of advocates—was our ability to maintain trust. The legislature is a really hard place to maintain trust in people and to maintain trust in the process. We were really fortunate to have a coalition that, at the end of the day, put their trust in us to move the policy forward, to not give too much but to hold strong in the places where it was important to hold strong. That is ultimately what allowed us to get this over the finish line,” said Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier.

Section 2: Campaign Strategy

Successful PFML campaigns are often part of a long-term and generative collaboration between lawmakers and advocates to improve the lives of workers in their communities, driven by years of intentional community organizing and thoughtful engagement with all stakeholders.

Preempting Progress: The Intersection of Democracy and Paid Leave

For many states, advancing PFML in the legislature may be a distant reality that will require long-term organizing and investments over many years. In these states, advocates may wish to consider focusing on state employee paid leave campaigns first. Campaigns to pass statewide or local paid sick leave for short-term medical needs, including preventive care, could be another option. 

However, lawmakers in 23 states have enacted laws prohibiting localities from passing their own paid leave laws. Across the country, state lawmakers have increasingly wielded abusive preemption laws to take power away from people and local communities in ways that disproportionately harm Black workers, women, and low-income workers. In addition to statewide PFML for government employees and repealing anti-worker state preemption laws, community benefit agreements (CBAs) for public works projects with paid leave requirements for government contractors may be another window of opportunity in these circumstances.

For more resources on preemption, check out the Local Solutions Support Center’s resources.

Building a Long-Term Plan

In many states, the passage of PFML legislation was just one piece of a multi-year and multi-issue vision for a care system and economy that works for all of us won by building power with communities historically marginalized by public policy. “This was work that had been going on well before I even thought about running for office—lots of work and lots of different people are part of this chain that got us to this point of getting paid family and medical leave across the finish line this session,” said Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson. “One of the very first conversations that I had with members of the coalition was to ensure that we were going to focus on ensuring those who have so often been left out of the safety net were centered within the work. Getting the bill passed, that’s just the first step. And there’s all of this work that needs to happen so that there really truly is equitable access for folks who have historically been left out of this conversation,” Rep. Richardson added.

Paid leave champions often utilize the formal structure and gravitas of a legislative process to work through the complex details of the program alongside stakeholders over the course of several years. Work to develop legislative buy-in began in 2001 when Maine lawmakers established a legislative study committee. Two decades later, Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry and State Representative Kristen Cloutier co-chaired the legislature’s Commission to Develop a Paid Family and Medical Leave Benefits Program for three years before the bill finally passed in 2023. “We started every commission meeting with public comment,” said Sen. Daughtry. “So a lot of the people who were very opposed or very excited about it already had spent three years going through the process with us. They saw their comments get run in simulation models, and we always did our work out in the open.”

Because we really nailed the coalition building and the values and principle setting process, partners knew that we were going to build an effective coalition that was really based in our values and principles and would have good power-sharing practices.

Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon
Courtney Veronneau

OREGON CourtneyVeronneau

The Time to Care Oregon coalition worked alongside lawmakers to advance policy campaigns that built upon each other. “Paid family and medical leave was actually the second policy in a series of policies that we’ve been working on,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “It started when we built the campaign and coalition to pass paid sick days in 2015. Then we used that win—that momentum and foundation—to build toward paid family and medical leave.” The same year that Oregon lawmakers finally enacted PFML in 2019, they also established the Task Force on Access to Quality Affordable Child Care. Just three years later, the coalition won a historic $100 million investment in child care informed by the recommendations of the task force. “Because we really nailed the coalition building and the values and principle setting process, partners knew that we were going to build an effective coalition that was really based in our values and principles and would have good power-sharing practices,” Veronneau added.

“Ripping the Band-Aid Off”: The Urgency of Care in a Public Health Crisis

Under the best of circumstances, our nation’s lack of accessible paid leave exposes families and communities to health risks and economic precarity, but during a pandemic, the urgent need for care altered the discussion of paid leave in state houses. “The COVID-19 pandemic ripped the Band-Aid off of the charade we had that everything’s okay in our country and our state and our communities,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “Even the folks who are against paid family and medical leave had lived that experience of everyone needing time off. People seeing it firsthand is what got it across the line.”

Similarly, in Minnesota, the need for time off during the pandemic helped accelerate the window of possibility for passing PFML legislation. “The tone and the tenor around paid family and medical leave on the floor and in the committee changed while I was carrying this bill,” said Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson. “Instinctively, we all know we need time to care for ourselves, but when you’re in the middle of a global pandemic, I think it becomes harder for people on the other side to say, ‘No, no one needs time away.’” 

Moreover, passing paid leave legislation in the wake of a pandemic that worsened health and economic disparities for communities of color, immigrant communities, and low-wage workers was an important opportunity to connect the dots between how fundamentally flawed systems that exclude some of us affect all of us. “I spent a lot of time telling the story about the way that safety nets in our country have been built in a way that, oftentimes, people who look like me were left out of those safety nets,” said Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson. “Being able to trace the historical context of that back, thinking about that for my own ancestors that were enslaved, this whole idea that you’re not worthy of rest—that your humanity is not recognized. We have a system that is disproportionately leaving out Black, Latine, Indigenous folks, women, LGBTQ+ communities. I really framed conversations around how we have a system where the people who are most likely to have access to leave are the people who are most able to afford leave on their own, versus all of these folks who don’t have access to leave and are a paycheck away from losing everything.”

MINNESOTA Richardson Mann BillSigning 1

We have a system that is disproportionately leaving out Black, Latine, Indigenous folks, women, LGBTQ+ communities. I really framed conversations around how we have a system where the people who are most likely to have access to leave are the people who are most able to afford leave on their own, versus all of these folks who don't have access to leave and are a paycheck away from losing everything.

Minnesota State Representative
Ruth Richardson

Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson (left) and Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann (right) at the PFML bill signing. Courtesy of Sen. Alice Mann

Community Organizing and Outreach

For many legislators and advocates, the wide-reaching scope of a new social insurance program meant that gathering public input early and often was critical to the success of PFML campaigns. “It’s hard for the average person to be able to make it to their state capitol,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “So we went out on tour. We asked people what they thought and got their feedback. By the time the bill hit the news, people had some sort of experience talking to us or looking into the policy. It made a better piece of legislation. And I think it smooths what is a very rocky road for a bill like it to pass anywhere.”

“People are really not used to being asked for input on legislation. And not only are they not used to being asked, but they’re not used to somebody coming to their community to ask that question,” added Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier. “I think our genuine interest really helped to bring the temperature down a bit in a lot of contentious spaces.”

Similarly, legislators and advocates in Delaware took to the road to bring discussions about PFML to communities. “Once we had a bill and were kind of pushing for it, we did a three-county tour, where we brought a variety of stakeholders to basically have roundtable discussions on it,” said Delaware Cares Director Liz Richards. “It was a really great mechanism to learn, but also to organize and create a shared sense of mission and investment. The legislative sponsors were key to that. That was another way to build champions, like giving folks a platform to share their stories, share their support, and get more invested in the issue.”

For Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes, the fight for paid leave was about centering the workers who need paid leave. “My advice to my legislator colleagues is: this is an issue that touches families in a way that’s immeasurable. And so, oftentimes, I would allow the space for the affected families to really take the lead and give their testimony as to why this is important to them,” said Sen. Hayes. 

At the same time, the bill’s passage was deeply personal to Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes: “At a very early age, my grandmother was my caregiver. Fast forward to today, I’ve shared the responsibility of caregiving for my grandmother, which often called for me to step away from work at times to take care of her. In February 2022, I took a week off to spend time with my newborn son, but then I came back to work to make sure this bill got passed. I had to get back to make sure that other families had that opportunity—if they were having a child, that they could actually step away from work and not suffer the consequences of not being compensated by their employer.”

At a very early age, my grandmother was my caregiver. Fast forward to today, I've shared the responsibility of caregiving for my grandmother...In February 2022, I took a week off to spend time with my newborn son, but then I came back to work to make sure we got this bill passed. I had to get back to make sure that other families had that opportunity.

Maryland State Senator
Antonio Hayes

MARYLAND Hayes Headshot 1

Engaging with the Opposition

Legislators and advocates approached their engagement with opponents, particularly corporate business interests, with an open mind, often over the course of years in ways that smoothed final negotiations ahead of bill passage. “We never said ‘no’ to any request to meet,” said Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier. “You still learn from meetings with opponents. When people see that you’re willing to be uncomfortable in order to listen, it builds trust in the process.”

As a small business owner, Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry deeply understood the concerns of many business interests about PFML legislation. “I’ve seen firsthand as an employer not only the cost of keeping your doors open, but also how the best investment you have is in your employees, and I’ve actually lost employees because we weren’t able to provide this type of benefit,” said Sen. Daughtry. “For any large policy, when you really take the time to sit with someone who’s opposed to it, you might not entirely win them over, but they’re going to leave the conversation knowing that you listened.” 

MAINE Daughtry Cloutier Presser

I've seen firsthand as an employer not only the cost of keeping your doors open, but also how the best investment you have is in your employees, and I've actually lost employees because we weren't able to provide this type of benefit. For any large policy, when you really take the time to sit with someone who's opposed to it, you might not entirely win them over, but they're going to leave the conversation knowing that you listened.

Maine State Senator
Mattie Daughtry

Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry (left) and Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier (right) speak at a press conference to introduce their PFML bill with coalition members. Courtesy of Rep. Kristen Cloutier.

Paid leave champions also frequently note that opposition often comes from a place of misunderstanding about how PFML programs function as an insurance program and can benefit business owners. “Myself and other co-authors would have one-on-one conversations with people who are on the fence or were opposed to it,” said Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann. “But really, a lot of people that were on the fence or were opposed to it didn’t understand what the program was. We talked one-on-one with almost every single person in the legislature to educate them about the incredible, undeniable benefits of paid family and medical leave. And we did the same thing with business communities. We would talk to them, or we would ask business owners to reach out to other business owners to go over the benefits that businesses incur when they participate in the program.”

In Minnesota, these discussions resulted in provisions enacted into law designed to address small business owners’ concerns without excluding their employees, including premium reductions for small businesses and a grant program for temporary workers. “We ended up working out a space for businesses with less than 30 employees,” said Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson. “We really tried to be thoughtful around how we were negotiating that support for small businesses.”

Section 3: Policy Design

Navigating policy design and the compromises that come out of negotiations that pave the way to passage is challenging in any legislative campaign; when it comes to a policy as complex as establishing and implementing a multimillion-dollar insurance fund, equitable access and solvency can hinge on just a few key decisions. 

Starting with a Vision

Both legislators and advocates describe the importance of finding alignment on key policy provisions and setting the expectation that some form of compromise will be necessary early on in the process. “You have to have a vision from the start of where you want this to end up, of how you want this program to look like,” said Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann. “That vision is a culmination of what you think is right, what the advocates think is right, and what will actually benefit people. So when you start crafting the bill, make sure that you have that vision in mind and always start above your vision.”

“With the coalition, in the early stages, we weren’t sure what the lines in the sand were for our partners,” said Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier. “Getting to the point where we understood what the lines in the sand were for our partners, we understood what the lines in the sand were for ourselves, and knowing where we could give and where we needed to hold strong was really important.”

“You have to be really upfront that not everyone’s going to get something. It almost sort of felt like a headline that we’d walk into: everyone would get some wins; everyone would get some losses,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “And once you made it clear that it wasn't going to be ‘my way or the highway,’ I think that really helps. But really building that trust and having the people around you who can be those types of messengers who are not only involved in the policy but understand what the parameters are that have to be kept in check.”

You have to have a vision from the start of where you want this to end up, of how you want this program to look like. That vision is a culmination of what you think is right, what the advocates think is right, and what will actually benefit people. So when you start crafting the bill, make sure that you have that vision in mind and always start above your vision.

Minnesota State Senator
Alice Mann

Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann (center) celebrates the passage of the PFML bill in the state Senate with supporters. Courtesy of Sen. Alice Mann

MINNESOTA Mann SenatePassage

Weighing Compromise

With a vision in hand at the outset, legislators and coalitions can begin to weigh where compromise would and would not be acceptable based on shared values and goals. “Inevitably, you will get to a point where you have to negotiate, and I think the big question is likely going to be, ‘Do we cover everyone for less time? Or do we cover less people for more time?’” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “Are you essentially cutting some people out of the program, like part-time workers or low-wage workers? For our coalition—and lawmakers felt the same way—we were all in agreement that we’re going to go with less time off, but we’re going to cover everybody. That’s something you need to figure out before; I think it does make those things a little bit easier when it comes, if you can figure out those types of negotiation bottom lines first. Think about building the foundation for the best possible program you can absolutely get that covers everyone, that gets them the most time that you can get them, and that is set up in a way that people can actually use it.”

Some common compromises, however, are not only counterproductive to ensuring that workers who can least afford to take paid leave will be able to access the new program but can even undermine the solvency of the insurance fund. “There is always going to be an appetite to make an exception,” said Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes. “The key to paid family leave is to have as much participation as possible so the fund can be and remain solvent. We’ve seen many cases throughout the country in states that have allowed certain exemptions or allowed certain carve-outs where the fund did not generate enough to support itself as it should. The whole idea behind this is for this insurance policy to be self-sustaining, and you don’t want to compromise in a way that jeopardizes the fidelity of the program.”

A Cautionary Tale: Voluntary Paid Leave and Other Alternative Paid Leave Models

The comprehensive programs adopted in 13 states and the District of Columbia are designed to provide access to PFML to all workers, but in recent years, some states have adopted a narrower approach that continues to leave most workers without adequate access. New Hampshire lawmakers enacted legislation (2021 NH HB 2) to provide six weeks of paid family leave to public employees. Under the new law, private employers can voluntarily opt in to the program, and workers can choose to purchase their own paid family leave insurance. A similar approach was adopted through executive action in Vermont

Legislators in Virginia passed a bill (2022 VA SB 15), based on a model bill proposed by the insurance industry, to allow insurers to sell paid family leave insurance plans that meet certain requirements. Texas lawmakers recently enacted similar legislation (2023 TX HB 1996). This approach provides no guaranteed right to PFML for workers and is billed as a private market solution. However, the private market has not met the incredible demand for PFML nationwide. Moreover, legislation authorizing private insurers to offer voluntary paid family leave insurance policies to employers may not be legally necessary in some states.

Paid leave champions should approach both models with some caution. New Hampshire officials recently announced that only 1% of employers have signed up for the voluntary program, while only 644 individual workers have purchased the insurance. Meanwhile, only one insurer has sought and received approval to offer paid family leave insurance in Virginia.

Building Collaboration into Negotiations

Delaware State Senator Sarah McBride (center-left, holding mic) speaks at a roundtable discussion about PFML. Courtesy of Liz Richards

The Time to Care Oregon coalition would assemble its negotiating team based on which organizations would provide the necessary policy expertise and the power and influence to succeed in the room. “When it came to negotiations where we needed an even smaller set of folks, essentially we were able to then collaborate as a team to strategize heading into negotiations,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “We would always have conversations with our legislative champions beforehand; we were always trying to work as much as we could to get on the same page as much as we could. We saw ourselves as having different roles, but when we were headed into that room, we were like part of a team.”

Long before it came to negotiations, the Time to Care Coalition also agreed to an inclusive process for decision-making on key policy provisions. “If there was ever a policy negotiation on a piece that directly impacted a constituency that was not represented in the room but was part of our coalition, we all had a very firm line and an agreement that whoever was in that room was not going to agree to anything before being able to go back and have conversations with that particular constituency,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon.

This process was recently tested during the 2023 legislative session when lawmakers were considering legislation to amend the state’s PFML program, including expanding the definition of “family member” under the program. “The business lobby wanted to specify what ‘affinity’ meant, and there was a discussion on whether we wanted to specify that in statute or rules, and immediately we wanted Basic Rights Oregon to know about this and weigh in on definitions and what kind of language would be best,” said Lisa Kwon, Policy Manager at Family Forward Oregon.

When it came time for policy negotiations in Delaware, legislators continued to communicate developments with community members. “The willingness, the exercise of listening and continuing to have an open line of honest communication, which I think Delaware State Senator Sarah McBride did extremely well, even in communicating tough choices,” said Delaware Cares Director Liz Richards. “Continuing to talk to people, including the most impacted people, is critical, and frankly, remembering them when they’re not there because they can’t be there. More often than not, low-wage workers don’t have time or aren’t even invited into the room. It’s really, really hard work to advocate and go to powerful people and beg for things that are owed to you—that takes a lot. Legislators are sent there to fight for the people who aren’t in the room.”

DELAWARE Richards Headshot

Continuing to talk to people, including the most impacted people, is critical, and frankly, remembering them when they're not there because they can't be there. More often than not, low wage workers don't have time or aren't even invited into the room.

Delaware Cares Director
Liz Richards

Section 4: Planning for Successful Implementation

Getting PFML legislation signed into law is just the beginning of a multi-year implementation process. Legislators and advocates have a critical role in this process, from working with the administering agency in the regulatory process to educating workers about their new rights.

Agency Partnerships and Regulatory Oversight

Legislators and advocates alike highlight the importance of maintaining a collaborative effort to engage in the implementation of the new law, particularly to monitor the influence of business interests in the rulemaking process. “One of the challenges that we experienced during implementation was continuing the momentum of the coalition that worked together to pass paid leave,” said Lisa Kwon, Policy Manager at Family Forward Oregon

“Lawmakers shouldn’t underestimate their ability to push back on agencies,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “It really helps if agencies are hearing from lawmakers in chorus with advocates. It has much more of an impact. You can pass the greatest, most inclusive, amazing bill that you want, but if you do not stick with it through implementation, where so many decisions can be made, that can undermine the intent of what it was that you were trying to pass. So make sure that you really plan that into your work as a lawmaker and into the work plans of your office and your office staff.”

In Maine, lawmakers also established an independent authority to help oversee the implementation and administration of the state’s new PFML program in future years. “We created an independent authority that has Senate confirmation and has a fiduciary duty to the fund so that we have a body beyond the legislature whose sole job it is to keep an eye on this,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “We built in all these different safeguards so even if there’s something that comes up, we built in the mechanism for it—we looked at what some other states have had to deal with in terms of solvency and some other issues.”

“All the major decisions when it comes to solvency, fund amount, benefit calculation are consistently linked away from legislators, away from politics, and tied into economic data and ongoing actuary science,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “We thought about building the fund to not only protect it from ourselves as a legislature, but also from the economy, and also from proponents or opponents. So it’s a well-guarded economic engine. Not only did we get a great policy, but we built in mechanisms to make it more responsive and be able to adapt and be flexible in itself.”

Public Outreach and Education

The successful utilization of new PFML programs requires an extensive and thoughtful approach to educating the public about how the new law will affect their lives. “One of the things that I’ve learned since passing the legislation is that our outreach efforts need to be intense. This is a different way of doing business—it’s a culture shift. So, there needs to be some intentionality about reaching people in the community on what the benefit is,” said Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes. “We need not underestimate what that will take and how much that will cost. I have been working with the implementing agency and helping them to understand the intensity and level of outreach that’s going to be needed to make sure that this is successful.”

We learned from California that without appropriate outreach the program essentially fails right in their first year...so what we did is we put money aside every year in our bill. That money is going out to community programs that have 'boots on the ground' that can talk to employers about the existence of the program, how to use the program, who qualifies, and how employers can appropriately use the program also.

Minnesota State Senator
Alice Mann

MINNESOTA Mann Headshot

In the months and years after passage, legislators often face a great deal of confusion about new PFML programs among constituents and businesses alike who have heard about previous versions of the bill or read misinformed media reporting on the bill. “We learned from California that without appropriate outreach the program essentially fails right in their first year, no one knew it existed, and so what we did is we put money aside every year in our bill,” said Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann. “That money is going out to community programs that have ‘boots on the ground’ that can talk to employers and employees about the existence of the program, how to use the program, who qualifies, and how employers can appropriately use the program also.”

“Folks have so many questions about the program, and the rulemaking process hasn’t even started yet, so it’s hard to address some of the concerns being raised,” said Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier. “There were different iterations of the bill that people are responding to. And so we’re having to figure out where their questions are coming from, which iteration of the bill they’re referring to, and answer those questions based upon what they think is factual, which may not actually be included in the law that was passed. That’s been challenging.”

“The other thing for policymakers that I think gets lost in a lot of legislation is to make sure that your authorizing agency has a marketing budget,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “Legislators are often quite keen in the budget process to jettison that type of expense, but I think any policy that applies to everyone needs to have posters, easy-to-navigate website, quality design, ensuring that you have the best staff—preferably in-state staff—answering calls and claiming benefits.”

Conclusion

Together, state legislators and advocates have led the nation in ensuring that all workers can afford to take time away from work to be with their loved ones during life’s most important moments. As paid leave champions look to make paid leave a reality in their own states, they can turn to some of the lessons of recent successful campaigns.

  1. Building a diverse and values-aligned coalition of support. Coalitions are made stronger with a breadth of expertise, capacity, perspectives, and political power among their membership, and by strong working relationships founded upon trust and shared values.
  2. Executing a campaign with a vision that extends beyond policy passage. Successful campaigns take the time to center communities and deep discussions with stakeholders to ensure that each policy win builds to the policy win over the course of a generation.
  3. Developing a shared vision for policy while planning for principled compromise. Legislators and coalitions work together to understand where there is and isn’t room for compromise ahead of time and develop a process that prioritizes continued collaboration in the face of time-sensitive negotiations.
  4. Planning for continued coordination through implementation and rollout. Success can only come when policy changes the lives of families and communities; legislators and advocates must continue to collaborate and engage through rulemaking and outreach to ensure that the program achieves the policy’s goal.

Additional Resources

Lessons Learned from State PFML Campaigns and Programs

Policy Design

State Paid Family and Medical Leave Laws

Research

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the following people who generously offered their time and expertise on paid family and medical leave in interviews to inform this publication:

Pressure's On: How SiX Legislators are Fighting Back

Pressure's On: How SiX Legislators are Fighting Back

By: Nahal Zamani, Senior Vice President, State Strategy & Services

Across the country many statehouses have wrapped up their legislative sessions, and have faced extraordinary challenges along the way. SiX’s network of legislators engages in a strategic deliberation each legislative session by responding to immediate threats and the onslaught of attacks on our rights, while also daring to be visionary. This is never an easy balance.

Below, we share significant learnings and moments from this year’s legislative session: 

When anti-abortion lawmakers came after bodily autonomy, SiX’s network of legislators was on the frontlines.

This June, our SiX Reproductive Rights team premiered Fractured, a five-part, first-of-its-kind docuseries spotlighting legislators in action amid one of the most contentious and monumental fights of our lifetime. 

c1Be8v9wFLdCXna7aZYJ6Wi5sx48kfuTv yUaob2mXtwzp9qtxxVH17ekNWNquEnpGUJRCrRWnZPQN5umfxIVV pFDEOghUg OiUopLUKrrBDvRYLBDIVqOk 9GkoxUZromMnmnjFAG7dHZ75 DKTv4

Caption: North Carolina Sen. Natalie Murdock, Former Kentucky Rep. Attica Scott, and Florida Rep. Anna Eskamani, all participants in the Fractured docuseries, hold pañuelos verde, a symbol of solidarity with the transnational movement for abortion rights ignited in Argentina.

Fractured captures lawmakers from our Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council, medical professionals, faith leaders, and activists mounting a response to the most dire assault on abortion rights in decades. At a time when Americans’ fundamental rights are increasingly under threat from authoritarian forces, Fractured showcased a cross-section of elected officials who work with communities, not against them; support bodily autonomy, not undermine it; and inspire hope, not cynicism. 

This legislative session, our Reproductive Rights team worked closely with legislators and movement partners to advance and protect abortion access across the country. Despite consistent public opinion in support of legal abortion, abortion is banned in 13 states, leaving large regions of the country without abortion care and contributing to increased wait times at clinics in states where abortion remains legal. Some states are further testing the legal limits of the post-Roe landscape by passing extreme restrictions, such as a ban on helping a young person travel out of state to access legal abortion care. Find out more in our latest publication, The State Abortion Policy Landscape One Year Post-Roe, in partnership with the Guttmacher Institute

Lastly, states like GA, TX, MS, and MO expanded postpartum Medicaid coverage, an issue that has been championed by Black women legislators and reproductive justice groups for years. And in a major win, over-the-counter and pharmacist-prescribed birth control was expanded in states like IL, NV, NY, and MD.

We championed working families and advanced economic justice.

In May, a strong comprehensive paid family and medical leave insurance program was signed into law in MN, making it the first midwestern state to pass paid family and medical leave. Under the new program, most workers in the state will be able to take up to 20 weeks of job-protected paid leave if they qualify. This legislation was led by Sen. Alice Mann and Rep. Ruth Richardson, members of SiX’s Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) Legislator Cohort Project.

Earlier this month, ME became the 13th state, along with D.C., to pass paid family and medical leave legislation. Under this legislation, nearly all workers in ME will be entitled to up to 12 weeks of paid leave each year if they qualify. This legislation was also led by our cohort members, Sen. Maddie Daughtry and Rep. Kristen Cloutier. Similarly,  MI repealed its  anti-worker ‘right-to-work’ law; NV and VT passed state-sponsored retirement savings plans; and MN passed a new antitrust law establishing a “public interest standard” for hospital mergers,  protecting access to care and workers’ collective bargaining power. 

The fight continues in all states, and as we celebrate the victories, we also recognize that working families faced a plethora of regressive legislative proposals, too. IA and AR passed dangerous laws weakening child labor protections; FL passed legislation undermining public sector unions' right to organize, and TX passed an omnibus preemption law erasing countless local laws, including heat stress protections for outdoor workers. 

We remained steadfast in our commitment to advocate for Black farmers and rural communities against corporate lobbyists.

We hosted U.S. Sen. Cory Booker’s staff for a Justice for Black Farmers: Where Are We Now? Webinar, focusing on the Justice for Black Farmers Act and how to advance farmer equity in the states. The SiX Agriculture & food systems team also supported legislators who organized alongside advocates and impacted individuals to advance farmer equity bills, including a Black farmer breakfast for legislators in GA and Black Farmer Lobby days in NC and IL. This work demonstrates the power that comes from legislators and advocates working in partnership to advance good policy forward. 

For the past two years in OR, rural community members, advocates, and legislators have been attempting to strengthen the way the state regulates mega livestock operations or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) in order to protect rural communities and the environment from the negative impacts associated with raising massive numbers of animals in confinement. SiX  partnered with local impacted communities to host a legislator tour of proposed poultry CAFO sites, leading to a working group examining shortcomings with how states regulated mega livestock operations and culminating with the introduction of the CAFO Moratorium bill. This bill, despite being amended and weakened due in part to pressure from the corporate agribusiness lobby, demonstrates what can be achieved when legislators work directly with impacted communities, farmers, and advocates instead of corporate lobbyists.  

Protecting democracy remains a crucible for our work together.

Democracy remains under threat. This legislative session, CT expanded early in-person voting, preclearance requirements for problematic jurisdictions, expanded language assistance, increased protections against discrimination in voting, and instituted  a civil offense for poll worker intimidation; ME expanded mail ballot access for caregivers and people with disabilities, and instituted  automatic voter registration; in AL, compensation for election clerks and inspectors was raised; NV created a new reservation based polling system; and in AR, we saw increased flexibility for overseas voters returning ballots and for election officials to establish vote centers. CT, MN, and NM passed state Voting Rights Acts. We also remain extraordinarily proud of the leadership of the legislators of Southern Freedom to Vote Alliance who are working across the South to advance democracy.

As we saw in the resolution of crucial U.S. Supreme Court cases, state legislators remain at the front lines of how we protect our freedom to vote and uphold the tenets of our democracy. 

We fought back against the passage of anti-LGBTQ+ laws that were both heinous and insidious.

This session, we also saw efforts to protect access to gender affirming care, expand existing civil rights provisions, and ban conversion therapy. When anti-LGBTQ fights in FL spread outside the state into NC, SiX connected advocates on the ground in FL to both NC and GA to learn best practices and build off of our collective work. 

SiX has maintained a deep focus on organizing and caucus work, especially with regard to racial, gender, and LGBTQ identity. We believe that supporting and empowering identity caucuses is one of the most powerful strategies for legislators to reshape the center of power in their respective legislatures, and to ultimately build long-term durable power for their communities. From helping launch the first LGBTQ caucus in NV, to coordinating public support from all four identity caucuses in CO for the Equal Pay bill, to garnering support from members to speak up for OK State Rep. Mauree Turner and MT State Rep. Zooey Zephyr after they faced calls for censure for defending the rights and dignity of transgender, non-binary, and intersex people – SiX is embedded with our caucus members and chairs. 

The road ahead.

While we may have struggled, each and every one of us consistently showed up and engaged to fight for our values and defend our freedoms. What some consider to be “legislative losses,” SiX sees opportunities for guiding how we must work and govern differently. Together, we must look forward and strategize with our movement partners and our legislator network to shape the country we want to live in. 

This is co-governance at its finest.

Fractured: Stories From a Post-Roe America

Fractured: Stories From a Post-Roe America

A new series coming June 24, 2023 chronicles the experiences of state legislators from across the country as they fight to defend abortion rights and expand access for all Americans.

Fractured: Stories From a Post-Roe America
Fractured follows state legislators from across the country as they fight to defend abortion rights and expand access for all Americans after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade

State Government for the People: SiX Principles for State Management of Federal Funds

Each year, state and local governments collectively receive and spend billions in federal funds, which accounted for 40.5% of all state spending in 2021, to provide important services to the public. Federal law and regulation establish some restrictions on the use of federal grants to varying degrees, but state lawmakers have considerable power to leverage federal funds in support of the public services that guarantee all families the opportunity to thrive.

This publication offers a blueprint to state legislators for a values-based approach to managing federal funds from the planning, policymaking, and implementation stages. By working together with advocates and communities, state lawmakers can ensure that we have the resources to deliver quality schools, affordable healthcare, and public services that make communities stronger.

Screen recorded preview of the microsite for State Government for the People: SiX Principles for State Management of Federal Funds

At-A-Glance: Family Caregiver Discrimination

A joint publication with:

WLL Logo

Introduction

No one should be forced to choose between providing care for their loved ones and keeping the paying job that they need to survive. Prohibiting employment discrimination against family caregivers promotes economic security, health, and equity by ensuring employees can meet all of their obligations. 

What Is Family Caregiver Discrimination?

Family caregiver (or family responsibilities) discrimination occurs when parents and those who care for their elderly or disabled family members suffer adverse employment actions due to an employer bias that caregiving responsibilities make workers unreliable, uncommitted, and less valuable as employees—regardless of actual job performance. These assumptions can lead to lower wages, lack of advancement, harassment, and job loss. Employment discrimination against workers with family caregiving responsibilities is common and has devastating economic and health consequences. 

What Laws Currently Protect Family Caregivers from Discrimination?

Four states (Alaska, Delaware, Minnesota, and New York) and over 200 local jurisdictions around the country explicitly prohibit discrimination based on parental  or caregiver status—covering almost a third of the American workforce. 

In states where family caregivers are not explicitly protected, employees facing discrimination must instead rely on a complicated and incomplete patchwork of state and federal laws. Laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex, pregnancy, disability, and race, or retaliation for taking/requesting leave can protect caregivers in certain situations, but many are not covered, leaving caregivers with no legal rights. And even when rights do exist, the interplay of anti-discrimination laws and caregiver bias is widely misunderstood by employers and courts. Too many workers fall through the cracks.

What Are the Benefits of Caregiver Anti-Discrimination Laws? 

Statutes prohibiting discrimination based on family caregiver status help to ensure workers are treated based on their job performance, instead of bias. This reform has the power to promote economic, health, and gender equity by ensuring that common life events, like becoming a parent or tending to a sick relative, don’t cause families to fall into poverty, and they are critical for women’s economic advancement and closing the wage gap. These laws may also help to improve caregiver mental health and to ensure children, people with disabilities, and the elderly are well taken care of. 

Black father smiling with baby parent

Caregiver anti-discrimination laws also have the power to help employers avoid lawsuits. Because discrimination against family caregivers can cause employers to run afoul of laws that prohibit other forms of discrimination (e.g., on the basis of sex, pregnancy, and disability), lawsuits brought by family caregivers for violations of these other laws have been on the rise. However, laws that explicitly prohibit caregiver discrimination provide much-needed clarity to employers that this form of treatment is illegal. And discrimination complaints filed with state enforcement agencies decreased after these laws went into effect. The annual likelihood a company will be sued under a family responsibilities discrimination law is essentially zero (0.001%), according to data from the four states that already prohibit it. 

Example Caregiver Anti-Discrimination Legislation

While none of the existing state laws that address family caregiver discrimination require employers to provide worker accommodations, recent legislation includes this pro-worker policy option. See below for examples of both.

Accommodations Not Required: Delaware – Enacted state legislation (2016 DE HB 317/Chapter 292) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an individual due to their family responsibilities. Employment discrimination can take many forms, including decisions on hiring and firing; compensation; employment terms; work conditions; or any privileges, opportunities, or status provided to employees. This law specifies that it does “not create any obligation for an employer to make special accommodations for an employee with family responsibilities, so long as all policies related to leave, scheduling, absenteeism, work performance, and benefits are applied in a non-discriminatory manner.” 

Accommodations Required: California – A recent state bill (2022 CA AB 2182) would not only prohibit employment discrimination on account of family responsibilities, but it would also require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee who needs to care for a family member due to unforeseen closure of a school or unavailability of a care provider. These accommodations could include using paid time off, making overtime optional, reducing work hours, working remotely, swapping shifts with a coworker, or temporarily changing job duties. A San Francisco ordinance includes the right to a flexible or predictable working arrangement, which includes accommodations such as changing hours/schedule, job sharing arrangements, predictable hours, and telework. 

Policy expert Liz Morris on caregiver discrimination

Resources for Action

At-A-Glance: Anti-Retaliation Legislation to Protect Workers and the Rule of Law

A joint publication with:

WorkplaceJusticeLab RU stack dpi

Introduction

States across the U.S. have enacted innovative laws to address rising levels of economic inequality by going beyond the minimum protections offered at the federal level. However, enacting a higher state minimum wage or paid sick leave laws is not enough. Effective enforcement is crucial to ensuring that workers—particularly women, immigrants, and BIPOC workers—benefit from legislation that is intended to raise labor standards. Lawmakers must ensure that state labor agencies have the tools and resources that they need to successfully enforce worker protection laws. 

Retaliation through “adverse employment actions”is a means to punish workers who speak out and to discourage other workers from coming forward. For example, workers have been fired, been blacklisted, had their hours reduced, experienced negative changes to their schedules or duties, or suddenly been told that their I-9s were not valid. For labor law enforcement to be effective, “protected activities” like reporting a labor law violation, cooperating in an investigation, and testifying at trial must truly be protected. Without worker cooperation, it is exponentially more difficult for enforcement agencies to conduct thorough investigations into whether employers are violating labor laws.

“The successful enforcement of worker protection law depends on workers being empowered to and feeling safe enough to speak out for themselves and their fellow workers.” Maia Fisher, Regional Solicitor for the U.S. Department of Labor

Policy Option: Rebuttable Presumption of Retaliation

The challenge for labor standards enforcement agencies and workers is that retaliation, though pervasive, is notoriously difficult to prove. In recent years, actions have been taken in several states to address this challenge and strengthen retaliation protections by including a rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken soon after a protected activity is retaliatory. In effect, this flips the burden onto the employer—the party that holds the evidence as to why it took the adverse action—to prove that the adverse action was taken for a non-retaliatory reason.

State Legislative Examples of Rebuttable Presumption of Retaliation 

Rebuttable presumption of retaliation has been included in minimum wage and paid sick leave laws in Arizona; California; New Jersey; and Washington, D.C. Other states have passed laws that apply to certain industries. For example, Pennsylvania’s Construction Workplace Misclassification Act includes a rebuttable presumption of retaliation, and in 2021, Colorado and Nevada enacted this protection for agricultural and hospitality workers, respectively. In 2022, lawmakers across the U.S., including in Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and West Virginia, introduced bills to include a rebuttable presumption of retaliation when an adverse action is taken within 90 days of a protected activity.

Policy Option: Comprehensive Definitions

Where the definitions of “protected activity” or “adverse action” are too narrow, an enforcement agency’s ability to find and remedy retaliation is curtailed. Strong retaliation protections require comprehensive definitions of these elements. For example, “protected activity” should include the exercise of any right guaranteed by the law (e.g., use of sick leave), filing a complaint, participating in an enforcement action, making inquiries about a protected right, and informing any person of an alleged violation of a right guaranteed by the law. Similarly, “adverse action” should be defined broadly enough to account for the many different forms of retaliation.

Policy Option: Increased Damages

Too often, even when the elements of a retaliation are established, the damages the aggrieved person can recover are too low to fully remedy the direct and collateral harm. Likewise, the penalties available for retaliation violations are commonly too small to deter additional acts of retaliation. Strong retaliation protections must include sufficient damages to fully rectify retaliation—including backpay, front pay, and reinstatement—and civil penalties and/or fines that are high enough to serve as a deterrent.

Policy Option: Injunctive Relief

While it is imperative to remedy retaliation for the aggrieved persons, such remedies come at the conclusion of the investigation. In the meantime, those who suffered retaliation still bear the consequences. Additionally, the chilling effect of ongoing retaliation during an investigation can limit worker cooperation such that investigators cannot establish the true extent or nature of the violations. To mitigate the impact of retaliation and preserve the integrity of the investigation, agencies need the ability to immediately intervene and obtain a temporary or preliminary injunction. Such injunctions help to maintain the status quo pending a final judgment.

Frequently Asked Questions

strawberry farmworker x

1. Why is illegal retaliation so hard to prove under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)?

To determine retaliation has occurred, enforcement generally must find that three elements have been established: 1) a worker engaged in a protected activity; 2) an employer took an adverse action; and 3) there is a causal connection between the adverse action and protected activity. Under the FLSA and many state laws, the initial burden is on the worker to prove these three elements. Most often, it is the causal connection that is the hardest to substantiate because the worker rarely has access to any evidence documenting the employer’s true motives, and employers in most states have full discretion to take adverse employment actions against workers for almost any reason, or no reason at all.

2. Is retaliation widespread?

Retaliation is alarmingly common. A national survey found that 43% of workers who complained to their employers about pay and working conditions were subjected to illegal retaliation.

3. What is the impact of retaliation?

For the individual worker, retaliation often results in lost wages, collateral losses (e.g. eviction), and emotional distress. Retaliation also causes a chilling effect that impacts the entire workforce. An adverse action against one worker sends a message about the ramifications of reporting a violation or cooperating in an investigation. The fear of retaliation is especially effective at silencing many of the same workers who are most likely to experience wage theft and other workplace violations. Retaliation often renders agencies’ enforcement efforts less effective, especially against the worst violators.

Policy expert Jenn Round from Rutgers Workplace Justice Lab on Workers' Rights

Additional Resources

Anti-Racist State Budgets: Progressive Revenue

This primer is part of a series on anti-racist state budgets. To understand the concept of creating anti-racist state budgets, it is important to understand the difference between racist and anti-racist ideas and policies. The following excerpts are from How To Be An Antiracist (2019) by Ibram X. Kendi: 


Racist vs. Anti-racist Ideas

A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society. . . An antiracist idea is any idea that suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences – that there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group. Antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities.

Racist vs. Anti-racist Policies

A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. . . There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups. 

For additional race-equity concepts and definitions, please visit the Racial Equity Tools glossary webpage.

Overview

We all benefit from funding for education, health care, infrastructure, and other vital services regardless of race, gender, or income level. But the wealthy few have used an army of lobbyists and complicit lawmakers to drive down their own tax rates and to rig the rules. This has created regressive state tax systems that too often exacerbate income inequality across both race and income.[i] In “Progressive Wealth Taxation,” UC Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman explained that the top marginal federal income tax rate dropped from more than 70% between 1936 and 1980 to only 37% since 2018, and “when combining all taxes at all levels of government, the U.S. tax system now resembles a giant flat tax.”[ii]

Flat taxes, and even worse, tax codes that levy higher taxes on low- and middle-income families, worsen income inequality and widen the racial wealth gap. Tax structures in 45 states exacerbate income inequality—in the 10 most regressive states, families at the bottom 20% of the income distribution pay up to six times as much in taxes as the state’s wealthiest families.[iii] While the investments made possible by taxes are a powerful force in combating racial inequities, the way those taxes are collected, and from whom, remains deeply inequitable. Regressive state tax policies have deep and lasting roots in anti-Blackness,[iv] and in tandem with discriminatory and exploitative policies that embedded racism across all social and economic systems (e.g., in ownership of land and access to housing, education, and credit[v]), state tax policies have not meaningfully addressed the growing racial wealth gap; and in many states, especially in the South,[vi] these policies actually make racial disparities worse. As of 2016, Black and Latinx families had a median net worth of $17,600 and $20,700, respectively, compared to $171,000 for white families.[vii] A recent study concluded that “if you belong to a historically marginalized racial or ethnic group, your racial status is the stronger predictor of your economic position than your education, income, and in this case, employment status and position.”[viii]

Line chart shows the share of net worth of all U.S. households from 1989-2019. In 2019, White Americans held 85.5% of the country’s net worth; black Americans, held 4.2%. (Data source: https://www.vox.com/2020/6/17/21284527/systemic-racism-black-americans-9-charts-explained)


Strong communities and thriving families are built upon a foundation of public investments that benefit us all. Investments in good schools, affordable health care, and transportation infrastructure pay off for everyone. Research shows that higher levels of income inequality create a drag on economic and state tax revenue growth.[ix] States with fairer tax codes enjoy faster economic growth, faster income growth, and increased employment levels than states that are reliant on regressive taxes like sales and excise taxes.[x]

Under a lopsided tax code, a state’s poorest families are paying the most in taxes, while also bearing the brunt of disinvestment when tax revenues decline. During the Great Recession, states slashed education and health care budgets in the face of revenue shortfalls, with lasting consequences for low-income Black, brown, and white communities.[xi] Years of public disinvestment have left the same communities less prepared to weather the COVID-19 public health crisis and future economic downturns. For example, many states have used budget surpluses to push for “shortsighted, costly, permanent tax cuts,”[xii] which leaves these communities more vulnerable to future budget cuts,[xiii] especially as states again grapple with the risk of budget shortfalls.[xiv]

It doesn’t need to be this way; together we can rewrite tax codes to benefit us all. We’ve done this before, so we know that progressive revenue can stimulate economic growth, reduce income inequality, and narrow the gaps in income and wealth created through centuries of racism and discrimination.

Policy Considerations

Policymakers have the power to generate needed revenue by revamping their existing state’s tax codes. They can implement innovative approaches that build a more equitable future and center the needs of communities of color and low-income communities. When considering ways to promote racial equity and reduce wealth inequality in state tax systems, state legislators should refer to the following policy options and work with national and local advocates, especially those groups that center race equity, to develop the best policies for their state.

The wealthy use a range of tax avoidance strategies,[xv] including characterizing income from labor as business income, with pass-through business income in the form of long-term capital gains or dividends, all of which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary personal income. The wealthy can also defer realizing capital gains and their inheritors can avoid taxes on these gains after they die. As explained by USC professor and tax law expert Edward J. McCaffery in his law journal article “The Death of the Income Tax,” the current tax code is really a wage tax, not an income tax, and those in the 1% of net wealth do not rely on their wages but instead use their assets as collateral to borrow tax-free.[xvi] The uber-wealthy are able to avoid income taxes and create generational wealth by relying on wealth instead of income through a process that McCaffery refers to as “buy, borrow, die.”[xvii] Therefore, we start with one of the most impactful progressive revenue reform ideas to address these loopholes: the wealth tax.

Group of diverse students at daycare or classroom

WEALTH TAX

Wealth taxes apply to either an individual’s net worth (total assets net of all debts) or some targeted asset class, which could include financial assets such as bank accounts, bonds, stocks, and/or non-financial assets such as real estate, yachts, sports cars, or other luxury goods. A wealth tax on a household above an exemption threshold is a critical tool for capturing revenue from the most affluent members of society who possess substantial wealth but may have comparatively lower incomes.

It is possible for the wealthiest households to have low taxable income because our tax codes have been designed to allow them to escape taxation in different ways. For example, the tax code does not address unrealized capital gains since until these assets are sold, they are not “taxable income” and thus, much of one’s wealth would not appear on their annual tax returns. (See Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ report on the issue of special tax breaks for the wealthy for more information.)[xviii]

Estimates from UC-Berkeley professors Saez and Zucman indicated that a federal tax of 2% on net wealth above $50 million and 3% on net worth over $1 billion would only impact 0.1% of (or 75,000) American households and raise $2.75 trillion over a 10-year period.[xix]

Examples of Wealth Tax Legislation

Wealth Tax Design

An OECD study of European wealth taxes includes the following policy recommendations:[xxii] Low tax rates, especially if the net wealth tax comes on top of capital income taxes;Progressive tax rates;Limited tax exemptions and reliefs;An exemption for business assets, with clear criteria restricting the availability of the exemption (ensuring that real business activity is taking place and that assets are directly being used in the taxpayer’s professional activity);An exemption for personal and household effects up to a certain value;Determining the tax base based on asset market values, although the tax base could amount to a fixed percentage of that market value (e.g., 80%-85%) to prevent valuation disputes and take into account costs that may be incurred to hold or maintain the assets;Keeping the value of hard-to-value assets or the value of taxpayers’ total net wealth constant for a few years to avoid yearly reassessments;Allowing debts to be deductible only if they have been incurred to acquire taxable assets—or, if the tax exemption threshold is high, consider further limiting debt deductibility;Measures allowing payments in installments for taxpayers facing liquidity constraints;Ensuring transparency in the treatment of assets held in trusts;Continued efforts to enhance tax transparency and exchange information on the assets that residents hold in other jurisdictions;Developing third-party reporting;Establishing rules to prevent international double wealth taxation; andRegularly evaluating the effects of the wealth tax.

ESTATE TAX

Another way states can tax wealth is through an estate tax, which is levied on the estate (money and property) of the most affluent individuals who have passed away. While there is a federal estate tax[xxiii] on estates valued over $12 million (as of 2022), only 12 states and the District of Columbia have their own estate tax.[xxiv] More states have considered implementing this extremely progressive tax because it helps to prevent the growth of “dynastic wealth” by directly targeting the intergenerational transfer of wealth and addressing the racial wealth gap. In 2016, 9 out of 10 households with assets above the federal estate tax threshold of $5.5 million were white.[xxv]

Examples of Estate Tax Legislation

INHERITANCE TAX

While an estate tax is a levy on one’s estate, an inheritance tax is levied on those who inherit money or property of a person who has died. Inheritances are a major contributor to growing wealth inequality and disparities between white households and households of color. One reason white families hold more wealth is they are considerably more likely to receive an inheritance, a gift, or additional family support.[xxvi] Specifically, nearly 30% of white families report having received an inheritance or gift, compared to about 10% of Black families, 7% of Hispanic families, and 18% of other families. More robust taxation of inherited wealth not only reduces the transfer of concentrated wealth from one generation to the next, but it also serves as a progressive source of revenue for critical services that we all depend on.

Examples of Inheritance Tax Laws

Only six states impose inheritance taxes. Of these states, Nebraska (NE Stat. 77.2004, 77.2005, and 77.2006) has the highest top rate at 18% as of 2022. The state’s inheritance tax is imposed on all property inherited from the estate of the deceased. The value of such property is based on the fair market value as of the date of death, and the amount of the tax depends upon the recipient's relationship to the deceased. The surviving spouse pays no inheritance tax, children and other close relatives pay a 1% tax beyond an exemption amount, and more distant relatives pay a maximum 13% tax. In all other cases, the rate of tax is 18% on the clear market value of the beneficial interests in excess of $10,000. Unfortunately, recently enacted legislation (2022 NE LB 310) will reduce many of these rates and/or raise the exemption amounts starting in 2023.

The following states also levy a tax on inheritance. See below for details on their tax rates:

Black and Brown families wait to cross the street at the light in the Bronx, New York

PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX

When the political realities do not allow for a wealth tax of some kind, an incremental step toward reducing the racial wealth gap is to design state personal income tax systems to better ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share. As of 2021, nine states do not even have a broad-based state income tax,[xxvii] many of which heavily rely on sales and excise taxes, a practice that the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) deemed a characteristic of the most regressive state tax systems.[xxviii] States such as California, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Vermont have highly progressive income tax brackets and graduated-rate tax structures that allow them to tax different income at different rates.[xxix] In addition, at least eight states (CA, CT, HI, MD, MN, NJ, NY, and OR) and D.C. have enacted long-lasting millionaires’ taxes since 2000.[xxx] A 2022 ballot initiative in Massachusetts would raise the income tax rate for incomes above $1 million from 5% to 9%.[xxxi]

Examples of Progressive Income Tax Legislation & Ballot Initiatives

The graduated income tax structure ensures the most affluent individuals, who are mostly white,[xxxii] pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than their lower- and middle-income counterparts.

Millionaire Migration/Tax Flight Myth

This myth refers to the idea that taxing the wealthiest individuals will encourage them to leave and migrate to other states with lower taxes. Anti-tax advocates and politicians often use this myth to advocate for more tax cuts and regressive tax systems. However, the people who tend to move most frequently are not the rich, but instead are typically young college graduates and the lowest income residents who earn below-market incomes and want a better quality of life.[xxxvii] While a very small number of wealthy households may leave as a result of tax increases, migration rates for higher-income earners are low and have little effect on the millionaire tax base.[xxxviii] Research has shown that increasing tax rates on affluent households results in a net positive fiscal impact over time.[xxxix]  

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

States should also consider strengthening their taxes on capital gains income—the profits an investor realizes when selling an asset that has grown in value, such as shares of stock, mutual funds, or real estate investments. The Brookings Institution has a resource on capital gains reforms that discusses the current state of capital gains taxes on a federal level and different ways policymakers can use such taxes as a progressive source of revenue.[xl]

While some states levy a tax on personal income and capital gains at the same rate, as of 2021, nine states provide the wealthiest households with special tax preferences for their capital gains by taxing long-term capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income.[xli], [xlii] These special tax breaks and preferences prioritize investors’ capital gains income at the expense of the wages and salaries earned by working families and lower-income households of color.

Examples of Capital Gains Tax Legislation

Note on the Carried Interest Loophole

Investment funds—such as private equity and hedge funds—are often organized as partnerships. These partnerships typically have two types of partners: general partners and limited partners. General partners manage the fund, while limited partners typically only contribute capital to the partnership. General partners can receive two types of compensation: a management fee tied to a percentage of the fund’s assets and a profit share; or “carried interest,” tied to a percentage of the profits generated by the fund. In a common compensation agreement, general partners receive a management fee equal to 2% of the invested assets plus a 20% share in profits as carried interest. The management fee, less the fund’s expenses, is subject to ordinary federal and state income tax rates (the top federal income tax rate for individuals in 2020 is 37%) and the federal self-employment tax. However, taxation of the carried interest is deferred until profits are realized on the fund’s underlying assets, when at such time, the carried interest is taxed [the same] as investment income received by the limited partners. Thus, if the investment income consists solely of capital gains, the carried interest is taxed only when those gains are realized and at a lower capital gains rate on the federal level (the top capital gains tax rate in 2020 is 20%, plus a 3.8% net investment income tax). (Source: Fiscal and Policy Note for 2021 MD SB 288)[xlv]
Asian toddler playing on laptop with mother

EXCESSIVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TAX

In addition to a lack of progressive taxes, another contributing factor to the rise in income inequality is the excessive pay for chief executive officers (CEOs). Rather than raising the wages for their workers, corporations are increasing the wealth of their CEOs who make hundreds—sometimes thousands—of times more than their employees. Research has shown that excessive executive pay is not based on value of a CEO’s work and has a spillover effect that “helps pull up pay for privileged managers in the corporate and even nonprofit spheres.”[xlvi] Policymakers can work to address corporate greed and fight for wealth equity by closing the CEO-worker pay gap through an excessive executive compensation tax.

Examples of Excessive Executive Compensation Legislation

RAISING PROGRESSIVE MUNICIPAL REVENUE

While legislatures have the power to reform their state’s tax codes, they also have the ability to increase municipal revenue through progressive strategies. However, there are states that limit municipal powers from implementing progressive taxation structures. For example, some states have statutory and constitutional limits on the amount of property taxes that can be levied at the local level.[xlviii] As property tax revenues often support locally provided public services and amenities, state limitations on such taxes prohibit local governments from fully investing in such services. As a result, municipalities are forced to reckon with deep spending cuts, resulting in severe consequences for and decreasing the quality of life of their residents.

Income inequality is an issue that significantly affects communities on not only a national and state level, but on a local and regional scale as well. In order to effectively address disparities in wealth, state policymakers can consider legislation to promote progressive tax structures within municipalities, including repealing any state preemption of local revenue-raising authority. (See Local Progress’s 2015 report for more information about the major obstacles of raising municipal revenue, along with policy recommendations for cities, regions, and states to make local tax collections more progressive.)[xlix]

Mother nursing baby while toddler jumps on bed

Public Opinion Polling

The following sample of public opinion polls over the last few years demonstrates a strong support nationally and in sampled states for increasing taxes on the rich, including through a wealth tax, and for protecting key public programs.

NATIONAL POLLS

60% of Americans say billionaires don’t pay the full amount they owe in taxes - YouGov poll [l]

The Need for a True Wealth Tax to Support Those Most in Need Due to the Coronavirus - Data for Progress and the Justice Collaborative Institute [li]

Economy Poll - Reuters/Ipsos [lii]

January Tracker Poll - GSG, GBAO, and Navigator [liii]

Voters Support the Thrive Agenda - Data for Progress [liv]

Voters in Key States Support a Wealth Tax - Data for Progress [lv]

Small Businesses Support Raising Taxes on the Wealthy - Businesses for Responsible Tax Reform [lvi]

ALG Research for Tax March/ATF [lvii]

PBS NewsHour/Marist [lviii]

New York Times/SurveyMonkey [lix]

Financial Times/Peterson Foundation [lx]

STATE POLLS

Massachusetts - WBUR (May 2018) [lxi]

New Jersey - Rutgers/Eagleton/FDU (April 2019) [lxii]

Illinois - Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University (Spring 2020) [lxiii]

New York - Hart Research (January 2020) [lxiv]

Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas - Data for Progress (September 2020) [lxv]

Wisconsin - Public Policy Polling (July 2019) [lxvi]

Florida - Public Policy Polling (June 2019) [lxvii]

 

Additional Resources


Endnotes

[i] Wiehe, M., Davis, A., Davis, C., Gardner, M., Christensen Gee, L., & Grundman, D. (2018). Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/whopays-ITEP-2018.pdf

[ii] Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2019). Progressive Wealth Taxation. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall 2019. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Saez-Zuchman-final-draft.pdf

[iii] Wiehe, et al. (2018). Who Pays?

[iv] Leachman, M., Mitchell, M., Johnson, N., & Williams, E. (2018). Advancing Racial Equity With State Tax Policy. Center on Budget and Policies Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/advancing-racial-equity-with-state-tax-policy

[v] Kent, A. H., Lanier, N., Perkis, D.F., & James, C. (2022). Examining Racial Wealth Inequality. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2022/03/01/examining-racial-wealth-inequality

[vi] Das, K. (2022). Creating Racially and Economically Equitable Tax Policy in the South. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/creating-racially-and-economically-equitable-tax-policy-in-the-south/

[vii] Dettling, L. J., Hsu, J. W., Jacobs, L., Moore, K. B., Thompson, J. P., & Llanes, E. (2017). Recent Trends in Wealth-Holding by Race and Ethnicity: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.2083

[viii] Addo, F. R., & Darity, W. A. (2021). Disparate Recoveries: Wealth, Race, and the Working Class after the Great Recession. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162211028822

[ix] Petek, G. J., Bovino, B. A., & Panday, S. (2014). Income Inequality Weighs On State Tax Revenues. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1301747/s-amp-p-income-inequality-weighs-on-state-tax.pdf

[x] Davis, C., & Buffie, N. (2017). Trickle-Down Dries Up: States without personal income taxes lag behind states with the highest top tax rates. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/trickledowndriesup_1017.pdf

[xi] Johnson, N., Oliff, P., & Williams, E. (2011). An Update on State Budget Cuts: At Least 46 States Have Imposed Cuts That Hurt Vulnerable Residents and the Economy. Center on Budget and Policies Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/an-update-on-state-budget-cuts

[xii] Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. (2022). State Tax Watch. https://itep.org/state-tax-watch/

[xiii] Auxier, R.C. (2022). How Post-Pandemic Tax Cuts Can Affect Racial Equity: An Examination of How State Tax Changes Affected Different Income Groups and Representative Households in Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, and Ohio. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/105447/how-post-pandemic-tax-cuts-can-affect-racial-equity_1.pdf

[xiv] Dadayan, L. (2022). States Forecast Weaker Revenue Growth Ahead of Growing Uncertainties. Tax Policy Center. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/states-forecast-weaker-revenue-growth-ahead-growing-uncertainties

[xv] Batchelder, L. L., & Kamin, D. (2019). Taxing the Rich: Issues and Options. SSRNhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3452274

[xvi] McCaffery, E. J. (2019). The Death of the Income Tax (or, the Rise of America's Universal Wage Tax). USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 18-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3242314

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Marr, C., Jacoby, S., & Bryant, K. (2019). Substantial Income of Wealthy Households Escapes Annual Taxation Or Enjoys Special Tax Breaks. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/substantial-income-of-wealthy-households-escapes-annual-taxation-or-enjoys

[xix] Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (January 18, 2019). [Letter to U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on impact of proposed wealth tax]. Retrieved from https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/saez-zucman-wealthtax.pdf

[xx] Leiserson, G., & McGrew, W. (2019). Taxing wealth by taxing investment income: An introduction to mark-to-market taxation. Washington Center for Equitable Growth. https://equitablegrowth.org/taxing-wealth-by-taxing-investment-income-an-introduction-to-mark-to-market-taxation/

[xxi] Invest In Our New York, (2021). Invest In Our New York Act [Fact sheet]. https://www.investinourny.org/media/pages/home/1f8653f0b6-1614711481/ionyactsummary_outlines_updatedmar02-2021.pdf

[xxii] OECD. (2018). The Role and Design of Net Wealth Taxes in the OECD. OECD Tax Policy Studies, 26. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264290303-en

[xxiii] Tax Policy Center. (2020). Key Elements of the U.S. Tax System: How do the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes work? The Tax Policy Center’s Briefing Book. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-estate-gift-and-generation-skipping-transfer-taxes-work

[xxiv] Urban Institute. (n.d.). State and Local Backgrounders: Estate and Inheritance Taxes. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/estate-and-inheritance-taxes

[xxv] Maxwell, C., & Solomon, D. (2017). 4 Ways Repealing the Estate Tax Would Expand the Racial Wealth Gap. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/4-ways-repealing-estate-tax-expand-racial-wealth-gap/

[xxvi] Bhutta, N., Chang, A. C., Dettling, L. J., & Hsu, J. (2020). Disparities in Wealth by Race and Ethnicity in the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.2797

[xxvii] Wiehe, et al. (2018). Who Pays?

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] Ibid.

[xxx] Tharpe, W. (2019). Raising State Income Tax Rates at the Top a Sensible Way to Fund Key Investments. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/raising-state-income-tax-rates-at-the-top-a-sensible-way-to-fund-key

[xxxi] Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Massachusetts Tax on Income Above $1 Million for Education and Transportation Amendment (2022). Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Tax_on_Income_Above_$1_Million_for_Education_and_Transportation_Amendment_(2022)

[xxxii] USAFacts. (2020). White people own 86% of wealth and make up 60% of the population. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://usafacts.org/articles/white-people-own-86-wealth-despite-making-60-population/

[xxxiii] Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. (2019). How Does Your State Tax Income? https://itep.org/personal-income-tax-rate-structure-by-state/

[xxxiv] Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Illinois Allow for Graduated Income Tax Amendment (2020). Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://ballotpedia.org/Illinois_Allow_for_Graduated_Income_Tax_Amendment_(2020)

[xxxv] Sturm, V. (2020). Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s graduated-rate income tax: Here’s what you need to know. Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-cb-illinois-pritzker-graduated-income-tax-20200820-g3lrqjqp2ne7rkjxkjammf2ub4-story.html

[xxxvi] Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Arizona Proposition 208, Tax on Incomes Exceeding $250,000 for Teacher Salaries and Schools Initiative (2020). Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_208,_Tax_on_Incomes_Exceeding_$250,000_for_Teacher_Salaries_and_Schools_Initiative_(2020)

[xxxvii] Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. (2018). No Need for the MythBusters, the Millionaire Tax Flight Myth is Busted Again. https://itep.org/no-need-for-the-mythbusters-the-millionaire-tax-flight-myth-is-busted-again/

[xxxviii] Young, C., Varner, C., Lurie, I. Z., & Prisinzano, R. (2016). Millionaire Migration and Taxation of the Elite: Evidence from Administrative Data. American Sociological Review, 81(3) 421–446. http://cristobalyoung.com/development/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Millionaire_migration_Jun16ASRFeature.pdf

[xxxix] Tannenwald, R., Shure, J., & Johnson, N. (2011). Tax Flight Is a Myth. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tax-flight-is-a-myth

[xl] Enda, G., & Gale, W. G. (2020). How could changing capital gains taxes raise more revenue? Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/01/14/how-could-changing-capital-gains-taxes-raise-more-revenue/

[xli] McNichol, E. (2021). State Taxes on Capital Gains. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-taxes-on-capital-gains

[xlii] Grundman O’Neill, D., & Wiehe, M. (2016). The Folly of State Capital Gains Tax Cuts. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/the-folly-of-state-capital-gains-tax-cuts-1/

[xliii] Campbell, G. (2019). Fiscal Note on H.541: An act relating to changes that affect the revenue of the State- Committee of Conference. Vermont Legislative Joint Fiscal Office. https://ljfo.vermont.gov/assets/Publications/House-Bills/7bb5bb90ee/GENERAL-340238-v5-Final_Revenue_Bill_Fiscal_Note.pdf

[xliv] WA Dept. of Revenue. (2021). Capital gains tax Q&A (2019-21 proposal). Office of Financial Management. https://ofm.wa.gov/budget/state-budgets/gov-inslees-proposed-2019-21-budgets/proposed-2019-21-budget-and-policy-highlights/revenue-changes/capital-gains-tax-qa

[xlv] Rehrmann, R. J. (2021). Fiscal and Policy Note for Senate Bill 288. MD Dept. of Legislative Services. https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2021RS/fnotes/bil_0008/sb0288.pdf

[xlvi] Baker, D., Bivens, J., & Schieder, J. (2019). Reining in CEO compensation and curbing the rise of inequality. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/reining-in-ceo-compensation-and-curbing-the-rise-of-inequality/

[xlvii] Institute for Policy Studies. (n.d.). CEO-Worker Pay Resource Guide. Retrieved July 25, 2022, from https://inequality.org/action/corporate-pay-equity/

[xlviii] Lav, I. J., & Leachman, M. (2018). State Limits on Property Taxes Hamstring Local Services and Should Be Relaxed or Repealed. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-limits-on-property-taxes-hamstring-local-services-and-should-be

[xlix] Sebastian, S., & Kumodzi, K. (2015). Progressive Policies for Raising Municipal Revenue. Local Progress and The Center for Popular Democracy. https://localprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Municipal-Revenue_CPD_040815.pdf

[l] Orth, T. (2022). 60% of Americans say billionaires don’t pay the full amount they owe in taxes. YouGov. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/04/01/americans-say-billionaires-dont-pay-full-taxes

[li] Markovits, D. (2020). The Need for a True Wealth Tax to Support Those Most in Need Due to the Coronavirus. Data For Progress and The Justice Collaborative Institute. https://www.filesforprogress.org/memos/wealth-tax-coronavirus.pdf

[lii] Ipsos. (2020). A majority of Americans agree that the very rich should contribute an extra

share of their total wealth to support public programs [Press release]. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-01/topline_reuters_economy_poll_pt_1_01_10_2020_0.pdf

[liii] Global Strategy Group & GBAO. (2020). Navigator January Tracker [Survey data]. https://navigatorresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Navigator-January-Tracker-Toplines-F01.24.20.pdf

[liv] Deiseroth, D., Mulholland, M., & NoiseCat, J. B. (2020). Voters Support the Thrive Agenda. Data For Progress. https://www.filesforprogress.org/memos/voters-support-thrive-agenda.pdf

[lv] Winter, E. (2020). Voters in Key States Support a Wealth Tax. Data For Progress and Roosevelt Forward. https://www.filesforprogress.org/memos/voters-in-key-states-support-a-wealth-tax.pdf

[lvi] Businesses for Responsible Tax Reform. (2019). POLL: Small Businesses Want to See Presidential Tax Returns, Support Raising Taxes on the Wealthy. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/4a8609_130cf041386d48ae9409bc191bcf8cdb.pdf

[lvii] ALG Research. (2019). Online Nationwide Tax Poll [Survey data]. Americans for Tax Fairness. https://americansfortaxfairness.org/wp-content/uploads/Baseline-Nationwide-Tax-Online-Poll-March-15-20-2019.pdf

[lviii] Marist Institute for Public Opinion. (2019). NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll of 1,346 National Adults [Survey data]. http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1907190926.pdf#page=3

[lix] Wronski, L. (2020). New York Times|SurveyMonkey poll: November 2020. https://www.surveymonkey.com/curiosity/nyt-november-2020-cci/

[lx] Peter G. Peterson Foundation. (2020). Majority of Voters Support Higher Taxes for Wealthy and Corporations — and Want Next President to Pay for His Priorities. https://www.pgpf.org/infographic/majority-of-voters-support-higher-taxes-for-wealthy-and-corporations-and-want-next-president-to-pay-for-his-priorities

[lxi] Brown, S. (2018). WBUR Poll: Ballot Questions On Sales Tax Rollback And 'Millionaire's Tax' Maintain High Support. WBUR. https://www.wbur.org/news/2018/05/31/sales-tax-millionaires-tax-ballot-poll

[lxii]  Rutgers-Eagleton/FDU. (2019). Joint Rutgers-Eagleton/FDU Poll: New Jerseyans Support Millionaires Tax [Survey data]. https://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/release_04-04-19.pdf

[lxiii] Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. (2020). Simon Poll, Spring 2020 (statewide) [Survey data]. https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=ppi_statepolls

[lxiv] Molyneux, G., & Garin, G. (2020). New Yorkers’ Support for New Taxes on Billionaires and

Ultra-Millionaires [Poll memo]. Hart Research Associates.

[lxv] Winter. (2020). Voters in Key States.

[lxvi] Williams, J. (2019). Wisconsin Voters Strongly Support Raising Taxes on the Rich [Poll memo]. Public Policy Polling. https://taxmarch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Wisconsin-Voters-Strongly-Support-Raising-Taxes-on-the-Rich.pdf

[lxvii] Williams, J. (2019). Florida Voters Strongly Support Raising Taxes on the Rich [Poll memo]. Public Policy Polling. https://taxmarch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Florida-Voters-Strongly-Support-Raising-Taxes-On-The-Rich.pdf

Legislator Spotlight: TN Minority Leader Karen Camper


Karen Camper has represented Tennessee's District 87 for over twelve years and is the first African American House Democratic leader in the state's history. She sits on the House Finance Ways and Means Committee, House Business and Utilities Committee, Ethics Committee, House Rules Committee, and Joint Pensions and Insurance Committee.

This interview is part of a series for No Democracy Without Black Women, a report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.


What drove you to become a leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives?

 I started my life on the southside of Chicago, where I was very involved in school and in my community. My mother and grandmother set that tone and expected success. I have lived these values of being active in my community since I was young. I was an activist in college, demanding that the college divest from interests in South Africa over apartheid, and after college I volunteered to serve my country in the United States Army. 

In my role as a State Representative, I make sure that the people in my community have their voices heard and that we have a seat at any table where decisions are made. This drive propelled me into leadership.

What role do you see Black women playing in state legislatures? And what makes Black women so well suited at this moment to lead?

When we look at the future of our country and how to make things better, one of the most important challenges we must tackle is to make sure that every stakeholder has a seat at the table. It doesn’t matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat. We all need to be able to talk to each other about what is really important—community, family, opportunity, fairness, justice.  

I think Black women are well-positioned to lead because we have our roots in community, we know how to build bridges, and we know how to lead in the face of adversity. I know how important it is to spend time meeting with people in my community to make sure they all have a voice in crafting our policy priorities.

There are techniques and strategies that you can use as a leader, and part of it is recognizing your strengths and using them to advocate for your constituents. You also have to remember people come from various walks of life, they all come here out of their love and commitment to the mission. Everyone can contribute. I've walked in that mindset here in the Tennessee General Assembly. 

I have had strong mentors and I think that is incredibly important as you navigate this world.  Keep following your path, reach out for help and guidance when you need it and the rest will come along. 

Looking back over the last few years, could you share a victory that was particularly meaningful?

It is always important to show up and fight every day for your values. I advocate for justice and equality for all human beings. Just three years ago, I collaborated with my colleagues in the Tennessee General Assembly to officially recognize Rosa Parks Day in Tennessee. This acknowledgment was as much a reminder to future generations of Tennesseans as it was a tribute to the past. Three of the four Minority Leadership members in the House and Senate are African American, and two of us are women.. As the two highest-ranked women of color in Tennessee’s legislative history, we recognize that our work would not have been possible without the sacrifices of people who were persecuted for exercising their civil rights and the millions who continue to march in the spirit of equality. The ideals Rosa Parks embodied are those that I continue to fight for today.

Legislator Spotlight: Maryland Speaker Adrienne A. Jones

Adrienne Jones is the first woman and first African-American Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates. In 2021, she introduced and passed an ambitious set of bills to address health and financial disparities in Black communities. This interview is part of a series for No Democracy Without Black Women, a report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.


You have successfully reached the heights of leadership in the Maryland legislature. What propelled your trajectory to becoming Maryland Speaker of the House?

Throughout my career, I worked hard to take advantage of the opportunities that have been presented to me – from my transition from the central committee to delegate and Speaker Pro-Tempore to Speaker of the House. 

After graduating from UMBC, I was unsure about my career goals but knew I wanted to make a difference. I applied and was accepted into a federal government program that helped recent college graduates find their first job. Just six months after I graduated from college, I began working for Baltimore County government. My first position was a Clerk III serving as an Assistant to the Assistant Director of Central Service. A few years later, I joined the Baltimore County Executive’s Office as an aide where I discovered my love for public service. 

While I continued to work for Baltimore County, I volunteered on several political campaigns, served on numerous community service boards and commissions, and was appointed as a Member Baltimore County Democratic Central Committee.

In 1997, following the death of one of the Delegates in the 10th district, I was encouraged by my Senator Delores Kelley and then County Executive Dutch Ruppersberger to apply for her vacant Delegate seat. But finally agreed to compete for the seat in a crowded field of 16 other candidates and I was appointed in October of 1997 by Speaker Casper Taylor. I subsequently ran for re-election in 1998, won and have won every reelection since then.

On November 20, 2002 at 8:30pm, I received a call from then Chairman Michael Busch that changed everything. He told me that he was going to run for the Speaker position and asked if I would run with him as his Speaker Pro Tem. I told him yes right away, and he and I were Speaker and Speaker Pro Tem for 16 years until his death in April of 2019.

Following Speaker Busch’s death, I was unanimously elected by the full House of Delegates to become Speaker of the House. My story serves as a lesson that you never know who is watching, and you never know when opportunities will become available to you.

What challenges did you face in your rise to leadership?

Initially, I was reluctant to compete for the delegate seat because I was caring for my sick mother, but finally agreed. After being a Delegate for a few years, I would ask myself, “Did I make a mistake?” There weren’t enough women or people of color serving with me. In this country there have been only two other Black women as Speakers in their states—current Congresswoman Karen Bass and New Jersey Lieutenant Governor Sheila Oliver. I spent late nights in my office reading bills only to get on the House floor and hear some men talk loudly and say nothing in their floor remarks. It’s important that women – particularly women of color – have a voice in government. I’m reminded of the old expression “If not you, who? If not now, when?”

You introduced the Black Agenda this legislative session. Can you elaborate on the impact the policies will have on Black communities post COVID-19, especially how they will address the wealth gap?

Absolutely. The Black Agenda is a comprehensive approach to providing more economic opportunity and upward mobility for more Black Marylanders. It targets five key areas including health, housing, corporate management, business, and government. It will have a lasting impact, not just as we recover from COVID. 

The most common large investment of any American family is a home, but redlining mortgage rates and banking investments since the New Deal have left Black families in Maryland without this valuable wealth creation tool. As a result, we passed a bill that creates tax-free savings accounts for all first-time homebuyers. We passed a bill preventing housing loan and credit applicants from being denied if they can provide alternate forms of creditworthiness, like a history of rent payments or utility payments. We also passed a bill requiring Maryland companies to report on the racial diversity of their boards to demonstrate diversity in their membership, leadership, or mission in order to qualify for state capital funding tax credit contracts over $1 million. Another part of the agenda is declaring racism a public health crisis and requiring health workers to undergo healthy equity and bias training. 

I'm seeing a difference after this legislation was passed. I'm looking forward to doing more to ensure that no communities will be left out. Everyone should have the opportunity to build wealth in Maryland and across the country.  

Legislator Spotlight: TN State Senator Raumesh Akbari

Senator Raumesh Akbari is the first African American chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus in the Tennessee Legislature. She serves on the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee and the Senate Education Committee. Akbari has represented the 29th District since 2018 and previously represented the 91st District as a state representative from 2014 to 2018.

This interview is part of a series for No Democracy Without Black Women, a report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.


What compelled you to run for office as a millennial?

I was one of those weirdos that knew early on that I wanted to run for elected office. As far back as middle school, I knew I wanted to run because I thought, “If you don't like the way the law is, you have to change it.” I was inspired by the National Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King, and all of the folks protesting for the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. That really motivated me.

Over the years, I saw a lot of problems in my community and people shared their concerns with me. I knew that actually having a seat at the table where legislation is being made would give me an opportunity to make a direct impact. You can raise awareness of an issue, get people’s attention, and then really make change with legislation. When I first got elected, I was the youngest member in the legislature and I knew that was an important role to fill.

How did you become acclimated to the transition to working in the legislature as an elected official?

I ran for the Senate in 2018 and now serve as the Senate Democratic Caucus Chairwoman, and I'm the first Black woman to be in that role. I understand that I'm not just there for myself and the things that are important to me, but I am also there to represent other Black women and encourage other Black women. Now for the first time ever, we have three Black women in the State Senate.

I'm here, I have a seat at the table and I represent the people who elected me. I did not over promise and I knew there were some good things that I could pass. I also recognized that even while I'm in the super minority, it's about building relationships. Building relationships is the key to actually passing legislation.

As far as my priorities go, I've tried to lean into three main areas: criminal justice reform, education reform, and economic development. I think those issues really translate across the aisle and will also make a big difference for people in my district.

Every day is a different day. This work is not for the faint of heart. It's difficult, it's heavy. Look, you can do this, but you have to know there’s a lot of work that comes along with it.

You have been an advocate for criminal justice reform. Where do you see the political landscape shifting around rights restoration and prison gerrymandering?

We've been talking about prison gerrymandering and restoration of rights for a long time. Our situation in Tennessee is particularly unfair. We are the only state in the entire union that if you exit the justice system and have child support payments still, you have to pay them before you can have your voting rights restored. You also have to pay your fines and fees before you can register to vote.

What happened in the Florida legislature after the victory for rights restoration on the ballot in 2018 was modeled off of Tennessee’s laws. Republicans in the Florida legislature rolled back that victory and the vote of the people with fines and fees and other language meant to dissuade eligible voters from voting. Other southern states also target Black and brown voters with requirements to pay all your fines and fees before you can vote. 

Unfortunately, I feel that many legislators are taking steps backwards in Tennessee when it comes to criminal justice reform, but that doesn’t mean we will stop the fight. With the organizing that happened within the Black Lives Matter movement and the national recognition and investment to change these laws, I am hopeful. There are activists and advocates who will not give up this fight.

Legislator Spotlight: TN State Rep. London Lamar

Representative London Lamar is the youngest female legislator in the 112th Tennessee General Assembly. She serves as Secretary of the House Democratic Caucus and sits on the Finance, Ways and Means, and Criminal Justice committees. Lamar has represented the 91st District since 2018.

This interview is part of a series for No Democracy Without Black Women, a report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.


What compelled you to run for office?

I've always wanted to run for office. I spent most of my twenties building up an apparatus for young people to take part in the political process and build up their leadership skills.  I always felt like we can make change no matter where we are, no matter what community we live in. If we truly want to change society, we have to put ourselves in positions of leadership. 

I am now the youngest woman in the Tennessee General Assembly, and I've been able to show young people what happens when you put yourself in a position to make substantial change. Those who came up under my leadership are now serving in elected offices themselves. As millennials, we have to hold each other accountable for taking part in the political process because it works. And we can make change. We are getting things done.

How do you feel about the current state of millennial engagement in politics especially for Black women?

The world is finally taking notice of the beauty of our intelligence, of our voices, of what we have, and how we bring that to the table. We are able to use technology like social media to get our stories out there and make sure people are listening to us and hearing our stories. For example, I'm bringing moms and women into my brand and my social media, because I'm in the legislature fighting for policies for moms. I have a track record of being a leader and fighting for these issues, and you see it all in front of your face on social media, so I’m able to connect with more people than ever before.

What do you feel is your greatest asset as a Black, millennial, woman legislator?

My voice. The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman. And if anybody understands that and can articulate the inequities in this system, it is us. And so for me, my voice is so powerful, my experiences are so powerful, the stories of my community are so powerful. And when I’m able to bring those stories and those real-life experiences to the work that I do, especially in my role as an elected official to truly impact policy—to me, that's my greatest asset. Black women are in this fight for justice, in this fight for equity in this country, so we must be at the forefront. Who better to fix it than us?

What ways do you think Black women need to be supported as it relates to public health overall?

We must take Black maternal health seriously. I fight for reproductive justice in my community, my city, and my state. This is a real public health crisis that we must bring to light.  Insurance companies must cover the full range of reproductive health options and women must have full autonomy over their decision-making, which includes their ability to have a child or not have a child. Women must be able to live free from judgment and any other government restrictions that deny you the right to make your own choice about your body. 

We also must focus on ensuring access to mental health services. This pandemic has exposed the need for more mental health counselors and enhanced insurance coverage for a breadth and depth of services. We need to take care of ourselves physically and emotionally. 

Black Women Legislators Leading in Agriculture Policy

Historically, agricultural policy has been made in spaces dominated by rural land-owning, white, male, and conservative voices. That includes state legislatures, where fewer than five percent of legislators are Black women. Far too often, there are limited opportunities for Black women legislators to be at the forefront of policy conversations in agriculture or related legislative committees. That has to change. 

SiX hosted this panel with four Black women state legislators who are leading the conversation to address the vast injustices that have been endured by Black and brown communities in the field of agriculture. Hear about their work to make agriculture more inclusive and change who gets to pass agriculture policy. 

Panelists:

SiX Takeaways:

  1. For generations, agriculture policy impacting Black, brown, and Indigenous communities has been made in rural white, male-dominated spaces. But Black women legislators are stepping into leadership roles on agriculture committees and creating change in the urban and rural communities they represent.
  1. Agriculture is the biggest industry in many states, yet progressives too often don’t prioritize it. Policy-making in the agriculture industry is a huge concern for Black, brown, and Indigenous communities. Everyone eats — so we all have to care about food access, where our food comes from, and how it’s being handled. Much of that work starts at the state level.
  1. In many Black and brown communities, farming has been gentrified, monopolized, and appropriated — and the same is true in agriculture committees. The farming practices in the farm-to-table and regenerative agriculture movements have origins in Afro and Indigenous communities and cultures. Despite this, many of the issues Black and brown communities face are not reflected in agriculture and food policy-making. 
  1. Agriculture policy is at the intersection of many other issues in Black and brown communities, including equity, racism, economics, and health. The future of Black and brown communities depends on agriculture in many ways. Agriculture is the number one job producer in some states and effective and equitable agriculture policy is a way for Black and brown communities to create jobs and build a sustainable economy while providing healthy food for community members. 
  1. Black women legislators have had to work for years to  educate white-male-dominated agriculture committees about the agricultural issues impacting their communities and to center Black and brown voices. For some, this education (about food deserts, urban farming, food access issues, and so much more) has laid the foundation to be able to tackle issues like race and equity when working toward policy solutions.
  1. There are many opportunities for Black women legislators to engage in agriculture policy issues that impact their communities. The panelists encouraged others to fight to be on the committees that oversee agriculture policy in their states. These legislators are disrupting the space and centering the voices and needs of their Black and brown communities while doing it. Join SiX’s CROP and Democracy cohorts for support along the way.  

Additional Resources: 

Anti-Racist State Budgets: The Social Safety Net


About This Primer

This primer is part of a series on anti-racist state budgets. To understand the concept of creating anti-racist state budgets, it is important to understand the difference between racist and anti-racist ideas and policies. The following excerpts are from How To Be An Antiracist (2019) by Ibram X. Kendi:

Racist vs. Anti-Racist Ideas

A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society … An antiracist idea is any idea that suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences—that there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group. Antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities.

Racist vs. Anti-Racist Policies

A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups … There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.

For additional race-equity concepts and definitions, please visit the Racial Equity Tools glossary.

Introduction

Latina mother teaches daughter how to wash vegetables in kitchen sink

We all benefit when public policies move us closer to realizing our nation’s promise of full and equal opportunity for all. Social safety net programs that help people get back on their feet during hard times and build thriving communities have proven that ending poverty is within reach. To continue our march toward prosperity for all, we must first confront and dismantle a long history of racism and discrimination in our nation’s response to poverty.

For decades, the modern social safety net has kept millions of Americans out of poverty, many of them children. These public assistance programs represent our shared investment in ensuring that all families, regardless of their income, can keep food on the table and go to work knowing that their children are in a safe and enriching environment. Without our social safety net, 37 million more Americans, including 7 million children, would be living in poverty.

Public assistance programs were originally designed as temporary supports for those who fall on hard times, but more and more, they have supplemented the earnings of workers trapped in a lopsided economy rigged in favor of the wealthy and large corporations at the expense of the working class. Walmart, for example, employs the most workers receiving SNAP, leaving taxpayers on the hook for $6.2 billion annually to help their workers make ends meet and access healthcare, all while using tax breaks and loopholes to avoid an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year.

In this report, we consider state policy changes to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the child care subsidy program. Though there are additional safety net policies that state lawmakers can consider, like tax credits for low-income families, school nutrition and early childhood programs, or housing assistance, in this report, we focus on three federally funded, means-tested assistance programs that are generally administered through state human services agencies.

The Pervasive Legacy Of Racism In The Social Safety Net

Exterior of convenience store in Philadelphia; signs read "EBT Aceptamos" and "ATM here" Jana Shea / Shutterstock.com
Jana Shea / Shutterstock.com

Public assistance programs should be accessible and effective in moving families out of poverty. But since its inception, racism has shredded the nation’s social safety net, weaving in discriminatory policies designed to leave out Black families and other families of color. Over time, these policies have not only failed the people they were intended to exclude, but they have also left all communities worse off for generations.

A Brief History of Racism in the Social Safety Net

The construction of arbitrary obstacles to prevent people of color from accessing social welfare programs is as old as the nation’s first safety net policies. Federal and state lawmakers have turned anti-poverty policy on its head, using it not to help those living in poverty, but as a tool to preserve a racist economic system dependent on the exploitation of Black workers and other workers of color. Though not a comprehensive historical overview, the following racist ideas and movements were instrumental in the design of the modern social safety net:

Racism Undermines Anti-Poverty Policy

The cumulative result of decades of racist policymaking in the social safety net has undermined its effectiveness in reducing poverty and helping families achieve long-term financial security. The decentralization of TANF administration with the passage of the PRWORA left recipients at the mercy of states with a long history of political and economic disenfranchisement of people of color. Nearly three decades later, the unmistakable legacy of the 1996 reforms was its orchestration of a flawed response to child poverty that disproportionately failed the nation’s Black children. Indeed, research shows that the least accessible and least generous cash welfare programs are in states with higher shares of Black residents. By one estimate, equalizing the differences in how states use TANF funds to address poverty would narrow the Black-white child poverty gap by 15 percent.

While many of the changes contained in the PRWORA had the effect of reducing access to the safety net for Black families and other families of color, the changes have undermined our nation’s efforts to reduce poverty overall. Research shows that in the long term, the changes contained in the PRWORA failed to improve the well-being of families in poverty. Additionally, the work-centric reforms to the social safety net resulted in an alarming long-term trend: growing shares of families living in deep poverty. Fifteen years after PRWORA, the share of households living on less than $2 per day had increased by 153 percent. The rise in deep poverty was especially pronounced for children of color: in the first ten years after the 1996 changes, the percentage of Black children in deep poverty increased from 4.1 percent to 5.8 percent, and from 5.8 percent to 6.8 percent for Latinx children, while the deep poverty rate declined slightly for white children.

Building an Anti-Racist Social Safety Net

child reaching for strawberries on kitchen counter

We all have a role in ensuring that no child goes hungry, that parents can afford the childcare they need to go to work, and that families living in poverty have what they need to make ends meet. Policymakers have the power to confront and dismantle the legacies of racism in their states’ public assistance programs. At the state level, there are significant opportunities to reverse harmful policies of the past and make investments in policies to strengthen the reach of the safety net:

When considering ways to build an anti-racist social safety net, state legislators should refer to the following recommendations and work with national and local advocates, especially groups that center race equity, to develop the best policies for their states, which may include administrative solutions in addition to the legislative options highlighted below.

TANF Family Cap

During the height of welfare changes in the 1990s, 24 states adopted “family cap” policies that punished families receiving cash assistance through TANF for having another child. Without any evidence beyond racist and sexist stereotypes of welfare recipients, proponents of family caps falsely claimed that cash assistance programs incentivized low-income mothers to have more children to receive additional public assistance.

Family cap policies are a modern recasting of 20th century eugenics laws that promoted reproductive control and forced sterilization of people of color, people living in poverty, and people with disabilities. Within cash assistance programs, the family cap policy is the latest in a long history of policies intended to exert reproductive control over Black women, including contraceptive requirements“suitable home” lawspolicies barring unwed mothers from eligibility, and even forced sterilization. In spite of its racist roots, family cap policies remain in place today in 12 states, even though conclusive research confirms that the policy drives families deeper into poverty and does not affect or reduce childbearing among recipients.

Lawmakers in California (2016 CA AB 1603), Massachusetts (2019 MA H 4800), Minnesota (2013 MN SF 1034/HF 1233), New Jersey (2020 NJ S 2178/Chapter 99), and Virginia (2020 VA SB 690) recently enacted legislation to repeal the family cap in their TANF programs. Legislators in Georgia considered, but failed to pass, such a bill (2021 GA HB 741).

In Connecticut, families with children born after the initial ten months of receiving TANF cash assistance receive a 50 percent reduction in the benefit. Additionally, families with children born within ten months of program participation are prohibited from qualifying for an exemption from program time limits. A bill (2021 CT HB 6635) that was recently introduced, but failed to advance, would have eliminated both family cap penalties.

Work Requirements

Strict work and reporting requirements within the social safety net ignore steep and multiple barriers to steady employment, which disproportionately affect Black workersBehavioral science research also shows that work reporting requirements add another burden while also promoting harmful narratives among agency staff. The urgency of this failed policy design has been intensified by the pandemic recession, in which the lowest quartile of workers lost 7.9 million jobs, while the highest quartile gained nearly 1 million jobs.

Work requirements and penalties are used more harshly against Black and Latina women than white women, and ample evidence shows that work requirements have failed to increase employment and reduce poverty among participants. For the most part, adults receiving TANF and SNAP are subject to work requirements under federal law, but states have some flexibility in both programs to establish exemptions, set the severity of sanctions, and define work activities.

TANF Sanctions

In the TANF program, states have broad authority to determine sanctions for non-compliance with work requirements that range from an initial warning to penalties as severe as immediate case closure and a loss of benefits. All but three states—California, New York, and Vermont—adopted full-family sanctions that cut off benefits to the entire family. In recent years, several states have repealed these harsh sanctions and no longer prevent children from receiving benefits for work-related sanctions.

The District of Columbia amended (2017 D.C. Law 22-33, § 5002/D.C. Code § 4-205.19f) its TANF non-compliance sanctions to minimize the impact of a benefit reduction on children by capping the sanction at 6 percent of the total benefit amount.

Illinois lawmakers enacted a bill (2019 IL HB 3129) that designated 75 percent of the TANF benefit for the children in a household and 25 percent for adult members, and provided that no part of the benefit designated for children shall be reduced due to a sanction. Under the new law, sanctions for cases of non-compliance are limited to 30 percent of the adult portion of a benefit.

Legislation (2020 MD SB 787/HB 1313) enacted in Maryland establishes a similar designation of benefits for children and adults, and limits the reduction of benefits for non-compliance to 30 percent of the adult portion, and prohibits the reduction or termination of any portion of the child or children’s benefit.

In Maine, lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 ME LD 78) to repeal the state’s full-family sanctions and limit the termination of benefits to the non-compliant adult and allow the children and compliant parents to continue receiving benefits.

Volunteers load food into the trunk of vehicles during a ''Let's Feed L.A. County'' drive thru food distribution by the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, April 23, 2021, in Rosemead, California. Ringo Chiu / Shutterstock.com
Ringo Chiu / Shutterstock.com

SNAP Requirements and Sanctions

In SNAP, most adults must comply with basic work-related requirements, such as registering for work or not voluntarily leaving a job. States can require participation in job training activities, which range from job search requirements to educational programs, in addition to setting the number of hours required. Employment and training (E&T) programs must meet some federal requirements, but states have broad latitude in program design. Many states enroll participants in E&T programs on a voluntary basis, which is more effective than mandatory programs.

States can also set sanctions and disqualifications for SNAP recipients who fail to comply with work requirements. There are federal minimums for disqualification that apply only to the individual who is out of compliance (which allows the household to receive a reduced benefit amount), starting with a 1-month sanction for the first instance, and escalating to 6 months for the third instance. States can use the minimum, or use some combination of a longer disqualification period, or extend the disqualification to the entire household. The range of sanctions includes 26 states that use the federal minimum, and the most punitive state, Mississippi (Miss. Code Ann. § 43-12-37), which applies sanctions against an entire household and imposes a permanent sanction for non-compliance after the third instance.

Legislation introduced in Texas (2021 TX SB 1912/HB 1353) would roll back the state’s disqualification policy to the federal minimum by allowing a household to continue to receive benefits when an individual is out of compliance.

Similar legislation was introduced, but failed to pass, in Nebraska (2020 NE LB 1037) to limit the disqualification to the non-compliant household member.

TANF and SNAP Bans on Individuals with Prior Drug-Related Felony Convictions

The federal lifetime ban on individuals with drug-related felony convictions gave states the option to opt out of or modify the ban through state legislative action. Not only does the ban establish a lifetime punishment for a drug conviction, but it also effectively extends the punishment to the children and family of the individual, as the household receives a smaller benefit as a result of the ban.

The ban—which applies to no other type of felony conviction—plainly targets Black and Latinx people, who are disproportionately arrested and imprisoned for drug offenses, despite similar drug use rates among Black, Latinx, and white people. Drug arrests of women, who are more likely to be the primary caregivers of children, have increased by 216 percent in the past 35 years, compared to 48 percent for men. Access to TANF and SNAP has been shown to reduce the risk of recidivism within the first year of release by 10 percent.

Many states have lifted the ban in either or both programs, while others have modified their bans to limit those affected by narrowing the types of felonies, shortening the length of the ban, or providing an exception for those that have successfully completed treatment or parole requirements.

Legislators in Illinois (2021 IL HB 88) and South Dakota (2020 SD SB 96) enacted legislation to lift the ban in TANF, lawmakers in Michigan approved a bill (2020 MI SB 1006) to lift the ban in SNAP, while lawmakers in Kentucky (2021 KY HB 497) and Virginia (2020 VA SB 124/HB 566) enacted legislation to lift the bans in both programs.

A bill (2021 NV AB 138) enacted by Nevada lawmakers would lift the bans in both SNAP and TANF. Under current law, the state’s modified bans require participation in, or successful completion of, a substance use disorder treatment program, which can be costly and difficult to access.

Drug Testing for TANF Applicants and Recipients

The passage of the PRWORA also gave states the option to require drug tests for TANF recipients, and to establish penalties for those who test positive for drugs. Eligibility requirements for SNAP are more narrowly prescribed, and state efforts to impose drug testing in the program have been blocked by the federal government. Some states have circumvented the federal prohibition on drug testing in SNAP by requiring drug tests as a part of their modified ban on individuals with drug-related felony convictions, requiring it for unemployed SNAP recipients participating in state employment and training programs, and carrying over drug-testing disqualifications from TANF to those also receiving SNAP.

Drug testing requires a reasonable basis or suspicion; Michigan and Florida enacted “suspicionless” drug testing for TANF applicants and recipients, which required drug testing without reasonable suspicion of drug use, that were later rejected by courts as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Subsequently, at least 13 states currently require applicants to submit to drug screening questionnaires that are used, along with other information, including criminal history records or even “visual observations” by agency staff, as a basis for reasonable suspicion to require drug testing. Drug screening and testing policies are also costly and ineffective; an analysis of 13 states with existing drug testing policies found that, collectively, the states spent over $200,000 and identified only 338 positive tests, or 1 percent of all applicants.

Legislators in Utah enacted a bill (2016 UT HB 172) that, as introduced, would have repealed the state’s drug screening and testing requirements. As amended, TANF applicants who are screened as likely drug users would be required to take a drug test only upon the recommendation of a licensed clinical social worker.

In Wisconsin, the 2021-23 Executive Budget (2021 WI AB 68/SB 111) proposed by Governor Evers would repeal the state’s drug screening and testing requirements in the SNAP Employment and Training program, but lawmakers declined to include the recommendation in the final enacted budget.

Exterior window of retail store; sign reads, "EBT Accepted here! SNAP"
Child Support

Cooperation with child support enforcement is required at varying degrees within the social safety net as a cost recovery mechanism, but many non-custodial parents cannot keep up with payments. A quarter of non-custodial parents live in poverty, and 300,000 of them fell into poverty from paying child support. Children with parents living outside of the home are much more likely to be living in poverty and are more likely to be Black or Latinx. As a result, child support enforcement efforts leave low-income children no better off, since the payments collected are oftentimes reimbursed to the state and not the child, while pushing non-custodial parents into financial precarity and debt.

Under federal law, subject to good cause exemptions, families must cooperate with child support enforcement programs to receive TANF benefits. For SNAP and childcare subsidy recipients, states can require both custodial and non-custodial parents receiving benefits to cooperate with child support enforcement and impose their own sanctions for failure to cooperate.

Child Support Pass-Through and Disregard in TANF

As a condition of receiving TANF benefits, applicants must cooperate with child support enforcement agencies in establishing and collecting support. Child support payments collected on behalf of current TANF participants are shared between the state and federal governments, but the federal government waives its share for child support that is passed through to the family and disregarded as income for eligibility purpose, up to $100 per month per child, or $200 for two or more children.

Half of the states keep all of the child support and do not pass it to the family, but in 26 states, the state agency collects child support payments on behalf of children receiving TANF, but then passes the payment, fully or partially, onto the child. Pass-through policies provide a meaningful boost to TANF recipients, who receive benefits that are woefully inadequate and have been declining relative to the cost of living over the years. Research shows that pass-through policies incentivize cooperation for non-custodial parents while also increasing compliance with child support orders among non-custodial parents.

Many states’ pass-through policies reflect the amounts waived by the federal government, while others pass through smaller amounts, and some pass through the full amount collected to the TANF family, above the federal amount waived.

Legislators in Colorado enacted a bill (2015 CO SB 15-012) to allow TANF recipients to receive the full amount of the child support that the state collects on their behalf, in addition to ensuring that the additional payments are not counted as income for eligibility in the program. In a recent study, the state’s Department of Human Services reported that the average family received an increase of $167 per month. The state also reported that monthly child support collections increased by 76 percent in the first 18 months of implementation.

Maryland enacted legislation (2017 MD SB 1009/HB 1469) to allow up to $100 per child, or $200 for two or more children, to be passed through to TANF recipients, and to disregard the payment for eligibility for the program.

In New Jersey, a bill (2021 NJ S 2329/A 3905) that was vetoed by the governor would have allowed a portion of child support to be passed through to TANF families, in addition to excluding the pass-through amount from the program’s definition of income.

Child Support Sanctions for SNAP and Child Care Subsidies

States can also choose to impose child support-related sanctions for SNAP and childcare subsidy recipients. Severe sanctions for non-cooperation can have dire consequences, including a loss of subsidies that help parents afford childcare, or reduced food assistance and increased food insecurity for children. Although most states have good cause exemptions for non-cooperation, such as in cases of domestic violence, concerns about how child support enforcement may affect their family relationships can leave some families reluctant to participate.

In Mississippi, where custodial parents can be disqualified from receiving SNAP for failure to cooperate, and non-custodial parents can be disqualified for being in arrears with court-ordered child support payments, legislators considered, but failed to pass, a bill (2020 MS HB 1319) that would have repealed the state’s SNAP enforcement requirements. The state also requires child support enforcement cooperation for child care eligibility, and failed to advance a bill (2021 MS HB 65) that would have eliminated the requirement in the program.

Kansas legislators are considering a bill (2021 KS HB 2371) that would eliminate the requirement for child support enforcement cooperation for SNAP and child care subsidy applicants.

Time Limits in TANF

The passage of the PRWORA in 1996 instituted a dramatic federal 60-month lifetime limit for receiving TANF benefits, though states can—and several states do—impose a shorter limit. Enabled by racist narratives about welfare recipients, proponents argued that the policy would force recipients to find jobs, ignoring the reality that many TANF recipients, especially Black and Latina mothers, face steep and systemic barriers—employment and skills gapsemployment discriminationlack of access to reliable transportation—to stable jobs that pay enough to make ends meet. Indeed, research shows that time limits are ineffective and do not result in increased long-term earnings.

Black mother and Black father playfully hold their toddler daughter in field outdoors

State lawmakers can ease time limit penalties by providing extensions beyond the 60 months for up to 20 percent of the caseload, by stopping the clock on the time limit for certain groups of families, and continuing benefits for children beyond the time limit. Additionally, state TANF funds are not limited by the federal 60-month limit, so states can use funding flexibly to set their own time limit policies. One way to ensure that families are not punished is by using “good faith” extensions when recipients are participating in work activities but are otherwise prevented from working.

In Washington, where researchers found that time limits were most likely to penalize Black and Indigenous families, lawmakers enacted a bill (2019 WA HB 1603/Chapter 343) that expanded good faith extensions for families facing barriers to work, such as the need for mental health or substance use disorder treatment, or homelessness or risk of loss of housing. Under the new law, recipients are also eligible for an extension if they demonstrate that the time limit would cause undue hardship to the recipient or their family.

Another bill (2021 WA SB 5214) enacted by Washington legislators establishes a hardship exemption for all families receiving TANF since March 1, 2020, when the unemployment rate was equal to, or greater than, 7 percent.

A bill (2020 NJ S 2329/A 3905) that was vetoed by the governor in New Jersey would have continued benefits for children and other household members if at least one adult recipient becomes ineligible as a result of the 60-month lifetime limit.

Arizona legislators considered a bill (2021 AZ HB 2253) that would have increased the state’s lifetime limit of 12 months, the most restrictive in the country, to the federal limit of 60 months.

Asset Limits

Today, the average Black household has just 12 percent of the wealth of white households, and early data shows that the pandemic recession threatens to widen the gap. The racial wealth gap has grown over the course of centuries of discriminatory policymaking and institutional practices that built wealth for white families while preventing families of color, especially Black Americans, from achieving the same generational wealth.

States have broad authority to set asset limits in most public assistance programs. Asset limits introduce unnecessary administrative complexity and cost, and research from states that have relaxed asset limits has seen no effect on the number of monthly applicants and no evidence to suggest that applicants shelter significant assets in order to become eligible for assistance.

Included in that broad authority are the states’ abilities to set asset limits for TANF, though in 7 states, the asset limit has remained unchanged at $1,000 in the four decades since it was first imposed at the federal level, while 8 states have eliminated the asset test altogether. While federal rules set the asset limit in SNAP at $2,250 for most households, states can establish their own limit by adopting broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE); 37 states have utilized this option to eliminate asset tests in SNAP. In the child care subsidy program, Congress established uniformity for asset limits in 2014, when it required states to allow for self-certification that their assets did not exceed $1,000,000.

In Indiana, legislators considered, but failed to pass, a bill (2014 IN SB 413) that would have eliminated asset limits for SNAP and TANF applicants. The state is one of 14 states that has not eliminated the asset test in SNAP, and one of the seven states where the asset limit is $1,000.

Lawmakers in New York are considering legislation (2021 NY S 742/A 2214) to eliminate asset limits across all public assistance programs in the state. The state has already eliminated the asset test in SNAP, and the bill would eliminate the current asset test of $2,000, or $3,000 for households with someone age 60 or older.

Income Eligibility

Public assistance program eligibility requirements often trap people further into poverty instead of sufficiently counteracting multiple economic forces—labor market discriminationstagnating wages, and rising inequality, leaving children in households headed by single mothers, especially single Black, Indigenous, and Latina mothers, most likely to live in poverty.

States have considerable flexibility in setting income eligibility requirements across social safety net programs. Aligning income tests with a living wage ensures that people aren’t turned away from the social safety net, even when their jobs don’t pay enough to make ends meet. Rising child care costs that far outpace wages create significant employment instability for parents, especially mothers of young children. By one estimate, a nationwide increase in income eligibility for child care subsidies would result in 270,000 mothers joining the workforce.

Workers who receive a small raise or extra hours at work can also fall farther behind because they lose more in benefits than they received in increased income, in a phenomenon called the public assistance “cliff effect,” which is particularly pronounced for child care subsidies. The cliff effect forces workers into declining pay increases or promotions to maintain the benefits that allow them to pay the bills. Instead of promoting long-term financial stability, the public assistance cliff effect keeps workers on unstable financial footing, which contributes to increased administrative costs resulting from enrollees cycling on and off programs.

TANF Income Eligibility

States have significant flexibility in determining eligibility criteria for cash assistance programs funded by TANF dollars, resulting in wide variation in eligibility for TANF across the country. For example, a family of three in Alabama can earn no more than $268 per month to be eligible for TANF, while the same family in Minnesota would be eligible with monthly earnings of up to $2,231. States can expand access to TANF cash assistance by increasing income thresholds, adjusting income measurement methods, or allowing some portion of a household’s income to be disregarded in determining eligibility.

Young Asian child in wheelchair laughs with caretaker or family member at the park

Lawmakers in Indiana failed to advance a bill (2021 IN SB 233) that would have increased the income threshold for TANF cash assistance to 50 percent of the federal poverty level over the course of 3 years. The bill would increase eligibility while ensuring that the threshold is updated annually as costs rise. Currently, eligibility for TANF in Indiana is based on a fixed dollar amount that was last updated in 1988.

In Maine, legislators enacted a bill (2019 ME LD 1772) to broaden income disregards in determining TANF eligibility. Prior law provided earnings disregards and childcare expenses for calculating benefit levels; the new law applies existing earnings disregards and child care expenses for the purposes of determining eligibility, in addition to significantly expanding disregards for calculating benefit levels.

SNAP Income Eligibility

Within SNAP, states have much less flexibility in setting income eligibility requirements. States that adopt broad-based categorical eligibility can increase the gross income threshold for the program above the federal minimum of 130 percent of the FPL, which 31 states and DC have already done. While some states have considered legislation to accomplish the change, the option can also be adopted through administrative means.

In Illinois, legislators approved a bill (2015 IL SB 1847) to increase the gross income limit in SNAP from the federal minimum to 165 percent of the FPL, or 200 percent for families with an elderly, blind, or disabled household member.

Minnesota lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 MN SF 759/HF 611) to increase the gross income limit for SNAP from 165 percent of the FPL to 200 percent.

Lawmakers in Nebraska overrode a gubernatorial veto to enact a bill (2021 NE LB 108) to increase the gross income threshold from 130 percent of the FPL to 185 percent. As amended and enacted, the threshold is increased to 165 percent of the FPL through September 30, 2023, and includes legislative intent language that the increase shall be funded through new federal funds provided through the American Rescue Plan Act.

Child Care Subsidy Income Eligibility

States also have broad authority to set income thresholds for childcare subsidy eligibility up to 85 percent of the state median income (SMI). Recent federal changes to index eligibility to SMI instead of FPL ensures that the threshold moves alongside economic conditions and costs within the state. There is significant variation across the country in access to child care assistance: a family of three can earn no more than 39 percent of the SMI in Nebraska to be eligible for child care subsidies, compared to 85 percent of the SMI in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Vermont.

Virginia legislators enacted a bill (2021 VA HB 2206) that temporarily increased income eligibility for child care subsidies to the federal maximum of 85 percent of the SMI if “the family includes at least one child who is five years of age or younger and has not yet started kindergarten.” The increased threshold is effective through August 1, 2021, though families who become enrolled continue to be eligible for a year.

In Iowa, lawmakers enacted legislation (2021 IA HF 302) to ease the cliff effect in the child care subsidy program by establishing a gradual eligibility phase-out to allow families to continue receiving assistance if their income is between 225 and 250 percent of the FPL, compared to current law under which families lose eligibility when they earn more than 225 percent of the FPL. The bill also establishes a higher threshold of 275 percent of the FPL for families with children needing special needs care.

The Utah legislature recently enacted a bill (2021 UT HB 277) to increase eligibility for child care subsidies, funded by new federal funds available to states, to the federal maximum of 85 percent of SMI. The bill also eliminates the co-payment obligations for families earning up to 75 percent of the SMI. Under existing law and regulations, the income limit is a percentage of the SMI as determined by the Department, and co-payments are required for any family earning more than 100 percent of the FPL.

State-Funded Programs for Immigrants Excluded from Federal Funds

Many states have established state-funded assistance programs for immigrants who are otherwise ineligible for federally funded programs, including cash assistance and nutrition assistance substitute programs. States can also use their portion of spending on TANF, which is already required to receive federal funds, to provide benefits to immigrants who are federally barred from eligibility until they have been in the country for five years. At least 22 states have a state-funded TANF replacement program and 6 states have a state-funded food assistance program available to some immigrants who are otherwise excluded from federally funded programs.

Legislators in California introduced a bill (2021 CA SB 464) that would extend eligibility for the state-funded California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) to any noncitizen, including undocumented immigrants. Current law restricts CFAP eligibility to specific categories of lawfully present immigrants.

New Jersey legislators enacted a bill (2020 NJ S 2329/A 3905), which received a conditional veto by the governor, that would have expanded access to TANF for lawful permanent residents, individuals granted relief through the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and any other non-citizens who are authorized to live in the United States.

In Washington, lawmakers enacted a bill (2019 WA SB 5164) to extend state-funded food and cash assistance to noncitizen victims of human trafficking and other serious crimes, and asylum seekers and their family members. Under the new law, individuals are eligible if they have filed, or are preparing to file, an application with the appropriate federal agency for their status. Prior legislation created the Food Assistance Program (FAP) and the State Family Assistance Program, which helps lawfully present immigrants who are otherwise ineligible for federally funded benefits.

Increasing TANF Benefits

The dismantling of direct cash assistance with the passage of PRWORA was the latest iteration of a long history of anti-Blackness in public assistance policymaking. In handing over substantial policy and programmatic authority to the states, Congress created opportunities for states to misuse vast amounts of public funds intended to help the nation’s poorest children. States took full advantage of the lax requirements, especially states with higher shares of Black residents, by spending increasingly larger amounts of TANF funds on programs for non-impoverished families that it was never intended to fund, or by accumulating vast slush funds instead of providing direct cash assistance to families in poverty. States now spend just 21 percent of TANF funds on basic assistance, with 14 states spending less than 10 percent. At the same time, in every state except for New Hampshire, TANF benefits still leave families in deep poverty because states have failed to adjust benefit levels alongside increases in the cost of living.  

Decades of systematic efforts to disassemble the social safety net have disproportionately fallen on Black children—41 percent of Black children live in states where TANF helps less than 10 families for every 100 living in poverty, and 55 percent of Black children live in states where TANF benefits are below 20 percent of the federal poverty level. Lawmakers can ensure that their states’ TANF funds are spent effectively toward reducing child poverty by increasing direct assistance to families in poverty and providing for automatic annual adjustments to benefit amounts.

A bill (2021 GA HB 92) that failed to advance in Georgia would have allowed for automatic annual increases to the maximum TANF benefit, which has been fixed at the same dollar amount for 30 years, by amending the definition of cash assistance to being “based on a standard of need that is equal to 50 percent of the federal poverty level for the applicable family size, and which equates to a maximum monthly amount equal to 75 percent of such amount for each such family size.” By tying the benefit to the FPL, which is adjusted annually, lawmakers could have reversed the declining value of benefits in the state, which has decreased by 40 percent since 1996.

Latina custodian wearing mask cleans bathroom sink or washbasin with towel

In Mississippi, legislators recently enacted a bill (2021 MS SB 2759) that raises the maximum monthly TANF benefits. Though the state has the highest child poverty rate in the nation, prior to the passage of the bill, TANF benefits in the state were the lowest in the nation; under the new law, a family of three would receive a monthly benefit of $260, an increase from $170 per month.

Massachusetts lawmakers considered legislation (2019 MA S 36/H 102) to increase the monthly benefit annually by 10 percent until the benefit amount reaches 50 percent of the federal poverty level. The bill also would provide an annual adjustment thereafter to align the benefit level with 50 percent of the federal poverty level. The bill failed to advance, but the final FY 2021 budget included a one-time 10 percent increase to the state’s TANF benefit levels. Similar legislation (2021 MA S 96/H 199) has been re-introduced in the 2021 session that contemplates 20 percent annual increases, which are reflected in budgets proposed by both the House and Senate.

In Minnesota, legislators introduced a bill (2019 MN SF 905/HF 799) to increase the benefit amount by $200 gradually in $50 increments through October 2022, and require 2 percent increases annually thereafter. Though the legislation failed to advance, the final enacted biennial budget included a $100 increase to the monthly benefit amount, the state’s first increase in over three decades.

Virginia lawmakers considered a budget amendment in 2020 that would have increased the benefit amount by 18 percent annually until the standard reached 50 percent of the federal poverty level. Although the amendment was not adopted, lawmakers included one-time increases of 15 percent and 10 percent in the 2020 and 2021 budgets. The 2021 budget bill also requires the Department of Social Services to “develop a plan to increase the standards of assistance by 10 percent annually until they equal 50 percent of the federal poverty level.”

Lawmakers in Washington (2021 WA SB 5092/HB 1094) approved a 15 percent increase to benefits for TANF families in the state’s biennial budget, effective July 1, 2021.

Additional Resources

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)

Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP)

National Immigration Law Center (NILC)

National Women’s Law Center (NWLC)

Prosperity Now

The Sentencing Project

The Urban Institute

Messaging

Polling

North Carolina Voting & Redistricting

Jump to: How do I register? | How do I attend? | What if I miss the call?

Learn more about what your state legislators are doing to protect our voting rights by joining a Telephone Town Hall on Monday September 20th, at 7pm EDT. By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with your representatives and local experts, learn about how they are fighting for your voting rights in North Carolina, ask questions, and discuss what we can do to take care of each other during this difficult time.

Special Guests

Rep. Allison A. Dahle
Allison Dahle

State Representative

Rep. Marcia Morey
Marcia Morey

State Representative

Rep. Zack Hawkins
Zack Hawkins

State Representative

Register

Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.

Fill out my online form.

FAQs

How do I attend the telephone town hall?
We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.

Will I get to ask a question?
Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.

What if I miss the call?
If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.

Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators?
Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.

Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online?
Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.

What if I can't be on for the whole time?
We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.

2021-2022 Session Highlights: How States Build a Fairer Economy for Working Families

This publication was originally released on September 14, 2021 and was updated on September 1, 2022 to include highlights from the 2022 legislative session.

Background

State lawmakers across the country faced pressing and urgent issues when they convened in 2021 and 2022. Although the recent rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine drastically reduced deaths and infection rates, inequitable access to vaccines compounded existing barriers to health care and Black, Latinx, and low-income communities have reported lower vaccination rates. At the same time, the pandemic-induced economic recession is also widening the wealth gap between the average worker and the wealthy few, and workers of color and low-wage workers are the majority of essential workers—the heroes that are helping us get through this—yet continue to experience the worst and most extended employment losses.

During the 2021-2022 sessions and bolstered by a $195.3 billion federal relief package to state governments, legislators had a historic opportunity to ensure that everyone, whether Black or white, Asian or Latino, Native or newcomer, can support their families and contribute to their communities. Lawmakers across the country took action to build upon the lifesaving and poverty-reducing provisions of the American Rescue Plan and the measures passed during the 2020 state legislative sessions

The 2021-2022 legislation outlined below highlights how bold and forward-thinking state lawmakers are working to build a fairer economy by tackling long-standing structural inequalities that were magnified by the health and economic crises of the COVID-19 pandemic. The policy areas discussed in this publication are:

Please note that this is neither a comprehensive policy list nor necessarily a list of the most progressive solutions on this subject; when moving forward with legislation, we recommend working with local and national advocates to craft the best solution for your state. Please reach out to SiX if you would like help connecting with national experts.

Paid Family and Medical Leave

Everyone deserves to be able to take paid time off to care for themselves and their families. Lawmakers in eleven states and DC have enacted legislation to establish a paid family and medical leave insurance (FMLI) program. In 2021, Colorado voters overwhelmingly approved a paid family and medical leave ballot measure, while lawmakers in Maryland and Delaware enacted paid family and medical leave bills in 2022. State family and medical leave insurance programs ensure that more working people can take time off from work to recover from a serious illness or care for a loved one or a new child. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides job-protected, unpaid leave to some workers. But low-wage workers who can least afford to take unpaid leave are also the least likely to have access to paid leave through their employers: 91 percent of workers in the lowest wage quartile have no access to paid family leave, compared to over two-thirds of workers in the highest wage quartile.

During the 2021-2022 legislative sessions, policymakers considered legislation to level the playing field so that all workers can afford to take time off from work to be with their families. Lawmakers considered bold policy solutions that would allow workers to take more than the 12 weeks guaranteed by the FMLA in some instances, bringing some parts of the country closer to paid family leave requirements in the rest of the world. In early-adopter states, legislators considered proposals to expand access to and eligibility for existing paid family and medical leave insurance programs. 

Parent holds newborn in hospital; Photo by Christian Bowen
(Photo by Christian Bowen/Unsplash)

State Legislators Take Bold Steps on Paid Leave

Recently enacted legislation in Delaware (2022 DE SB 1) establishes a family and medical leave insurance program that provides workers with up to 6 weeks of paid leave in any 24-month period to address a worker's own serious health condition or that of a family member or to address the impact of a family member's military deployment. The new law also provides up to 12 weeks of paid leave during a single year to bond and care for a new child.
Legislation in Maryland (2022 MD SB 275), which was vetoed by the governor but overridden by the state legislature, establishes a family and medical leave insurance fund to provide up to 12 weeks of paid benefits to workers for the purpose of caring for a newborn or newly fostered or adopted child, caring for the covered individual or a family member with a serious health condition, or caring for a U.S. service member or dealing with issues arising from their deployment. An additional 12 weeks of paid benefits in a year if the worker needs to address another serious health condition or to care for another new child.

A bill enacted in South Carolina (2022 SC SB 11) provides six weeks of paid family leave for state employees after the birth of a “newborn biological child” or after the initial placement of a foster child with them. 

In Arizona, lawmakers introduced but failed to advance legislation (2021 AZ HB 2858) that would have provided up to 26 weeks of medical leave and up to 24 weeks for parental, caregiving, exigency (family leave related to active duty deployment), and safe leave. The new insurance program, funded by employee and employer contributions, would have adopted a progressive wage replacement structure, which ensures that lower-wage workers receive a larger portion of their wages. The bill would have established enforcement protections, including the right to bring a lawsuit for aggrieved workers. A similar package (2022 AZ SB 1644/HB 2767) was reintroduced by Arizona legislators in 2022.

In Illinois, lawmakers introduced a bill (2022 IL HB 5029) that would provide up to 26 weeks of paid family and medical leave, including leave related to a public health emergency or other disaster, and an additional 26 weeks for individuals for leave taken in connection with pregnancy, recovery from childbirth, or related conditions. Importantly, the bill includes certain domestic workers and contractors in its definition of covered workers, and includes a three-part test, or ABC test, for independent contractors.

Under a bill proposed in Pennsylvania (2021 PA SB 580), workers would be able to access up to 20 weeks to welcome a new child into their family or to recover from a serious health condition, while workers who need to care for a family member with a serious health condition would be able to take up to 12 weeks. Workers would receive a portion of their wages replaced through a new employee-funded insurance pool.

North Carolina legislators are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 564/HB 597) that would allow workers to take up to 18 weeks to recover from a serious health condition; 12 weeks to welcome a new child, to care for a family member with a serious health condition, or for exigency leave; and 26 weeks to provide care for a servicemember with a serious injury or illness. 

Lawmakers in Florida (2021 FL HB 1245/SB 1596 and 2022 FL SB 688/HB 627), Georgia (2021 GA SB 55 and 2022 GA HB 1517), Hawaii (2022 HI HB 1506), Illinois (2021 IL HB 3433 and 2021 IL HB 2625), Minnesota (2021 MN HF 1200/SF 1205), Nebraska (2021 NE LB 290), New Mexico (2021 NM HB 38), Tennessee (2021 TN SB 672/HB 1295), Vermont (2021 VT S 65), Virginia (2022 VA SB 1), and West Virginia (2022 WV SB 491/HB 4434) also considered but did not pass legislation to establish a state insurance fund to provide paid family and medical leave to more workers.

Lawmakers Work to Expand Paid Leave in Pioneering States

Establishing an Inclusive Definition of “Family Member”

A bill (2021 NY S 2928/A 6098) enacted by lawmakers in New York would amend the state’s existing definition of family member for the purposes of caregiving leave to include siblings, defined as “a biological or adopted sibling, a half-sibling or stepsibling.”

Policymakers in Washington approved legislation (2021 WA SB 5097) to expand the definition of “family member” in the state’s existing paid family and medical leave program, which was limited to “a child, grandchild, grandparent, parent, sibling, or spouse of an employee,” to include “any individual who regularly resides in the employee’s home or where the relationship creates an expectation that the employee care for the person, and that individual depends on the employee for care.”

In California, a bill (2021 CA AB 1041) enacted by legislators and awaiting the governor's signature would create a more inclusive definition of family by striking a provision that allows “any other individual related by blood or whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship” and replace it with a “designated person,” defined as “a person identified by the employee at the time the employee requests family care and medical leave.”

Increasing Wage Replacement Rates

A bill (2020 CA AB 123) that was approved by lawmakers, but vetoed by the governor in California would have ensured that more workers, especially lower-wage workers, can afford to take paid leave. The bill would have increased the wage replacement rate for workers earning less than 33 percent of the statewide average wage from 70 percent of their wages to 90 percent of their weekly wages based on their highest-earning quarter.

Black mother with baby post partum
Leave for Bereavement, Miscarriages, and Stillbirths

Legislators in Washington enacted a bill (2022 WA SB 5649) to expand the state’s existing paid family and medical leave program to include up to seven days of bereavement leave for the death of a family member for whom a worker would have qualified for medical leave or parental leave. The bill also made clarifications on the use of medical leave in the postnatal period, required the publication of a current list of all employers that have voluntary plans under the state paid family and medical leave program, and established new forms of legislative oversight over the program.

New York legislators are considering several bills (2021 NY S 6198/A 6958, 2021 NY A 6865, 2021 NY S 6026, and 2021 NY S 6026) that would ensure that workers can take time off from work or give workers up to four weeks of paid family leave to recover from and mourn the loss of a child when they have experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth. 

A California bill (2021 CA AB 867) would amend existing definitions in the state’s family leave program to provide “leave for a parent who was pregnant with a child, if the child dies unexpectedly during childbirth at 37 weeks or more of pregnancy.”

Paid Leave During a Public Health Emergency

Oregon legislators enacted a bill (2021 OR HB 2474) that expands the state’s paid family leave program to include leave required to provide child care due to the closure of a school or child care provider as a result of a public health emergency. The bill also expands eligibility for paid leave benefits during a public health emergency and provides eligibility to workers who are laid off and rehired within 180 days.

Washington lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 WA HB 1073) to provide “pandemic leave assistance employee grants” for workers, particularly part-time workers, who were unable to meet the hours-based eligibility threshold for the program. The bill also provides grants to small businesses for costs associated with an employee who has or will take leave under the new grant program. The program is funded entirely by federal funds received by the state in the American Rescue Plan and expires on June 30, 2023.

In Massachusetts, a bill (2021 MA H 2017) introduced by lawmakers would expand the state’s existing paid leave program to include medical leave “due to his or her potential exposure to a pathogen for which a public health emergency has been declared by the Federal, State, or local authorities, regardless of whether the covered individual is symptomatic or asymptomatic.” Self-quarantine as advised by a health care provider for one individual would apply to all other members of the same household.

Paid Sick and Safe Leave

No one should have to choose between their health or the health of their family and a paycheck. The COVID-19 crisis has underscored how worker health and well-being affects us all. In 13 states and DC, workers can earn paid sick time to recover from an illness or to care for a sick family member without worrying about losing their job; 12 states and DC also provide safe leave coverage for workers who need time off to attend to their needs or a family member’s needs if they are a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. State legislation to guarantee paid sick and safe days keeps families and workplaces healthy, especially for low-wage workers and workers of color, who are least likely to have access to a single paid sick day at their job

State lawmakers considered legislation during the 2021-2022 sessions to expand access to paid sick and safe leave for workers on a permanent basis, in addition to a flurry of activity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. New Mexico became the 14th state to enact a paid sick leave law, while other states created emergency sick leave protections for workers during public health emergencies.

Two middle aged Latina women sit laughing on park bench Photo by Dario Valenzuela
(Photo by Dario Valenzuela/Unsplash)

States Continue to Lead the Way in Guaranteeing Paid Sick Leave

New Mexico became the latest state to protect the health of workers when the legislature enacted the Healthy Workplaces Act (2021 NM HB 20), which allows workers to take up to 64 hours of paid sick time each year to care for themselves or a loved one. The bill includes strong protections for broad access to leave for workers who are often excluded, including part-time, seasonal, or temporary workers, in addition to establishing financial and legal penalties for employer violations of the act, including misclassification of workers as independent contractors.

Rhode Island legislators enacted a bill (2021 RI SB 434/HB 6011) to amend the state’s existing paid sick time law, which already allows workers to earn up to five days of sick and safe time per year, to include workers in the construction industry who may lose their accrued benefits when moving between short-term projects. Under the new law, construction employers that are a part of multi-employer collective bargaining agreements must adhere to the state’s paid sick time law and would be required to contribute to a central trust for benefits available to workers under the agreement.

The Virginia legislature enacted a bill (2021 VA HB 2137) to guarantee paid sick leave to home health workers who provide care for patients who are enrolled in Medicaid. Eligible workers can accrue and use up to 40 hours of paid sick leave every year. The original bill, as introduced, would have applied the new protections more broadly to essential workers.

Lawmakers in the Minnesota House approved a bill (2021 MN HF 41) that ultimately failed to pass that would have allowed eligible workers to earn at least one hour of paid sick and safe time for every 30 hours worked, up to 48 hours per year. Under the bill, workers would be able to carry over up to 80 accrued hours from year to year, but would be limited to a total of 80 hours of accrued but unused time unless otherwise permitted by an employer.

Legislators in Connecticut failed to advance a bill (2021 CT HB 6537) that would have added all private sector workers, including domestic workers, to those eligible for sick leave. Current law only applies to certain service workers at employers with 50 or more employees. The bill also increases the rate of accrual and eliminates the waiting period for use of leave. Finally, the bill expands the definition of “family member,” which is currently limited to children and spouses, to include adult children, siblings, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, and anyone else related by blood or affinity.

Lawmakers in Iowa are considering a bill (2021 IA HF 275) that would provide paid sick and safe time up to 83 hours per calendar year. Under the bill, workers would be allowed to carry over sick and safe time from year to year up to the annual maximum. In addition to sick and safe leave, workers would be entitled to use such leave during public health emergencies when their place of work is closed for caregiving needs resulting from closure of a school or place of care or to provide care for a family member under quarantine orders.

In New Hampshire, lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 NH SB 67/HB 590) to guarantee that workers, including part-time workers, can earn 1 hour of paid sick and safe time off for every 30 hours worked. Under the bill, workers would be able to accrue and use up to 72 hours of sick or safe leave each calendar year. The bill also provides civil penalties for employer violations and a private right of action for workers who are denied sick leave or receive retaliation from employers for using sick leave.

Policymakers in Illinois introduced legislation (2021 IL HB 3898) that would provide at least 40 hours of paid sick and safe leave to full-time and part-time employees, who would accrue 1 hour of leave for every 40 hours worked. A three-part test for independent contractors is also included in the definition of “employee” under the bill to avoid employee misclassification. 

Lawmakers in Mississippi (2021 MS SB 2349/HB 810 and 2022 MS HB 1044), Nebraska (2021 NE LB 258), West Virginia (2021 WV HB 3115), and Texas (2021 TX HB 1298 and 2021 TX HB 87) also considered proposals to establish paid sick leave protections for workers.

Girl looking at doctor examining with stethoscope

States Move to Protect Worker Health During Public Health Emergencies

In California, where workers already have access to paid sick days, lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 CA SB 95) to establish up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave for workers who are unable to work or telework due to COVID-19 through September 30, 2021. The new leave protections apply to employers of more than 25 employees, and workers can use the leave for quarantine, to receive and recover from a vaccine, to recover from COVID-19, to care for a family member subject to quarantine or isolation, or to care for a child whose school or place of care is closed due to COVID-19.

The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill (2021 MA H 90) to expand access to emergency paid sick leave. The bill would have guaranteed workers access to 40 hours of emergency sick leave for full-time workers and an equivalent amount for part-time workers. Workers would receive their full pay for leave taken for reasons related to COVID-19, including caring for a family member. The bill established a state fund to reimburse employers not eligible for the federal reimbursement under Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Although the bill was returned with amendments by the governor, lawmakers rejected the amendments and passed another bill (2021 MA H 3702) with the emergency sick leave provisions.

A bill (2021 MD SB 727/HB 1326) that failed to pass in Maryland would have amended the state’s existing sick and safe leave protections to provide public health emergency leave. The bill would have provided 112 hours of leave for full-time workers during a public health emergency and would have expanded eligibility for the state’s permanent paid sick and safe leave law to agricultural workers, temporary staffing or employment agency workers, or on-call workers. Finally, the bill would have amended the existing definitions of “family member” and “spouse.” 

Pennsylvania legislators introduced a bill (2021 PA HB 657) to establish 112 hours of public health emergency leave for full-time workers. Part-time workers would also be eligible for paid sick time equal to the amount of hours worked on average in a 14-day period. The leave would be available to workers for themselves, to provide care for a family member, for instances where their place of business is closed, or to provide child care when a school or place of care has been closed.

Minimum Wage

For too many workers, wages haven’t kept pace with the cost of rent, health care, child care, and other basic household expenses. While the federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 since 2009 and the federal subminimum wage for tipped workers at $2.13 since 1991, 30 states and DC have approved a higher state minimum wage, in addition to 45 localities that have enacted a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage ensures that workers can support their families while also narrowing the racial and gender wage gap that disproportionately leaves workers of color, especially Black women, in jobs that don’t pay enough to make ends meet.

In 2021-2022, state legislators across the country considered legislation to raise the minimum wage, address the erosion of minimum wage values by requiring automatic adjustments for inflation, eliminate or raise the subminimum wage for some workers, and repeal state preemption laws that prevent local governments from taking action to increase the minimum wage above the state minimum wage.

Tattooed white essential workers in service and delivery industry with face mask during covid pandemic

State Lawmakers Take Action to Raise the Minimum Wage for More Workers

Lawmakers in Delaware enacted a bill (2021 DE SB 15) that would gradually increase the state minimum wage from $9.25 per hour in 2021 to $15 per hour by 2025.

A recently enacted bill in Hawaii (2022 HI HB 2510) ramps up the state’s minimum wage every two years from the current $10.10 per hour (75 cents for tipped workers) to $18 per hour by the start of 2028 ($1.50 per hour for tipped workers). This law also makes the state’s earned income tax refundable.

Rhode Island legislators also enacted a bill (2021 RI SB 1) increasing the state minimum wage gradually from $11.50 to $15 by 2025. 

Arizona lawmakers failed to advance a proposal (2021 AZ SB 1758) that would have increased the state minimum wage for all workers to $20 starting on January 1, 2022, and increased it on an ongoing basis for inflation. The bill would have allowed tipped employees to be paid $3 less per hour than the minimum wage if their employer can prove the tips their employees receive make up the difference. 

In Georgia, lawmakers are considering a minimum wage increase to $15 starting in 2022. A bill (2021 GA HB 116) under consideration in the House incorporates this wage increase but allows employers to count tips toward 50 percent of employees’ minimum wage, and it exempts small employers, students, newspaper carriers, and caretakers. The Senate companion bill (2021 GA SB 24) also establishes a yearly cost-of-living adjustment to the minimum wage starting in 2023.  

A bill (2021 IA HF 122) introduced by Iowa lawmakers would increase the state minimum wage gradually to $15 by July 2025, and to $13.20 for employees employed for less than 90 days by July 2025. The bill also establishes annual cost-of-living increases beginning in July of 2026.

In Minnesota, lawmakers are considering a bill (2021 MN SF 2031) to raise the state minimum wage starting in 2022. Larger employers with more than $500,000 in gross sales must pay employees a minimum wage of $17 per hour, while smaller employers who do not meet this requirement must raise their wages to $15 per hour. After 2022, this minimum wage is adjusted annually, using the cost of inflation. 

Legislators in North Carolina are considering legislation (2021 NC HB 612/SB 673) to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2023 with a cost-of-living adjustment implemented starting in 2024.

Ohio lawmakers are considering a bill (2021 OH SB 51) that would increase the state minimum wage to $12 by 2022 and provide for gradual increases by $1 annually until the minimum wage reaches $15 in 2025. The state minimum wage is adjusted annually thereafter for inflation.

Oregon lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 OR HB 3351) that would have increased the state minimum wage to $17 per hour starting on July 1, 2022. The bill would have also provided an annual cost-of-living adjustment beginning on July 1, 2023.

In Texas, lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 TX HB 615) that would have raised the state minimum wage to $11.25 in 2022 and $15 in 2023. Starting in 2024, the minimum wage would increase with a cost-of-living adjustment. The bill also would have established that tipped workers must be paid at least 50 percent of the base minimum wage.

Black chef preparing food for those most in need during the economic crisis
Eliminating Exemptions to Minimum Wage Protections

Minimum wage laws apply to most workers, but employers are allowed to pay less than the federal minimum wage in some instances. Under federal law, employers can pay workers with disabilities and student workers or workers in training a subminimum wage by obtaining a special certificate. For workers who typically receive tips—a racist custom rooted in slavery that continues to harm Black service workers today—employers are only required to pay the federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13. Thirty-four states and DC have increased the minimum wage for tipped workers, while 16 states continue to use the federal tipped minimum wage, which was last updated in 1991. Another direct legacy of slavery, prison labor, allows incarcerated individuals, who are disproportionately Black, to work for little to no wages.

Tipped Workers

Idaho lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 ID SB 1028) that would have gradually raised the minimum tipped wage to $7.50 by July 1, 2023.

Lawmakers in Nebraska (2021 NE LB 122), New York (2021 NY A 4547), Rhode Island (2021 RI HB 6012), and Wisconsin (2021 WI AB 278/SB 286) all considered legislation that would gradually raise the tipped minimum wage to align with the state minimum wage for all workers over the course of several years.

Legislators in North Carolina are considering legislation (2021 NC HB 612/SB 673) to repeal sections of existing state law that exempt agricultural and domestic workers from minimum wage and overtime protections. The bill would also increase the tipped minimum wage and gradually phase it out by 2025.

Individuals with Disabilities

Colorado lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 CO SB 21-039) to phase out subminimum wage for workers with disabilities by July 1, 2025, and require each employer to submit a transition plan to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment detailing how the employer plans to comply. 

Rhode Island enacted a bill (2022 RI HB 7511/SB 2242) to repeal the subminimum wage for workers with physical or mental disabilities, thereby requiring the state’s minimum wage instead. A similar bill (2021 HI SB 793) was passed by lawmakers in Hawaii.

New York lawmakers are also considering legislation (2021 NY S 1828/A 3103) that would eliminate provisions exempting employees with disabilities from the minimum wage law. 

Legislation in South Carolina (2021 SC SB 533) introduced in 2021 and enacted in 2022 removes the subminimum wage for employees with disabilities and instead requires that they be paid at least the federal minimum wage. Similar legislation enacted in Tennessee (2022 TN SB 2042) provides for the federal minimum wage as the floor wage instead of a subminimum wage.

In California, lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 CA SB 639) directing a state agency to develop a plan to phase out the use of subminimum wages for disabled workers by 2025. Delaware lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 DE HB 112) to phase out the subminimum wage for disabled workers by July 1, 2023.

Employees in Training

The Delaware General Assembly enacted a bill (2021 DE HB 88) to remove the training minimum wage (for employees in their first 90 days on the job) and the youth minimum wage (for employees under the age of 18). 

Nebraska passed a new law (2022 NE LB 1012) that raises the minimum wage for student interns from the federal minimum wage to the state’s $9 hourly minimum wage, with state grants to support employers with less than 50 FTE employees.

Idaho lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 ID SB 1028) that would have eliminated the training wage of $4.25 for the first 90 days of employment for workers under 20 years old. 

Individuals in Prison

Enacted legislation in Colorado (2022 CO SB 50) will increase the minimum wage for prison labor in correctional facilities from the federal minimum wage to the state’s minimum wage. In Washington, lawmakers enacted a bill (2022 WA HB 1168) to require that inmate forest fire suppression and support crews be paid no less than the local minimum wage.

In Arizona, lawmakers failed to advance legislation (2021 AZ SB 1751) that would have raised the minimum wage for individuals in prison from $1.50 to match the federal minimum wage. The bill would have also increased the maximum balance that incarcerated individuals can hold in their spending accounts.

States Consider Rollbacks of Local Minimum Wage Preemptions

In 26 states, state law prohibits local governments from setting a minimum wage that is higher than the state minimum wage. During the 2021 legislative session, lawmakers in Florida (2021 FL SB 304/HB 6031), Georgia (2021 GA HB 499), Idaho (2021 ID S 1028), Indiana (2021 IN SB 334), Missouri (2021 MO HB 409), Oklahoma (2021 OK SB 101), and Texas (2021 TX HB 224/SB 389) introduced but failed to advance legislation that would have repealed the state’s minimum wage preemption law. Pending legislation to roll back minimum wage preemption laws are also pending in Iowa (2021 IA HF 122) and Ohio (2021 OH SB 51).

Unemployment Insurance

Unemployment benefits ensure that workers can pay the bills while they search for work, while also stabilizing communities during economic downturns. During the unprecedented job losses of the COVID-19 recession, lawmakers sent unemployment benefits, billions of dollars in lifesaving aid, to families across the country. State laws and regulations vary significantly across the country, leaving many jobless workers ineligible for benefits or without enough benefits to offset lost wages, particularly in southern states with higher shares of Black residents.

Across the country, legislators worked to strengthen unemployment insurance programs during the 2021 legislative session with proposals to increase benefit adequacy, expand eligibility for benefits, and to protect workers from overpayment recovery in non-fraud cases.

Masked worker in truck prepares for shift

State Legislators Boost Unemployment Benefits

A bill (2021 WA SB 5061) enacted by Washington lawmakers would increase the minimum weekly benefit amount in the unemployment insurance program from 15 percent to 20 percent of the state average weekly wage, and it caps the benefit amount at the individual’s weekly wage. 

In Vermont, a bill (2021 VT S 10), as passed by the Senate, would establish a dependent allowance of $50 per week for claimants with one or more dependent children.

A bill (2021 AZ SB 1748/HB 2884) that failed to pass in Arizona would have increased the maximum unemployment benefit amount incrementally over three years from a fixed amount of $205 to 55 percent of the state average weekly wage for all covered workers.

Another bill (2021 AZ HB 2662) that failed to advance in Arizona would have established a dependent allowance for unemployment benefits. Individuals would have received an additional $25 per dependent, not to exceed $50 per week, in addition to their weekly benefit amount.

Florida lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 FL HB 207/SB 592) that would have increased the maximum weekly benefit amount from $275 to $500, in addition to increasing the minimum weekly benefit amount from $32 to $100. The bill would have increased the maximum duration for receipt of assistance to 26 weeks. 

In Massachusetts, legislators are considering a bill (2021 MA S 1214/H 2033) to increase unemployment benefits for low-wage workers. The bill would ensure that more workers with low or unstable incomes would be able to access unemployment insurance by providing an alternate calculation method spread over two quarters, instead of one quarter, for workers who did not earn enough to meet the wage-based eligibility test. The bill also establishes a minimum weekly benefit amount of 20 percent of the state average weekly wage or 75 percent of the individual’s average weekly wage, and it increases the total benefit that an individual can receive during a benefit year to a larger share of their wages from 36 percent to 60 percent.

A bill (2021 NE LB 171) introduced by Nebraska lawmakers would increase a claimant’s weekly benefit amount by 5 percent for each dependent of the individual, up to a maximum increase of 15 percent. 

North Carolina legislators are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 320/HB 331) that would increase the maximum weekly benefit amount from $350 to $500 and establish an annual adjustment for inflation, provided that the change is positive. The bill would adopt a more generous method for calculating weekly benefit amounts by using a worker’s wages in their highest paid quarter instead of wages paid in the last two completed quarters. Finally, the bill extends the maximum duration of benefits to 26 weeks.

Black butcher talking to customer at butchers shop

Lawmakers Take Steps to Increase Access to Unemployment Benefits

Oregon lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 OR HB 3178) that eliminates an existing requirement that part-time workers may only be considered unemployed if their weekly wages are less than their weekly benefit amount.

Michigan lawmakers enacted legislation (2021 MI SB 445) that expands eligibility for federal pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA) to part-time workers. Under prior state law, part-time claimants were only eligible for benefits if they were able and available for full-time work; the bill applies to claims filed after March 1, 2020.

Legislators in Arizona failed to advance a bill (2021 AZ SB 1748/HB 2884) that would have amended the definition of “unemployed” from a weekly wage that is less than the weekly benefit amount to a weekly wage that is less than 140 percent of the weekly benefit amount. The bill would have eliminated the one-week waiting period before workers can receive and qualify for benefits. Additionally, the bill would have allowed more low-wage and part-time workers to be eligible for benefits; existing law requires workers to have been paid wages in one calendar quarter equal to at least 390 times the state minimum wage, and the bill would lower the threshold to 200 times the minimum wage.

In Florida, legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 FL HB 207/SB 592) that would have expanded access to unemployment benefits to more low-wage and nontraditional workers by establishing an “alternative base period” of the four most recently completed calendar quarters before a benefit year if they are ineligible because their wages were too low. Additionally, the wage-based eligibility requirement would have been lowered from $3,400 during a base period to $1,200. The bill would have lowered job search requirements for claimants from five contacts with prospective employers per week to three while allowing claimants to accept only part-time work of at least 20 hours per week. Finally, the bill would have required the Department of Economic Opportunity to establish two alternative methods for submitting a claim for benefits, such as telephone or email, in addition to claims via postal mail or a website.

Lawmakers in Massachusetts are considering legislation (2021 MA S 1202) to expand access to unemployment insurance for workers with fluctuating work schedules. The bill would amend the calculation for an individual’s average weekly wage to allow workers who do not meet the earnings minimum to use an alternate calculation method with a longer base period of two quarters instead of one.

Protecting Against Employee Misclassification

Iowa lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 IA HF 176) that would establish a financial penalty for employers who are found to have willfully failed to pay contributions for state unemployment insurance by misclassifying an employee’s wages equal to the amount that the employer failed to pay.

A bill (2021 MA H 2016) introduced by Massachusetts lawmakers would amend the definition of employer as it applies to unemployment insurance to clarify that employers who contract with independent contractors are responsible for making unemployment insurance contributions.

Access to Unemployment Benefits for Excluded Immigrant Workers

Colorado legislators enacted a bill (2021 CO SB 21-233) that, as introduced, would have established the Left-Behind Workers Program within the Division of Unemployment Insurance that would provide benefits to individuals who are ineligible for unemployment benefits due to their immigration status. Workers would receive benefits equivalent to 55 percent of their average weekly wage, not to exceed the maximum weekly benefit amount for unemployment benefits, for up to 13 weeks. The program was struck from the bill by committee amendments and replaced with a feasibility study before passage.

In 2022, Colorado lawmakers enacted a bill (2022 CO SB 234) to establish the Benefit Recovery Fund to provide benefits to unemployed workers who are ineligible for unemployment benefits due to their immigration status. Under the new law, a portion of existing employer premiums for unemployment insurance is diverted to the fund, and the state is required to award grants to a third-party administrator to provide benefits. Eligible workers will receive benefits amounting to 55 percent of their average weekly wage for up to 13 weeks.

A bill (2021 NE LB 298) that received first-round approval by Nebraska lawmakers would clarify that work-authorized immigrants are eligible for unemployment benefits. 

Provisions of a bill (2021 NY S 4543/A 5421) to establish the Excluded Worker Fund were incorporated into the final budget (2021 S 2509/A 3009) passed by New York lawmakers. The new fund will provide cash assistance to residents of the state who have suffered a loss of earnings due to the COVID-19 pandemic and during the state of emergency but do not qualify for unemployment benefits and federal relief payments. Workers with $26,208 or less in earnings in the last 12 months and documentation of their work and earnings are eligible for a one-time payment of $14,820; all other workers without work and earnings documentation are eligible for a one-time payment of $3,040.

Washington legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 WA SB 5438) that would have established the Washington Income Replacement for Immigrant Workers Program to “provide unemployment benefits to low-income workers who are unemployed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and not eligible for state or federal unemployment benefits.” Workers who experienced a week of unemployment after January 1, 2021, and before June 20, 2022, due to COVID-19-related reasons would be eligible for a $400 payment for each week of unemployment. 

Work-Sharing Programs

Maryland legislators enacted a bill (2021 MD SB 771/HB 1143) to expand the state’s existing work-sharing plan to include workers who are rehired after a temporary closure or layoff due to COVID-19. Under prior law, employers who reduced their workforce by 20 to 50 percent were eligible for work-sharing programs; the bill widens the range for eligibility employers who reduce their normal weekly work hours by anywhere between 10 and 60 percent.

In Tennessee, legislators enacted a bill (2021 TN SB 958/HB 1274) that establishes a voluntary shared work unemployment benefits program. Under the new law, employers can submit and receive approval from the state for a plan to reduce employee work hours in exchange for employee access to unemployment benefits. In order to receive approval, an employer’s plan must meet certain criteria, including the maintenance of health and retirement benefits for workers and a reduction of work hours by no less than 10 percent and not more than 40 percent.

Under a bill (2021 WV HB 3294) enacted by West Virginia lawmakers, employers can participate in an optional “work sharing plan.” After receiving approval for their plan from the Workforce West Virginia Commissioner, employers can avoid layoffs by reducing the hours of their workforce by no less than 10 percent and no more than 60 percent, while affected employees are eligible for short-term compensation through unemployment benefits.

Wyoming legislators enacted a bill (2021 WY HB 9) to establish the Short Time Compensation Program, which allows employers to submit a plan for approval to request the payment of short time compensation to employees to avoid layoffs. To be eligible for the program, employers must demonstrate that at least two or more employees’ hours will be reduced between 10 percent and 60 percent. 

A bill (2021 HI HB 462) introduced in the Hawaii legislature would establish a work-sharing program for eligible employers. Employers whose work-sharing plans are approved can reduce between 10 and 50 percent of weekly hours of work for eligible employees in lieu of temporary layoffs that would affect at least 10 percent of eligible employees and would result in an equivalent reduction in work hours. 

Indiana legislators failed to advance multiple proposals (2021 IN SB 44, 2021 IN SB 312, 2021 IN HB 1235, and 2022 IN HB 1215) that would have created a work-sharing unemployment insurance program. Under each bill, full- and part-time workers who have been continuously employed for at least 16 months prior to the work-sharing plan would have been able to receive unemployment benefits proportional to their reduction in work hours.

Asian barber in mask cutting hair
Good Cause for Voluntary Separation from Employment

Generally, workers are ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits if they voluntarily quit their job or refuse suitable work without “good cause.” While the definition varies by state, good cause exemptions typically protect workers who leave their jobs due to safety concerns, unfair wage or hour violations, to escape domestic violence, or discrimination by their employer. The COVID-19 pandemic spurred many lawmakers across the country to clarify statutory definitions of good cause to accommodate new caregiving needs or health and safety concerns about the work environment.

Nebraska legislators enacted a bill (2021 NE LB 260) that expands the definition of good cause for voluntarily leaving employment to include leaving a job to care for a family member with a serious health condition. Under the new law, family members include children, parents, spouses, grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings, and the definition of serious health condition is the same as defined under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

A bill (2021 NY A 6080/S 2623) enacted by New York legislators would amend existing law to provide that a claimant shall not be disqualified from receiving benefits for separation from employment due to “the need for the individual to provide child care to the individual’s child if such individual has made reasonable efforts to secure alternative child care.”

A bill (2021 WA SB 5061) approved by legislators in Washington provides that during a public health emergency, an individual who is at a higher risk of severe illness or death from the relevant disease, or lives with someone who is at higher risk, is eligible for unemployment benefits if they voluntarily leave employment. The bill also amends the definition of “suitable work” for the purposes of work search activities to include “the degree of risk to the health of those residing with the individual during a public health emergency.”

Arizona lawmakers introduced a bill (2021 AZ HB 2663) that failed to advance but would have provided eligibility for unemployment benefits for individuals who leave their employment or refuse an offer of employment or reemployment for reasons related to unsuitable health and safety conditions. The bill also creates good cause provisions that apply during a public health emergency, including violations of public health guidance, a need to provide care for a child or a household member, or if they leave to care for a seriously ill or quarantined family or household member.

In Kentucky, a bill (2021 KY HB 406) that failed to pass would have expanded good cause for leaving employment for the purposes of eligibility for receiving unemployment benefits to include circumstances directly resulting from domestic violence and abuse, dating violence and abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.

A bill (2021 NY S 731/A 2115) introduced by New York lawmakers would provide that a claimant shall not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits in cases where they have left their employment because “the employer maintained or refused or failed to cure a health or safety condition that made the environment unsuitable.”

Legislation (2021 VT H 359) that is stalled in Vermont would have expanded the definition of good cause for voluntarily leaving employment to include a change in the location of their place of work that is more than 35 miles from their residence or a location that takes more than one and a half hours to commute to; working conditions that pose a risk to their health and safety as certified by a health care provider; an unreliable work schedule; to care for a family member who is ill, injured, pregnant, or disabled; or to care for a child due to the unavailability of adequate or affordable child care.

A bill (2021 WA HB 1486/SB 5064) introduced by Washington lawmakers would expand good cause circumstances to replace “immediate family member” with “family member,” and add care for a child or vulnerable adult if caregiving is inaccessible, so long as the claimant has made reasonable efforts to a leave of absence or changes in working conditions or work schedule that would accommodate their circumstances. Additionally, the bill expands the existing good cause definition to include a change in the claimant’s usual work shifts or a relocation that makes care for a child or vulnerable adult inaccessible.

warehouse worker transporting a pallet of cardboard boxes

Lawmakers Protect Workers from Clawbacks in Non-Fraud Overpayment Cases

A bill (2021 OR SB 172) enacted by Oregon lawmakers would allow the state to waive clawbacks in cases where an individual received an overpayment of unemployment benefits if recovery of overpayments would be against “equity and good conscience” and if the overpayment was not due to willful misrepresentation by the recipient.

Legislators in Illinois are considering a bill (2021 IL HB 2773) that would permanently waive recovery or recoupment of unemployment benefits from individuals if their benefit year began during the state’s disaster proclamation in response to COVID-19.

In Indiana, lawmakers introduced a bill (2021 IN SB 237) that failed to advance but would have required the Department of Workforce Development to waive repayment of unemployment benefit overpayments made if they were received without fault of the individual.

A bill (2021 KY HB 240) that failed to advance in Kentucky would have allowed the Secretary of Labor to waive an overpayment of benefits upon request if it was determined that recovery would be against “equity and good conscience,” and the overpayment was due to administrative, clerical, or office error; or not the result of fraud, misrepresentation, willful nondisclosure, or the fault of the recipient.

In New Hampshire, legislators introduced a bill (2021 NH SB 161) that would prohibit the commissioner of employment security from charging interest on unemployment benefit overpayments unless an individual willfully made a false statement or knowingly failed to disclose a material fact, and from requiring repayments by any collection method unless the individual has exhausted all administrative remedies. The bill also directs the commissioner to suspend collection of non-fraud overpayments during the state of emergency, including overpayments that occurred or were established prior to the state of emergency.

New York lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 NY S 6169/A 6666) that would protect unemployment insurance claimants from being held liable for overpayments if the overpayment was not due to fraud or a willful false statement or representation, if the overpayment was received without fault on the part of the claimant, and if the recovery of such overpayment would be against “equity and good conscience.” The bill also provides notice requirements for claimants when a determination is made regarding recovery of overpayments.

In North Carolina, legislators introduced a bill (2021 NC SB 320/HB 331) that amends an existing requirement that any person who has been paid benefits to which they were not entitled shall be liable to repay the overpayment and to create an exception for cases where the error was on the part of any representative of the Division of Employment Security.

A bill (2021 VT H 97) that is stalled in Vermont would provide that “an individual shall not be liable to repay any overpayment of benefits that resulted from something other than the individual’s own act or omission.”

West Virginia legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 WV HB 2873) that would allow the Commissioner of Labor to waive repayment of overpayments of unemployment benefits for which the claimant is not at fault. The Commissioner would be authorized to waive repayment when it would be against “equity and good conscience” and cause financial hardship.

Worker in mask curbside pickup to driver

State Legislators Expand Workers’ Compensation Coverage

A (2021 NY S 3291/A 6077) bill enacted by legislators in New York expands eligibility for workers’ compensation to domestic workers. Domestic workers working a minimum of 20 hours a week will be eligible, up from 40 hours a week. 

Another bill (2022 NY S 7843) enacted by New York legislators requires the state workers’ compensation board to provide translations of certain documents and forms. Under existing law, documents and forms used by or issued to injured employees must be published in the 10 most common non-English languages spoken by individuals with limited-English proficiency in the state; under the new law, “all board documents that provide general information to injured employees on the process of applying for workers’ compensation benefits” must be translated.

Virginia lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 VA SB 1310) to expand coverage of employment protection laws to domestic workers. As introduced, the bill ensured that more domestic workers can access workers’ compensation. The workers’ compensation provisions were removed in the enacted version of the bill, which extends wage protections and safety standards to domestic workers.

Washington legislators enacted a bill (2022 WA SB 5701) that amends the benefit calculation for claimants who are injured working while incarcerated. Under prior law, benefits for incarcerated workers are calculated based on wages paid to other employees engaged in like or similar occupations; the bill requires the benefit calculation to be based on the much-higher wages of similar workers who are not incarcerated.

In Kansas, a bill (2021 KS HB 2016) introduced would amend existing workers’ compensation law from requiring that an accident be “the prevailing factor in causing the injury” to “a substantial factor in causing the injury.”

New York legislators introduced a bill (2021 NY A 284) that would provide nail specialists a private right of action against employers who violate workers’ compensation and wage laws. The bill also creates financial penalties for health and safety violations and for unlawful retaliation against nail specialists.

States Strengthen Anti-Retaliation Protections

Lawmakers in New York are considering legislation (2021 NY S 3732/A 6775) to clarify that discrimination and retaliation by an employer against a worker who claims workers’ compensation includes the threat of reporting the citizenship status of a worker’s or a worker’s family member.

Oregon lawmakers enacted a bill (2022 OR HB 4086) to strengthen anti-retaliation protections for workers seeking workers’ compensation. Existing law prohibits retaliatory behavior by an employer—under the new law, anyone acting on behalf of an employer is also prohibited from discriminating against a worker seeking or receiving workers’ compensation. The bill also expands the definition of prohibited retaliatory actions to include actions against a worker who inquires about workers’ compensation. Finally, the bill establishes a more expansive definition of family members eligible for benefits upon the death of a worker to include a worker’s stepparents, stepsiblings, stepchildren, grandparents, grandchildren, or any spouse or domestic partner thereof.

Vermont legislators introduced a bill (2021 VT H 139) to amend existing anti-discrimination protections under workers’ compensation statutes to prohibit employers with 15 or more employees from firing an employee because of their absence from work during a period of temporary total disability.

Legislators Ensure That Workers Have a Right to Choose Their Own Doctor

A bill (2021 CO SB 21-197) that failed to advance in Colorado would have allowed injured workers to choose their treating physician from an existing list of accredited physicians through the Department of Labor and Employment. Existing law limits the selection of treating physicians to a list of designated providers as provided by the employer or by the worker’s compensation insurer.

Indiana lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 IN HB 1339) to allow employees to choose the physician for services required as a result of an employment injury or occupational disease for the purposes of workers’ compensation. Under current law, workers are required to receive treatment from a physician supplied by their employer.

In Montana, a bill (2021 MT HB 412) that failed would have amended workers’ compensation statutes to allow workers to choose their own treating physician. Existing law allows workers to choose the treating physician for initial treatment, but insurers may designate another treating physician or approve the worker’s chosen physician.

Wage Theft Protections

Each year, employers steal billions of dollars from the paychecks of workers, most frequently from workers of color, women, immigrants, and low-wage workers. Employers, especially corporations that intentionally refuse to pay workers for wages earned, must be held accountable for wage theft violations to ensure that workers can seek justice without fear of losing even more of their hard-earned wages. Enforcement of wage theft violations vary significantly across the nation and is dependent on a state’s enforcement capacity, legal protections and penalties for violations, and anti-retaliation protections for workers

State legislators took steps to rein in and deter employer wage theft violations during the 2021 legislative session by strengthening state enforcement practices, increasing compensation for workers, enhancing employer penalties, and closing loopholes that allow employers to evade labor protections.

Asian manicure therapist filing customer nails in nail salon with protective screen

Lawmakers Strengthen State Enforcement of Wage Theft Violations

Colorado lawmakers passed legislation (2022 CO SB 161) to increase employer penalties for wage theft and redefining wage theft as criminal theft. Additionally, the bill creates a private right of action for employees who have experienced discrimination or retaliation by an employer for filing a wage complaint or testifying or providing evidence in a wage theft proceeding. Such employees are eligible for back pay, reinstatement, interest on unpaid wages, penalties, and inductive relief. Finally, the bill creates new protections against worker misclassification by establishing the Worker and Employee Protection Unit under the direction of the attorney general, which is responsible for investigating worker misclassification.

A bill (2021 MA S 1179/H 1959) introduced by Massachusetts lawmakers would authorize the state attorney general to file a civil action for injunctive relief, damages, and lost wages and benefits on behalf of an employee or group of employees. Where such cases prevail, employees are entitled to treble (or triple) damages and the state shall be awarded the costs of litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The bill also authorizes the attorney general to issue a stop work order against a person or entity found to be in violation of certain wage laws. The bill also creates whistleblower and anti-retaliation protections for workers involved in wage theft claims by creating a rebuttable presumption of a violation of law where an employer discriminates or takes adverse action against a worker within 90 days of their exercise of rights under the law.

New York lawmakers are considering the “Empowering People in Rights Enforcement (EMPIRE) Worker Protection Act” (2021 NY S 12/A 5876), which would allow workers to initiate a public enforcement action on behalf of the state for violations of labor laws and regulation, including wage theft. Under the bill, workers would also be able to authorize a labor union or nonprofit organization to initiate a public enforcement action on their behalf. The bill designates that a portion of civil penalties recovered, depending on whether the state was an intervener in the case, be remitted to the Department of Labor for future enforcement actions.

Introduced legislation in New York (2021 NY AB 8092), which passed out of both chambers in 2022, would add the use of “any legally protected absence” to the reasons that an employer cannot retaliate against an employee, and would include deducting allotted leave time as a potential prohibited employer method “to threaten, penalize, or in any other manner  discriminate or retaliate” against an employee.

Another bill (2021 NY A 1893) proposed by New York legislators would require that cities with a population of one million or more residents shall reject bids for contracts where the bidder “has had any safety, wage theft, or other violations involving the mistreatment of employees or contractors,” among other new considerations regarding the bidder’s history of compliance with the law or project performance.

In Texas, legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 TX SB 1834/HB 190) that would have established a publicly accessible wage theft database of employers that have been assessed a penalty, ordered to pay a wage claim, or convicted of a wage penalty offense. Employers would remain on the database for three years after their assessment or conviction.

Lawmakers Improve Recovery of Lost Wages, Damages, and Legal Costs

In Arkansas, legislators introduced but failed to advance the “Right to Know and Get Your Pay Act” (2021 AR SB 600), which would have entitled workers to damages in the amount of twice their wages due. The bill also would have established an employee’s right to file civil action against an employer who fails to comply with the new law. Workers who prevail in such cases are entitled to unpaid wages, an additional 25 percent of unpaid wages as damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs; in cases that are found to be an intentional violation, workers are entitled to double damages. Finally, the bill would have provided new anti-retaliation protections for workers who engage in wage theft enforcement actions, and employers who are found to have retaliated are subject to civil action and a penalty of $5,000.

Lawmakers in Illinois passed legislation (2021 IL SB 2476/HB 118) to increase the amount of damages that workers can recover in cases of wage theft. Under current law, workers are entitled to the amount of underpayments, in addition to damages of 2 percent of underpayments for each month following the date of payment during which such underpayments remain unpaid; the bill would increase damages to 5 percent of lost wages.

A bill (2021 NY S 2762/A 766) introduced in New York would ensure that workers can recover wage claims ordered in court judgments or administrative decisions when an employer transfers or hides assets. The bill creates an employee’s lien, where wage claims can be resolved against an employer’s interest in property.

North Carolina legislators are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 446) that would increase the amount of damages that an aggrieved worker is entitled to in recovering unpaid wages. Existing law provides damages equal to the amount unpaid in addition to 8 percent interest; the bill would increase damages to twice the amount unpaid, plus interest. The bill also authorizes courts to award statutory damages of up to $500 per employee per violation in cases where an intentional violation of wage theft is found, in addition to requiring legal fees to be paid by the defendant. Finally, the bill allows for recovery of unpaid wages to be enforced through a lien on property of the employer or property upon which the employee has performed work.

cleaning staff disinfecting elevator

State Legislators Enhance Employer Penalties for Wage Theft Violations

Lawmakers in California approved legislation (2021 CA AB 1003) that would create a new crime of grand theft for the intentional theft of wages, including benefits or other compensation, in an amount greater than $950, in aggregate, by an employer. As amended, the bill includes theft of gratuities and includes independent contractors within the definition of employee. 

Enacted legislation in Oregon (2022 OR HB 4002) provides a “carrot and stick” approach to overtime compensation for agricultural workers. This new law phases in a 40-hour regular workweek for agricultural workers and provides for a civil penalty for any employer violations and also creates a tax credit to employers for a percentage of overtime compensation paid due to this new law.

In Kentucky, lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 KY HB 63) that would have created a new Class A misdemeanor for employer theft of wages in cases where the value of unpaid wages was less than $500. Under the bill, wage theft of $500 or more but less than $10,000 would be a Class D felony, and cases of wage theft of $10,000 would be a Class C felony.

A bill (2021 NY S 4009/A 2022) that has passed the Senate in New York would amend the definition of property relating to the existing crime of larceny to include wage theft.

North Carolina lawmakers are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 446) that would establish civil penalties for employers who violate minimum wage, overtime, wage payment, and employee wage notification laws. Under the bill, the maximum penalty would be $500 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent violation.

In Rhode Island, legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 RI S 195/H 5870) that would have strengthened penalties for wage theft and employee misclassification. The bill would have created a new felony for misclassification and wage theft, punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 for the first offense of lost wages of $1,500 to $5,000, or up to five years in prison and a fine of three times the wage amount or $20,000, whichever is greater, for subsequent violations in excess of $5,000. 

Legislators Close Employer Liability Loopholes

Georgia legislation (2021 GA HB 389), which passed in 2022, provides the following test for subcontractor misclassification by clarifying that someone who is NOT an employee: “(i) Is not prohibited from working for other companies or holding other employment  contemporaneously; (ii) Is free to accept or reject work assignments without consequence; (iii) Is not prescribed minimum hours to work or, in the case of sales, does not have  a minimum number of orders to be obtained; (iv) Has the discretion to set his or her own work schedule; (v) Receives only minimal instructions and no direct oversight or supervision  regarding the services to be performed, such as the location where the services are to  be performed and any requested deadlines; (vi) When applicable, has no territorial or geographic restrictions; and (vii) Is not required to perform, behave, or act or, alternatively, is compelled to  perform, behave, or act in a manner related to the performance of services for wages.”

Lawmakers in New York enacted a bill (2021 NY S 2766/A 3350) targeting the evasion of wage theft enforcement by construction subcontractors. The bill would clarify that the general or prime contractor of a construction project assumes liability for unpaid wages, benefits, damages, and attorneys’ fees resulting from civil or administrative actions for wage theft claims against its subcontractors. Additionally, the bill authorizes contractors to withhold payments to subcontractors for failure to comply with wage theft prevention measures, including the provision of payroll records.

In Massachusetts, a bill (2021 MA S 1179/H 1959) under consideration would subject lead contractors to joint and several civil liability (in cases where multiple parties are at fault, each party is independently liable for the full amount of damages) for wage theft violations of any contractor or subcontractor that performs labor or services “that has a significant nexus with the lead contractor’s business activities, operations or purposes.” Under the bill, lead contractors who receive notice of wage theft violations against a person performing labor for them through a contractor or subcontractor may provide the unpaid wages directly to the person or withhold payments to the contractor or subcontractor in the amount of unpaid wages.

American Responsibility to Afghan Refugees

After twenty years of war in Afghanistan—after 800,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, after 20,744 American service members were injured, and after 2,461 American personnel were lost—President Biden refused to send another generation of America’s sons and daughters to fight in a war that should have ended long ago. We must continue to support the Afghan people through diplomacy, international influence, and humanitarian aid while also supporting Afghan families seeking refuge here. 

Here are some ways to use your power as a legislator to advocate for Afghan families seeking refuge. 

Examples of state legislation to support Afghan and other refugees:

Speak out

Q&A: What is Redistricting and How Will It Affect NC?

This Q&A is excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone townhall featuring North Carolina State Reps. Terry M. Brown Jr. and Brian Turner. Answers have been edited for length and clarity.

What is redistricting? 

State Rep. Terry Brown Jr.: Redistricting is the process states use to draw the maps that determine which district you live in. 

As per our Constitution, district lines are redrawn every 10 years based on new census data. And North Carolina is in the redistricting process right now.

Why is redistricting important? 

State Rep. Terry Brown Jr.: Redistricting is important because you want representatives in the North Carolina General Assembly or up in DC to reflect the community that you live in. With the new census numbers, we're also getting another congressional seat. So that's going to be a huge change for us. 

We want to make sure that we redraw districts in the fairest way possible, and the only way to do that is by showing how many people in North Carolina care about this. 

So I encourage everyone to make sure that you, your friends, and your family are engaged in this process. Go to ncleg.gov; there's a tab called "Redistricting" on the right-hand side where you can leave public comments.

Every single member of the House and Senate gets those [public comments]. They may not always respond, but they always see them. And I've been in committee meetings where members pause the process just because they've received so many emails. There's power in that.

How would you like to see North Carolina expand access to voting?

State Rep. Brian Turner: The best thing we can do is get rid of the voter ID requirement. But if it withstands the court challenge, and we have to live with it, I'd want to see the broadest number of IDs eligible to be used, like college student IDs or utility bills. I think it goes a long way to making sure that people have access to the ballot.

 State Rep. Terry Brown Jr.: I'd like to see North Carolina continue practices that we had during the pandemic, like when we allowed voter registration through the North Carolina DMV system online. It's important to meet people where they are.

I also want to see expanded early voting locations and hours. The reasons I hear most from people who don't vote is that they didn't have time, didn't know where polling places were located or weren't aware of the elections.

Some politicians in states like Georgia want to create barriers to voting. Are you concerned that some of those threats will come back to North Carolina?

State Rep. Terry Brown Jr.: The threat is always going to be there. If one state is doing something, several other states are not too far behind. We have had some very bad bills introduced here in North Carolina, but luckily, not to the same extent as we've seen in Georgia.

That's why this redistricting process is so important. The maps will determine the future of our state and what type of policies are introduced for the next ten years. 

Submit a Public Comment at NC.gov

Submit a public comment about the ongoing redistricting process in North Carolina.

Find Your State Legislators

Who's your voice at the state capitol? Find your state legislators with our easy-to-use tool.

Mary Lou from Charlotte believes that voter ID is a good thing. Can share how voter ID laws affect voter access in North Carolina?

State Rep. Brian Turner: During my first election in 2014, I was working the polls out in Leicester, a rural area in Buncombe County. And many of the voters only came to town once or twice a year and didn't have a driver's license. They're like my grandma, who was born in Flag Pond, Tennessee, on a farm.

These are folks who don't have access to IDs because they don't need them in their day-to-day lives. And just because you don't participate in our economy the way others do, it shouldn't disqualify you from having your voice heard. Your vote counts just as much as anybody else.

Sometimes we have to revisit some of the assumptions in our lives. I've been used to having an ID my whole life. But there are plenty of folks out there who have never had one. I think we need to be sensitive and recognize that. 

What does the right to vote mean to you?

On November 3rd 1992, the day after my 18th birthday, I walked down to my local polling place. I was first in line, I was so excited to vote, to have a chance to decide who was going to be our president, our senator, our county commissioner. It really empowered me.

And that's something that I want to make sure that everybody in North Carolina has the opportunity to do. I want to make sure that when they walk into a polling place, that they're not being asked six different questions, all with the intent of keeping them from casting their ballot. That is something that I'm going to fight for as long as I'm in the General Assembly. 

There's nothing more basic to our democracy than being able to vote, and it's being threatened. But it will not be undone. Because you've got folks like me, like Rep. Brown, and a bunch of others in Raleigh, who are fighting to make sure that it is preserved.


Connect with your elected leaders

(If you don't know who your state legislators are, look them up using our tool!)

Rep. Terry M. Brown Jr.

Terry M. Brown Jr.

NC State Representative

North Carolina Rep. Brian Turner

Brian Turner

nc State Representative

What We're Reading & Watching: Back-to-School Edition

As summer winds down and students of all ages prepare for a new school year, we've created our very own back-to-school "curriculum." Here are SiX staffers recommendations for what to read or watch this fall.

Jump to:
📚 Nonfiction Books
🪄 Fiction Books
💭 Other Reads
📺 TV Shows
🎥 Films

What We're Reading

Nonfiction books

Fiction Books

Other Reads

What We're Watching

TV

Film

Redistricting and Public Health

Redistricting reforms will be considered by state legislators across the country in several states in the Fall of 2021, including Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina. Unfair redistricting practices such as gerrymandering exacerbate disparities in public health outcomes, while fair and equitable redistricting has the potential to help communities better address inequities in public health, including reproductive and maternal health and wellbeing. 

The Impact of Redistricting on Public Health 

Fair, transparent, and accountable redistricting led by independent commissions ensures more equitable representation in state legislatures and increases the likelihood that public health concerns (physical, environmental, and social) are addressed with policy solutions. 

This is particularly important for communities of color, who, due to systemic and structural racism, experience greater disparities in public health outcomes (including mental and physical health during and after pregnancy) than white communities.

Legislatures created with gerrymandered maps allow legislators to pass policy that the majority of their constituents do not support- including policies that can cause significant public health harm such as restrictions on abortion care and contraceptive access.

Gerrymandering keeps conservative politicians in power and hinders the ability of states to expand Medicaid. Communities of color are underrepresented in state legislatures (and Congress) due to gerrymandering and deliberate voter suppression. Medicaid expansion is associated with improvements in health outcomes, mortality rates, lower rates of housing evictions, lower rates of medical debt, and higher rates of financial wellbeing. 

Prison gerrymandering—the counting of incarcerated individuals in the county where they are imprisoned rather than their home communities—impacts representation, power building, and community funding, and disportionately affects communities of color who are incarcerated at higher rates due to the discriminatory judicial system. For example, the Wisconsin legislature's refusal to switch to vote by mail in the midst of the 2020 COVID pandemic resulted in long, crowded, lines and increased risk of voter exposure to infection.

The Impact of Public Health on Redistricting

The COVID-19 pandemic has delayed the 2020 census...which has delayed the redistricting cycle. 

Delaying the map-drawing process could mean that new maps are not ready before legislative elections in some states, such as Virginia. Delayed maps may force other states, such as Texas, to address redistricting during special sessions. Special sessions have less oversight and increase the risk of unfair maps being drawn. 

North Carolina Voting & Redistricting

Learn more about what your state legislators are doing to protect our voting rights by joining a Telephone Town Hall on Monday August 16th, at 5:30 pm EDT. By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with your representatives and local experts, learn about how they are fighting for your voting rights in North Carolina, ask questions, and discuss what we can do to protect our democracy.

Special Guests

North Carolina Rep. Brian Turner
Brian Turner

State Representative

Rep. Terry M. Brown Jr.
Terry M. Brown

State Representative

Register

Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.

Fill out my online form.

FAQs

How do I attend the telephone town hall?
We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.

Will I get to ask a question?
Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.

What if I miss the call?
If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.

Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators?
Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.

Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online?
Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.

What if I can't be on for the whole time?
We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.

National Voting Standards Legislator Toolkit

Hashtag

Use #RecessCanWait in your posts! @StateInnovation and @SiXAction will be monitoring the hashtag and sharing your posts. 

Tip: Click to tweet or save these tweets in your drafts on Twitter. You can also copy and paste the text into your social media or notetaking app.

Tweets

Messaging Guidance

The messaging guidance below is from DFAD, Opportunity Agenda, and Fight Back Table.

Extremist state legislators around the country are passing laws to deny our freedom to vote. The Senate must act quickly to pass national voting standards that ensure all voters can safely and freely cast their ballots, regardless of where we live or what we look like.

Technical Guidance

Other Social Media Prompts

Have more time? Brainstorm ways to personalize your social media posts during the week of action. 

Contextualize the voting rights battles in your state:

Make the impact of anti-voter bills visceral for people who haven’t experienced them first-hand. What does the impact of the anti-voter bills look like? Feel like? What would it mean for your community to have the freedom to vote?

Call upon the history of resistance that has gotten us this far, and why we’re not willing to give up now. We've collected some historical voting photos for to you to use, including images from voting demonstrations at the Capitol in 1965. Download the photos below or from this Google Drive folder.

Digital Tips: Smartphone Photography

As state legislators, you juggle many hats, and sometimes have to be your own photographer.

These five tips will help you capture high-resolution photos using your smartphone:

Smartphone Photography Tips

1) Avoid zooming; instead, move closer to the subject. Most smartphones have a "digital zoom" that enlarges the image artificially, which decreases the resolution. The more you zoom in, the more resolution you lose. So when it's safe to step closer, move towards your subject rather than pressing zoom.

Split-photo of lifesaver ring; on the left side, the photo is low-resolution. On the right side, the photo is high-resolution.
Example: The photo on the left was taken approximately 40 feet away, using the iPhone 7's digital zoom. The photo on the right was taken from about 5 feet away, using no zoom. Notice the difference in photo quality.

2) Stabilize your shot with a tripod or by simply leaning up against a wall.

3) Hold down the shutter button until the photo is complete. If you move your finger away too quickly, the image may be blurry. On an iPhone, you can reduce motion by using the volume controls instead of the shutter button.

4) Find the best lit setting for the photo. Most smartphones can take pictures in low-light conditions, but the photo's quality will suffer as a result. Where possible, use a window or the sun as your primary light source. Generally, you should not shoot facing the main light source. (That's why sunset pics are so hard to nail!) Instead, position the light source behind the person shooting the picture. 

5) Finally, don't text that photo! Ever wondered why pictures you receive via text message look grainy? The likely culprit isn't the phone itself but the method used to send the photo. Most text messaging apps highly compress images sent via cellular networks. (The same issue holds for videos.)

Instead of texting, save the photo to Google Drive, Dropbox, SendAnywhere, or your preferred file storage or photo app, and then share the link with others. You can also use AirDrop or e-mail, but be careful: some e-mail programs also significantly compress images.  

With all that being said, rules are meant to be broken. Sometimes, the best photos are unintentional or gloriously blurry. But when you're taking a professional picture for use in press, print, or the web, be sure to reference the recommendations above.

8 Bold Laws State Legislators Passed This Year

Every legislative session brings its share of twists, turns, and unique hurdles. But 2021 greeted state legislators with an exceptionally challenging session marked by a worsening pandemic and sluggish economy. Despite unprecedented barriers and growing community needs, state lawmakers delivered victories for working people, and even passed laws that seemed unimaginable a few short years ago.

Here are eight of the boldest progressive laws state legislators passed this legislative session.

Virginia passes its own Voting Rights Act

For nearly fifty years, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 acted as a guardrail, steering states away from Jim Crow policies and closer to realizing the principle of "one person, one vote." But in 2013, the Supreme Court gutted a vital part of the law, clearing the way for states with a history of voter suppression to change laws without federal approval. The ruling opened the floodgates to a sea of polling place closures, voter ID laws, and other anti-voter regulations that continue to this day.

As voting rights advocates work to formalize and reinstate voter protections at the federal level, Virginia legislators stepped up to adopt a voting rights act for their state. The first-of-its-kind, the Voting Rights Act of Virginia requires pre-approval before election changes and expressly outlaws racial voter discrimination.

Three white primary election voters arrive at polling place in Arlington Virginia. Sign reads, "Vote. Photo ID Required."
Primary election voters arrive passing “Photo ID Required sign” on the way to polling place in Arlington, Virginia. (Photo: Rob Crandall / Shutterstock)

Maine requires a racial impact analysis of new laws

More Americans than ever realize that even seemingly "race-neutral" laws and customs can disproportionately impact people of color. Maine is one of many states to embrace our national reckoning with race and use it as an opportunity to pass anti-racist progressive policy.

Shortly after becoming the first Black woman to serve a leadership role in Maine's legislature, Assistant House Majority Leader Rachel Talbot Ross sponsored a first-of-its-kind racial impact assessment law.  Just as many legislatures evaluate bills for fiscal impact, the new law requires state lawmakers to analyze all proposed bills for impacts on marginalized communities. The law, which will be piloted in the 2022 legislative session, helps make racial equity a central component of the legislative process rather than an afterthought.

Colorado creates a “bill of rights” for farmworkers

One of the biggest triumphs of Colorado's historic legislative session is the "Farmworkers’ Bill of Rights," a law that will overhaul protections for Colorado farm laborers. Because agriculture workers have historically been excluded from many rights that other working people enjoy, they experience disproportionate levels of poverty and fatal work injuries.

California, New York, and Washington have made significant strides to protect farm laborers, but no state has enacted a policy as comprehensive as Colorado's new law. The Farmworkers’ Bill of Rights will require that farmworkers be paid the state minimum wage—$12.32 per hour—rather than the federal rate of $7.25. The legislation will also ensure that Colorado's nearly 40,000 farmworkers receive overtime pay, have the right to organize, and can take meal breaks and rest periods.

Farm laborers harvest strawberries in field
California farm laborers harvest strawberries. (Photo: Tim Mossholder/Unsplash)

Nevada waives college tuition for Native American residents

One in three Americans over the age of 25 has a Bachelor's degree, compared to only 14% of Native Americans. While not the only barrier to college enrollment, college affordability is a substantial burden for Native communities, which have the highest poverty rate in the United States.

A recent law will waive tuition and fees at Nevada's two-year and four-year state colleges for enrolled members of any of the state's 27 tribes. The legislation also grants in-state tuition to members of federally recognized tribes outside of Nevada.

Though the tuition waiver cannot undo the harms inflicted upon indigenous Nevadans, it is an important step in the state's long-overdue process of repairing generations of state-sponsored violence.

Maryland leads the way on police reform

In 1974, Maryland became the first state in the nation to enact a "bill of rights" for police officers. This year, Maryland made history again, but this time for becoming the first state in the nation to overturn its Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights.

With an ambitious package of reforms championed by House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones, Maryland is rising to the forefront of states reimagining the role of policing. The law, which passed in the wake of Derek Chauvin's trial, also bans no-knock-warrants, and establishes one of the nation's strictest use of force policies. 

Demonstrators raise their fists during a Black Lives Matter protest on Veteran Plaza in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland
Demonstrators raise their fists during a Black Lives Matter protest on Veteran Plaza in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland (Joao Kermadec / Shutterstock)

New Mexico protects abortion rights

In a year when state legislatures considered over 550 bills to restrict abortion, New Mexico legislators bucked the trend by repealing an outdated abortion statute. The 1969 law was not being enforced, but it left New Mexicans vulnerable to a rollback in reproductive rights if the Supreme Court overturned its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade.

The move underscores the importance of proactively defending the right to abortion care, regardless of what cases are on the Supreme Court's docket.

Washington State makes the wealthy pay their fair share

Washington's new capital gains tax is a monumental victory for working people. For decades, Washington’s upside-down tax code favored the wealthy at the expense of the lowest earners in the state: a 2018 report found that Washington's regressive tax system was the least equitable in the entire country. Beginning in 2022, a new capital gains tax will begin rebalancing the tax code in a way that benefits all Washingtonians.

The legislation will generate an estimated $445 million each year by imposing a 7% tax on profits exceeding $250,000 from the sale of stocks and other investments. Washington will funnel the newly generated funds into the state's struggling public schools.

Black father playing with daughter on playground slide
A father plays on the slide with his daughter at a public city park in Tacoma, Washington. (iStock)

Illinois abolishes cash bail

Activists and researchers have long known that the system of cash bail is inherently biased against low-income defendants. When faced with costly bail or an indefinite stay in one of our nation's inhumane jails, many Americans without means are coerced into a plea bargain, regardless of guilt.

Though several states have reformed cash bail, efforts to pass an outright ban have fallen short—until this year. In February, Illinois became the first state in the country to abolish the use of money bail. The landmark new law, championed by the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus and organizations like End Money Bond, passed alongside a sweeping criminal justice reform package.

Fighting Back Against Anti-Trans Legislation

Anti-transgender lawmakers set records this year with their harmful and hateful legislations: thirty-three states introduced more than 100 anti-transgender rights bills across the country.

SiX convened a panel with Colorado Rep. Brianna Titone, Dominique Morgan (Black & Pink), and Corinne Green (Equality Federation) to discuss how state legislators can fight differently and fight better against anti-trans legislation.

Q&A: Fight Better Against Anti-Trans Bills

What SCOTUS’s Latest Blow to Voting Rights Means for States

The Supreme Court has dramatically weakened one of the remaining, most vital tools we have to defend and advance multi-racial democracy in America: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In today’s 6-3 decision, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Court held that two Arizona voting laws that disproportionately disenfranchise Latino, Black, and Native voters do not violate the Voting Rights Act. While the Court did not eviscerate Section 2 wholesale, as many feared, it imposed stricter standards for evaluating future voting rights claims. Moving forward, it will be significantly harder to challenge and overturn racially discriminatory voting laws in federal courts – including the wave of anti-voter bills enacted in 2021.

To help unpack the details of the case, check out pieces from The Guardian, Election Law Blog, Vox, and Slate. You can read the Court’s opinion here, including Justice Kagan’s powerful dissent (starting on p. 45).

Why the Brnovich decision matters for states

Our democracy is at a turning point. In 2021 alone, conservative legislators in nearly every state have introduced over 400 anti-voter bills in a coordinated, national strategy to win elections for the Right. This wave of laws poses an alarming threat to our freedom to vote and intentionally silences the voices of voters of color, young voters, low-income voters, and new Americans. With Republicans in control of 61 of 98 state legislative chambers, there is no end in sight to the assault on our democracy.

The Supreme Court already struck down the Voting Rights Act’s crucial preclearance requirement in Shelby v. Holder (2013), and the For The People Act – which would create national standards for voting – is being blocked by conservatives in Congress. By narrowing the application of Section 2 in Brnovich v. DNC, the court damaged one of the last, most vital tools we have to defend and advance multi-racial democracy in America.

In his majority opinion, Justice Alito endorsed conservative state legislators’ baseless lies and policies on election fraud, noting that a state “may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within its own borders” – even if those laws discriminate against Black and Brown voters. SCOTUS’s nod to a known conservative strategy – invoke fraud to deny our freedom to vote – makes the threat to our democracy even more urgent. 

What To Do

State legislatures are the key battlegrounds to protect the freedom to vote. Absent federal legislation, it's crucial that legislators in every state step up. Following the Brnovich decision, legislators can:

  1. Review and strengthen your state’s voting rights protections and legal remedies (like Virginia just did in passing their own voting rights act this year, and as Campaign Legal Center’s report recommends);
  2. Speak boldly about protecting the freedom to vote (using these messaging resources);
  3. Connect directly with your constituents on voting rights (like these legislators in North Carolina and Florida);
  4. Collaborate with your caucuses to advance a cohesive pro-voter and defensive democracy strategy, well in advance of the 2022 legislative season;
  5. Make every effort to engage communities directly in the 2021 redistricting process to ensure political maps are fair and representative (as we discussed in a recent webinar); and,
  6. Advocate for national standards for voting, redistricting, and campaigns proposed in The For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

Additional Information on the Case

The Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee decision substantially narrows Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act – one of the last remaining tools Americans have to fight racial discrimination in voting.

In 2016, the Democratic Party challenged two Arizona voting laws as racially discriminatory under Section 2 of the VRA and the 15th Amendment. Section 2 enables voters to dispute policies that disproportionately prevent minority voters from casting ballots and electing representatives of their choice. The two Arizona policies in question barred mail ballot collection by anyone other than a voter’s immediate family, and required election officials to discard all ballots cast by voters in the wrong precinct. 

While Section 2 has been primarily used to defend against racial gerrymanders and minority “vote dilution,” this section has become much more important for election policy cases after SCOTUS halted the VRA’s preclearance requirements in Shelby v. Holder (2013). Before Shelby, places with histories of racial discimination in elections had to preclear all voting policy changes with the federal government before going into effect. In fact, Arizona’s ballot collection policy in question in Brnovich was effectively blocked by preclearance in 2011.

In January 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that – in Arizona’s context – ballot collection and out-of-precinct voting restrictions have discriminatory impacts on Native, Latino and Black voters in violation of Section 2. Native Arizona voters who live far away from precincts and mailboxes are much more likely to rely on community ballot collection than White voters. Native, Latino, and Black Arizonans are also much more likely to move residences and to have their precincts relocated than White voters. The Ninth Circuit also found evidence that the ballot collection law was purposefully enacted to target minority voters.

Arizona Republicans petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case, and conservatives nationwide urged the Court to limit the application of Section 2 going forward. Amid an unprecedented wave of racialized, anti-voter laws, Brnovich v. DNC further restricts options for protecting voting rights in America. And it could reshape our democracy for years to come. For additional background on Brnovich, check out resources from The Brennan Center and Harvard Law School.

Why Maryland Needs Paid Family Leave

Nine states and Washington D.C. currently have paid family leave laws on the books, but there is no federal paid family leave policy.

Most Marylanders agree that paid family leave is essential but big business lobbyists are putting up a fight to keep their profits high and benefits for their workers minimal.

In May 2021, advocates and members of the Maryland legislature held a telephone town hall to discuss the issue.

Q&A: Paid Family Leave in Maryland

Ruth Martin

Ruth Martin,
MomsRising

Maryland Delegate Edith Patterson

MD Delegate Edith Patterson

Maryland Delegate CT Wilson

MD Delegate
CT Wilson

Maryland Senator Arthur Ellis

MD State Senator Arthur Ellis

Myles Hicks

Myles Hicks,
Time to Care Coalition

Delegate Debra M. Davis

MD Delegate Debra M. Davis

This Q&A was excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone town hall that took place on May 18, 2021. Answers have been edited for length and clarity.

88% of Maryland voters favor creating a family and medical leave insurance program.

What Marylanders Are Saying

The quotes below are from participants who phoned into the town hall meeting.

"I work in D.C., but I'm a Maryland resident and have been for over 40 years. I'm at home now on FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) because my 24-year-old son had COVID and came out of the hospital grossly debilitated. So I had to take FMLA to take care of him. 


Fortunately, I have been working for a long time, and I have financial resources available to sustain me and utilized some of the COVID relief options. Had it not been for [that], this would have been a very financially traumatic experience for my family. And it was already emotionally traumatic."

Town Hall Participant

"I understand that we expect people to be fiscally responsible and save. However, I also believe that an employee is giving his or her time and energy so that the company can be prosperous and realize its goals.

And while that employee makes that investment in that company, I'd like to think that employers would demonstrate that they value the worth of their employees by being willing to invest in that employee in their moment of need, with family paid time. In other words, a mutually beneficial employer-employee relationship, where each gives their best for the well-being of the other."

Town Hall Participant

Sign Up For Updates

Fill out the form below to receive e-mail updates about the next State Innovation Exchange Town Hall with Maryland state legislators.

[newsletter_form lists="2"]

Legislator Spotlight: State Senator Kesha Ram

This interview originally appeared on The Brown Girls Guide to Politics in a series spotlighting women of color state legislators who navigated the unprecedented influx of racist, anti-democratic, anti-abortion, and anti-transgender legislation introduced in 2021.

What made you fall in love with politics?

Politics shaped my family's journey and where they landed when I came into the world. My father's family fled the partition of India when it became Pakistan. My mother’s family fled the transition of Eastern Europe and the persecution of the Jews. And so, these global political upheavals shaped where their families ended up, and what that meant for their life and potential, and allowed me to access the American Dream.

When I was a child, I became more keenly aware of the ways that economic policy shaped their potential and opportunities. My mother is a Jewish woman, my father is an Indian immigrant. And when they found resources to open an Irish pub in Los Angeles, it came from the Women's Bank of Los Angeles, because there was a policy commitment to women's financial access to capital. When I was younger, and my parents got divorced, being on the free lunch program, I could take the SATs for free and access college. So I became aware over time that good policies were really important things that made my life, and my potential, able to be realized.

Vermont State Senator Ram in front of Vermont state legislature
State Senator Ram in front of Vermont state legislature in January 2021 (Photo: Facebook)

And then, when I was a sophomore in college, Bernie Sanders was running for the US Senate for the first time and wanted to have a huge event on campus to encourage young people to vote and kick off his campaign. At the time, he couldn’t draw thousands of people as he can now, so he invited this rockstar—a senator from Illinois, Barack Obama—to come to join him on stage. And the event drew in 7,000 people, which is more than 1% of Vermont’s population. And they said, you know, we don't have any women on stage. My friend was the campus organizer for Bernie and he was like, “I know just the person. She's really not afraid to speak up.” And so I introduced Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders as a sophomore, and Barack Obama in his speech said, “You know what, Bernie, if you don't behave yourself, we're gonna run Kesha for the Senate instead of you.” And it was the first time anyone encouraged me to run for office. All of a sudden, with a father from India and a mother from Illinois, I saw someone who had a father from Kenya, and a mother from Kansas, who had a story like mine, and I thought, “Oh, I'm not that complicated. I'm not too complicated to be in the political arena.” And it really changed everything for me.

Was this the moment you decided to run for office?

There was more to it. I went to Washington, DC, worked for Dianne Feinstein for a summer, came back to school, and ran for student body president. And all of a sudden, I was on people's radar, because when you're University of Vermont student body president, you often represent more people than a state legislator does in Vermont.

My friend, Rachel Weston, who had been the Graduate Student Senate President, had become a legislator at 26 and she kept encouraging me to run. She explained the mechanics of it to me and she had been mentored by Governor Madeleine Kunin.

It was women who gave me that real sense that it was possible. It's easier for men, even Barack Obama, who I love, to tell me, “You should run for office, go for it,” but I had a lot of women in my life who said, “These are the roadblocks you're going to hit and we're here to help you get over them.”

A record number of statehouses passed laws attacking abortion, democracy, and LGBTQ+ rights this year—but Vermont was an outlier. What piece of legislation are you most proud of passing?

One of the things that I'm most proud of is banning the suspension and expulsion of small children from school. I had introduced similar legislation in 2014, that banned expulsion of children under eight and I was almost laughed out of the building. The unions wouldn't support it and everyone was saying this is pretty much impossible to change.

But this year, when introducing a ban on expulsion for young children, I had legislative colleagues who said, “Let's add suspension. Why are we suspending six- and seven-year-olds?” So what happened between 2014 and now? I haven't changed what I fight for. I'm doing the same things I was then, but I was a troublemaker and kind of an outlier. And now there are coalitions built around the state. There's a racial reckoning happening in the country. And all I say to people is I haven't changed, the culture of accountability has changed, and we can't let it change back.

Tell us about banning the "LGBTQ+ Panic Defense" in Vermont.

One of my closest friends and someone who inspires me every day in the legislature is Rep. Taylor Small, who is the first openly trans woman to serve in the legislature. I want to give her full credit for working with other members of the House to introduce and advance this legislation.

Vermont is a very LGBTQ-friendly state as compared to most other states, but Taylor faces dangers here. When we would do “honk and waves” together, that was the only time I felt unsafe—and I’m the first woman of color in the State Senate! When I was with Taylor, we would have things shouted at us. I thought people were going to throw things out the window, people would circle back around to yell. So as a trans woman, Taylor faced danger to run for office and continues to face people talking about very intimate parts of her life publicly, and they feel licensed to do that because she is an openly trans woman who is not afraid to have a legislative battle.

The Senate Judiciary Committee almost didn’t hear from Taylor and it felt really important that, before they make a decision or propose any amendments to the bill, they needed to talk to the one legislator in our statehouse who has the lived experience to be personally affected by this legislation. I know how common sense that feels as a person of color and how often that doesn’t happen.

Vermont is also leading on reproductive freedom by advancing Proposition 5, a proposed state constitutional amendment that would guarantee reproductive liberty.

I think it's just as important that we passed an apology for the eugenics movement this year. We apologized for the state's role in the forced sterilization of many Vermonters— mostly women—in a movement that was intellectually led in Vermont.

And those are two sides of the same coin. If you are going to be able to access your full range of reproductive freedoms and liberties, that means access to abortion, it means access to reproductive care to help you bring a healthy child to term, it means childcare, it means maternal health, so it means making any decision that is right for you both emotionally, socially, and economically.

Vermont legislators Kesha Ram and Taylor Small hold signs reading, “Thanks ❤️,” “Taylor Small for State Rep,” and “Kesha for state senate.”
Vermont state legislators Kesha Ram and Taylor Small (Photo: Twitter)

While many state legislatures have seen an uptick in anti-voter bills since the 2020 election, Vermont expanded voting rights.

This year, we passed S.15, which takes a huge step forward in access to mail-in balloting and convenient voting at home.

One of the other critical steps we took this year is we're starting to allow local municipalities to decide if they want to allow all residents to vote in their elections, like their school board elections and municipal elections, regardless of their citizenship status.

In our capital city and our most multicultural city, about 42% of the kids in the schools come from English-language learning families. And those are families who by and large aren't able to vote in school elections and in local elections that affect their families. They both passed city charters to allow all residents to vote. The Governor vetoed these charters in an unprecedented move and we have an override session where I hope we override his veto. These charters mean just as much to me as the mail-in voting.

A recent report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures revealed that there are no Black women state legislators in Vermont. How do we help elevate Black women’s voices in state legislatures?

That's a central question in my life.

We just started an organization called the Bright Leadership Institute (BLI) to help BIPOC candidates run for office. It's named after Louvenia Dorsey Bright, the first Black woman and one of two Black women to have served in our legislature. By starting the organization and telling her story, we've got cover page articles about her legacy. Many people didn't even know she existed.

The other Black woman who served in our legislature, Kiah Morris, is still an incredible leader and very involved in politics, and she left the legislature because of racial harassment. And so we're trying to help people understand that it's not just because we're a very white state that Black women are not represented in the Vermont statehouse. They've come to the table, and they've been threatened, harassed, rejected, made to feel less than, and they have taken themselves out of the arena after they've lost a battle to be seen and heard by the communities that they need help and safety from.

I've tried to help white Vermonters understand that saying, “We just need to recruit Black women here,” doesn't mean we've done the work to retain them. Vermont doesn't have a recruitment problem, it has a retention problem. We have had waves of Black communities come to settle here: we've had Buffalo Soldiers, we've had fugitive slaves, we've had waves of Black folks try to make a home here and feel the ever-present racism of “You're not doing it the way we do things here. This is the way Vermont does things.” And that's become shorthand for, “You're not white enough, you don't fit into our culture.” And so we have a lack of diversity not because Black people haven't tried to live here, but because they haven't been able to be part of shaping their communities.

The other thing BLI is focusing on is tapping into these innate skills that already exist in communities of color, particularly among Black women. Black women have organized every important movement in this country. Black women have the skills, the power, and sometimes they just haven't used it in a political campaign way. When you do use it, people realize how powerful you are, and they will challenge you and you need an army of people behind you to back you up when that happens. So often, Black women are left on their own when the really small vocal minority of racist people get really loud, and they're left without support. We need to stop that because that can feel really lonely.

I have my sights set on Black women to join me in the state senate. I relish being the first woman of color, only in so much as I have the responsibility now to turn around and make sure there are also Black women, Indigenous women, and trans women in the state Senate as well.

Q&A: Childcare in Michigan

This Q&A is excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone townhall featuring Michigan Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist, State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, and Eboni Taylor, Michigan Executive Director of Mothering Justice.

Answers have been edited for length and clarity.


Childcare access has been a concern for years. What is different now that can finally help parents tackle the problem?

Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist: You are absolutely right. For too many years, in Michigan and the rest of the country, we've been content with saying that paying for childcare is a parent's responsibility. And we've only made modest investments to help low-income families afford childcare. 

That's why we proposed a generational investment in childcare in our recent budget to:

We've also recently received $1.1 billion to invest in childcare, and we're going to be sharing an even bigger and bolder plan to invest those funds wisely. And I'm optimistic that we're going to find a way to get this done on a bipartisan basis.

Lt. Governor Gilchrist wife, Ellen and two children
Lt. Governor Gilchrist with his wife and two children

Senator Mallory McMorrow: I've been speaking very candidly about my experience becoming a mother, going through postpartum depression, and why taking a 12-week leave was so important to me, even though it's not something that legislators technically qualify for. 

I was walking down the street in my neighborhood, and a woman stopped me to say she really appreciated me being vulnerable in that way. And then she asked me, "Can you do childcare next?" She said that as a working mother of two young kids, she was effectively using her entire salary to cover their childcare. But she kept working because she needed the health care associated with her job.

So, in the same way that we invest in public education and guarantee that every child has a right to an education, every child should have the right to quality childcare. 

We have such a huge opportunity to radically change how we invest and prioritize childcare in this state, which can completely change our economy moving forward.

Currently, I am caring for my adult, disabled brother and am unable to work. What are we doing to increase access to adult care facilities so that people like me can get back to work?

Senator Mallory McMorrow: I feel this, so personally. My husband and I have a fourth-month-old daughter, and my husband also has an older brother who has Down Syndrome and currently lives with his mother-in-law, who's now in her 80s. So many families are part of this "sandwich generation," where you're taking care of either a sibling or a parent, and your kids as well. Part of the solution to these issues is to invest in in-home care providers across the board because caretaking looks very different for many people. 

This way, we can enable people to continue their retirement or continue working rather than having to put their entire life on hold to care for family members.

mallory mcmorrow playing with kid
State Senator Mallory McMorrow

I am a grandmother, and my daughter is a single parent. She works midnight shifts, so I have to take care of my granddaughter throughout the night and morning. Is there some type of system where I'm considered a caregiver and paid as such?

Senator Mallory McMorrow: I'm not aware of any programs right now that allow for compensation in a situation like yours, but I think that is something we should absolutely look into because there are so many people who are in multi-generational care situations, caring for grandkids, parents, and other family members.

In other areas of law right now, you can get paid as an in-home caregiver. For example, if your loved one or your family member gets in a catastrophic accident and you're their part-time caregiver, you can be reimbursed. 

Eboni Taylor: You are what we at Mothering Justice call an "other mother," which is the term that we use to describe people in the informal childcare space. 

We are working diligently to think about "other mothers" all the time. We have an entire strategy dedicated to clearing a better pathway for people like you to become a licensed care providers, such as waiving certain fees and increasing pay for license-exempt child care providers.


Connect with your elected leaders

(If you don't know who your state legislators are, look them up using our tool!)

Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist

Garlin Gilchrist

Lieutenant Governor

Sen. Mallory McMorrow

Mallory McMorrow 

michigan State senator

Digital Tips: Using Instagram Highlights

This resource is adapted from our Digital Tips e-mail series. To sign up to receive these resources in your inbox regularly, join our network.


Did you know you can see how many people visit your Instagram profile each month? Every visitor may not opt to follow your Instagram, but each visit is a valuable chance to introduce yourself to constituents and shed light on your current priorities.

Instagram Stories Highlights are an easy way to ensure new visitors can easily find updates about you and your work. You can use Instagram Stories Highlights to highlight legislative updates, break down important issues, and share your personal story.

Screenshot of Kansas Rep. Haswood's Instagram Stories Highlights
Kansas Rep. Haswood's Instagram Story Highlights

Below, find three steps to create a quick Instagram Highlight. I did all of the following steps on my iPhone 7 in a few minutes. 

Creating a quick Instagram Highlight 

1. Find visuals: Start with an app like Unsplash (also available on desktop) to find free, high-quality photos related to the theme of your Instagram Story. 

If the subject matter is difficult or inappropriate to visualize, use a photo of your legislature instead, or search "texture" on Unsplash to find an abstract background.

2. Create the first Story: In the first Story, add a photo and a large title to introduce the topic.

Instagram Stories Example

3. Add details in consecutive Stories: You can use the same background photo or a different one in the next set of stories. Break up your explanatory text across multiple stories, so the information is not overwhelming. And always provide context: keep in mind that visitors to your profile may be entirely new to the issue you're discussing or even to how a state legislature works.

If you'd rather create a selfie video instead of using text, go for it! Just be sure to add captions, which can be auto-generated within Instagram Stories

Use emojis and GIFs to help illustrate the information, but don't go overboard. (Tip: You can paste in any photo or GIF from your phone to Instagram Stories!)

Instagram Stories example

4. Create the Highlight: After posting your Story, you can easily create an Instagram Highlight. Then, give the Highlight a short title and "cover." or thumbnail.

Instagram Highlights demo
After posting your Instagram Story, you can add it to your Instagram Highlights

Free Downloads

Here's a little help to get started: download one of SiX's Instagram Stories templates and use our collection of icon thumbnails to make your highlights easy to identify. You can also screenshot all of these resources in SiX's Instagram Highlights!

Anti-Racist State Budgets: Transportation Equity

About This Primer

This primer is part of a series on anti-racist state budgets. To understand the concept of creating anti-racist state budgets, it is important to understand the difference between racist and anti-racist ideas and policies. The following excerpts are from How to Be an Antiracist (2019) by Ibram X. Kendi: 

Racist vs. Anti-racist Ideas

A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society. . . . An antiracist idea is any idea that suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences – that there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group. Antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities.

Racist vs. Anti-racist Policies

A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. . . . There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups. 

For additional race-equity concepts and definitions, please visit the Racial Equity Tools glossary.

The following primer examines how policymakers have impacted low-income communities and communities of color through racist transportation policies and practices and, drawing from existing research, analyzes how state budgets can guide racial equity outcomes. It also outlines progressive considerations for state legislators to take into account when crafting related anti-racist legislation. We hope that a better understanding of the effects of state budgets on transportation equity will support progressive legislative efforts to create transportation systems that promote public health, sustainability, and equitable opportunity. 

History of Racist Transportation Policies

Sculpture of Rosa Parks at the National Civil Rights Museum
Sculpture of Rosa Parks at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee. (Photo: Gino Santa Maria / Shutterstock)

Our ability to access affordable and reliable transportation is a basic right that many communities have been deprived of as a result of inequitable transportation investments. Low-income communities and communities of color bear the largest burden of our states’ transportation decisions.

Race and transportation have long been intertwined. In 1955, Rosa Parks became the icon of the Montgomery Bus Boycott by refusing to give up her bus seat to a white rider. Her arrest led Montgomery’s Black community to launch a massive boycott, demanding better treatment for Black riders and equitable access to public transit. In the early 1960s, Freedom Riders challenged segregation laws and asserted their rights to ride interstate transportation.

Although the civil rights movement helped increase the accessibility of transportation, the issue of inequity has persisted. Discriminatory practices, such as redlining, have locked communities of color out of certain neighborhoods and left them without many transportation options. Redlining was followed by other detrimental efforts, such asurban renewal—a nationwide program established by the Housing Act of 1949—that provided federal grants to cities for the purposes of rebuilding their downtowns.

African american woman wearing medical mask while travel in public transport

Urban renewal allowed cities to raze and rebuild entire areas, clear slums and blighted properties, and develop highways. This program led to the widespread development outside city centers, also known as urban sprawl. Investments in these developments have changed the urban geographical landscape and displaced communities, disproportionately impacting low-income people and people of color. Similar racist policies and practices persisted after the 1960s and continue today, leading to increased traffic congestion and air pollution, ongoing negative health effects (e.g., respiratory illnesses, lung cancer, and impaired lung development), evictions of marginalized groups, dangerous road conditions for biking and walking, and the destruction of thriving neighborhoods.

Current departments of transportation and transit agencies are still operating systems grounded in racism and guided by the inequitable policies of the civil rights era. Not only do current highway projects continuously displace Black and Brown communities across the country, but also transit agencies have designed their routes and systems around the stereotype that there are only two kinds of riders: “captive” and “choice” riders, with this binary design disproportionately disadvantaging marginalized communities. 

Impacts on Marginalized Communities

Line graph from the US Department of Transportation entitled “Trends in Expenditure by Mode” shows billions of dollars spent on y-axis ($0-$200) and years on the x-axis (2008-2018.) Graph shows significantly higher spend for highways than for public transit. Full graph available at https://explore.dot.gov/views/GTFSVisualizationsUpdated/
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Development of Highways & Displacement of Communities

In 2018, state and local governments collectively spent about $70 billion on public transportation. At the same time, these governments devoted over $232 billion to highways. Greater investment in highways is one of many examples of how transportation policy priorities have led to an underinvestment in sustainable infrastructure within marginalized communities. 

Many highway construction projects have also displaced communities by creating changes in the land value of a neighborhood and destroying the units occupied by low-income households and households of color. These projects contribute to a loss of affordable housing and the disintegration of communities, significantly affecting the quality of the neighborhood and its residents. Similar to the ways urban renewal programs destroyed the homes of marginalized communities to resolve urban blight, the prioritization of highway expansion over public transportation projects has inequitable and disproportionate effects on low-income and minority residential neighborhoods.

Accessibility of Public Transit
Wheelchair user at top of stairs subway entrance

Financial Accessibility

Since 1995, public transit ridership has increased by 28%. Contributing to this ridership increase, income and wealth disparities have led many people of color to have relatively less access to cars. As a result, people of color are the ones most likely to rely on public transportation as their main form of travel. Especially in urban areas, Black, Latinx, and Asian people take public transit more often than their white counterparts to access public services and get to work and school. However, the restriction of public funds for transit, along with governments’ prioritization of highways, has shifted resources away from alternative transportation options. If and when municipalities rely on fare increases to manage their budget crises, these increases hurt transit-reliant communities and decrease the financial accessibility of buses. Cities and states can mitigate these issues if they make targeted investments in public transit. One study in Boston found that a 50% reduction in transit-pass costs for low-income riders resulted in about 30% more trips and an increase in trips to health care and social services.

Physical Accessibility

Forty-five percent of Americans have no access to public transportation. Some areas, especially sprawling cities, do not support public transportation due to certain land patterns and the separation of homes from places of work and services, creating longer travel distances and a greater dependence on automobiles. Residents in these areas are then forced to rely on cars, which is an expense many cannot afford, leaving them with few good transportation options and compounding the cycle of poverty. Low-income people of color are already less likely to own a car and their lack of car ownership combined with inadequate and inaccessible public transit further exacerbates their circumstances. Even when people are presumed to have access to transit, these individuals often have to navigate dangerous roadways in order to do so. For more information on the impacts of dangerous road infrastructure, see the section below on Road Safety for Civilians

Road Safety for Civilians
person stepping onto bus

Walking, bicycling, and public transit need to be not only accessible to but also safe for everyone. Motor vehicle crash data comparing 2010 to 2019 shows that in urban areas, pedestrian fatalities increased by 62% and bicyclist fatalities increased by 49%, and the proportion of total traffic fatalities that were non-occupant (e.g., bicyclists and pedestrians) fatalities jumped from 15% in 2010 to 20% in 2019. Similar to how states are not investing in public transit, states are also allocating only a small portion of their budgets to improve pedestrian infrastructure. People of color and low-income people often use active transportation to get from one place to another, with Hispanic, African American, and Asian American populations experiencing the fastest growth in bicycling. Yet the street conditions are often more dangerous for these individuals in comparison to the walking and bicycling conditions of their white, middle-class counterparts. 

People of color are already twice as likely to be killed while walking than other groups. Not only do high-speed, multi-lane avenues and poorly designed streets contribute to traffic-related deaths, but they also affect the abilities of communities, especially those composed of low-income individuals and people of color, to be physically active. These conditions have the potential to shorten lives and impair people’s ability to thrive. 

Environmental Effects on Public Health
Air pollution scenic with cars on highway and yellow smoke in city.

The transportation sector emits more than half of the nitrogen oxides in our air and accounts for about 28% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Urban and metropolitan areas with traffic congestion typically experience the most significant pollution, which is often traced to inefficient land use patterns, sprawling development, and policies that favor highway development over transit. Long-term exposure to pollutants can lead to lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory illnesses, and impaired lung development and function in children and infants. These issues are further compounded when unsustainable transportation projects invade communities where poor air and water quality is already an issue. Oftentimes, it is low-income neighborhoods and communities of color who face greater environmental and health consequences from the underinvestment in sustainable transportation infrastructure.

Traffic Enforcement and the Role of Police
Crowd inside subway train holds straphangers

Instead of investing in equitable transportation projects, 25 states have used portions of their state highway fund dollars to finance highway patrols as of 2017. Dedicating highway fund dollars for state police not only takes away funding for more equitable transit, but also severely affects people’s ability to benefit from the transportation system. Transportation inequities take place in low-income communities and communities of color, which are often over-policed and under-protected in comparison to higher-income, majority-white neighborhoods. 

State and local law enforcement compound such inequities by using traffic laws and minor violations as a pretext for stopping and searching drivers, especially people of color. Coupled with racial bias, these stops often escalate and lead to unnecessary use of force or arrests that disproportionately impact Black people and communities of color. In addition, disparate targeting of fare evasion enforcement on transit systems has led to increased police-civilian interaction for harmless infractions and the criminalization of poverty in Black and Brown neighborhoods. 

Policy Considerations

Union Station lightrail stop in downtown Denver, Colorado

When planning and proceeding with transportation projects, states should promote equity and prioritize community needs by evaluating accessibility in transportation planning decisions and considering the following recommendations:

  1. Incorporate inclusive community engagement practices into transportation planning and decision-making processes. Low-income communities and communities of color bear most of the burden of unsustainable transportation outcomes yet have been historically excluded from the decision-making process. Communities should have the power to decide which transportation projects best meet their needs. Thus, state legislators and departments of transportation should sustain avenues for increased public involvement in transportation planning so communities can directly influence transportation priorities, choices, and budget allocations. 
  1. Develop a mechanism for prioritizing and evaluating transportation projects based on sustainability, accessibility, and community priorities. Car-centric transportation planning often result in policies that physically, economically, and environmentally harm low-income communities and communities of color. To better serve those most impacted by transportation projects, state legislators should create a prioritization process that integrates equity principles and considers community needs.
  1. Increase funding for public transportation to provide and maintain quality and affordable transit facilities and services, especially for transit-dependent communities. Currently, many states rely on outdated technology, tools, and policies to inform their decisions on which transportation projects to prioritize and fund. For example, some states prioritize highway projects because they have constitutional prohibitions that limit the use of gas tax revenues to highways only. To ensure equitable investments in public transportation, state legislators should reallocate funding toward sustainable modes of infrastructure by modernizing the policies and systems of their departments of transportation.
  1. Address our crumbling roadway infrastructure by reallocating funds from highway construction projects to maintenance and infrastructure that benefit disadvantaged communities. Federal law provides states with the flexibility to spend funds they receive from highway formulas. However, such flexibility grants the states the ability to focus on expanding highways instead of fixing crumbling roads first. While it is critical to put pressure on Congress to prioritize highway formula dollars for maintenance, states can also take immediate action by ensuring their statewide transportation packages emphasize repairing potholes, unfixed highways, and crumbling roads over expansion projects. State legislators should also devote a percentage of their transportation funds to low-income or high-need communities.

    In addition, policymakers should consider implementing life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) programs. Such programs enable transportation planners to examine the total costs of a project over its expected life and compare differing life-cycle costs between alternative options. As a result, LCCAs help identify the most beneficial and cost-effective projects and require decision-makers to think more about maintenance over expansion.
  1. Support transit-oriented development and smart growth initiatives that promote community economic development and incorporate equity principles. Transit-oriented development promotes alternative modes of sustainable transportation and increases access to affordable housing, jobs, and schools for low- and moderate-income families. State legislatures should: 

6. Call on municipalities to adopt and implement Complete Streets policies in low-income, high-need communities. Designing transit-friendly streets and safe roadways for all users will make walking and biking safer and more convenient for pedestrians and cyclists. Complete Streets policies promote infrastructure that reduces reliance on cars, resulting in increased engagement in physical activity and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. State legislators should encourage the implementation of this policy in high-need communities that have more dangerous street conditions.

7. Redirect funds and responsibilities away from state police and toward investments in communities. Legacies of discrimination and racism pervade our transportation system and policies. Not only do communities of color have a lack of access to mobility options, but they also suffer disproportionately from police-involved violence initiated by traffic stops. In order to achieve transportation equity and ensure safe streets for all populations, states must address both policies that disadvantage biking and walking and the ongoing racist police enforcement of traffic laws that lead to disproportionate harms for Black and Brown drivers. 

Additional Resources

Man wearing protective mask sits on bus during the day

Urban Sprawl and Highway Expansion

Transit Accessibility

Environmental and Public Health Impacts

Active Transportation and Pedestrian Safety

Effects of Traffic Enforcement

Racial Equity and Transportation

Q&A: How New Laws Are Changing Voting in Florida

This Q&A is excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone townhall featuring Florida State Representatives Tracie Davis and Rep. Geraldine Thompson, and Florida State Senator Shevrin Jones.

Answers have been edited for length and clarity.


What voting changes passed this legislative session? How will those changes impact Floridians?

Rep. Geraldine Thompson: One of the most significant things in Senate Bill 90 is the restriction on voting drop boxes. In 2020, we saw drop boxes used in enormous numbers. Now, drop boxes can only be available when the Supervisor of Elections office is open or when early voting sites are open. So, people who work 9-5 will have difficulty accessing the drop boxes. 

Another new restriction is that only family members or someone who lives at the same address can drop your ballot off. This will make it especially difficult for people who have no transportation or have medical conditions and need someone else to take their ballot to the polls. 

Rep. Tracie Davis: This new law also implements a fine of $25,000 on Supervisors of Election offices if they don't comply with the new dropbox provisions. So if they are being fined $25,000, a supervisor may suddenly not want to use as many drop boxes, or they won't use the drop boxes at all.

FL State Rep. Tracie Davis

FL State Rep. Geraldine Thompson

FL State Sen. Shevrin Jones

I have a ninety-year-old mother who gets an absentee ballot sent to her. Should I request a ballot for her for the upcoming 2022 elections? And do I need to submit a copy of her I.D. to do that?

Rep. Tracie Davis: Yes, you probably want to call to request that ballot for your mother. But you don't need to show her I.D. at the time. When you request the ballot over the phone or by e-mail, you have to give her date of birth; driver's license or I.D. number; or the last four digits of her social security number.

If you go inside to pick up the absentee ballot, you're going to have to have written authorization from your mom. But that's to pick up that ballot—not to request it. 

Rep. Geraldine Thompson: One victory was, they did grandfather-in people who already submitted vote-by-mail requests. 

But just to be on the safe side, as Representative Davis said, I would request it.

But after the election in 2022, you're going to have to request the vote by mail ballot each year. So it's no longer going to be good for two general elections, as it was in the past. It's better to be safe than sorry.

What recourse do we have concerning the voter suppression law? And are organizations taking this case to court?

Rep. Geraldine Thompson: There has been litigation filed. But while the litigation goes through the courts, you're bound by this law. So we need to prepare for it. 

Nonprofit groups are preparing to transport people to drop their ballots at either the supervisor's office or the drop boxes. And they are also going to provide food and water to voters. Voter education will also be a big part of how we counteract the laws that have been put in place.

Voter drops ballot in drobpox in Fort Lauderdale Florida in front of Broward County Government Building
Person returns ballot at Broward County Supervisor of Elections Building during November 2020 Elections. (Photo by YES Market Media / Shutterstock)

Are there new I.D. requirements when returning ballots through drop boxes or the post office?

Rep. Geraldine Thompson: One of the victories with this legislation is that we were able to get a part removed so that you don't have to show a photo I.D. at drop boxes. There are no I.D. requirements at the post office either.

But please be mindful, the new law does make it a criminal offense to possess more than two ballots, including your own. If you are helping someone else, the best thing to do is take an individual to the dropbox with you and allow that person to drop their vote-by-mail ballot. 

And please make sure your signature is updated. The signature on your ballot's envelope will be compared to the signature you provided when you initially registered to vote or last updated your signature. 

As we age, our hands are not as steady, or maybe we have arthritis. You want to make sure you have a current signature on file.

Can you explain the recent anti-protesting bill that the governor signed into law?

Sen. Shevrin Jones: At the beginning of September, the governor made HB1, the anti-protesting bill, a priority instead of COVID. This was during the time of the George Floyd demonstrations and Justice for Brianna Taylor.

The bill basically criminalizes protesting. For example, suppose Rep. Davis, Rep. Thompson, and I get together on the side of the road holding up signs. A police officer can deem that to be "mob intimidation," which is not defined, or feel that we are "rioting," which is also not defined. Then the three of us will go to jail and not be released until we see a judge. 

And if convicted, we would be convicted of a felony. As you may know, in the state of Florida, a felony restricts me from voting, makes it hard for me to get employment, and hard to get a loan. But let me be clear, the fear they are trying to instill with this law should not scare us and stop us from going out to protest injustice. 

Protests gather to demonstrate against HB1. Two demonstrators in foreground hold signs reading, “Stop HB1 #KillTheBill,” and “Protesting is not a crime.”
Demonstrators protest HB1 in Jacksonville, Florida (Photo by Michael Scott Milner / Shutterstock)

With the new law making many things criminal offenses, voting can be fearful to individuals like me. What do we do? 

Sen. Shevrin Jones: That's exactly what they want us to do; they want us to be fearful. But we can't allow that, and that's why we have to organize. We need groups like churches to get communities together to have these conversations, to inform the community of these changes. 

We don't have time to be fearful. We have to act right now. 

Rep. Tracie Davis: That's why we're having this conversation. We cannot let this law make us fearful. We need to continue to educate our voters, educate ourselves, and educate each other. Churches are having conversations like this. Legislators around the state, including myself, will be coming to talk to our constituents. 

We will make it happen. We will continue to register, and we will continue to get people to the polls to vote. Do not be fearful. We have been here before. And we will make it through just like we did before.

If I get a group of 180 people to my church at Miami Garden, can I get a representative to come out and speak?

Sen. Shevrin Jones: Yes, e-mail me with the name of the church and your information, and we'll set it up.

Q&A: Voting Rights in North Carolina

This Q&A is excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone townhall featuring North Carolina State Representatives Ashton Clemmons, Amos L. Quick, and Pricey Harrison.

Answers have been edited for length and clarity.


Can you talk about the struggle for voting rights happening across the country?

Rep. Ashton Clemmons: Every person in North Carolina and the U.S.—no matter who they are—should have an equal voice in electing our state's leaders. But there are four main reasons why we aren't living up to that ideal.

First, there is a blatant attack on voting rights to make it harder for people to vote instead of easier. Second, we are lessening the voices of some folks by packing them into districts through gerrymandering. Third, is the undue influence of money and politics. Corporations overtly influencing the outcomes of elections is an assault on what should be: that no matter how much money you have, your voice is equal. And fourth, we see an intentional effort to undermine the three branches of government by making the judiciary more partisan and limiting executive power at state legislative levels. 

Rep. Ashton Clemmons

Rep. Amos L. Quick

State Rep. Pricey Harrison

What existing barriers make it harder for North Carolinians to vote?

Rep. Ashton Clemmons: Right now, we have the voter I.D. provision in litigation. And the research is very clear that voter I.D. laws would disproportionately affect the elderly and voters of color in North Carolina. 

We've seen efforts to lessen the amount of early voting time from three weeks to one week. We've also seen proposals requiring mail-in ballots be received by five o'clock on election day instead of up to six days after election day.

What is gerrymandering?

Rep. Amos L. Quick: The simplest explanation is: gerrymandering is the drawing of voting districts and manipulating boundaries to give an unfair advantage to one party over another. 

Pile of "Voted" stickers with American flag
Photo by Element5 Digital/Unsplash

What is independent redistricting? 

Rep. Amos L. Quick: Right now, we have a process where politicians pick their voters—redistricting power belongs to the dominant party in the legislature.

Independent redistricting is a process that would take power out of the hands of politicians—who are most directly advantaged by drawing their own districts. An independent commission would draw fairer districts that more accurately represent the populace that will be voting. 

This is my third term, and I think there's been a bill filed every term since I've been here for some type of independent redistricting commission. It gets tremendous bipartisan support, but it doesn't get a hearing in committee, nor does it get a vote on the floor since I've been in office. 

I'll close with this: right now, we have a congressional delegation that does not reflect the population of North Carolina. And that's because politicians drew the lines. An independent redistricting commission would take that power out of the hands of politicians.

We have seen a lot of threats to voting rights in Georgia. Is anything like that coming to North Carolina? 

State Rep. Pricey Harrison: We are not seeing bills like what has been proposed or passed in Georgia, Florida, and Texas. 

 The main issue we're going to face this legislative cycle, as Rep. Clemmons mentioned, is not accepting absentee ballots beyond election day. 

And there's an effort to increase poll observers as part of a national trend, and poll observers can be very threatening intimidating to voters.

I'm sorry for Georgia and the other states that are having to deal with that, because it's really, really bad for voting and our democracy. 

person placing a mail-in ballot into a mailbox
Photo by @g_dezigner/Twenty20

What is going on with redistricting, and when will we know what district we're in?

State Rep. Pricey Harrison: Right now, we do not have any kind of independent redistricting process, despite our efforts. And so it's the redistricting committees in the house in the Senate that will draw them. 

We've got commitments from the leadership in the house in the senate that it will be transparent. But those who participated in the most recent redistricting will remember that it was only partially transparent. 

So if we can't get the independent redistricting process going, we're committed to fighting for better access for the public to participate in the process. We are committed to protecting communities of interest and keeping counties and municipalities whole. But it doesn't look like we're going to be doing any of that until after we get the census numbers, which I believe is not until the very last day in September.

Pennsylvania Covid-19 Economic Recovery

Right now, we know that people are concerned about their overall financial, social, and economic well-being and that of their families. We want to hear your questions and concerns about what protecting working families during the coronavirus quarantine looks like!

Join us on Thursday, June 10th, from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. EST and Friday, June 18th, from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. EST for a town hall with Pennsylvania state representatives.

By joining the town hall (on your phone!), you will be able to connect directly with legislators and learn about how they are fighting for families during the coronavirus crisis in all 67 PA counties. You will be able to ask questions live during the telephone town hall and get valuable information about the state government.

Special Guests


• June 10th: Representative. Ryan Bizzarro and Representative Tim Briggs.
• June 18th: Representative Jordan A. Harris, Representative Bridget M. Kosierowski, and Andrea Custis, President and CEO of Urban League of Philadelphia

Pennsylvania Representative Ryan Bizzarro
Ryan Bizzarro

State Representative

Representative Tim Brigg
Tim Briggs

State Representative

Jordan A. Harris
Jordan A. Harris

State Representative

Representative Bridget M. Kosierowski
Bridget M. Kosierowski

State Representative

Andrea Custis
Andrea Custis

President & CEO, Urban League of Philadelphia

Register

Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.

Fill out my online form.

FAQs

How do I attend the telephone town hall?
We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.

Will I get to ask a question?
Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.

What if I miss the call?
If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.

Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators?
Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.

Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online?
Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.

What if I can't be on for the whole time?
We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.

State Roundup: Cannabis Equity, Workers' Rights, & More

We know not all news coming out of state legislatures is positive right now, so this week we're celebrating the hard work progressive state legislators are doing every day to fight for their communities.

Cannabis Equity Bill Clears Illinois House

Recreational marijuana was more than a $1 billion dollar industry in Illinois last year. This week the House passed a bill to make owning dispensaries more accessible to people of color, women, people living in low-income communities, and those with previous marijuana charges. By tweaking the lottery system, the new approach gives a much more diverse group of people the opportunity to participate in the lucrative industry that has otherwise benefited primarily privileged groups, like white, and already wealthy, men.

Incarcerated Women Gain Basic Protections in New Mississippi Law

newborn checked by doctors in hospital
Photo by Solen Feyissa/Unsplash

A new bipartisan Mississippi law grants basic rights and health care to pregnant incarcerated women. The law prevents the shackling of women during childbirth, ensures the newborn can stay with its mother for 72 hours after birth, requires staff training, prevents invasive searches not provided by health care professionals, and allows for visitation with young children, among other provisions. These are small but needed steps to improve a prison system that too often neglects the health and well-being of pregnant women.  

Workers Win in Washington State Session

Farm laborers harvest strawberries in field
Photo by Tim Mossholder/Unsplash

The Washington state legislature adjourned late last month. Among several groundbreaking progressive bills were major gains for workers. Employees can now put a temporary hold on the assets of an employer who engages in wage theft. All workers, regardless of immigration status, now have access to free legal assistance; farmworkers were awarded overtime pay; and the budget allocated millions for child care programs.

New York Provides Stimulus for Undocumented Immigrants

Person dressed as Lady Liberty standing in park with sign; sign reads "Lady Liberty wants DREAMers to stay."
Photo by Maria Oswalt/Unsplash

Immigrants are one of several groups hit hardest by the pandemic. Not only did they have a higher rate of contracting the virus, but immigrants were on the front lines of the pandemic—many work in jobs considered essential and kept our communities afloat while others were able to safely quarantine. Yet almost every federal program to keep people employed or safe, or to stimulate the economy, excluded aid to immigrants. But New York’s $2.1 billion stimulus to undocumented immigrants, part of the Excluded Worker Fund, will help 290,000 people directly get the benefits they have earned and deserve.

Nebraska Unemployment Extended to Caregivers

Attentive caregiver or companion and a senior adult woman in protective masks are sitting on a park bench. Summer sunny day.

The pandemic proved that most employment opportunities do not allow for the flexibility to both keep one’s job and care for a seriously ill relative. Many were forced to quit in order to help loved ones battle COVID. But now, Nebraskans forced to quit their jobs to care for sick relatives are eligible to apply for unemployment.

States Celebrate World Bee Day by Adding Protection

Dozens of bees working
Photo by Damien TUPINIER/Unsplash

World Bee Day was earlier this week and bees in several states can celebrate their legislatures’ passage of bills that limit or ban neonicotinoids, a pesticide that researchers have linked to a sharp decline in bees and pollinators around the world. States that have passed or are considering this legislation are MaineNew York, and Washington. Bees are critical to the pollination of many of our staple food crops. Protecting bees and pollinators contributes to the health and resiliency of our entire food system.

Need Volunteer Poll Workers? Wisconsin is All Set

Election poll workers wear masks during the primary election day in Nevada
Photo by Trevor Bexon / Shutterstock

A new bill in the Wisconsin legislature would require elected officials to volunteer as poll workers. The goal is to increase transparency and understanding of the election process and provides a much-needed solution to a volunteer and staffing shortage. Judges and those on the ballot would be excluded from having to serve.

Vermont Addresses Past, Present, and Future Reproductive Freedom

Exterior of the Vermont state capitol building
Vermont State House in Montpelier, Vermont

We know that there’s a deep and continued history of racism and sexism in our medical institutions—from non-consensual medical experimentation, to forced birth, to inequitable access to health care services, to forced sterilization, to inequitable infant and maternal health outcomes. Vermont took steps this session to repair these injustices by addressing the past and future: legislators passed a resolution apologizing for past state-sanctioned eugenics policies that led to sterilizations and passed a measure that would enshrine reproductive liberty in the state's constitution.

Childcare is Key: Michigan Economic Recovery Townhall

Jump to: How do I register? | How do I attend? | What if I miss the call?

Increasing access to more affordable, quality child care is essential to Michigan’s economic recovery and helping get people back to work. Learn more about what can be done to support and improve child care on a Telephone Town Hall meeting with state lawmakers and officials on Thursday, June 3rd, 6 pm to 7 pm EST.

By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with Michigan’s elected leaders and local experts, learn about recent updates concerning child care in Michigan, ask questions, and discuss what action can be taken to support increased access to affordable, quality child care.

Special Guests: Michigan Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist, Sen. Mallory McMorrow (Oakland County) and Eboni Taylor, Michigan Executive Director of Mothering Justice.

Special Guests

Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist
Garlin Gilchrist

Lieutenant Governor

Sen. Mallory McMorrow
Mallory McMorrow

State Senator

Eboni Taylor
Eboni Taylor

Executive Director, Mothering Justice

Register

Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.

Fill out my online form.

FAQs

How do I attend the telephone town hall?
We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.

Will I get to ask a question?
Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.

What if I miss the call?
If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.

Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators?
Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.

Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online?
Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.

What if I can't be on for the whole time?
We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.

Q&A: The Native Tuition Waiver Bill & Voting Rights in Nevada

This Q&A is excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone townhall featuring Nevada Assemblymember Natha Anderson, Marla McDade Williams (TeMoak Shoshone), and Rani Williams (Agai Dicutta Numu - Walker River Paiute.)

Answers have been edited for length and clarity.

How will the tuition waiver bill (AB262) help Native communities?

Assemblymember Natha Anderson: AB262 would do two things: 

(1) grant in-state tuition to students from federally recognized Native American tribes who do not reside in Nevada

 (2) grant a full waiver for costs from the Nevada System of Higher Education to students who are members or descendants of federally recognized tribes in Nevada

So this is an opportunity for us to invest in our students.

It's also an opportunity to promote more professional diversity. For example, when I'm not serving in the Assembly, I'm a teacher. When I look around, I do not see many Native American teachers. There are a few, but we need more. Not just in education—we need to see more Native attorneys, doctors, bankers, realtors. It's not about the title; it's about that different point of view. 

Lastly, the Native American community has given so much to Nevada. One thing that they gave, without their permission, was the land that the Nevada System of Higher Education started on. That was both in Elko, where our first university was opened, and also at the University of Nevada, Reno, where it currently sits. We need to recognize the mistakes of the past and do something different.

Assemblymember
Natha Anderson
Marla McDade Williams (TeMoak Shoshone)
Rani Williams (Agai Dicutta Numu - Walker River Paiute)

Can you tell us more about the "sundown siren" in Minden and efforts to limit it?

Marla McDade Williams: An amendment to AB88, the bill that would ban discriminatory mascot names, proposed limiting the sundown siren in Minden. Like racially discriminatory mascots, the siren is a symbol that continues to inflict trauma on Native people. When the dominant society holds on to offensive symbols, it's almost as if it's a way to continually remind Native people that they aren't worthy of respect. So legislation goes a long way to help heal some of the traumas that Native people have lived with for a very long time.

How would AB321 help voting access for Native Americans in Nevada?

Rainey Williams: AB321 formalizes several changes made during the coronavirus pandemic during the last election. 

One such change is that the bill extends the deadline for tribes to request a polling place. And once that request is made, and the location is established, it cannot be moved or removed unless a tribe requests it itself.

Another thing this voting bill does is make the mail-in ballot system used during the 2020 election permanent. Offering a mail-in ballot system really breaks down a major barrier to voting for on-reservation tribal voters. It's not news to anyone in Indian country that there's difficulty accessing the polls because of how rural some locations are.

Voters in the State of Nevada go to the polls on Election Day . Washoe County Nevada
Voters in Washoe County, Nevada go to the polls on Election Day

What is the significance of Swamp Cedars to Native people? 

Marla McDade Williams: Swamp Cedars is of cultural importance to tribes that historically used the area for gatherings and spiritual ceremonies. It was also the site of massacres. 

And the bodies and spirits of Native people killed there deserve respect, just like at the site of Little Bighorn. It's a huge step forward to recognize these historical areas and work with local tribes to protect them for their cultural value, and not just for their economic value.

I'm a student at the University of Nevada, Reno and I'm really interested in what other states are doing to build political power for Native communities.

Rainey Williams: I worked in Arizona, specifically for the last few election cycles for tribal communities. Tribes communicate with the elections departments constantly, even during off-cycle years when there's no voting happening. They discuss accessible polling locations, poll worker training, and how to get tribal members to become poll workers on the reservation. 

And it was completely homegrown. It was tribal members informing others and making sure the word got out: "Hey, this drop off location is happening at this time. Please be there if you can." 

It was really something to see. And if you followed the news during the election, you saw historic voter turnout on all Arizona reservations because of this grassroots effort.

submit opinion nevada legislature
Nevadans can submit their opinion on a bill on the Nevada Legislature website.

How can Nevadans participate in the legislative process?

Marla McDade Williams:   One way is to register to testify on a bill. And the other way is to submit an opinion on a bill. You do that by finding the bill on the legislature's website under the 2021 legislative session. Select the meetings link associated with the bill and then select, "Submit Opinion."

Is SiX the ALEC of the Left?

We get called the “ALEC of the left” a lot. 

While it is easy shorthand for people to understand what we do, we resist that label because ALEC’s model is inherently flawed and harmful for our nation. SiX, like ALEC, focuses on state legislators because we know they are incredible agents of change. But that’s where the similarities end.

SiX exists to fill a gap in the progressive movement: helping legislators succeed after they are elected. We work side-by-side with state legislators to advance progressive policy and build people power. ALEC is a corporate-backed organization that creates model legislation to benefit conservative special interests.

Collaborating with state legislators and their communities means we don’t create model legislation. We know that legislators don’t need national organizations to parachute in and offer copycat legislation just to pick up and leave the next day.  SiX offers ongoing and personalized support; creates innovative ways to connect legislators across chambers, state lines, and with grassroots movements; and provides rapid response resources to help legislators bravely face new issues. 

There are over 7,300 state legislators in the United States, and many are part-time, paid very little (if at all), and given few resources. ALEC takes advantage of under-resourced state legislatures with a top-down approach, pushing legislation from out-of-state corporations devoid of local need or context; sometimes, bill sponsors aren’t even aware the legislation they’re voting on is an ALEC bill. For example, ALEC members drafted a model voter ID bill in 2009. By 2012, 62 different voter ID bills had been introduced—and more than half the bill sponsors were ALEC members or conference attendees.

Voter casting ballot in sitdown booth while other voters pass by in foreground
Voters cast their ballots during the New Hampshire presidential primary in Bedford, N.H. (Andrew Cline / Shutterstock)

We don’t aspire to mimic ALEC’s playbook. Instead, we use a ground-up approach to center legislators who are navigating complex situations and competing needs within their communities.

Here’s what that looks like in practice: just recently, when a state legislator approached us for help with a bill to reduce traffic stops, our team provided research on similar laws that generated cost savings and reduced disproportionate law enforcement contact for Black motorists, and connected the legislator to government officials and academic experts.

Early in 2021, we conducted a legislator training with a staffer who worked on Sen. Booker’s Justice for Black Farmers Act. The training has already sparked cross-state partnerships and the introduction of bills to create land restoration programs and impact studies.

colin lloyd hands raised colorado state capitol
Demonstrator with hands raised at Black Lives Matter rally near Colorado State Capitol (Photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash)

Our staff of thirty—and growing—former and current elected officials, legislative specialists, communications professionals, and organizers are doing similar work with legislators all over the country. Real progress doesn’t come from a bill mill. It comes from showing up day after day, to resource decision-makers with what they need to solve their communities’ problems.

At SiX, we do our work because we know that to improve people’s lives, we have to break the cycle of disinformation, distrust, and disenfranchisement that has made so many Americans question the results of one of the most secure elections in our nation’s history. It’s why we work side-by-side with state legislators to advance a vision of America where all people—Black, white, and brown alike—can thrive. State legislatures not only make decisions that affect the well-being of everyday Americans; they are also innovation hubs where people can come together to create solutions that ripple out and determine the future of our nation.

No Democracy Without Black Women

Join State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and National Organization of Black Elected Legislative Women (NOBEL Women) for two panel discussions with Black women legislators focused on the No Democracy Without Black Women report that highlights the transformative impact and underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.

Elected, Now What?

Thursday, May 27, 2021, at 12-1 PM ET


A panel conversation featuring Black millennial women state legislators discussing the immediate transition once becoming an elected official and the future of policymaking in an ever-growing political landscape. Panelists include:

State Sen. Raumesh Akbari

Raumesh Akbari

Tennessee State Sen.

Rep. Erica Thomas

Erica Thomas

Georgia State Rep.

London Lamar

London Lamar

Tennessee State Rep.

Leading in the Legislature

Thursday, May 27, 2021, at 1-2 PM ET

A panel conversation featuring Black women legislators in leadership in the legislature and how to build a pipeline to more Black women leaders. Panelists include:

Adrienne A. Jones

Adrienne A. Jones

Maryland Speaker of the House

Karen Camper

Karen Camper

Tennessee Minority Leader

Pennsylvania Minority Leader Joanna McClinton

Joanna McClinton

Pennsylvania Minority Leader 

Register

Florida Voting Rights and Democracy

Jump to: How do I register? | How do I attend? | What if I miss the call?

Register and join our Telephone Town Hall Meeting on Monday, May 24th from 6:00 to 7:00 pm EST.

By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with your representatives and learn about legislation passed in the 2021 Florida legislative session. You will be able to ask questions and give valuable feedback by answering live polling questions during our discussion about democracy reforms in Florida.

Our speaking guests will be Senator Shevrin Jones, Rep. Tracie Davis, and Rep. Geraldine Thompson.

Once you've signed up, just answer your telephone at 6:00pm on Monday, May 24th!

Shevrin Jones
Shevrin Jones

State Senator

Geraldine Thompson
Geraldine Thompson

State Representative

Tracie Davis
Tracie Davis

State Representative

Register

Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.

Fill out my online form.

FAQs

How do I attend the telephone town hall?
We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.

Will I get to ask a question?
Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.

What if I miss the call?
If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.

Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators?
Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.

Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online?
Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.

What if I can't be on for the whole time?
We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.

North Carolina Voting Rights

Learn more about what your state legislators are doing to protect our voting rights by joining a Telephone Town Hall meeting sponsored by the State Innovation Exchange with local officials on Monday May 17th, at 5:30 pm EDT.

By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with your representatives and local experts, learn about how they are fighting for your voting rights in North Carolina, ask questions, and discuss what we can do to take care of each other during this difficult time.

Special Guests: North Carolina Reps. Clemmons, Quick, and Harrison.

Featured Speakers

Register

Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.

Fill out my online form.

FAQs

How do I attend the telephone town hall?
We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.

Will I get to ask a question?
Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.

What if I miss the call?
If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.

Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators?
Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.

Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online?
Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.

What if I can't be on for the whole time?
We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.

American Rescue Plan Toolkit For Legislators

The American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act gives us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a stronger, more equitable economy and to shrink long-standing disparities. Hardship due to the pandemic and economic crisis is still widespread and is particularly difficult among Black, Latino, Indigenous people, immigrants, and households with children. State legislators will play a critical role in ensuring that the American Rescue Plan reaches those in need.

Suggested Social Media

Graphics

State Legislator Action Steps

Benefits from ARP can dramatically improve lives and set the stage for a stronger and more equitable recovery—but only if we all do our part to make sure each and every Americans has access. 

Here are some ideas to spread the word:

  • Host a virtual or telephone town hall about the ARP
  • Post about the ARP’s benefits on social media. Use our toolkit below.
  • Include links to ARP benefits in your newsletter
  • Partner with local nonprofits and service providers
  • Connect with hard-to-reach communities using text and robocalls
  • Reach out to local reporters to make sure they’re covering the benefits available

Explaining the Benefits

The American Rescue Plan is one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in history, with more than two thirds of its tax cuts and direct payments going to families making less than $90,000 per year. See below for a quick breakdown of some of the key benefits available to your constituents. Learn more at WhiteHouse.gov.

$1400 Checks

Encourage constituents to access their stimulus checks by filing their taxes and check on their payment using the IRS.gov Payment Tool.

The American Rescue Plan includes an additional $1,400 in direct cash relief for millions of Americans.

Eligibility Criteria 

Other Resources

Child Tax Credits

Encourage constituents to access the CTC by filing their taxes. Anyone with income less than $72,000 can file taxes for free at their local VITA provider.

The American Rescue Plan increases the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 per child to $3,000 per child ($3,600 for a child under age 6) and makes 17-year-olds qualifying children for the year. 

This means a typical family of four with two young children will receive an additional $3,200 in assistance to help cover costs associated with raising children. The families of more than 66 million kids will benefit.

Eligibility Criteria:

Other Resources

Expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)

Encourage constituents to access the EITC by filing their taxes. Anyone with income less than $72,000 can file taxes for free at their local  VITA provider.

The American Rescue Plan increases the EITC for 17 million workers by as much as $1,000. The top occupations that will benefit are cashiers, food preparers and servers, and home health aides—frontline workers who have helped their communities get through the crisis.

Key points: 

Other Resources:

Health Insurance

Encourage constituents to lower health care costs by signing up for health care at Healthcare.gov.

The American Rescue Plan reduces healthcare premiums by offering additional premium tax credits (PTCs), expands eligibility for PTCs to more people, and gives many people receiving unemployment benefits access to plans with $0 premiums. These changes are reflected at HealthCare.gov and all state-based marketplaces.

Other Resources:

COBRA Coverage

Direct constituents to our blog about accessing free COBRA coverage.

ARP covers the cost of COBRA coverage for people who have lost health insurance due to job loss or a reduction in work hours.

Other Resources:

Food Assistance

Direct constituents to their state SNAP program or the toll-free SNAP information line: (800) 221-5689

The American Rescue Plan dedicates $12 billion to food assistance programs, allowing states to extend SNAP increases, continue the P-EBT program, and invest in WIC improvements.

Other Resources:

Rental Assistance

Encourage constituents to apply for emergency rental assistance at the state or local level.

The American Rescue Plan provides substantial funding to help renters and homeowners who are struggling to pay their rent or mortgage.

Other Resources: 

Eviction Protections

The CDC national eviction moratorium will be in effect until June 30, 2021. The order does not replace or override stronger state or local eviction protections in place and tenants and advocates should continue to work for strong local, state and federal protections.

Other Resources:

Unemployment Insurance

Direct constituents to their state labor services or to call (866) 487-2365. 

The American Rescue Plan continues the $300-per-week federal supplement to weekly benefits through September 6, 2021, and continues the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program that expands eligibility to a broader group of people. 

Read more at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

More Resources

Find state-by-state info to tailor the below messages to your state here and here.  

How To Access Free COBRA Coverage Through September

COBRA Continuation Coverage allows you to keep health insurance through your job after experiencing job loss or a reduction in hours. Under the American Rescue Plan, most workers who lose their employer-provided health insurance are entitled to free COBRA coverage, called "COBRA premium assistance," until September 30, 2021.

Eligibility

You are eligible for COBRA premium assistance if you meet ALL of the following criteria:

  • You lost your employer-provided insurance due to involuntary job termination or reduction in hours*
  • You elect to receive COBRA premium assistance**
  • You DO NOT have another employer health insurance available to you
  • You DO NOT qualify for Medicare

*If you voluntarily left a job or reduced your hours, you are not eligible for COBRA premium assistance.

**If your job was terminated (or hours reduced) before April 1, 2021, you may still qualify for COBRA premium assistance. The Georgetown University Health Policy Institute provides this example: "If someone was laid off from their job in August of 2020 but found the premiums too high to enroll at the time, he or she could come back and enroll for up to 60 days after being notified of the availability of the subsidies under the American Rescue Plan."

Accessing The Benefit

If you qualify for COBRA premium assistance, you should receive enrollment forms from your insurance provider or employer. 

If you believe you are eligible but have not received a notice, you may notify your employer by filling out a request for treatment as an "Assistance Eligible Individual". Once you receive the enrollment forms, you have 60 days to elect to receive COBRA premium assistance.

This page provides an overview of the COBRA premium assistance benefit under the American Rescue Plan. We compiled this information to help clarify the benefits; however we are not COBRA experts. For more information about accessing the COBRA continuation payment, visit the Department of Labor's FAQ page; contact a benefits advisor in the Employee Benefits Security Administration by visiting askebsa.dol.gov or calling 1-866-444-3272; or visit the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.

Share

Help spread the word about this benefit by sharing the tweet below:

Under the American Rescue Plan, most workers who lose their job-based health insurance are entitled to free COBRA coverage.

Digital Tips: We ❤️ Legislator Tweets

This resource is adapted from our Digital Tips e-mail series. To sign up to receive these resources in your inbox regularly, join our network.


In this issue of Digital Tips, we'll help inspire your social strategy by analyzing three tweets from legislators in our network.

Tutorial: Tweets from Legislators

A check-in tweet from Sen. Julie Gonzales

Why We Love It

Colorado State Sen. Julie Gonzales' tweet illustrates how informal but genuine posts can enrichen your social media strategy. Asking your audience a question—and then engaging with their answers— is a great way to build community and connect directly with constituents.

Tips

It takes time to build a space where people feel comfortable sharing publicly. Don't be discouraged if, at first, you don't get responses. Try enlisting a colleague or friend to answer the question (using their account) so that you can reduce the barrier to participation for other followers.

You can also tailor your question to a particular issue you're championing. For example, if you're advocating for expanded child care access, you can ask, "Parents and caretakers: what's been your experience finding child care for your kids?"

An accessible explainer thread from Rep. Rayner-Goolsby

Why We Love It

This tweet from Florida Rep. Michele Rayner-Goolsby is the first in a four-part thread about the ongoing battle over voter restrictions in Florida. Sometimes, it's precisely when an issue is front-page news that an accessible explainer is needed.

Tips

 In addition to drawing upon facts, use personal anecdotes (or constituent experiences) to present a complete picture and leave readers with a memorable mental image.
 

Whenever possible, avoid legislative jargon if there's a more straightforward way to get across the same point.

A heartfelt message from Sen. Polehanki

Why We Love It

Michigan State Sen. Dayna Polehanki's video for Teacher Awareness Week is an excellent example of how a thoughtful message—whether written or on video—can set your content apart and make your followers feel seen.

Tips

Captioning your videos is essential, and there are lots of low-cost and free ways to do it. Here are a few tools I like: MixCaptions (free or paid; for desktop and mobile), Kapwing (free or paid; best for desktop), and Rev.com (paid; for desktop.)

Finally, note that the length of Sen. Polehanki's video is just 37 seconds. Though Twitter videos can be up to 140 seconds long, it's best to keep them short.

Quick Links: Digital Resources From Around The Web

📱  Why Do Videos Sent from My iPhone Vary so Much in Quality?

🪄  How to Make The Facebook Algorithm Work For You

📸 5 Instagram Accessibility Tips

🤳🏾  Taking Great Selfie Videos and Photos

No Democracy Without Black Women Week of Action Toolkit

May 24-28 Week of Action Events

Black women are severely underrepresented in state legislatures. It is time Black women received the recognition they deserve. Join us in this week of virtual events to shine a spotlight on Black women in state legislatures! Read the No Democracy Without Black Women report.


Monday, May 24: Sister Solidarity Day and Twitter Storm  

Sister Solidarity Day: Everything looks better with a united front. We challenge Black women state legislators to join with one another and wear BLACK all day. Take a selfie, tell your story, and share it with us using #NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen! 

Twitter Storm @ 2:00 PM ET/ 1:00 PM CT / 12:00 pm MT / 11:00 PT: Let’s take it to the tweets! Help us highlight the work of Black women by storming Twitter with likes, retweets, and posts about the Black women in your state legislature using #NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen! Add it to your calendar!

Use these graphics and suggested social media posts 


Tuesday, May 25: Instagram Live Interviews with Black Women Legislators

Join NOBEL Women, SiX, and our partners for our Black Women Legislator Instagram takeover! Black women legislators will go live with partner organizations to talk about the findings of the No Democracy Without Black Women Report and share their experiences as elected officials. Tune in to understand why it's important to have Black women in legislatures, the role that representation has on policy, and what we can all do to be in solidarity with the legislators.

Follow: @nationalwomenslawcent @sarahanthony517  @yeonetwork @senatoranderson43 @blkwomenshealth @sistersleadsistersvote @repsonyaharper @americanprogress @atticascott4ky @higherheights4@dotiejoseph @genprogress @rena.moran @nwblackwomen @emilia_sykes @emilys_list @stateinnovation @nobelwomen1


Thursday, May 27: Black Women Legislator Panel Discussions

Register here

Join State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and National Organization of Black Elected Legislative Women (NOBEL Women) for two panel discussions with Black women legislators focused on the No Democracy Without Black Women report that highlights the transformative impact and underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.

Elected, Now What? @ 12:00 pm ET / 11:00 am CT/ 10:00 am MT/ 9:00 am PT

A panel conversation featuring Black millennial women state legislators discussing the immediate transition once becoming an elected official and the future of policymaking in an ever-growing political landscape. Panelists include:

Leading in the Legislature @ 1:00 pm ET/ 12:00 pm CT / 11:00 am MT / 10:00 am PT

A panel conversation featuring Black women legislators in leadership in the legislature and how to build a pipeline to more Black women leaders. Panelists include:

Register here


Suggested Social Media

Twitter NDWBW 4.8 Stat Graphic

Retweet SiX

Graphics

Stat Graphic
Instagram NDWBW . Stat Graphic

Quote Graphics- Download the set
Twitter NDWBW Attica Scott 2021311 1
TN Rep. Camper

Speaker Adrienne Jones
Lauren Bealore SiX
Krystal Leaphart NOBEL
GA Rep. Sandra Scott
Congresswoman Kelly
Congresswoman Beatty

More Sample Social Media Posts

In Mississippi, Black women make up 19% of the state population but only 8% of the state legislature.

Explore the data in your state. #NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen https://link.stateinnovation.org/NDWBW


The percentage of Black women in [STATE] is XX%
The percentage of Black women in the [STATE] legislature is XX%

A fair and equitable society will only be possible once Black women have seats at 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 table. #NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen https://link.stateinnovation.org/NDWBW


"As one of two Black women in our legislature, I face threats from people filled with racial hatred, I face erasure from my colleagues, and I face institutional racism." — @atticascott4ky https://link.stateinnovation.org/NDWBW


"Black women helped fuel change up and down the ballot during the 2020 Election; just imagine the transformational power ‘Black Girl Magic’ can have in city councils and state legislatures."
—@RepBeatty

#NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen https://link.stateinnovation.org/NDWBW


In the midst of a pandemic and economic recession that are having devastating consequences on Black women, the need for Black women to have decision-making power in the solutions to these crises has never been more apparent.

#NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen https://link.stateinnovation.org/NDWBW


There remain 8 states without a single Black woman in their legislature, despite the Black population in each state ranging from 2-6%: Vermont, South Dakota, Hawaii, Arizona, Idaho, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota. 

This is not what democracy looks like. Black women representation matters if we want real change.

#NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen https://link.stateinnovation.org/NDWBW


It is crucial to have Black women serve in leadership positions within state legislatures. When we do, the potential is limitless. 

Check out this Ms. Magazine article on why Black women need to have a seat in the legislature!


Our democracy needs to reflect the people that are keeping it alive! 

Read 19th News to learn more about why Black women are still underrepresented in America’s statehouses.


As Black women continue to be at the epicenter of preserving democracy, where is their representation in state legislatures across the country?

Learn more about The Dual Consciousness of Democracy in The BGGuide and support Black voices in government.


Underrepresentation creates barriers where there should be a steady flow of ideas and policy from communities to the capitol. 

Lasting progressive change must begin with removing the barriers of entry for Black women.

#NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen https://link.stateinnovation.org/NDWBW


Black women legislators need to be recognized for their leadership and their policy priorities should be given the attention they deserve.

#NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen https://link.stateinnovation.org/NDWBW

Agriculture is Not Just A Rural Issue

This interview is based on responses from a tweet chat that took place on April 28, 2021. Answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

What experiences shaped your understanding of the importance of agriculture?

Sen. Kim Jackson (GA): As a sixth-generation Black farmer, I think about agriculture every day when I do farm chores! I raise goats, bees, ducks, and chickens and all kinds of vegetables. And, I eat food every day! 

Rep. Brian Turner (NC): My grandma grew up in the mountain border of North Carolina & Tennessee. Raising livestock & planting row crops were a way of life for her. I’m grateful she passed those skills to me, and now I get to pass it on to my daughter growing our own veggies in the backyard.

Rep. Rebecca Mitchell (GA): At first: a square baler without a kicker. Loading 50- and 100-pound feed sacks at the mill. Outdoor water spigots in the winter in New York. Fiberglass fence posts (never. ever. again). 

Later: working at the dairy farm next door. Fitting sheep at shows. 

Professionally: ambulatory rotations in veterinary school and analyzing milk quality and pathogens from dairy farms.

Rep. Julie von Haefen (NC): Growing up in Iowa, I saw firsthand how agriculture can be an integral part of the economy, our community and our environment. My house was on the edge of a cornfield and detasseling corn was the premier summer job for teenagers!

Cow in large pen on farm in Indiana

Agriculture issues range from food insecurity to soil health—what are some of the agriculture issues in your district?

Sen. Natalie Murdock (NC): Food insecurity is an issue in my senate district. 16.5% of people in my county are food insecure, that’s over 45,000 people. Over 12,000 children are food insecure.

Rep. Julie von Haefen (NC): We don’t have a lot of farms, but urban agriculture is becoming more important! Urban farming is the practice of cultivating, processing, and distributing food in or around urban areas—an important tool to ensure our communities have access to fresher and healthier foods! 

Sen. Rosemary Bayer (MI): My district spans a wide array of urban, suburban and rural areas. While we don’t have much farming in the district anymore, soil as a vital living system is important to all of us. From large rural farms to urban gardens, we all need healthy soil! Constituents all over the state & my district suffer from food insecurity and Covid has only made this worse. In addition to sustainable farming across the state, local sustainable urban and suburban gardens can help with food insecurity.

Sen. Kim Jackson (GA): In District 41, like many places in Georgia, people struggle with food insecurity. And for folks growing food in the city—often to address this very issue!—there can be many roadblocks. 

I'm encouraged by efforts to bring fresh food to more people and support new growers. We need collaboration across sectors—and at all levels of government!—to decrease barriers to healthy food and urban agriculture. 

Tell us about an agriculture, food, or rural issue you are working on in your state.

Sen. Kim Jackson (GA): I serve on the Senate Agriculture & Consumer Affairs Committee. I'm working to support Black farmers across the state of Georgia and bring fresh, healthy food to those who need it most.

Rep. Brian Turner (NC): As a member of the Ag appropriations committee I’m working to make sure the preservation programs are funded and also fighting for improved broadband penetration so farmers can modernize, be more efficient, and so kids know they can farm and be connected. 

Sen. Kirk deViere (NC): I’ve been fortunate enough to connect with veterans who have turned to farming as a career and therapy for post-military life. We have a responsibility to help and encourage small family farms that have been the cornerstone of North Carolina’s agricultural economy for generations. I’d like to see veteran farmers as a substantial part of those small farms.

A Vendor is Selling Produce at Farmers Market in Clayton, North Carolina
A farmer's market in Clayton, North Carolina

How can agriculture be part of the solution to climate change?

Sen. Kirk deViere (NC): Incentivizing sustainable farming and regenerative agriculture is not only a smart long-term policy decision for farmers, but it’s much better for our environment as well. To be successful, agriculture must be a significant focus of climate justice.

Sen. Natalie Murdock (NC): As a previous soil and water supervisor, I know how soil health is key to combating climate change. Here in North Carolina we continue to work on robust soil health plans and need to fund regenerative agriculture programs.

Rep. Brian Turner (NC): Farmers love the land they work and want to keep it healthy so they can grow our food. Creating incentives to reduce fertilizers, stormwater runoff, and adopt more efficient irrigation tech helps. For more about local food growers visit the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

What do you wish more people knew about agriculture?

Rep. Julie von Haefen (NC): Agriculture and the environment go hand in hand. We must pay attention to how our North Carolina hog and poultry farms are operating and affecting the communities around them, and how they may be harmful to water and air. 

Creating policy that benefits and protects both agriculture and the environment is important.

Sen. Kirk deViere (NC): One common misconception about agriculture is that all farmers are white. This couldn’t be further from the truth. As of 2017, North Carolina had nearly 2,100 black producers. We rely on minority farmers, namely Black farmers.

Rep. Brian Turner (NC): Agriculture is the #1 driver of North Carolina’s economy. We are #1 in the U.S. in sweet potatoes and soybeans, #2 in hogs. 

Agriculture is bipartisan with rural and urban support. Most North Carolina farms are small family operations hoping the next generation will take over. We have a duty to help. No farms, no food.

Farmworker picking yellow peppers on agriculture field

How can people engage with agriculture issues beyond Earth Month?

Rep. Julie von Haefen: Contact your state legislators and sign up for our legislative updates! Sharing your priorities with your elected officials goes a long way towards advancing sound environmental and agricultural policies.

Sen. Kirk deViere (NC): If you live in North Carolina, you likely interact with agriculture much more than you realize. After all, agriculture is our #1 industry! It’s up to us to make sure that we continue to support the agricultural industry while fighting climate change.

Sen. Rosemary Bayer (MI): We all need to be conscious of good environmental practices – in pest management, water management, air and soil health and more.  Remember, what you put into the air and ground travels. It’s never just about our own gardens or backyards. We are a world community. We have one planet and we need to work together to protect not only our own land, state and country, but our entire planet. 

Tribal Impact Legislation

Please join us on Tuesday, May 11th at 6pm for a teletown hall with Assemblymember Natha Anderson, Assemblymember Howard Watts III, Marla McDade Williams, and local tribal leaders.

Our representatives will be discussing bills from the current 2021 Nevada Legislature that impact Native American communities, such as the Indian tuition waiver, swamp cedar protections, expanding voting access, and banning racist mascots.

Learn about bills from the current 2021 Nevada Legislature that impact Native American communities, such as the Indian tuition waiver, swamp cedar protections, expanding voting access, and banning racist mascots.

Featured Speakers

Register

Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.

Fill out my online form.

FAQs

How do I attend the telephone town hall?
We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.

Will I get to ask a question?
Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.

What if I miss the call?
If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.

Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators?
Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.

Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online?
Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.

What if I can't be on for the whole time?
We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.

Reimagining Public Safety: Resources for State Action

Introduction

When a jury found Derek Chauvin guilty on all charges in the murder of George Floyd, accountability was, at last, applied to a police officer. But we must not let this single trial lessen the urgency of demands for changes to the violent system of policing in this country. Accountability does not equate to justice. Justice would be George Floyd alive today, living in a world that knows the Black lives matter. Justice would be an end to the constant, unrelenting police violence that takes the lives of nearly 1,000 Americans each year and terrorizes the lives of thousands more. 

Accountability does not equate to justice. Justice would be George Floyd alive today, living in a world that knows the Black lives matter.

Incremental policy changes haven’t stopped the killings and one guilty verdict will not, either. We need to reimagine public safety in America. Each murder of yet another Black person by the police shows we need to transform our approach to public safety. In the words of the Movement for Black Lives, “There is no ‘reforming’ this system—the time is now to divest from deadly policing and invest in a vision of public safety that protects us all.” 

SiX compiled the resources below following the guilty verdict in the trial of Officer Derek Chauvin, who killed George Floyd in May 2020. Read our full statement here.

Enacted Legislation

Protester in Omaha, Nebraska protests the killing of George Floyd; sign reads "Justice: America's Broken Promise"
Demonstrator in Omaha, Nebraska holds sign reading "Justice: America's Broken Promise."

The police don’t keep everyone safe. We need a new approach to public safety that truly protects everyone from harm. Since the murder of George Floyd, 30 states have passed more than 140 new laws related to public safety, but we know from the continued murders and violence inflicted on Black and brown people that this is not enough.  

As you consider the introduction of public safety legislation, we encourage you to reach out to your legislative peers in these states who have sponsored this legislation. These leaders carry a depth of knowledge about the policy, and can also talk to you about their strategies, the obstacles, what didn’t make it into the legislation (and why), and what they’re working on next (SiX can help connect you). We need to learn lessons from state to state, rather than copying and pasting a one-size-fits all approach, so we can collectively accelerate our work toward justice where all people feel safe in their communities.

“The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police.” — Mariame Kamba

Changes to oversight, accountability, training, and police policies are essential for harm reduction, but to truly transform public safety into a system that works for all, alternatives to policing must be pursued. For starters, mental health, traffic, gender-based violence, and crime investigation services could be better fulfilled by other trained, unarmed, and nonviolent professionals. The list of legislation below is not comprehensive.

Structural Reforms

Activists and communities have been calling for fundamental changes to policing for many years. The more recent “Defund the Police” campaigns envision a new system that goes beyond incremental police reforms. As The Opportunity Agenda puts it in Beyond Policing:

What would it look like to have first responders who were unarmed mental health specialists work with those experiencing a crisis in public? How would it be different for those experiencing homelessness if they had an ongoing relationship with a trained social worker instead of periodic encounters with police?

While we are unaware of any state to make fundamental changes to the notion of policing in America, the Beyond Policing report highlights local examples of restorative justice, peacemaking circles, mobile crisis centers, youth and community courts, stipends and other supports for individuals at-risk of perpetrating violence.

The following legislative examples are small steps that states have taken to move away from a model of policing and punishment to one that provides true safety for all members of the community, including alternatives to policing, a halt on automatic police department funding supports, and de-militarization of police departments.

Alternatives to Policing

Enacted legislation in Connecticut (2020 CT HB 6004) requires the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection and local police departments to evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of using social workers to respond to calls for assistance or accompany a police officer on certain calls for assistance.

Colorado enacted legislation (2020 CO HB 1393) expanding the state’s Mental Health Diversion Pilot Programs from four to five or more in selected judicial districts that identifies individuals with mental health conditions who have been charged with a low-level criminal offense and divert such individuals out of the criminal justice system and into community treatment programs.

Limiting Police Engagement

A young protester and celebrant of Juneteenth holds a sign that reads I am my ancestors wildest dream at Black Lives Matter Plaza
A demonstrator and celebrant of Juneteenth holds a sign that reads "I am my ancestors wildest dream" at Black Lives Matter Plaza.

Police involved violence disproportionately impacts Black and brown communities. Mapping Police Violence provides powerful data showing that:

To reduce violence during police interactions, states have enacted legislation to reduce over policing, regulate the use of “no-knock” search warrants, limit the use of deadly force, ban chokeholds, require police officers to intervene to stop excessive use of force or to render medical aid, and train police officers in topics from de-escalation to implicit bias.  

Incident Response

Black father and son at Black Lives Matter demonstration with sign reading "Enough is Enough"
A father and son participate in a Black Lives Matter protest in Orlando, Florida. Sign reads, "Enough is Enough! #BlackLivesMatter"

Investigations of police interactions that result in death or other serious incidents that are shrouded in secrecy, influenced by the offending police officer, and/or conducted by a biased entity degrade public trust in law enforcement agencies. Adequate levels of independence in any response to a critical incident caused by a law enforcement officer ensure that future measures of accountability honor the truth of what occurred.

State lawmakers can ensure that responses to serious incidents are independent and faithfully carry out justice under the law by increasing reporting requirements, protecting the right of witnesses to record incidents, preserving the integrity of available recordings, and requiring an independent investigation of incidents.

Accountability

Demonstrator holding "Black Trans Lives Matter" sign
Demonstrator holding "Black Trans Lives Matter" sign in New York City

For as long as publicly-funded police forces have existed in the country, officers who commit brutal violence against Black people have habitually eluded any measure of accountability. Officers have been insulated from professional and judicial repercussions through layers of legal protections and collective bargaining agreements, allowing them to continue a pattern of misconduct and abuse of power against the communities they are charged to protect.

State lawmakers can strengthen accountability measures against law enforcement officers who violate standards of conduct and constitutional and civil rights by reinforcing disciplinary actions against officers, ensuring that collective bargaining agreements do not interfere with disciplinary actions, requiring public and agency access to the personnel records of officers with a history of misconduct to prevent their re-hiring, and banning qualified immunity.

System Oversight

Line of protesters marching holding their fists up for Black Lives Matter
Demonstrators march in Washington, D.C.

The violent realities of over-policing in Black communities and other communities of color are well-known by their residents, who are also best-positioned to develop the policy solutions necessary for lasting transformational change. But too often, state legislatures and institutional actors responsible for enacting policy change are not equitably representative of their communities, and therefore lack the lived experience and information necessary to make structural changes to policing systems.

At the state level, lawmakers can pave the way for broader changes by ensuring that communities have adequate access to data and oversight entities with decision-making power. State legislators can ensure that future reform efforts are informed by publicly available and disaggregated information on police interactions. Comprehensive data collection drives continuous oversight by identifying and investigating patterns of policing conduct that disproportionately harm communities of color. Legislators can also establish independent oversight bodies charged with reenvisioning policing and making policy recommendations with strong requirements for meaningful community participation.

Local and National Organizations

Mural Artists collectively create street art in front of City Hall
Mural artists collectively create street art in front of City Hall in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Many Black-led and centered organizations have been leading on policing, police reform, and abolition for years. We encourage you to seek information and support from this list below. Note this is not a comprehensive list and will be updated.  

National

Minnesota
Other States

 Resources

Protestor holding up his fist in solidarity; Photo by Clay Banks
Protestor holding up his fist in solidarity in Charlotte, North Carolina. (Photo by Clay Banks)

A Measure of Accountability in the Killing of George Floyd

While one verdict cannot begin to heal the years of trauma that Black people in this country face, this verdict is an important measure of accountability.  But justice has not been served. Justice would be George Floyd alive today, living in a world that knows Black lives matter. Justice would be an end to the constant, unrelenting police violence that takes the lives of nearly 1,000 Americans each year and terrorizes the lives of thousands more.  

“We will have to do this for life. I am going to put up a fight every day. Because I am not just fighting for George anymore,” said Philonise Floyd, George Floyd’s brother.

“True justice for George Floyd will come from investing in Black people and defunding the police, not the unjust criminal legal system,” reads the statement from the Movement for Black Lives.

Even as the trial was underway, the police murdered another young Black man just miles from the courthouse. The family of Daunte Wright lost a father, a son, a boyfriend, a friend. Just weeks ago, police killed Adam Toledo, a 13-year-old boy, with his empty hands in the air. Ma'Khia Bryant, a 16-year-old girl, was shot and killed just before the verdict was announced. These murders add to the constant trauma of living in this unjust, racist system and add to the urgency of demands for reimagining public safety. 

We write today relieved that a small amount of accountability has, at last, been applied to a police officer. But we will not let this verdict lessen the urgency of demands for changes to the violent system of policing in this country. 

This trial cannot be seen as vindication that the system can work—it must be seen as proof that it is broken.

Our work to transform systems through liberatory public policy and end systemic anti-Black racism requires our community to lean on one another in these moments.  “Painfully earned justice has arrived for George Floyd’s family and the community here in Minneapolis, but today’s verdict goes far beyond this city and has significant implications for the country and even the world. This case is a turning point in American history for accountability of law enforcement and sends a clear message we hope is heard clearly in every city and every state,” said the Floyd family’s attorney Ben Crump in a statement.

Incremental policy changes haven’t stopped the killings and one guilty verdict will not, either. We need to reimagine public safety in America.

Communities are in deep pain right now. Each murder of yet another Black person by the police shows we need to transform our approach to public safety. Lives should always matter more than property.

In the words of the Movement for Black Lives, “There is no ‘reforming’ this system—the time is now to divest from deadly policing and invest in a vision of public safety that protects us all.” 

(Photo by Jéan Béller)

When We Elevate Voter Access, Everybody Wins

Mississippi State Rep. Zakiya Summers is dedicated to expanding voter access, pushing for ambitious equity agendas, and upholding educational opportunities. Prior to joining the legislature, Rep. Summers served as the director of communications and advocacy at the ACLU of Mississippi and as the Hinds County District 3 election commissioner.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What experiences led you to commit to fighting for voting rights?

When I turned 18, my mom told me that if I don't vote, I can no longer live in the house. So voting was extremely critical for our household. My great grandmother was unable to vote until the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and even then she had to walk from her home in rural Mississippi, five miles to town just to be able to cast her vote. 

Mississippi State Representative Zakiya Summers
Mississippi State Rep. Zakiya Summers

And then, in my work as an Election Commissioner, I would go out to high schools and hold voter registrations. Having students contact me and say “I got my voter registration card” and “I can't wait to be able to vote this year” really showed me how impactful our work was with young people.

How does Mississippi limit access to voting?

First, we don't even have online voter registration; we still have to use the old school paper way. 

Mississippi also has more ways a person can become disenfranchised than almost any other state; 23 different felonies can disenfranchise a person. And there's no way to change that status for yourself, the legislature would have to pass a suffrage bill in your name or the governor would have to pardon you. 

During my first year as a legislator, one of my colleagues was trying to get his brother's right to vote restored. But the committee chairman just refused to bring it up for debate; as a result, the process had to start all over again in January–after the elections. 

Finally, I tried to introduce an amendment to allow for no-excuse absentee voting and it failed. Every time we try to bring legislation to expand access to the ballot, the ruling party doesn’t allow it to go anywhere.

How is voter suppression tied to social and economic problems in Mississippi?

Who is responsible for policy change? Policymakers. How do policymakers get into position? The electorate. Something that the NAACP president always says, “voting is where our social and our economic power lies.” So if you're not at the policy table, then you're on the menu; if you're not on the menu, then you might be in the lobby. But that all starts with voting. 

Do you feel hopeful about changing voting in the South? 

I certainly feel hopeful. Legislators can't do it alone inside the Capitol, and we saw that last year when Mississippi voters finally changed our state flag. We never would have thought that in 2020, we'd be taking down the Mississippi state flag after decades of people fighting— some having died fighting. 

But we got it done, so we just have to continue to fight. We need that same passion, that same advocacy, and that same activism when it comes to voting rights. When we elevate voter access, everybody wins. 

Digital Tips: Text Spacing in Graphics

This resource is adapted from our Digital Tips e-mail series. To sign up to receive these resources in your inbox regularly, join our network.

Tutorial: Line Height

Look at the paragraphs below. Which one is easiest for you to read?

Two paragraphs with different styles of line spacing; the first paragraph is cramped, while the second paragraph displays optimal line spacing.

If you chose option 2, you, like most people, find proper spacing essential to readability.

One of the most important elements to consider when adding text to graphics is line spacing, also known as leading.

Here's a handy rule: Line spacing should be 125% to 150% of your font size. Different programs measure line spacing differently; since many legislators use Canva for graphic design, I'll use it in this example.

Canva line spacing demo

In Canva, the line spacing value (called "line height") is relative to the font size. So you should set your line spacing to a value between 1.2 and 1.5.

Bonus Tip: Don't squash too many details in one graphic! Remove unessential information and include extra details in the post or tweet's caption.

Quick Links: Digital Resources From Around The Web

🗣  Tips for Getting Used To The Sound of Your Own Voice

🏳️‍⚧️  The Gender Spectrum Collection: Stock Photos Beyond the Binary

📸  Twinsta: Share Your Tweets on Instagram

🔠  The Ultimate List of Social Media Acronyms and Abbreviations

State Roundup: Voting Rights Expansions and Mental Health Days for Students

Each month we highlight 10 positive developments that emerged from state legislatures. You can view and share a version of this roundup on Twitter.

Tennessee Recognizes Doulas

Tennessee passed Rep. London Lamar's bill recognizing doulas as "vital childbirth team members." 

Rep. Lamar hopes the bill will help lead TN to designate doulas as health professionals and require private insurance and Medicaid to cover their services. 

Massachusetts Goes All In On Environmental Protection 

Massachusetts enacted a sweeping climate change law that will require the state to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, codify environmental justice protections, prioritize solar power for low-income housing, and more. 

Maine's Landmark Racial Impact Law

Maine enacted a law requiring that all state legislation be assessed for its potential impact on people of color. 

State Rep. Rachel Talbot Ross, the first Black person to serve a leadership role in the Maine legislature, sponsored the law. 

Colorado Moves To Expand Multilingual Ballots

 A new Colorado bill sponsored by State Rep. Yadira Caraveo will require more counties to provide multilingual voter ballots and establish a hotline with translators by the 2022 election. 

Voting Restoration in Washington

Washington state passed a bill that will automatically restore voting rights to people who have completed a prison sentence. 

Governor Jay Inslee is expected to sign. 

Maryland Supports Libraries

Maryland became the first state to guarantee that libraries can license e-books "on reasonable terms."

Mental Health Days for Arizona's Students

The Arizona legislature passed State Rep. Sean Bowie's bill, which clarifies that "mental health days" count as excused absences in K-12 schools.

LGBTQ Seniors in New Jersey Have New Protections

New Jersey enacted an LGBTQI+ Senior Bill of Rights, which will bar long-term care facilities from discriminating based on sexuality, gender, or HIV status.

A Voting Rights Act for Virginia

Virginia is poised to become the first state to enact its own version of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013.

The bill was drafted by two Black women lawmakers—Delegate Cia Price and Delegate Jennifer McClellan.

Historic Session in New Mexico

New Mexico's legislature closed out its session by passing progressive bills that will protect abortion rights, guarantee paid sick leave for employees at private companies, and end qualified immunity for police.

Bold Public Investment Is Popular and Key to Ending This Crisis

By: Azza Altiraifi, Senior Program Manager at the Groundwork Collaborative

In the year since the COVID-19 pandemic first gripped the United States, over 525,000 people have perished and millions more - disproportionately people of color, disabled people, women, and those at the intersection of these identities—are still struggling to get by. The historic scale of the economic and public health crises we’ve faced was not inevitable. It was the result of decades of austerity policies and systematic disinvestment in the public sector at local, state, and federal levels. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. 

Over a decade of research shows that the economics of austerity are flawed, broadly unpopular, and racist. And while accelerating vaccine distribution and imminent federal fiscal aid are promising, it will take robust, sustained, and equitable public investment at state and local levels to get out of these crises and build a resilient economy that works for everyone, instead of the wealthy few.

Austerity is Racist and Economically Destabilizing


Even before the coronavirus emerged in the US, state and local budgets and tax systems were in bad shape. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the federal government cut aid short prematurely, leading many state and local governments to pursue austerity measures to address budget shortfalls and mitigate the economic shock. States and localities eliminated public jobs, deferred necessary maintenance on critical infrastructure like roads and bridges, and shrunk social programs and services.

Group of diverse students at daycare or classroom
A racially diverse group of elementary school students in classroom

Not only did limited federal stimulus prolong the recovery from the Great Recession, but it exacerbated race and gender inequities. Consider that while the Great Recession technically ended in June 2009, it took until 2018 for Black women’s employment to fully recover. Now, with the economy plunged into crisis again, the very austerity measures implemented in the past have left states more economically vulnerable and exacerbated the financial harms faced by low-income workers and people of color

Since February 2020, states and localities have lost 1.3 million jobs. But safety-net programs such as the unemployment insurance system struggled to scale up and distribute life-sustaining benefits in the face of such precipitous job loss and economic upheaval. This is largely because federal austerity over the past decades has shifted more responsibilities to state and local governments. Further still, austerity politics at all levels of government fuel scarcity myths and racist ideas of “deservedness,” which are then used to justify shrinking benefits and imposing cumbersome administrative barriers throughout the benefits application process.

Not only do cuts to benefits programs serving low-income people disproportionately impact Black and brown workers, they reduce state economic activity overall. Lower-income people tend to put every dollar they receive in benefits back into their state and local economy, so when programs that serve low-income households are slashed, state economies correspondingly contract. 

The cumulative effects of these austerity measures and mindsets are seen in the millions of workers and families who waited months in a pandemic to access aid that was insufficient to meet their needs. And since Black and brown people are most likely to work in the hardest-hit sectors, they face the brunt of these cascading economic harms.

People-Centered Spending Will Help End This Crisis

As states face plummeting revenues and soaring investment needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the case for implementing progressive tax systems to raise revenue is incontrovertible. The majority of pandemic job losses are concentrated among low-income workers, but largely white upper-income households continue to see their assets grow during the pandemic. If states had more progressive tax systems, they could tax those income gains at the top to shore up revenue, reverse concentrations of wealth and power, and promote greater racial and gender equity.

A drive-up food pantry in Sherman, TX
A drive-up food pantry in Sherman, Texas

Instead, many state budgets are more vulnerable, income inequality is worsened, and consequently, Black and brown workers are bearing an even heavier economic burden. On average, state tax systems take a 50% greater share of income from the poorest quintile of taxpayers than they take from the top one percent. Replacing these upside-down tax structures with progressive taxes on the highest earners can shore up budgets and create space for legislators to make meaningful investments in infrastructure, public health, green jobs, and more. And years of research have proven that in a depressed economy, increased public investment more than pays for itself in economic growth — more than $1 in growth for each $1 spent.

Recently, New Jersey passed a millionaires tax, which is a crucial step in addressing enduring racial and socioeconomic inequities within the state’s tax code. Heeding the call of advocates and economists, New Jersey’s state leadership rejected harmful and counterproductive budget cuts that would have exacerbated inequality and further eroded health and social infrastructure. Instead, they prioritized smart investments such as expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and restoring funding for an array of environmental programs.

States facing unprecedented spikes in spending due to COVID-19 and tumbling revenues can also pursue progressive taxes to balance their budgets and redistribute power and resources. And such investments are broadly popular. Polling confirms that the public opposes state budget and service cuts by wide and bipartisan margins.

Ultimately, an abundance approach to policy recognizes that people-centered spending—to restore and expand social services, revitalize key infrastructure, and build public power— is a matter of strategic investment to build a more just and equitable future. Robust public investment is broadly popular, economically sound, and necessary to advance racial justice. It’s time for state and local policies to reflect that.

Groundwork Collaborative is a research and policy advocacy organization working to advance a coherent and persuasive progressive economic worldview capable of delivering meaningful opportunity and prosperity for everyone. 

2020 Session Highlights: How States Support Workers During COVID-19

Background

Over a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, communities across the country, particularly communities of color and low-income communities, continue to experience countless losses of life and economic devastation. In 2020, state leaders took immediate action to provide relief to families and to empower workers through the economic crisis.

Workers of all races experienced job losses, but the pandemic has amplified the multiple and compounding barriers that workers of color face in the economy. In December of 2020, nearly 10 percent of Black workers and 8.4 percent of Latinx workers were unemployed, compared to 6 percent of white workers. Women, mostly Black and Latina women, are bearing the brunt of job losses, accounting for the entirety of the 140,000 net jobs lost in the economy in December.

Women of color are also more likely to hold jobs in “essential services,” such as grocery clerks and health care workers, where they are most in need of job-protected and paid time off from work, but least likely to have access to it. One in five essential workers are Latinx, and one in six are Black. These frontline jobs, which are often low-paid and without health and safety protections, put Black and Latinx people at greater risk of contracting COVID-19. As a direct result of these increased workplace risks and a long legacy of structural racism in health care and the social determinants of health, Black, Indigenous, and Latinx Americans are dying from COVID-19 at a rate almost 3 times as high as the rate for white Americans.

What are states doing to protect workers’ rights during COVID-19?

The 2020 legislation outlined below aims to protect workers who are recently unemployed as a result of COVID-19 and “essential” workers who are often risking their health to go to work. The policy areas discussed in this publication are:

Please note that this is neither a comprehensive policy list nor necessarily a list of the most progressive solutions on this subject; when moving forward with legislation, we recommend working with local and national advocates to craft the best solution for your state. Please reach out to SiX if you would like help connecting with national experts.

Emergency Paid Sick Leave

Paid sick leave is essential so that workers can stay home when they are sick, and it is absolutely critical to stopping the spread of a virus during a pandemic. Nearly one in four American workers do not have access to a single paid sick day at their job. Low-wage workers, service workers, and Latinx workers are the least likely to have access to paid sick leave. Congress authorized the first national paid sick leave policy with the passage of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), giving workers up to two weeks of emergency paid sick days for coronavirus-related health and caregiving needs. The new policy was historic and lifesaving—one study estimated that the FFCRA paid sick leave provisions resulted in 400 fewer confirmed cases of COVID-19 per state per day.

Still, carve-outs in the new federal protections left out up to 106 million workers, many of them women of color in the health care industry. With the expiration of the FFCRA leave protections, states must act to protect workers by enacting emergency or permanent paid sick leave legislation. Only 13 states and Washington, D.C. have passed legislation to provide permanent paid sick leave to workers who would otherwise not have access to it, allowing employees to put personal or family health needs first, including when ill or experiencing symptoms of COVID-19.

Masked construction workers in conversation

Colorado enacted CO SB 20-205, which is now one of the country’s strongest paid sick time laws. Through December 31, 2020, the legislation extended access to emergency paid sick leave for more workers who were left out of the FFCRA protections. Beginning January 1, 2021, the law entitled employees to earn paid sick time for general personal and family health needs.

New York enacted NY S 08091/A 10153 to provide emergency paid sick leave for certain purposes related to COVID-19. New York also passed a permanent paid sick time law as part of the state’s budget.

New Jersey’s legislature passed NJ S 2304/A 3900, a bill that expands the state’s existing paid sick leave laws to include leave for caregiving or quarantine needs during a declared state of emergency.

The California legislature passed CA AB 3216, which was vetoed by the governor. As introduced, the bill would have amended the state’s laws to allow paid sick leave for high-risk individuals, caregivers, and other public health workers. By executive order, the California governor provided emergency paid leave for food sector workers for purposes related to COVID-19. California also enacted CA SB 1383, which expands existing unpaid medical leave protections to workers at businesses with five or more employees (lowered from 50 or more employees) and protects an employee’s health benefits during the leave. This means that more workers will be able to take job-protected leave (paid or unpaid) to care for a family member with a serious illness.

The Massachusetts legislature introduced MA H 4700 and MA H 4928, which would have entitled all workers in Massachusetts to emergency paid sick leave during current and future public health emergencies. Massachusetts also introduced MA H 4627, which would have ensured state government employees have paid sick leave time to address health impacts due to COVID-19 infection, quarantine, or isolation.

The Michigan legislature introduced MI SB 0961, which would have expanded the state’s existing paid sick time law to be more comprehensive and provide additional coverage for public health emergencies. By executive order, Michigan’s governor protected workers from retaliation for staying home from work to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Legislators in Louisiana introduced LA HB 832, which would have created permanent paid sick leave protections for workers, including leave for business or school closures due to a public health emergency.

The Ohio legislature introduced OH HB 593 to provide quarantine or isolation pay and sick leave benefits to workers during a declared emergency. This bill would also have created an unemployment insurance-like grant program for contract workers who are unable to work due to quarantine or public health orders.

Hazard Pay for Essential Workers 

Some states introduced legislation in 2020 to provide additional compensation in the form of “hazard pay” to essential workers, since they are at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19. Nearly half of all frontline essential workers, who are disproportionately Black and Latinx, are paid less than a living wage. Not only are essential workers woefully underpaid and risking their lives to keep the rest of the economy running—they are also more likely to have an underlying health condition that puts them at increased risk of serious illness if infected with COVID-19. 

In the early months of the pandemic, many large corporations announced modest hazard pay for essential workers. A poll conducted in May found that 30 percent of people working outside their home were receiving hazard pay. By late summer, despite reporting skyrocketing profits, nearly all of the nation’s largest companies had ended their hazard pay policies. As the hazard of working in frontline industries continues, hazard pay policies at the state level can extend a lifeline to essential workers.

The Massachusetts legislature introduced MA H 4740, which would have provided emergency health hazard benefits to each essential employee. The legislature also introduced MA H 4745, which would have required that any employer that provides COVID-19 essential services to also provide hazard pay if they employ at least six individuals.

Masked hairdresser combing a client's hair

The New York legislature introduced NY A 10359/S 8955 to provide hazard payments of up to $25,000 annually to essential workers during a state disaster emergency. Another New York bill, NY S 8839, would provide frontline state workers with a $2,500 pay differential and 35 hours of additional accrued vacation time. 

Legislators in Vermont enacted VT H 965, which appropriated $28 million in federal Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF) to establish the Frontline Employees Hazard Pay Grant Program. The program makes grant funds available to health care, human services, and public safety employers to provide a one-time hazard payment of up to $2,000 to eligible employees. The Vermont legislature also passed VT S 352, which appropriated an additional $2.5 million and expanded the hazard pay grant program to other industries, including janitorial services, food service providers, nurse contracting agencies, and homeless shelters.

The Louisiana legislature enacted LA HB 70, which provided a one-time hazard pay rebate of $250 to workers in “essential critical infrastructure” industries earning less than $50,000 in annual income. The rebate program was funded by a $25 million appropriation in federal CRF funds and administered by the state’s Department of Revenue.

Expansion of Unemployment Insurance Benefits

In the wake of the economic fallout from the pandemic, unemployment benefits have ensured that millions of American workers can continue to pay their bills, while also buoying an economy plunged into an unprecedented recession. Although the economic and health impacts of COVID-19 have fallen hardest on Black and Latinx workers, the pervasive legacy of racism in the economy has left the same workers with lower access to unemployment benefits. Black workers, in particular, have been shut out of unemployment benefits by deliberate policy decisions to restrict access and reduce benefits in Southern states with higher shares of Black residents. Even in states with fewer restrictions of unemployment insurance (UI) eligibility, Black workers receive lower benefit amounts as the direct result of job discrimination, wage gaps, and limited workplace protections.

The passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March of 2020 and the short-term relief bill that passed in December provided a much-needed boost to struggling state unemployment programs by providing a temporary supplement to benefit amounts, extending the duration of benefits, and extending benefits to more workers who are typically ineligible for UI, including self-employed workers and independent contractors. States can build upon the new federal enhancements by strengthening their UI programs to better protect the economic security and health of all workers.

Colorado enacted CO SB 20-207, which ensures that workers can return to work safely by clarifying that an allowable reason for UI recipients quitting or not returning to work includes caregiving needs, school closures, or underlying health conditions during a public health emergency.

Group of farmworkers wearing masks, harvesting tomoatoes

Kansas enacted KS HB 2016, which introduces temporary flexibilities in the UI program by waiving the work search requirement for applicants during the disaster emergency and waiving the one-week waiting period before new claimants can receive benefits.

Minnesota enacted MN HF 4531, which temporarily amends the definition of “suitable employment” for the purposes of UI eligibility to exclude jobs that put the health and safety of the applicant, other workers, or the public at risk for potential exposure to COVID-19. The bill also temporarily suspends the one-week waiting period for receiving benefits and provides that involuntary leaves of absence related to COVID-19, such as a public health order or school closure, do not make an applicant ineligible for UI.

New York enacted NY S 8275, which allows recipients to receive benefits even if they have previously received an overpayment in benefits. The bill suspends existing penalties against such UI applicants for the duration of the current state of emergency.

The Massachusetts legislature introduced MA H 4747, which would have appropriated $75 million in state rainy day funds to establish the COVID-19 Food Service and Hospitality Worker Relief Emergency Fund. The fund would have provided financial assistance to individuals employed in the food service and hospitality industry who have been laid off or are otherwise experiencing financial distress as a result of COVID-19.

Legislators on the Joint Emergency Board in Oregon, which has spending authority when the legislature is not in session, appropriated $10 million in April of 2020 to fund the Oregon Worker Relief Fund, which provides financial support to Oregon workers who are excluded from UI benefits and other forms of federal or state relief, such as undocumented workers. The board appropriated an additional $10 million from the state’s federal Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) in June.

The Illinois legislature introduced IL HB 5861/SB 4026, which would permanently waive state efforts to recover benefit overpayments made to UI recipients during the COVID-19 emergency if the overpayments were made through no fault of the recipient

Workers’ Compensation

As more states reopen and workplace transmission of COVID-19 increases, state workers’ compensation insurance programs can protect the health and financial well-being of workers who contract the virus. While workers’ compensation does not cover common community-spread illnesses that may be difficult to identify as workplace-related, there are existing exceptions for chronic illnesses that are prevalent in certain industries, like lung conditions for first responders.

Black, Latinx, and immigrant workers, who are overrepresented among essential industries and less likely to be able to work from home, have been exceptionally vulnerable to workplace exposure to COVID-19. At the same time, low wages and low access to health benefits mean that many essential workers who contract COVID-19 will be faced with catastrophic financial and health consequences without adequate protections. More than a third of essential workers live in low-income households, and essential workers in some industries are more likely to be uninsured. States can take additional steps to ensure that those who contract COVID-19 in the workplace are eligible for health and financial benefits through workers’ compensation. 

Vermont enacted VT S 342, which creates a temporary presumption that frontline workers are entitled to workers’ compensation coverage for illness or death resulting from COVID-19. Other workers not included in the definition of “frontline worker” are presumed eligible if they test positive for or are diagnosed with COVID-19 and can document workplace exposure. Employers can rebut the presumption if they can provide a preponderance of evidence that exposure to the disease was not employment-related, or that at the time of exposure, the employer was in compliance with federal, state, and local public health guidance.

Healthcare workers in full PPE (personal protective equipment)

California passed a bill, CA SB 1159, which provides for a rebuttable presumption of workers’ compensation eligibility for frontline workers who contract COVID-19. The bill also creates a general presumption of compensability for any worker who tests positive for COVID-19 when an outbreak of COVID-19 has occurred at their work location.

Colorado introduced CO SB 20-2016, which failed to pass but would have established a rebuttable presumption that if an essential worker who works outside of the home and contracts COVID-19, the illness is presumed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, and is an occupational disease for the purpose of workers’ compensation.  The bill would also have treated COVID-19 as a compensable accident, injury, or occupational disease under the state’s workers’ compensation laws.

Michigan introduced MI HB 5758/SB 928, which would have created a presumption of workers’ compensation eligibility for essential workers by amending the existing definition of “personal injury” to include exposure to an infectious disease during an emergency declared by the governor.

Workplace Health and Safety Protections

Despite the new occupational hazards faced by workers in health care, meat and poultry processing, public transportation, and other high-risk industries, employers are not subject to any enforceable workplace safety measures specific to COVID-19. As of 2020, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had only issued voluntary guidelines for employers to protect workers from workplace transmission. The inadequacy of federal occupational safety protections during the COVID-19 pandemic has directly resulted in enduring workplace outbreaks and incomprehensible losses of life linked to workplace exposures

Chef or cook wearing a mask and cooking in an industrial kitchen

As more states reopen in spite of rising COVID-19 cases, more workers, even in nonessential industries, are facing increased risk of exposure at work. More than half of all Black, Indigenous, and Latinx workers in essential and nonessential industries have jobs that require them to work in person and closely with others, compared to 41 percent of white workers. In most cases, workers have no choice but to risk their health and their family’s health in order to pay the bills: the median income for in-person, close-proximity workers is just $27,700. More than 80 percent of Black, Indigenous, and Latinx workers with such high-risk jobs earned even less than their average counterparts. In the absence of federal health and safety protections for workers, states can establish stronger measures to prevent and reduce transmission of COVID-19 in the workplace by setting standards for social distancing, provision of personal protective equipment (PPE), disinfection and deep cleaning, ventilation rates, and disclosure requirements for potential exposure.

The California legislature enacted CA AB 2537, which requires employers of workers who provide direct patient care in a hospital setting to supply employees with PPE. The bill also requires that such employers maintain a three-months supply of unexpired protective equipment and provide reports of PPE consumption and inventory to the state Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Another bill passed in California, CA SB 275, requires the Department of Public Health to establish a state stockpile of PPE to ensure an adequate supply for health care workers and essential workers.

The New Jersey legislature introduced NJ S 2602/A 4404, the Farm Worker Epidemic Health and Safety Act, which directs the state commissioner of health to establish a system for the timely reporting of public health violations in the agricultural and food processing industries. The bill would also establish new administrative penalties for employer violations of the act and new anti-retaliation protections for farm workers.

Black construction worker wearing mask and vest. Sign on wall advises about COVID-19 and social distancing.



The New York legislature introduced NY A 10512/NY S 8385, the Nursing Home Protection Act, which would have required the commissioner of health to provide twice-weekly COVID-19 testing to nursing home staff and weekly testing to all nursing home residents. The bill would also have required the Department of Health to provide sufficient PPE to all nursing home staff and residents.

The North Carolina legislature introduced NC HB 1196, which would have required all staff employed at a congregate or residential care facility, except for correctional facilities, to be tested for COVID-19 weekly. Under the bill, the state Division of Health Service Regulation would have been responsible for the costs of distributing the tests and any necessary PPE to conduct the weekly tests. 

The Pennsylvania legislature introduced PA HB 2694, the COVID-19 Pandemic Frontline Employee Health and Safety Protection Act, which failed to advance but would have created new protections for health care and emergency responder workers, including requiring precautions to reduce transmission, provision of appropriate levels of PPE, provision of mental health benefit coverage, and regular COVID-19 testing. The bill would have required all other employers to make public health accommodations for workers, including limiting in-person services, social distancing, provision of PPE, and notification of possible exposure to COVID-19 when an employee has been infected. 

Whistleblower Protections

Workers should not have to decide between risking their health and risking their jobs. Still, in the first six months of the pandemic, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) received nearly 1,800 COVID-19-related complaints about employer retaliation from workers who reported unsafe working conditions. Of those complaints, more than half were dismissed without investigation, 20 percent were docketed for investigation, and just 2 percent were investigated and resolved. Robust whistleblower protections are essential to preventing continued COVID-19 workplace outbreaks, especially as retaliation complaints have increased during the pandemic, while the number of staff in the OSHA whistleblower program has decreased.

Structural racism in the economy leaves workers of color particularly vulnerable to employer backlash for whistleblower complaints. A recent survey of workers found that Black workers are more than twice as likely as white workers to report being punished or fired for raising concerns about COVID-19 transmission at work. The consequences of employer retaliation against whistleblowers are clear: many workers continue to endure hazardous work for fear of losing their job. Nearly three-quarters of Black workers and nearly two-thirds of Latinx workers reported going to work even though they believed they were risking their health, compared to 49 percent of white workers. States can establish stronger whistleblower protections by instituting new enforceable standards, protecting informal complaints to fellow workers or the public, and providing for the right to refuse work under dangerous conditions.

Colorado enacted CO HB 20-1415, which prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against any worker who raises concerns about workplace health and safety practices related to a public health emergency or who voluntarily wears their own PPE to the workplace. Under the new law, workers can seek relief through a private right of action or by suing in the name of the state after they have exhausted administrative remedies. The law also protects informal disclosure of workplace hazards, such as on social media or to fellow workers, by prohibiting employers from requiring nondisclosure agreements regarding public health emergency-related health and safety practices.

The New Jersey legislature introduced NJ S 2509/A 4156, which would protect health care professionals from retaliatory action for speaking out about employer practices that they believe to be in violation of the law, for participating in any investigations of the employer, or for refusing to participate in an activity that they believe to be in violation of the law or incompatible with safe public health practices. The bill further protects the right to refuse to work on-site under conditions that would jeopardize their health or the health of their family.

The North Dakota legislature introduced ND HB 1262, which would have amended existing anti-retaliation protections for whistleblowers to include employees who report a public health-related workplace violation to an employer, governmental body, or law enforcement official, and employees who voluntarily wear their own PPE beyond what is provided by the employer.

Wage Theft Protections

Every year, workers lose billions of dollars when employers fail to pay their employees for overtime work, off-the-clock work, meal or rest breaks, and other wage theft violations. Under normal economic circumstances, workers of color, women, immigrants, and low-wage workers are more likely to have wages stolen from their paychecks. During economic downturns, minimum wage violations soar alongside unemployment levels as workers are unable to find other jobs when their employers shortchange them, nor are they able to find adequate resolution through labor officials at public agencies with slashed budgets.

Workers lost 20 percent of their hourly wage to minimum wage violations from 2007 to 2009, and the patterns of wage theft continue to mirror policy decisions of the past to exclude Black and Latinx workers from labor protections. Non-citizens were twice as likely to experience minimum wage violations than citizen workers during the Great Recession. Latinx workers were 84 percent more likely, and Black workers 50 percent more likely, to experience such violations than white workers. The compounding effects of discrimination based on race, gender, and citizenship are even more staggering: non-citizen Latina workers were four times more likely, and non-citizen Black women were 3.7 times more likely, to have lost wages when compared to white male citizens. States can take steps to protect their workers from wage theft in the ongoing pandemic recession by strengthening enforcement mechanisms and enhancing options for workers to seek relief from wage theft violations. 

The Virginia legislature enacted VA HB 123 and VA SB 838, which provide an employee with a private cause of action (individually, jointly, or with or on behalf of similarly situated employees as a collective action) against an employer who fails to pay wages. These new laws also provide that employers are required to pay triple the amount of wages due and attorney fees and costs if it is found that the employer knowingly violated these wage laws. VA SB 838 also includes language requiring general contractors and their subcontractors to be jointly liable to pay wages due to the subcontractor’s employees.

The Virginia legislature also enacted VA HB 337 and VA SB 48, which prohibit an employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because the employee filed any complaint, caused any proceeding related to the failure to pay wages to be instituted, or testified (or is about to testify) in any such proceeding. An employer who is found to have retaliated against an employee under this section may be required to reinstate the employee and pay any lost wages, plus punitive damages. 

The Illinois legislature introduced IL SB 3295 and IL HB 4293, which would have entitled an employee to recover damages of 5 percent (rather than 2 percent) of the amount of any underpayments in wages for each month the underpayments remain unpaid.

The Kentucky legislature introduced KY HB 40 and KY HB 606, which would have created a new crime of “theft of wages” classified as a Class A misdemeanor for wages less than $500, Class D felony for wages greater than $500 and less than $10,000, and Class C felony for wages of $10,000 or more. These bills would have also implemented employer recordkeeping and disclosure requirements, such as requiring certain employers to include rate of pay, the number of hours worked, and the total amount of gross pay earned on wage statements; keep records for three years of the name, address, and occupation of each employee, the rate of pay and amount paid to each employee, and a list of personnel policies and a copy of the wage statement provided to each employee; and provide to an employee a written notice at the time of hire that details the method of pay, the employee’s employment status, accruals of time, deductions that may be made from pay, and the name and address of the employer. KY HB 606 would also create a wage payment bond requirement for employers in the minerals industry.

The Massachusetts legislature introduced MA S 2939 and MA H 5086, which would have provided employees with treble (triple) damages when the state attorney general wins a civil suit against their employer for wage theft violations. These bills would have provided the power to issue a stop work order by the attorney general if an employer was found to have engaged in wage theft and by the director of the Department of Unemployment Assistance if the employer failed to make unemployment contributions. These bills would also have implemented protections for workers hired by subcontractors.

Additional Resources

National Employment Law Project (NELP)

A Better Balance

State Innovation Exchange (SiX)


Center for American Progress


Economic Policy Institute (EPI)

Center for Economic and Policy Research

APM Research Lab

Brookings Institute

Maryland Voters Want Investment In Communities, Higher Taxes On Corporations

A recent TargetSmart poll on behalf of the State Innovation Exchange and Strong Future Maryland found broad support among Maryland voters for public investment and raising taxes on the wealthy.

Do you think each of the following groups of people in Maryland pay to little in state taxes, about the right amount in state taxes, or too much in state taxes?

Three out of four Maryland voters support increased investment in families, small businesses, healthcare systems, and schools over a proposal for Maryland to "live within its means."

Support for progressive revenue proposals was underscored by a belief that middle and low-income residents pay too much in state taxes, while corporations and the wealthy pay too little.

Click here to see the full polling memo.

Against Hate: Our Statement


Last night, a white man shot and killed eight people in Atlanta, Georgia, most of whom were Asian and immigrant women. The horrific violence in Georgia is not just the latest in a trend of intensifying attacks on Asian communities. It builds on a centuries-old history of anti-Asian racial terrorism, white supremacy, and misogyny—little of which make the pages of American school history textbooks.

As journalist Kat Chow poignantly reminds us, each victim of this attack was a person with hopes and dreams and a family "waiting for them at home." We cannot lose sight of this. Even as we move to urgently respond and enact policies to prevent this from ever happening again, we cannot forget the lives lost. We join our Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) colleagues, friends, family, and neighbors who are grappling with fear, heartache, and outrage from these attacks.

As an organization, SiX re-commits to amplifying AAPI legislators, especially Asian women; addressing anti-Asian and anti-immigrant rhetoric; and challenging the progressive movement's frequent silence on issues that impact AAPI communities, issues that also impact many other communities of color. To that end, we implore you to use your powerful platform to speak out and take legislative action to increase protections for your AAPI families, friends, constituents, and communities. 

AAPI folks are vastly underrepresented in state legislatures and we need all legislators—Black, white, brown alike—to step into deeper solidarity and partnership with Asian communities to confront this violence.

AAPI legislators in our network: we see you and are here for you.  And we acknowledge that AAPI folks are vastly underrepresented in state legislatures and we need all legislators—Black, white, brown alike—to step into deeper solidarity and partnership with Asian communities to confront this violence.

The violent attacks yesterday, the ongoing attacks of AAPI folks across the country, the 1-year anniversary of Breonna Taylor’s murder at the hands of police, the trial for justice for George Floyd in MN, and countless other events over the last several weeks continue to show the ways that white supremacy and white supremacist violence shape every aspect of our daily lives, our communities, our movements, and our organization. 

We know and live that white supremacy is weaponized to divide our communities. As each of us experiences the pain, the grief, and the fear of racialized violence, white supremacy works to try and convince us that this is a time to isolate and remove ourselves from one another. Racism relies on division and fear. It is up to each of us to actively engage in anti-racism work as individuals, organizations and movements. The shared enemy of white supremacy and white supremacist violence must be combatted with a deep commitment to solidarity rooted in our shared humanity.  

The resources below can help you and your constituencies report, respond, and join in collective action against anti-Asian attacks: Against Hate: Responding to Anti-Asian Violence.

In solidarity,
Jessie and Neha

No Democracy Without Black Women

Summary

Our democracy survived the November elections and January transition of power by a thread, in large part thanks to the long-term work and advocacy of Black women—leaders like Stacey Abrams (a former state legislator herself) and the Fair Fight Action team; organizers and political strategists like Adrianne Shropshire, Tamieka Atkins, Nsé Ufot, and LaTosha Brown; state legislators like Maryland Speaker Adrienne A. Jones, Kentucky Rep. Attica Scott, Tennessee Rep. Karen D. Camper, and Georgia Rep. Sandra Scott; and Black women voters across the country who consistently turnout out in high numbers. Yet there remain too few Black women in elected office, and especially in state legislatures. 

Today, just 4.82% of state legislators are Black women (356 out of 7,383 legislators). See the data below for a state-by-state comparison.

It is crucial for Black women to be represented in state legislatures, which consider over 100,000 bills nationwide each year. The people who most intimately know the true impact of structural racism and sexism—Black women—know best how to dismantle those systems and move to a just and equitable democracy and society.

There remain too few Black women in elected office, and especially in state legislatures. Today, just 4.82 percent of state legislators are Black women.

State legislatures are the critical front lines of the policy battles to build the world we want to live in. Every day, decisions on issues ranging from reproductive justice, education, workers’ rights, health care, food and agriculture, criminal justice, democracy and voting rights, and everything in between are made in state legislatures. In the midst of a pandemic and economic recession that are having devastating consequences on Black women, the need for Black women to have decision-making power in the solutions to these crises has never been more apparent.

Demonstrators carry signs thanking Stacey Abrams and Andrea Miller at a Manhattan rally in support of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Demonstrators carry signs thanking Stacey Abrams at a Manhattan rally in support of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Black women have made significant gains in representation in elected office in recent years, yet more progress needs to be made. 

There remain 8 states without a single Black woman in their legislature, despite the Black population in each state ranging from 2-6%: Vermont, South Dakota, Hawaii, Arizona, Idaho, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota.

States with large Black populations are not immune from under-representation either. In fact, Mississippi, the state with the highest Black population in the country, has a staggering disparity in representation—Black women make up approximately 19.36% of the population but just 7.47% of the legislature.

In Louisiana, the state with the third highest Black population in the country, Black women make up approximately 16.82% of the population but just 5.55% of the legislature—a disparity of over 3 to1.

Lasting progressive change must begin with removing the barriers of entry for Black women.

Underrepresentation creates barriers where there should be a steady flow of ideas and policy from communities to the capitol. Conversely, when Black women do serve in office, they create much-needed change. Look to Kentucky State Rep. Attica Scott, one of just two Black women in her state’s legislature, who introduced and is fighting for Breonna’s Law-—both in the streets and in the capitol. Look to Georgia State Rep. Sandra Scott who introduced a resolution to declare racism a public health crisis. Look to Maryland Speaker Adrienne Jones, the first Black and first female speaker of the Maryland House, who has rolled out the state’s first “Black Agenda,” aimed at eliminating racial gaps in health, wealth, and housing. 

Rep. Attica Scott participates in Youth led peaceful protest marching in downtown Louisville Kentucky 7/4/2020
Kentucky State Rep. Attica Scott participating in a march in downtown Louisville, Kentucky (July 2020)

Lasting progressive change must begin with removing the barriers of entry for Black women. It is also necessary for the accomplishments of Black women legislators to be recognized, for their leadership to be supported, and their policy priorities to be given the attention they deserve. Our challenge is two-fold: we must push for reform and representation. 

Only with Black women in significant seats of power and at every table where decisions are being made can our nation truly recover from the racist and sexist structures that hold all our society back and build toward a more prosperous future for all, not just the wealthy few. 

Data

Look up the data in your state

Use the dropdown tab to select a state and view the percentage of Black women in the state population and legislature.

Representation Matters: Quotes from Lawmakers

We spoke with Black women state legislators and Congresswomen about why representation in public office is so important.

"As one of two Black women in our legislature, I face threats from people filled with racial hatred, I face erasure from my colleagues, and I face institutional racism. Despite all of this, I serve because my community deserves a racial justice champion."
Attica Scott
Kentucky State Rep. Attica Scott
Tweet
"All politics are local, so it is imperative more Black women run for public office. Black women helped fuel change up and down the ballot during the 2020 Election; just imagine the transformational power ‘Black Girl Magic’ can have in city councils and state legislatures."
Congresswoman Joyce Beatty
Ohio Congresswoman Joyce Beatty
Tweet
"I stand when I need to stand, I speak up when I need to speak, and I protest when I need to protest. But most of all, I create meaningful legislation that has a positive impact on my community. Being an outspoken Black female legislator in Georgia is not an easy job but, I love it."
Rep. Sandra Scott
Georgia State Rep. Sandra Scott
Tweet
“Having worked at every level of government—community, county, state, and federal—I can unequivocally say that the work of local and state governments present the greatest opportunity to have a direct impact on the lives of our constituents. And now, with the relentless assault on voting rights in state legislatures across America, more Black women are needed in state elective offices to preserve our most precious Constitutional right.”
Congresswoman Robin L. Kelly
Illinois Congresswoman Robin L. Kelly
Tweet
“When Black women and girls see Black women rising up and being put in these positions of power, it gives them hope. We have the power to bring change to our communities and I don't take that for granted.”
Rep. Karen D. Camper e1615713628411
Tennessee Rep. Karen D. Camper
Tweet
“Black women continue to broaden the reach and impact of our state, local and federal policies that improve our communities. As Maryland’s first Black and first woman to serve as Speaker, I am also the only one to introduce a statewide plan for racial & economic justice. Diverse leadership – at every level of government – is the vehicle that drives us closer towards progress.”
Maryland Speaker Adrienne A. Jones
Maryland Speaker Adrienne A. Jones
Tweet

Legislator Database

Use the database below to search for Black women legislators in all 50 states. (Data is from March 2021.)

wdt_ID State First Name Last Name Title
1 Alabama Laura Hall Alabama Representative
2 Alabama Barbara Boyd Alabama Representative
3 Alabama Louise Alexander Alabama Representative
4 Alabama Merika Coleman Alabama Representative
5 Alabama Rolanda Hollis Alabama Representative
6 Alabama Mary Moore Alabama Representative
7 Alabama Juandalynn Givan Alabama Representative
8 Alabama TaShina Morris Alabama Representative
9 Alabama Pebblin Warren Alabama Representative
10 Alabama Adline Clarke Alabama Representative

Partners

Black Women's Roundtable
Brown Girls Guide to Politics
The 19th News
United State of Women
Young Elected Official Network
Drake Institute 
New American Leaders
Black Women's Health Imperative
Center for American Women and Politics
National Women's Law Center
Center for American Progress
Sisters Leader Sisters Vote
Not Without Black Women
EMILY's List
Higher Heights for America
Generation Progress
The Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights

Against Hate: Responding to Anti-Asian Violence

Asian American communities have experienced an alarming rise in racially-motivated attacks since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and experts fear many incidents are going unreported.

No one should have to live in fear of being attacked for who they are. The resources below can help you and your constituencies report, respond, and join in collective action against anti-Asian attacks.

Learn how to intervene and stand against racism

Take action in your state

Document incidents

By sharing what you experienced or witnessed, you can educate the public, empower others, show service providers where help is needed, and strengthen advocacy efforts for hate crimes response and prevention.

Other resources

Maryland Voters Concerned About Learning Loss During the Pandemic

Members of the Maryland General Assembly will use this legislative session to address the impact of COVID-19 on public schools and Maryland’s children.  New polling commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and Strong Future Maryland  finds voters across the state and from across the political spectrum are very concerned that Maryland students are losing educational opportunities during the pandemic and support ways to address the learning loss.

Roughly 8-in-10 voters think once Maryland students are back learning in the classroom they will need either some additional support or a significant amount of additional support such as tutoring or targeted instruction. 

Maryland voters support resourcing K-12 education to meet the needs of students. The poll found 7-in-10 voters agree with spending more on K-12 education to close opportunity gaps, and roughly 8-in-10 voters agree with spending more on K-12 education to provide more opportunities to prepare for careers and with spending more to make teacher salaries more competitive.

Please click here to see the full polling memo.

Q&A: COVID-19 and Unemployment in Michigan

This Q&A is excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone townhall featuring Michigan state legislators. Questions came from various Michigan residents and answers have been edited for length and clarity.

What legislative efforts are being made to provide essential worker bonuses and benefits like hazard pay?

State Senator Stephanie Chang: My colleagues and I have advocated for more hazard pay for essential workers and grants or bonuses for our teachers.

Last year, we started the Futures for Frontliners program, which allows essential workers to get free tuition for community college or high school completion programs. I cannot understate how important it is to honor our frontline workers not just with words but also with action.

State Senator Camilleri: We are also talking about increasing the minimum wage because, as we saw during this pandemic, so many people on the front lines are not even making a living wage of $15 an hour.

State Representative Aiyash: I'm introducing legislation with Rep. Camilleri to give people a tax credit on any PPE that they purchase. Essential workers would qualify to get a tax credit for all of the PPE they purchase to keep working. That's one way that we're looking at trying to be creative and making sure that those on the frontlines are getting appreciation. Every worker is valuable, and it's time that we start showing that, not just in our words.

What kind of legislative unemployment reforms is the legislature working on right now?

Senator Stephanie Chang: Senate Democrats have introduced a number of unemployment proposals over the past few years. 

We know that we need to permanently extend how many weeks an individual can get unemployment benefits to 26 weeks, not 20 weeks. We need to permanently increase the dollar amount given per week and permanently ensure that all types of workers can file for unemployment— including gig workers, seasonal employees, or other workers who don't normally qualify for unemployment.

What is the timeline for the unemployment process, and what can I do if I have been waiting a long time for my application to go through? 

Senator Stephanie Chang: Typically, for somebody who is filing for unemployment and doesn't have any issues with their claim, their applications are processed within 21 days. However, there are thousands of folks right now who have been waiting a long time for papers or initial payments. 

If you are like them and have been waiting for a long time, there are a couple of things you can do. 

We are working hard to get everybody paid right now; the historic volume has certainly slowed down and created some backlogs. But, we expect to get through most of our backlogs in the next couple of weeks. 

Representative Aiyash:  Please feel free to reach out to your representative's office if you have any questions or need any assistance. 

We don't have any authority to necessarily move a case or pull the money and make sure that it gets sent over, but we can make sure that the cases you are submitting are being looked at by the UIA. 

Maryland Voters Concerned About Climate Change, Support Bold Action

As the Maryland state legislature debates critical issues that will define a cleaner, greener future for Maryland, a newly released poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and Strong Future Maryland offers an important perspective.

Two-thirds of Maryland voters agree that the General Assembly and other policy makers should take climate change into account when deciding how to vote on energy and economic development policy. Maryland voters continue to place a high premium on state-level action when it comes to carbon emissions and climate change.Three in five Maryland voters (60 percent) support the General Assembly passing major legislation to achieve significant reductions in carbon emissions, with a plurality of voters (39 percent) strongly supporting such legislation.

Additionally, 64 percent of Maryland voters support the creation of a carbon tax paid by companies based on how much carbon they emit, while just 25 percent oppose such a tax. 

Please click here to see the full polling memo.

COVID-19 & Unemployment in Michigan

Learn more about what your state legislators are doing to assist thousands of constituents during the COVID-19 crisis by joining a Telephone Town Hall meeting sponsored by the State Innovation Exchange with state lawmakers and officials on Wednesday, February 24th at 6 pm to 7 pm EST.

By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with your representatives and local experts, learn about Michigan Works and recent updates concerning unemployment, ask questions, and discuss what action can be taken to get assistance and information.

Featured Speakers

Special Guests: State Senator Stephanie Chang (Detroit), Representatives Darrin Camilleri (Brownstown), and Abraham Aiyash (Detroit), and local experts from the Unemployment Insurance Agency and Detroit Employment Solutions Corporation (DESC).



Register

Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event, 4 pm on February 24th.

Fill out my online form.

FAQs

What is a telephone town hall?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Will I be able to ask questions?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Who will moderate the town hall?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Recap: Black History Month Tweet Chat

The #SIXBHM tweet chat took place on February 18, 2021. The following answers have been lightly edited for clarity. You can view all of the tweets here.

Which person, past or present, has helped shape how you approach your work?

Euh8SwSVoAI3yL ?format=jpg&name=medium
Assemblyman Cameron "CH" Miller (NV) with his late cousin, Assemblyman Tyrone Thompson.

Delegate Pam Queen (MD): Mary McLeod Bethune, as a former slave who became on outstanding leader, educator, civil servant who left us a legacy to achieve racial equity and justice. Her quote, “The true worth of a race must be measured by the character of its womanhood” continues to inspire me.

Rep. Attica Scott (KY): My daughter @Ashantilynn01 (+ my son who doesn’t like social media). Ashanti often reminds me that we don’t move in fear, whether as we are pursuing justice for Breonna Taylor or standing up for reproductive freedom.

Delegate Gabriel Acevero (MD): My mother, she was the first organizer and movement leader I knew.

Assemb. Cameron "CH" Miller (NV): My cousin, the late Assemblyman Tyrone Thompson, inspired me to run and shaped my approach to the work. To honor his legacy, I always consider how policy will help or hurt the most vulnerable in our communities first, our youth.

Why did you run for office? What does it mean to represent your community?

State Sen. James Coleman (CO): I ran for office to serve my communities, simple as that. And it is beyond humbling that my constituents continue to believe in me to represent their interests.

State Sen. Erika Geiss (MI): In the #mileg, we have term limits, so running wasn’t something on my long-term radar initially. When my Rep was termed out in 2014, I decided to run because of an education issue adjacent to our community but that impacted our community.

As an educator and then PTO mom, and as one of the few folks from the district likely to be able to have a shred of institutional knowledge about it, I decided to run.

As the 1st woman of color to represent my district in the #mileg, it means a lot. And it has never been far from my mind as I worked for the roughly 100,000 people of my former House district or as I work for the nearly 260,000 people of my current state Senate district.

Del. Shaneka Henson (MD): After moving from public housing I ran for office to be a voice for my city and tenants who struggle with mold.

Rep. Michele K. Rayner-Goolsby: This moment calls for bold and audacious leadership. I answered the call to serve because representation is not a cliché, it's a must.

Tell us about an issue you're advocating for this legislative session.

State Rep. Park Cannon (GA): To hold police accountable and protect reproductive rights. By sharing the term #reproductivejustice with my legislative colleagues, thanks to the words of @sistersong, I have been able to continue fighting against injustice in my community.

Assemb. Cameron "CH" Miller (NV): We must stop the school to prison pipeline and policies that criminalize youth before they ever get a chance to thrive. My highest priority is ending the direct filing of minors into the adult judicial system. 60% of direct filed youth in NV are Black!

Rep. Attica Scott (KY): My top priority this legislative session is Breonna’s Law for Kentucky to restrict the use of no-knock search warrants across our Commonwealth.

No family should carry the weight of what her family has endured.

Sen. Erika Geiss GIF with subtitle "Let's make economic justice a priority and reality every day."
Michigan State Sen. Erika Geiss

State Sen. Erika Geiss (MI): This session, I'm advocating for several things to address #BlackMaternalHealth. First, a package on #DoulaCare to improve recognition of community-based & traditional doulas & Medicaid & commercial insurance for both.

State Sen. James Coleman (CO): I am currently focused on three main legislative priorities: eliminating prison recidivism, eliminating youth violence, and eliminating the Black wealth gap. This session, I am excited to lead an attack against CO's 50% recidivism rate.

Delegate Pam Queen (MD): I champion legislation which seeks to increase homeownership for Black families. These bills are part of the Maryland Speaker of the House's “Black Agenda.”

In what ways have you seen state legislatures perpetuate anti-Black racism in your lifetime? How can state legislatures disrupt anti-Black racism?

Rep. Stephanie Howse (OH): Let me the count ways the Ohio General Assembly perpetuates anti-Black racism:

The way we can begin to address anti-Black racism in the Ohio legislature is to first start to call a thing a thing. Racism is Racism.

Delegate Gabriel Acevero (MD): Where do I begin??

State Sen. James Coleman (CO): My colleagues and I reconvened last Dec. for a special session and passed SB20B-1, which set aside $4 million for the CO Minority Business Office. Almost immediately a lawsuit was filed against this legislation for violating the 14th Amendment.

Rep. Attica Scott (KY): My goodness! Where to begin? In Kentucky, the legislature has refused to hear any bills by members of our Legislative Black Caucus in at least three years, but have spent this session playing performative politics on race, including stealing one of my bills!

State Sen. Erika Geiss (MI): From situations such as the Senate Majority Leader asking me “why not all mothers” when I asked him to co-sponsor my resolution to recognize #BlackMaternalHealthWeek, to a colleague wearing a Confederate flag mask to session last April with no recourse...

...to members including the Senate Majority Leader cozying up to white supremacists, to racist statements said aloud by GOP members. I’ve seen a lot when it comes to anti-Black racism at work in the Michigan legislature.

There’s also a lack of attention to cultivating Black staff at all levels so that there are voices here beyond those of us who are elected.

We must continue to speak up and advocate for our communities and not worry about being “polite” or notions of “civility” because the repeated trauma of racist comments and actions is anything but polite or civil.

What does it look like for Black communities to not just survive—but thrive?

State Rep. Park Cannon (GA): The five pillars of #ReproJustice, self-determination; access to comprehensive reproductive health services; affordability of care; parenting with respect and dignity; and workplace and caregiving supports, are key to a thriving life for black families and families to be.

Delegate Gabriel Acevero (MD): It looks a lot like Black Wall Street. It also looks like clean air, water, and REPARATIONS.

original
The St. Luke Penny Savings Bank, one of the first black-owned banks in the United States. (Source: National Park Service)

Rep. Stephanie Howse (OH): To have thriving Black communities, governments in particular must acknowledge the harm and destruction they have caused to Black people and commit to policies and practices that restore and renew.

Rep. Attica Scott (KY): When we thrive we are freely our whole, authentic selves. We have access to quality affordable housing, education, healthcare and jobs. We’re paid a fair wage, our businesses are supported, and our neighborhoods are safe from environmental hazards and toxins.

State Sen. James Coleman (CO): Our communities need strong economic investments and infrastructures that overcome historical injustices. When our Black communities are given first consideration, rather than everything after, we will do more than just survive.

Last question: let's talk about Black futures. What's your message to Black youth this Black History Month?

Delegate Gabriel Acevero (MD): My message to Black youth this Black History Month and everyday is: You are enough. Life will not be easy but as philosopher and poet, Kendrick Lamar put it... “We gon’ be alright.”

State Sen. Erika Geiss (MI): My message to Black youth this Black History Month is to pay attention to what is going on in your local community, state, country, world & get involved no matter how small or large the issue is. Your voices are important, necessary, and powerful. And when you’re able to, register to vote and vote in every election...local, state, federal. There no such thing as an off-year election.

Rep. Attica Scott (KY): You're are loved. You are needed. You are valued. Continue to raise your voice in protest of corrupt, unjust systems. Show up for racial justice. Speak out. Stand up. Continue to support good public policy. Continue to run for office and change the face of government.

Winning the Narrative on Voting Rights

SiX Main Takeaways

1. The best defense is a good offense. There is off-the-charts support for pro-voter proposals and making COVID changes permanent. You have the backing to be bold and to define reforms on our terms. Check out our slide deck for poll numbers to use in your arguments. 

2. Even though Americans oppose anti-voter policies, there is a huge uptick in anti-voter bills— in 33 states, 165 bills have been introduced so far this year, focused in these areas: limiting who can vote by mail, adding barriers to casting your absentee ballot, new voter ID restrictions, reducing voter registration opportunities, and aggressive voter purging. 

3. Talk about what you're for, not what you're against. When messaging publicly on voting rights, lead with shared values (like freedom to vote, moving forward), center impacted folks, and highlight your positive vision for the future of our democracy. Avoid reacting defensively to the opposition’s narrative and refuting their false claims in public–it only strengthens their position and lies. Check out our slides for wording recommendations.

4. Coordination and coalitions are key. Winning good policy and defeating bad bills requires constant coordination. Work closely with your caucus, across chambers, and with the advocacy organizations taking the lead on the different bills, and echo and amplify each other’s work. Rep. Salman offered some examples of how she’s done this in Arizona. Follow her on Twitter, too.

5. Consider how to leverage internal divisions and in-fighting among legislators advancing voter suppression to kill, weaken, or stall bad bills.

6. Help communities recover from the pandemic. Right now, our legislatures should be focusing on recovering from this pandemic and strengthening our democracy–and this message can build public opposition to anti-voter bills. Reach out to SiX and Future Now if you need support.

Webinar Recording

Slide Deck

COVID-19 Unemployment Town Hall

Learn more about what your state legislators are doing to assist thousands of constituents during the COVID-19 crisis by joining a Telephone Town Hall meeting sponsored by the State Innovation Exchange with state lawmakers and officials on Wednesday, February 24th at 6 pm to 7 pm EST.

By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with your representatives and local experts, learn about Michigan Works and recent updates concerning unemployment, ask questions, and discuss what action can be taken to get assistance and information.

Special Guests: State Senator Stephanie Chang (Detroit), Representatives Darrin Camilleri (Brownstown), and Abraham Aiyash (Detroit), and local experts from the Unemployment Insurance Agency and Detroit Employment Solutions Corporation (DESC).

Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event, 4 pm on February 24th.

Featured Speakers


Register to Join Call From Home
Fill out my online form.

2020 Highlights: Racial Data Transparency and Addressing Disparities in COVID-19 Treatment

Key Trends

Introduction

Racial disparities in health coverage, chronic health conditions, mental health, and mortality persist across the United States. Racism has led to the deeply entrenched inequality within our country’s healthcare, economic, and social systems that perpetuate these health disparities and inequities. Such inequity becomes magnified in times of national hardship, such as the unprecedented global pandemic and economic recession we are currently experiencing.

The CDC COVID Data Tracker indicates that there have been around thirty million known COVID-19 cases in the United States, and the virus has killed around 500,000 people as of the end of February 2021. Although COVID-19 does not discriminate along racial or ethnic lines, racial, ethnic, and Indigenous communities are more vulnerable to the pandemic. The compounding effect of existing inequities put Black and Brown people, communities of color, Indigenous people, and other marginalized groups at greater risk of infection and death.

For example, these communities:

Furthermore, undocumented workers--many of whom are working in vulnerable sectors, such as food supply and retailing--are at a greater risk because they have no access to employment benefits or paid sick leave. In addition, undocumented communities have minimal access to federal support because federal COVID-19 aid was only made available to those with a social security number and those who had paid federal income taxes. 

As more states release demographic data on COVID-19 cases and mortalities, it has become clear that the virus is impacting the most marginalized and vulnerable populations the hardest.  

When adjusting the data for age differences in race and ethnicity groups, Black, Indigenous, Pacific Islander, and Latinx Americans all have COVID-19 death rates of triple or more the rate of white Americans. Specifically, compared to white people, the 2020 U.S. age-adjusted COVID-19 mortality rate for: 

As APM Research Lab has reported, this indicates that many younger Americans in these racial and ethnic groups are dying of COVID-19--driving their mortality rates far above white Americans. However, in every age category, “Black people are dying from COVID at roughly the same rate as white people more than a decade older.” This data reveals the inequitable impacts of COVID-19 and highlights the racial disparities policymakers must address. 

It is also important to note that not every state has published comprehensive demographic data on the racial, ethnic, and language characteristics for those affected by COVID-19. There are still many states where race and/or ethnicity is unknown for a significant share of not only confirmed cases and deaths, but also general testing results. Expanded testing has provided more insight into the spread of COVID-19 and its impacts on marginalized communities. However, there has been many barriers to equitable testing that prevent proper data collection. For example, drive-in testing sites often require a vehicle to be tested. But Black households and people of color are least likely to have access to a vehicle. Targeting testing resources, such as accessible sites, supplies, and tailored messaging, could alleviate ongoing and future health disparities due to the pandemic.  

Healthcare worker in PPE administers PPE test to small white child

In addition, a lack of uniform reporting guidelines across the U.S, has made it difficult to estimate the pandemic’s true toll on different communities. For example, many states lump Hispanic and Latinx identities together in the racial breakdown, whereas other states do not. In addition, some lump Indigenous people into the “Other” category, preventing states from being able to identify the complete effects of the virus on the Indigenous community. Without extensive and accurate demographic data, policymakers and researchers have no way to address ongoing inequities and identify which populations need additional access to resources. 

It is critical that state legislators account for existing racial disparities in health care access and take steps to promote health equity. Some state legislatures across the country are addressing racial and ethnic disparities by adopting policies that expand health coverage and promote racial data transparency. This report summarizes some of the most important state-level developments from 2020 legislative sessions.

Racial Data Transparency

State legislators are taking action to increase racial and health data transparency by:

Better Data Collection And Reporting Of Racial Data

Without comprehensive race and ethnicity data, the communities most impacted by
the pandemic cannot be identified. As a result, some lawmakers are pushing for a more comprehensive collection of frequently updated data not only related to COVID-19, but also for any future public health emergencies.

A. Comprehensive COVID-19-related Data Collection 

Massachusetts passed a bill (MA HB 4672/Chapter 93), which requires the state’s department of public health to collect data from all boards of health and publicly report the daily total and complete aggregate numbers of those who have tested positive for COVID-19, have been hospitalized, and have died as a result of a confirmed or probable case. It also requires the department to publish a daily report on such data from each state and county correctional facility, and elder care facilities. Each daily report must allow for the identification of trends, testing, infection, hospitalization, and mortality based on demographic factors, including race and ethnicity. 

New Jersey enacted legislation (NJ S 2357/Chapter 28), which requires hospitals to report to the state’s department of health demographic data, including race and ethnicity, on not only confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths, but also the number of those who are admitted for treatment, those who attempt to get treated, and those who are turned away after attempting to get tested. The data will be posted publicly, updated on a daily basis, and compiled by county and municipality. Michigan also introduced a similar bill (MI HB 5753), but it failed to pass. 

Black man puts on surgical mask

New York legislators introduced a bill (NY SB 8360) that did not include as many components as Michigan’s or New Jersey’s, but would have uniquely required data related to all COVID-19 testing regardless of the result, including the number of individuals tested. In addition, the bill would have required reporting of not only general demographic information, like race and ethnicity, but also primary language, socioeconomic status or occupation, disability status, and county or city of residence. Massachusetts enacted legislation (MA HB 4672/Chapter 93) with a similar component.

In Michigan, a bill (MI HB 5753) introduced in the House would have required hospitals to collect and report to the state’s department of health comprehensive demographic data on those affected by COVID-19 or any other communicable disease and infection during a future state of emergency. Louisiana enacted a resolution (LA SR 76) with similar language. 

New York legislators introduced legislation (NY SB 8360), which included a component that would have required the Department of Health to submit to specific legislative committees a preliminary report on the following: (1) description of COVID-19-associated race and ethnicity data, and (2) evidence-based response strategies for future pandemics. 

Investment In Contact Tracing Programs

Contact tracing sheds light on how a disease, such as COVID-19, is spread by locating, talking, and working with people who have tested positive for the virus to identify and track people with whom they have been in close contact. Because the United States did not have a national contact tracing strategy, there has been insufficient data about how different populations are being affected by the virus. Thus, states are investing in contact tracing programs to collect more comprehensive data that accurately reflects the impacts of COVID-19 on different communities.  

Black doctor wearing PPE holding chart
A. Allocation of Funds for Contact Tracing Programs 

State lawmakers have worked to appropriate funds from either the CARES Act’s Coronavirus Relief Fund or their general fund for the purpose of expanding public and private initiatives for COVID-19 testing, contact tracing, and trends tracking and analysis. These funds could be used to hire contact tracers, purchase necessary equipment, and expand the contact tracing infrastructure to take appropriate public health actions. Hawaii’s legislature enacted this legislation (HI SB 75), while similar bills were introduced but failed in Minnesota (MN HF 4579) and North Carolina (NC HB 1038). 

South Carolina passed a bill (SC HB 3411) that requires the Medical University of South Carolina, in consultation with other health departments and associations, to develop and deploy a statewide COVID-19 testing plan. To implement the plan, the Department of Health and Environmental Control will collaborate with hospitals and other medical stakeholders, and provide access to information on hotspots and contact tracing. The plan also emphasizes testing in rural communities and communities with a high prevalence of COVID-19 and/or with demographic characteristics consistent with risk factors for COVID-19. 

B. Contact Tracing Representation

New York enacted legislation (NY AB 10447), which requires city contract tracers to be representative of the cultural and linguistic diversity of the communities they will serve. In addition, it mandates New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the city’s health and hospitals corporations to submit an annual report on contact tracer worker diversity.

Similarly, South Carolina passed a bill (SC HB 3411), which mandates the Department of Health to identify no fewer than 1,000 contact tracers who are best suited to interact in a culturally appropriate manner and in the required languages of those disproportionately affected by COVID-19. 

C. Privacy Protections 

While contact tracing programs are crucial for collecting COVID-19 data and increasing racial data transparency, these programs have privacy implications that can harm immigrant communities and other marginalized groups. There have been concerns about whether or not confidential information would be misused or shared to other government agencies, such as immigration authorities and law enforcement, for reasons unrelated to the goal of tracking the spread of the virus. For example, police in Minnesota have reportedly used contact tracing data to track protestors from racial justice demonstrations. Allowing law and immigration enforcement to access and weaponize contact tracing data would disproportionately harm communities of color who are already being hit the hardest by the pandemic. 

Gloved hand holding nasal swab after COVID-19 test

To protect these communities and encourage participation in contact tracing programs, legislators must prohibit immigration authorities and law enforcement from accessing contact tracing data. New York legislators enacted legislation (NY AB 10500/Chapter 377) that protects the data compiled by contact tracers from legal processes. In addition, it specifies that no contact tracer or contact tracing entity may provide contact tracing information to a law enforcement entity or immigration authority. 

Kansas passed a similar bill (KS HB 2016/Section 16), which requires contact tracing data to be used only for the purposes of contact tracing. The data must be confidential and not disclosed, and safely and securely destroyed when no longer necessary for contact tracing. The bill also prohibits the state or any municipality, or any officer or official or agent thereof, from conducting or authorizing contact tracing, except under certain circumstances. 

Healthcare worker in PPE administers nasal COVID-19 swab test to elder Asian person

Racial Impact Statements Within Legislation 

State lawmakers are trying to address racial disparities through the inclusion of racial impact statements in legislation. Similar to the fiscal notes often attached to legislation, a racial impact statement would analyze and address how different racial and ethnic groups will be negatively or positively impacted by proposed legislation. The analysis is used to not only inform legislators’ decisions, but also reduce, eliminate, and prevent racial discrimination and inequities. Illinois legislators introduced a bill (IL HB 4428), which would have required a racial impact statement for any legislation that has or could have a disparate impact on racial and ethnic groups.

Massachusetts and Ohio introduced a more specific set of legislation (MA HD 2789/SD 936 and OH HB 620) that would have required a racial impact and health disparities analysis for health-related initiatives and policies. Ohio’s legislation took a more progressive lead by also requiring the statements to determine whether introduced bills have a positive, negative, or neutral impact on the accomplishment of health equity in the state, health or health equity of specific populations in geographic areas, and the social determinants of health for the most vulnerable populations. 

Addressing Disparities In COVID-19 Treatment And Testing

Lawmakers are seeking to address disparities by making healthcare more accessible to vulnerable communities through the expansion of telehealth, Medicaid, and insurance coverage.

Telehealth  

In order to prevent the spread of COVID-19, many health care systems have begun utilizing telehealth and telemedicine technology for medical appointments. Such reliance on technology creates barriers for those who lack access to quality broadband and telephone services. 

State legislators are expanding access to healthcare by: 

Black doctor meets with patient virtually for telehealth appointment
A. Ensuring telehealth payment parity

In order to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, healthcare systems have had to adopt methods, such as telehealth, that do not rely on delivering health care services in-person. In response, state legislators have introduced payment parity bills that would require insurance plans to provide a reimbursement rate for telehealth services that is equal to, on the same basis as, or no less than the rate provided for in-person services. 

Vermont enacted legislation (VT HB 742/Section 24), which includes a component on payment parity. In addition, the following states all introduced variations of this type of bill, but none were enacted:

A similar bill introduced in Washington (WA HB 2770) that would have allowed hospitals, hospital systems, telemedicine companies, and provider groups with 11 or more providers to negotiate their rate. 

B. Expanding telehealth coverage for audio-only appointments

For telehealth services, some states require a provider and patient to use real-time, interactive  audio and visual communication. However, such a requirement leaves patients who only have landline or audio-only phones without access to telehealth. Many of these patients are often low-income and come from marginalized communities. State lawmakers are working to increase access to healthcare for all by permitting audio-only telehealth appointments. Some have also restricted benefit and insurance plans from placing any restrictions on the electronic or technological platform used to provide these virtual services. 

Colorado’s legislature enacted a bill (CO SB 20-212/Section 2) on this topic, while variations of this legislation are pending in New Jersey (NJ SB 2559/A 4179) and failed in Rhode Island (RI SB 2525/Section 3). 

New Jersey legislators also enacted a different bill (NJ AB 3860/SB 2289), which waives certain regulatory requirements in order to facilitate telemedicine health services during COVID-19, including any privacy requirements that would limit the use of technological devices that are not typically used in telehealth services. 

Pregnant person at telemedicine appointment
C. Waiving or lowering cost sharing for telehealth and telemedicine

State lawmakers are eliminating barriers to telehealth by waiving or lowering cost-sharing for telehealth services related to COVID-19. 

New Jersey enacted a bill (NJ AB 3843), which provides coverage for telemedicine and telehealth to the same extent for any other services, except that no cost-sharing shall be imposed on the coverage. 

Michigan introduced legislation (MI HB 5633) which would have required examination, diagnosis, and prescribed treatment of COVID-19 by telemedicine to not be subject to any coinsurance, copayment, application to a deductible, or limit.

Medicaid And Insurance Coverage

State legislators are working to address health inequities by proposing legislation that would:  

A. Expanding Medicaid in states without Medicaid expansion 

Thirty-eight states, and D.C., have expanded their Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act.

Of the 38 states, Oklahoma and Missouri passed expansion initiatives (OK State Question 802 and MO Amendment 2) that will be implemented in 2021. That leaves nearly two million people in 12 states who are ineligible for Medicaid coverage and left without access to an affordable coverage option. The COVID-19 emergency is putting intense pressure on these states to ensure greater access to quality health care for all, especially those disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. As a result, some lawmakers in these 12 states have sought to expand the eligibility requirements for their Medicaid programs. 

North Carolina (NC HB 1040), South Carolina (SC HB 5476), Alabama (AL HB 447), Kansas (KS SB 252), and Florida (FL SJR 224/HJR 247) introduced bills to adopt the ACA’s Medicaid Expansion, which provides Medicaid coverage to non-elderly adults with incomes below 138 percent of the poverty line (though none of these bills passed). 

North Carolina also introduced a different bill (NC HB 1038/Section 3A) that would have provided temporary, targeted Medicaid coverage to individuals with incomes up to 200%, rather than 133%, of the poverty line for COVID-related services. In addition, it would have provided Medicaid coverage for COVID-19 testing to the uninsured. 

People wait in socially distanced line for COVID-19 test. Sign reads "Covid-19 Test Available To the Public Appointment Required We Test for Active Viral Infection And Presence Of Antibodies"
B. Expanding Medicaid and insurance coverage for uninsured individuals, low-income groups, and undocumented communities during the pandemic. 

State legislators are working to address COVID-19-related health disparities by expanding insurance coverage for uninsured, low-income, and undocumented communities. 

Ohio introduced legislation (OH HB 583) that would have temporarily waived certain Medicaid requirements during the pandemic and expand financial eligibility to 300% of the poverty line for children and 200% for adults. In addition, the state introduced a resolution (OH HCR 27) which demanded the Trump Administration to create a special enrollment period in the ACA marketplaces for uninsured Ohioans who may be unable to access COVID-19 testing and treatment. 

Minnesota enacted an exhaustive COVID-19-related legislation (MN HF 4556/Section 11), which included a provision for Medicaid to cover the COVID-19 testing of uninsured individuals. Similarly, New York also introduced a bill (NY SB 8123/AB10494) that would have allowed any uninsured individual, regardless of immigration status, be eligible for COVID-19 testing at no cost. 

Legislation in New York (NY SB 8366) would have amended the state’s social services law and increase COVID-19 health services eligibility for those who are residents of the state, have a confirmed case of COVID-19, have a household income below 200% of the FPL, and are ineligible for federal financial participation in the basic health program on the basis of immigration status. 

White doctor in PPE talks to white patient wearing surgical mask
C. Waiving or lowering cost-sharing for COVID-19 testing and treatment

Increased access to the COVID-19 testing and treatment will enable local and state public health departments to accurately track the course of the pandemic. It is also critical that people receive affordable and equitable access to health care services, especially during this time. State lawmakers are focusing on ensuring health care affordability and accessibility for those impacted by the virus by waiving or lowering cost-sharing for COVID-19-related services. These services may include, but are not limited to, diagnostic and antibody testing, physician office visits, telemedicine services, hospitalizations, antiviral drugs, and vaccines. 

Louisiana and New Jersey enacted similar laws (LA SB 426 and NJ AB 3843), while variations on this type of legislation were introduced but failed to pass in Minnesota (MN HF 4416), Michigan (MI HB 5633), and Ohio (OH HB 579).

Complementary Policies

Additional Resources

General Information

Racial Data Transparency & Contact Tracing
Health & Equity Policy

Legislator Spotlight: Pennsylvania Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta

Top photo by Swiger Photography. This interview was conducted via Zoom and has been edited for length and clarity.

How would you define what it means to be a successful state legislator? 

I think first and foremost, you have to do the homework. When I come into a committee hearing, it is very rare that I've not read every line of a bill or the analysis of the legislation. Even if it's seemingly benign legislation, there may be things in it that are bad for my constituents. 

Even more, there might be opportunities to make the legislation better. For example, a colleague who is not my favorite person on the Republican side—introduced a bill to have outside health experts oversee the Department of Health. So I introduced multiple amendments to include a deep dive into the racial disparities of COVID.

How did you figure out that you should try to introduce amendments?

Being in the minority, I seek opportunities to introduce priorities into broader pieces of legislation. If I can make amendments, then we can make life a little bit better for the community members who are not often centered in our policy conversations. Politics is a math problem. If the minority doesn't have 102 votes in the [Pennsylvania] House, 26 votes in the Senate, and a governor who's willing to sign the legislation, then it is not going to become law. It's very rare that I get 102 votes on something, but there are ways for me to use the amendment process. 

What surprised you about being a state legislator?

It should not have surprised me that it takes a really long time to get anything done. It is incredibly disappointing because there are chronic issues that are impacting people I love and care about. Those lived experiences are what drove me to run in the first place.

As a member of the minority, we don't control the calendar or when a bill comes up, so a lot of time is spent sitting around waiting for things to happen. The reason being, people see the meal based on where they're sitting at the table, so if you're sitting in front of the turkey that's the most important thing. 

In Pennsylvania, we are a large, diverse state, so, for some, doing something about Volunteer Fire companies is the most important. For others, it's charter schools, bus contracts, etc. So the question is, how do we find synergy around the time in which we approach those priorities? 

Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta conducting a telephone town hall with thousands of constituents. (Photo: Facebook)
Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta conducting a telephone town hall with thousands of constituents. (Photo: Facebook)

What's your proudest moment or accomplishment?

I'm deeply proud of protecting the right to vote in our democracy, especially while the [former] president tried to dispute the election. Until the very last hours of the session, GOP legislators were introducing legislation to try to overturn the electors. With Pennsylvania being the tipping-point state, it was an important feat just to come to work and speak up. I was also a party to a number of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party lawsuits against the president, and I'm deeply proud of that.

How do you stay true to your values in a political system that's designed to uphold the status quo?

We shouldn't be trying to build compromise, we should try to build consensus. Building consensus is about ensuring that your values are in the room and talking openly and honestly about what makes people's lives better. 

Even more, it is about figuring out how we build coalitions to make lasting, substantive change. We have to get buy-in from a bunch of different people, which takes real skill and real commitment. It is not about taking any deal just to get a deal. It's about getting a deal that doesn't just bandaid the problems we face and instead is a real surgical approach to the things that are deeply broken.

What advice would you give newly elected state legislators as they enter their first session?

Remember why you ran. When you get into the hustle and bustle of it all, sometimes we forget some of the conversations that inspired us or forget the people who encouraged us. They saw something in us, and they still want to see that in action.

I say to my constituents all the time, yes, I want you to vote for me and I appreciate your vote, but I also need you to write letters about the legislation I introduced. Secondly, when it's safe to, I need you to come up to Harrisburg and share your stories about why I introduced this legislation and what it can mean to your family. And finally, I need you to talk to the press and write op-eds.

Also, remember you are not in this alone, because there is literally nothing you can do by yourself. Everybody must recognize the stewardship required for our democracy to work, and elected leaders do not have the only role. 

To my fellow legislators: don't take on the pressure that you have to change the world alone. That is a reductionist mentality because you cannot do it all by yourself. Above all else, don't give up your personal life because it is very easy to do that. You can always be doing legislative work, but your family and the people who love you deserve to have you too. 

2020 Highlights: States’ Housing Response to COVID-19

Key Trends

States have:

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the existing racial and economic inequalities in the United States and created a deadly situation in which working-class families, already struggling to pay for the necessities of life, have been forced to stay at home while experiencing major losses in income and employment. In under six months, over 60 million workers in the United States filed for unemployment, and unemployment rates have skyrocketed to as high as 14.7 percent—almost five points higher than the peak of the Great Recession. This has led to immense housing insecurity for working-class renters and homeowners across the country. 

In the wake of the Great Recession, millions of Americans became housing insecure, and many, particularly renters, never recovered. In 2019, 31.5 percent of all households were housing cost-burdened—meaning they pay more than 30 percent of their income toward housing and utilities. Almost half of renter households are cost-burdened. Additionally, the housing crisis has overwhelmingly impacted low-income families. Eighty-three percent of renters with incomes below $15,000 per year are cost-burdened, and 72 percent are extremely cost-burdened (paying over 50 percent of their income). 

Meanwhile, the federal government has massively reduced its commitment to providing affordable housing for decades. Because of demolition and conversion, the public housing stock has been reduced by almost 500,000 units since 1996, and federal capital funding for public housing fell by over $2 billion per year from 2000 to 2013.

empty house
Two people inside empty apartment

The Terner Center for Housing Innovation estimated that almost 16.5 million renter households have at least one worker who was employed in an industry affected by COVID-19-related job loss. With millions of Americans struggling to pay housing costs each month, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the housing crisis. Research suggests that about 31 percent of renters were unable to pay their rent on time in April, compared to 18 percent for the same time period in 2019.

Further, the housing crisis and pandemic have disproportionately affected Black, brown, and Indigenous communities. According to data released by New York City, COVID is killing Black and Latinx people at twice the rate it is killing white people. The economic impacts are also disproportionately felt by communities of color—the unemployment rate for Black workers peaked at almost 17 percent, while the unemployment rate for Hispanic women has reached over 20 percent. Black and brown families are disproportionately renters and employed in industries impacted by shutdowns and stay-at-home orders—the threat of COVID-19 to housing stability is an issue of racial justice. Further, homelessness disproportionately impacts communities of color. While Black people make up 13 percent of the United States population, they account for 40 percent of people experiencing homelessness, and Indigenous people similarly experience homelessness disproportionately.  

16.5 million renter households have at least one worker who was employed in an industry affected by COVID-19-related job loss.

A CDC order in September provided a national eviction moratorium to the end of 2020, but this moratorium is not self-executing and has not frozen all eviction filings. Housing advocates expect that when state and federal eviction moratoriums end and federal unemployment bonuses expire, many working-class renters will be threatened with eviction. Policymakers at the federal, state, and local level have taken action to try to keep millions of Americans housed during the pandemic. State lawmakers have introduced and enacted legislation that:

This report summarizes some of the most important state-level developments from the 2020 legislative session. Please note that this is neither a comprehensive policy list nor necessarily a list of the most progressive solutions on this subject. When moving forward with legislation, we recommend working with state and national advocates to craft the best solution for your state. If you would like additional assistance or to be connected to your state or national advocacy groups, please email us at helpdesk@stateinnovation.org.

Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention

Many states have taken executive, legislative, and judicial action to prevent evictions and foreclosures during the pandemic. Governors have issued executive orders either limiting or fully prohibiting evictions and foreclosures during the pandemic (more info can be found on the details of the executive orders in the Other Resources section). State legislatures have taken further action to establish moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures past what has been outlined in executive actions. 

Suspending Evictions and Foreclosures

The Massachusetts legislature passed MA H 4647, a 120-day eviction moratorium that allows the governor to extend the moratorium in increments of 90 days. Legislators failed to pass additional legislation (MA H 4878) that would have:

The Oregon legislature passed a bill (OR HB 4213) that extended the governor’s eviction moratorium until September 30. During the moratorium, landlords were prohibited from delivering notices of termination, taking possession of property or anything that would interfere with a tenant’s use of the dwelling, assessing late fees, or reporting a tenant’s nonpayment of rent to credit reporting agencies. The legislation also provides a six-month grace period following the end of the moratorium to pay the balance of unpaid rent. 

New York legislators failed to pass a bill (NY S 8667/A 10827) that would have prohibited courts from executing an eviction warrant or order a monetary judgment for unpaid rent for all tenants for the duration of the state of emergency in New York, plus one full year past the emergency’s termination. 

A young man skateboards past an old house in Portland, Oregon
Skateboarder rides past house in Portland, Oregon

Alaska enacted legislation (AK SB 241) that suspended evictions for people experiencing financial hardship related to COVID-19 through June 30, 2020. 

The California Assembly passed legislation (CA AB 828) that died in the Senate. It would have prevented any party from submitting a residential unlawful detainer complaint except to address issues of damage to the property, nuisance, or health and safety. It additionally would have prohibited a court from issuing a summons on a complaint for a residential unlawful detainer unless the court finds it is necessary for the reasons listed above. Finally, if a tenant provides documentation of economic hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the bill would have allowed tenants up to 12 months, starting 90 days after the end of the state of emergency, to pay back unpaid rent from the COVID-19 emergency period.

The California Assembly has also passed a piece of legislation that failed in the Senate (CA AB 1436) that would have permanently protected tenants from being evicted for unpaid rent during the COVID-19 emergency and for 90 days after, or April 21, 2021—whichever date is earlier—and would have allowed tenants to pay back any unpaid rental debt accrued.

Another piece of California legislation (CA SB 915) that passed in the Senate and Assembly (but in different versions) would have provided eviction protections for manufactured housing and mobile home owners and tenants. The bill would have also prohibited mobile home park management from evicting or terminating the lease of an owner or tenant who is affected by COVID-19 for failure to pay rent.

Placing a Stay on Evictions and Foreclosures

Lawmakers have introduced legislation that would still allow landlords to file eviction notices with the courts, but would temporarily prohibit courts from carrying out the eviction order and removing a tenant from the property. 

The New Jersey Senate passed a bill that is now in the Assembly (SB 2485) to prohibit evictions for nonpayment of rent during certain months surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.

New York enacted legislation (NY S 8192B) to prohibit any court from issuing a warrant or judgment of possession against a residential tenant during the period of the COVID-19 declared state of emergency, specifically for nonpayment due to the pandemic, and to extend the state’s executive order on the evictions moratorium until the end of the declared state of emergency.

An eviction notice taped to the front door of a home
An eviction notice taped onto the front door of a home

Vermont enacted legislation (VT S 333) that allows landlords and lenders to file new eviction and foreclosure actions, but requires the courts to stay the actions through 30 days past the end of the emergency period.

The Ohio legislature introduced legislation (OH HB 562/SB 297) that if passed would have prevented foreclosures and evictions during the COVID-19 state of emergency. Landlords would have still been able to file evictions in court, but the courts would have been prohibited from executing a writ of possession or removing the tenant from a residential property during the state of emergency. Notably, the legislation would have made it so a landlord would not be entitled to rental amounts that were unpaid during the state of emergency if the landlord filed a complaint during the state of emergency and received a writ of execution after the emergency terminated.

Enabling Local Government to Adopt Eviction Moratoriums 

New Jersey legislators introduced a bill (NJ A 4228) that, as introduced, would allow local municipalities to adopt their own eviction prohibitions during the COVID-19 pandemic. If the legislation is enacted, it will retroactively cover missed payments for the covered period. (Note: companion bill NJ SB 2485 was amended by the Senate to place a stay on evictions—see above for more.) 

Guaranteeing Forbearance

Introduced legislation (CA AB 2501) in California that did not pass would have allowed any borrower experiencing financial hardship during the state of emergency to request forbearance for any mortgage obligation. Mortgage servicers would have been required to grant forbearance for up to 180 days initially, after which the borrower could request up to another 180 days for up to 12 months in total.

Rent Freeze, Suspension, and Cancellation

Housing advocates in several states have been pushing for more aggressive policy solutions than moratoriums to avoid a cascade of eviction filings and foreclosures once the moratoriums end. Instead, they are pushing for a rent freeze and the suspension or cancellation of rent and mortgage payments.

States can see examples from the efforts at both the federal level and local level. For example, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar introduced federal legislation (H.R.6515) to cancel rent and mortgage payments, in addition to any housing debt accrued during the pandemic, and New York City froze rents for one year for over 2 million rent-stabilized units. 

Legislators in Massachusetts introduced a bill (MA H 4718) that would have implemented a rent freeze across the state for the duration, and 30 days following the end, of the declared state emergency. The bill would have suspended the statewide prohibition on rent control and the state's preemption of local rent control. It would have allowed the Department of Housing and Community Development and local governments to issue, maintain, and enforce a rent freeze and/or rent control for the declared period. 

projects housing

Terms

Rent Freeze: Tenants still pay rent each month, but landlords are not able to increase rent at the end of a lease for the duration of the declared period. 

Rent suspension or cancellation: Tenants do not owe rent at all for the duration of the declared period. 

New York lawmakers introduced a bill that failed (NY A 10247/S 8139) that would have partially suspended rent for tenants who had experienced a significant loss of income due to the government-imposed restrictions related to COVID. The legislation would have required those tenants to pay up to either 30 percent of their income or their contractual rent—whichever is less—per month for 90 days following enactment. Landlords also would have been able to apply for relief if they lost rental income.

Another New York bill (NY A 10224/S 8125) would have fully suspended rent payments for any residential tenant or small-business commercial tenant that had experienced a loss of income or forced closure of business due to the pandemic. The bill would have waived rental payments for covered tenants and small businesses for 90 days, and provided the automatic renewal of leases that expired during the covered period. A complementary bill (NY A 10255) was introduced that would have established an assistance fund for “small landlords.” 

A stronger rent cancellation bill that was introduced, but failed, in New York (NY S 8802/A 10826) would have fully canceled rent for all tenants and canceled mortgages for small homeowners for the duration of the declared state disaster emergency and 90 days following it. The bill would have additionally provided funding to assist and reimburse housing cooperatives, affordable housing providers, public housing authorities, and landlords.

Illinois legislators introduced an amendment that did not pass (COVID-19 Emergency and Economic Recovery Renter and Homeowner Protection Act) that would have cancelled rent and suspended mortgage payments for those who contracted COVID-19 or experienced a loss of income. The legislation would also have provided protection from retaliation for nonpayment of rent or mortgage, set up a relief fund for landlords and mortgagees negatively impacted by missed payments, and implemented restrictions on evictions for the period following the end of the emergency period.

Lawmakers in New Jersey introduced legislation (NJ A 3948) that would have required a landlord to suspend rent for 90 days upon request from a residential tenant. After 90 days, the tenant would have been able to request another 90 days of rent suspension. Tenants would not be required to pay the balance of their unpaid rent during the period of the suspension. 

Rent and Mortgage Assistance

Eviction scene; Belongings from house are on the curb
Household items from a recent eviction

While at the federal level, advocates have pushed for $100 billion in emergency rental relief, and many states have set up their own rental and mortgage assistance programs. As eviction moratoriums end, millions of renters across the country will require assistance in order to pay not only their current rent, but unpaid rent accrued during the moratorium periods.

Several state legislatures have appropriated CARES Act funds toward rental and mortgage relief, while governors in multiple states, such as Minnesota, Michigan, and Washington, have also taken action to distribute funding toward assistance programs. While still impactful, advocates have raised concerns that current rental relief efforts will fail to meet the level of support necessary, especially without further federal support. For example, the city of Houston exhausted a $15 million rental fund in 90 minutes, and the city of Los Angeles’s $100 million fund only covered 14% of renters at risk of eviction. 

Direct Assistance to Tenants or Landlords

Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Colorado enacted legislation (PA HB 2510, IL SB 264 sections 20 and 21, and CO SB 20-1410) establishing rental and mortgage assistance funds. Colorado appropriated $19.65 million to the program, while Pennsylvania allocated $150 million, and Illinois allocated $396 million. The Pennsylvania legislation provides assistance to renters and homeowners who either became unemployed or whose annual household income is reduced by 30 percent or more. The fund provides grants to homeowners and renters and covers 100 percent of their rent or mortgage—up to $750/month for renters and $1,000 for homeowners for a maximum of six months. The Illinois legislation reserves $100 million for areas disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. Utah enacted similar legislation (UT SB 3006), which established a fund of $20 million for residential housing assistance and $40 million for commercial rental assistance.

While the New Jersey legislature originally passed legislation (NJ S 2332) to establish a rental relief program, the bill was vetoed by Governor Phil Murphy. Instead, he created a program through executive action, and appropriated at least $100 million to rental assistance. Twenty percent of the program's funding is devoted to people with very low income who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and provides them with up to 12 months of rental assistance. The rest of the funding will be distributed on a lottery basis to households that earn below 80% of the area median income (AMI), were current on rental payments before March 1, 2020, and are able to prove they have been significantly impacted by COVID-19 through either layoffs, reduced work hours, or forced unpaid leave for childcare.

Legislators in New York (NY S 8419) enacted a bill that establishes a rental assistance fund of $100 million to provide aid to households that earn up to 80% of the area median income, had a rent burden both on March 1, 2020, and at the time of their application for assistance, and have experienced a loss of income during the coverage period. The program would cover the difference between a household rent burden (the amount of rent owed that is more than 30% of a tenant’s income) on March 1, 2020, and their rent burden at the time of their application for assistance. 

Deferment of Rent 

A bill backed by the landlord lobby in California (CA SB 1410), which passed the Senate but died in the Assembly, would have allowed landlords and tenants to enter into a “COVID eviction relief agreement.” In an agreement, the tenant could defer his or her rent for the entirety of the state of emergency and for an unspecified number of additional days following the state of emergency’s conclusion. The state would assume the debt burden, and provide the tenant until 2034 to repay the unpaid rent, or apply for loan forgiveness. In exchange, the landlord would receive ten years of tax credits equal to the unpaid amount and would have the opportunity to sell tax credits to investors. Landlords who enter into an agreement would be prohibited from taking an eviction action against the tenant during the state of emergency period.

Utility Assistance

Another bill in Colorado was enacted (CO HB 20-1412) that appropriated $4.8 million of funding from the CARES Act to provide direct utility bill payment assistance to low-income households facing economic hardship due to the pandemic. 

Homelessness

Individuals and families experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness have a disproportionate risk of getting COVID-19. Without shelter, it is immensely difficult to self-isolate and take proper preventative measures like handwashing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, people who are experiencing homelessness and contract COVID-19 are twice as likely to be hospitalized and two to three times more likely to die from the virus than the general public.

Tents alongside a mural in San Francisco
An encampment of unhoused people in San Francisco, CA

States have allocated money, often from CARES Act funds, to homeless shelters and assistance, and the legislative examples below are from states that allocated money in their budgets to homelessness directly in response to the pandemic. Please note that this is not inclusive of all legislation related to homelessness outside of the pandemic. Additionally, some of the above legislation establishing rental and mortgage assistance programs contains language that prioritizes distribution of funds to families at risk of homelessness.

Legislators in Alaska enacted legislation (AK SB 241) to provide financial assistance on a statewide, regional, or community basis as necessary to address or prevent homelessness caused by the pandemic.

The Pennsylvania legislature enacted a bill (PA HB 2510) that allocated $10 million for services for homeless residents. Similarly, lawmakers in Utah appropriated (UT HB 4001) $4.67 million from the CARES Act to the state’s Homelessness committee. Minnesota lawmakers passed legislation (MN HF 4531) that provides $15.2 million for additional shelter space and purchasing vouchers for motel and hotel rooms in order to allow homeless individuals to effectively shelter in place.

Broader Tenant Protections

2019 saw monumental movement for comprehensive tenant protections. Oregon became the first state in the nation to pass a statewide rent control bill, with California and New York adopting their own statewide legislation soon after. While the pandemic sidelined efforts to pass similar legislation in other states, several rent control and eviction protections bills were introduced across the country. Lawmakers in California and New York also introduced several pieces of legislation to strengthen their existing laws. 

Repeal of Rent Control Preemption Laws

Legislators in at least four states introduced legislation that would repeal state bans on rent control legislation. 

The Massachusetts legislature considered a bill (MA H 3924) that would have removed the state’s preemption of municipal rent control policies. The bill would have affirmatively allowed for the regulation of rents for multi-family housing and manufactured housing, condominium conversions, and no-cause evictions.

Apartment complex in Massachusetts
An apartment complex in Massachsetts

Lawmakers in Illinois introduced legislation (IL HB 255) that would have repealed the state’s 1997 Rent Control Preemption Act, which bans local units of government from controlling residential and commercial rents. 

Similar efforts were introduced in Utah (UT HB 131) and Florida (FL HB 6013/SB 910).

New Rent Control Legislation

While several municipalities in New Jersey have implemented rent control, lawmakers introduced a statewide rent cap bill that did not pass (NJ A 1923). The bill would have established a cap on annual rent increases of 5 percent plus the percentage change in cost of living, or 10 percent—whichever was lower. 

Legislators in Illinois (IL SB 3771) also introduced a bill that would have established statewide rent control and implemented a just-cause eviction protection for renters. The bill would have limited rent increases each year to 5 percent plus the change in cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever was lower, and limited legal evictions to nonpayment of rent and material breaches of a lease. 

Strengthening Existing Legislation 

New York legislators introduced several pieces of legislation to enhance tenant protections passed in 2019, in one of the boldest legislative efforts to protect renters in the nation. These bills included a just-cause eviction law (NY S 2892/A 5030), an expansion of the 2019 rent stabilization law (NY S 5040/A 7046), an end to landlord-friendly loopholes such as vacancy decontrol (NY S 2591/A 1198) and vacancy bonuses (NY S 185/A 2351), an end to permanent rent increases for capital improvements (NY S 3693/A 6322), and making preferential rents permanent (NY S 2845A/A 4349).

A recently enacted bill (CA SB 1190) in California would have strengthened enforcement mechanisms for the Tenants Protection Act of 2019. The bill would have directed city attorneys, district attorneys, or county counsel to prosecute violations of the legislation’s rent cap and just-cause eviction provisions, including awarding restitution and levying fines up to $20,000. However, this provision was stripped via amendment, and the bill as enacted focuses on the right of tenants to terminate tenancy based on a family member being a victim of a crime. 

Activists rally for the #CancelRent movement; sign reads: "Newsom cancel rent and mortgages"
California activists rally for the #CancelRent movement in May 2020

A ballot measure that failed in California (Rental Affordability Act) would have expanded the state’s rent control laws. If passed, the measure would have reformed major sections of the Costa-Hawkins Act. The ballot measure would have extended the state’s rent regulations to all buildings over 15 years old, allowed for rent control on single-family homes when an owner owns more than two homes, and enacted limitations on rent increases after a tenant vacates a unit. 

Rent Control for Manufactured Housing

Michigan lawmakers introduced a bill (MI HB 5569) that would have exempted manufactured housing parks from the state’s rent control ban. It would also created a rent cap only applicable to manufactured housing parks equivalent to the most recent annual change in the Consumer Price Index. 

Three pieces of legislation were introduced in California (CA SB 999, AB 2895, AB 2690) that would have expanded rent regulations to manufactured housing. SB 999, which passed out of the Senate but died in the Assembly, would have required new manufactured housing leases to be covered by local rent control ordinances. AB 2690, which passed out of the Assembly but died in the Senate, would have repealed exemptions for manufactured housing from local rent regulation. AB 2895, which also passed out of the Assembly and died in the Senate, would have applied the same rent cap and eviction protections under the Tenants Protection Act to manufactured housing starting in 2021.

Looking Forward

Over the past few years, housing justice advocates have increasingly pushed for reinvestment and construction of publicly owned housing in the United States. In 2019, Homes Guarantee launched an effort to guarantee the right to safe and affordable housing with a plan to build 12 million social housing units across the country, reinvesting in existing public housing, protecting renters and bank tenants, paying reparations for centuries of racist housing policies, and ending land and real estate speculation.

On the federal level, Rep. Ilhan Omar has introduced the Homes for All Act (H.R.5244) to repeal the Faircloth Amendment, which prohibits the construction of new public housing units, and invest $1 trillion to construct 8.5 million publicly owned units and 3.5 million units of privately owned, local, permanently affordable housing.

This year, lawmakers in Maryland introduced groundbreaking legislation (MD HB 1149) that would have funded the creation of a new state social housing program in order to construct an estimated 2,000 units of permanently affordable, government-owned, mixed-income housing. While the legislation failed, it presented one of the first pieces of legislation to construct social housing at the state level. 

Additional Resources

Legislator Spotlight: Nebraska Sen. Megan Hunt

Top photo by Ariel Panowicz.

This interview was conducted via e-mail and has been edited for length and clarity.

How would you define what it means to be a successful state legislator? 

Success looks different for everyone because we all have limits on what we are able to do. In the short time I have as a State Senator, I will feel successful if I can use the circumstances that are handed to me to bend as much power as I can in service of our most vulnerable Nebraskans.

If you could go back in time, what’s one thing you’d do differently in your first term?

Looking back, I see that I made some beginners errors that probably could not have been avoided—types of things I just had to learn the hard way. For example, introducing a few bills without first gauging the support of key colleagues, or being unprepared for a few obvious questions in committee hearings. But on the whole, I am proud of myself. Overall, I can say with confidence and pride that I didn't leave anything on the table, that I picked my battles well, and that I did as much as I could. I balanced the firmness of my own convictions and principles with doing what's best for my district and for Nebraska. And I did this as part of a team of 49 senators plus all of our indispensable staff.

Nebraska State Senator Megan Hunt in Nebraska State Capitol wearing mask
Sen. Megan Hunt in the Nebraska State Capitol; (Photo: Sen. Megan Hunt's Facebook)

What surprised you about being a state legislator?

In Nebraska, we have the nation’s only nonpartisan unicameral legislature, which means that we have no official party identification, we have no caucuses, no majority/minority leaders, etc. I am on the far left side of the spectrum represented in the Nebraska Legislature, and I broke barriers as the first out LGBTQ+ state senator ever, as a single working parent, and as an atheist. I was really afraid that my colleagues would stereotype me or be hostile toward me because of who I am, but I was wrong. I have found every one of my colleagues amenable, willing to work with me, and I have made several close friends with colleagues who are ideologically very different from me. I think that Nebraska legislators are able to benefit from these positive relationships because of our officially nonpartisan structure. We fight, we disagree, we argue, but we do cooperate, and that’s a good thing for Nebraskans.

What was one challenge you faced as a legislator that you didn’t anticipate?

The pandemic, absolutely. When the pandemic began to reach Nebraska in March, the Legislature suspended its session, and my office started working remotely. We made the decision to pivot from our legislative work to a focus on the immediate, urgent safety needs of Nebraskans facing hunger, unemployment, and eviction. Our agenda for 2020 changed completely, from the slate of policy goals we brought into the new year, to the simple but critical objective of ensuring that Nebraskans would survive.

It was very important that our office was able to pivot from our original policy goals to the day-to-day crisis work that COVID has demanded of our elected leaders. But I certainly never expected to be in this position.

What’s your proudest moment or accomplishment?

I’m very proud of how my staff has handled the COVID-19 pandemic. We are still helping Nebraskans receive unemployment and SNAP benefits they are entitled to from the early part of the pandemic. Many of these Nebraskans have never been system-involved, and many are slipping through the cracks when trying to work with agencies to get their benefits.

Of course, I’m also taking care of my daughter, managing her virtual learning, and running a business of my own. My hat is off to all parents and educators who are dealing with balancing work, education, schooling, and all the challenges of this pandemic. It feels hard every day, but we have to be proud of everything we’ve been able to do amidst all this adversity. 

How do you stay true to your values in a political system that’s designed to uphold the status quo?

For me, it’s the easiest thing in the world. Our entire political institution—the rules, the norms, everything—was created by people who are invested in the status quo to ensure that people marginalized by the status quo will still work to maintain it. I have endeavored to not be a part of that by questioning my assumptions about what’s going on, and by having the courage or playfulness to question others’ assumptions. Why should I worry what others think of my values? I am the one who has to live with myself and sleep at night! And this is why representation in government is so important. I want different elected leaders, I want diverse elected leaders, and I want us to work together to render the status quo obsolete.

What advice would you give newly-elected state legislators as they enter their first session?

I have the approach that there is nothing sacramental about a seat in the legislature, and there is nothing intrinsically special about me that entitles me to hold one. We are just people who are holding a job. The power we have is awesome, but we make mistakes, we have motives that are good and bad, we build our little legacies if we’re lucky, and then we are term-limited or we retire or we lose reelection. I know that I am just passing through, and I have to use my time here and the power I have to make life better for other people. You can’t want this job because you think you have the answers. You have to want this job because you know we have the answers, and you want to help implement those solutions. You can’t tie all of your identity up in elective office. It’s just a channel for you to do good work. And there are many ways to do that besides holding office.

What Should I Post? Building a Social Media Strategy for Legislators

Legislators and staffers often wear many hats, including the role of social media manager. Is it possible to build an engaged social media following while juggling other priorities? Yes! And having a solid strategy can help. 

A successful social media strategy requires more than tweeting regularly—it involves identifying realistic goals and concrete steps to reach those goals. Use the prompts and resources below to start developing a social strategy today.

Strategy Prompts

Big Picture
Style & Tone

Content

Cheatsheet: Help! What Should I Post?

Got time?
Don't have time?

Tools & Resources

(All of these websites are free to use, but some have premium options for more features.)

Articles:

Downloads

Preparing for Statehouse Violence

Table of Contents

Following the January 6 attacks, we have compiled important information with recommendations on how legislators can protect their personal and digital safety, demand accountability, and commit to a generation of cultural transformation.

Govern Safely

Commit to transformation

As we allow ourselves the space to grieve and rage, let us also be emboldened by the knowledge that our strategy is working. We must continue to fight tirelessly to build a robust, multi-racial democracy and dream of the country we want to live in.

Downloads & Other Resources

A Warning on the Gig Workers Legislation Coming to Your State

By: Terri Gerstein, Director, State and Local Enforcement Project, Harvard Labor and Worklife Program & Senior Fellow, Economic Policy Institute and Rebecca Smith; Director, Work Structures Portfolio at National Employment Law Project (NELP)

Proposition 22 was a California ballot initiative that passed in November. Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other gig companies spent over $200 million to deprive their workers of important employment rights in exchange for a paltry package of benefits. The companies are now pushing this model in other states and legislators should be prepared to counter an aggressive and well-funded campaign.  

What’s at stake?

Gig companies want to exempt themselves from laws that every other employer has to follow—minimum wage, overtime, discrimination, unemployment insurance, paid sick time, paid family leave, workers’ compensation, and workplace safety and health—and they want to give very little in return. We are expecting legislation or ballot initiatives in at least CO, IL, MA, NJ, NY, and WA in 2021.

What are the actual facts about these drivers?

These companies have disclosed little data about who their drivers are, how many are full-time, how many hours they work, and how much money they make. One rare exception, a 2018 study from New York City, revealed: 

We also know that Black and Latino workers comprise almost 42 percent of app-based workers. Relegating them to a second tier of labor protections recreates historical racist exclusions of Black and Latino workers from basic protections.

What have courts said? 

Courts have repeatedly held that these workers are entitled to their rights as employees (five courts in three states in 2020). 

What does Proposition 22 do? 

As this New York Times op-ed explains, Prop 22 is a bad deal. It denies California’s gig workers paid sick leave, unemployment benefits, and overtime pay, allows many weekly work hours to be unpaid, offers exceedingly limited benefits, and requires a whopping 7/8 vote for any amendment. 

What can you do? 

You can fight efforts to pass similar measures in your state: 

Want more information? We will be offering a webinar in 2021, but if you’d like more information sooner, let SiX know!

Confronting the Assaults on Our Democracy

Dear Legislators,

As we struggle to put into words our anger and grief at the attempted insurrection at both the U.S. Capitol and the attacks at many of your workplaces, we wanted to write a note of solidarity and concern. We are joining with other national organizations to demand accountability for all those involved–from the president to the state legislators in attendance—and for bold, transformative democracy reform that builds power for the people.

Let us be clear: yesterday’s attack on our country, on our people, and the very foundation of our democracy was brought on by a president who refuses to uphold our democratic institutions and accept that millions of us turned out to stand with and for each other. This direct assault is what treason looks like: an angry mob of armed white home-grown extremists who have heard loud and clear the direct and implicit invitations from the president to attack the U.S. Capitol and threaten our government, including the very Republican leaders complicit in the undermining of our democracy.

As legislative sessions begin this month and you step back into your own workplaces, we acknowledge that the attack on the U.S. Capitol was unfortunately not an aberration. Over this last year, we have all witnessed the increasing level of violence targeted at our state elected officials–from Michigan to Georgia to Kansas–emboldened and incited by the president himself.

This is an important time for each of you to familiarize yourself with the safety protocols of your capitol and to think about ways to protect your personal safety. This is especially true for Black, Brown, and women legislators who face additional threats on and offline. If you are unfamiliar with the safety protocols in your capitol (or if a rigorous safety protocol doesn’t yet exist), work with your legislative leadership to determine a plan.

These attacks happened because of the encouragement of some Republicans, and the silence of others, who spread lies about this election in order to undermine the will of the people and desperately attempt to hold onto power they clearly do not deserve. And these kinds of attacks, in your capitals and in Washington, will continue to happen unless and until they are forcefully stopped. Our republic is in danger. Every politician responsible, from the president to senators and house members to state legislators and state officials, who fed, fueled, and fomented these attacks must be removed or resign.

The work you do on the frontlines of governance is more critical than ever. True democracy requires integrity, resilience, and moral courage. We see you. We hear you. We stand with you. We may not be able to predict what will happen in the days, weeks, and months ahead, but we do know that the long arc of this work is rooted in building community–and we know you are doing that every day.

Take the space you need to grieve, to rage, to hold your loved ones close. The power of your leadership is rooted in your love for your communities and this country. What we all experienced yesterday is abhorrent. We cannot accept this as a new normal.

Let us know how you are, if you feel safe, and what you need–whether it be in the form of messaging, a conversation, or support for the particular situation in our state.

Thank you,
Jessie and Neha

State Innovation Exchange (SiX) Co-Executive Directors

Farmer Equity Act: A Policy to Improve Access for Farmers of Color

Historically, farmers and ranchers who are Black, Indigenous or people of color have faced systemic discrimination from state and federal agriculture institutions.

Racist policies have resulted in farmers of color being denied access to capital and ultimately losing land while historically being underserved by government agencies. These policies have created a ripple impact over the decades and have resulted in farmers of color not receiving the same resources as their white counterparts. In the 1990s, the United States Department of Agriculture recognized socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers as an officially distinct category. While this effort was a step in the right direction, for many farmers of color state agency resources remain unobtainable. In an effort to better serve their farmers of color, advocates and legislators partnered in California to pass the Farmer Equity Act, which created policies at the State Department of Food and Agriculture to ensure that their state agricultural agencies are accounting for farmer equity throughout the agency.

Now, three years after the bill was enacted into law a new department has been developed to ensure its implementation. Along the way there have been some challenges, some successes and a lot of lessons learned that may be of interest to other states considering similar action.

Participants:


Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, California State Assembly
Representative Sonya Harper, Illinois General Assembly
Thea Rittenhouse, Farm Equity Adviser, California Department of Food and Agriculture
Chanowk Yisrael, Chief Seed Starter, The Yisrael Urban Family Farm

What Just Happened in the States

Partisan Control of State Legislatures Remains Largely Unchanged

In November 2020, nearly 6,000 of the nation’s 7,383 state legislative seats were up for election. Come January 2021, the partisan control of state legislatures will look almost identical to how they looked two years prior: of the 98 chambers that have partisan control, 59 are held by Republicans, 37 by Democrats (as of this writing, the Arizona Senate and House remain in flux; Nebraska is a unicameral, nonpartisan chamber).

Though communities of color in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan beat back Donald Trump’s fascism and division federally, gerrymandering and other structural barriers kept their state legislatures relatively unchanged. For example, in Wisconsin, Joe Biden won 49.4% of the vote (as of November 5th), but Republicans retained 61% of all state legislative seats.

Progressive Policy Victories Were Achieved via Ballot Measure

Voters of all political persuasions overwhelmingly support progressive public policy options, mostly through direct democracy in the ballot measure process.

Statehouses Across the Country Will Be More Diverse

The 2020 election produced a diverse new class of progressive electeds in red and blue states alike.

The pipeline of public leadership is starting to look more like America— but we still have far to go. We can never achieve justice if our decision-makers are older, whiter, and more affluent than the people they represent; only 29% of state legislators who hold office are women and 78% are white.

In many states, legislators are part-time, paid very little (if at all,) and required to drop everything to be fully available for their legislative sessions. This has led to state legislatures being disproportionately composed of retirees, independently wealthy people, and those whose educational and career privileges allow them to hit pause on their careers for up to several months per year without repercussions.

What Comes Next

The most immediate challenge facing all state legislatures next year will be swelling budget deficits due to the pandemic and the recession. At the same time, state legislators face an extreme risk across the progressive movement—that all hopes are laid at the feet of the new President without an acknowledgment that state legislatures have significant power to shape the political terrain for generations to come.

We know that bold champions can make a difference in every legislative context — majorities, minorities, and split governance states — and our champions need resources and support to create transformative change. SiX is designed precisely for this work.

The road ahead isn’t easy, but the work to transform this country is a long arc. We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors and are so grateful to be in this generational struggle.

Farm and Food Chain Workers: Equity and Justice in the Food System

SiX Main Takeaways

  1. Farmworkers make up just one link of the food supply chain—there's also processing, distribution, retail, and restaurant and service workers. In total, 21.5 million people are food chain workers in this country. Policies should take into account all types of food chain workers.
  2. Food and farmworkers are some of the lowest-paid and exploited workers in the country because they are not covered by many federal labor laws. State legislators can fill in the gaps where the federal system has failed.
  3. Protecting food workers means more than just raising wages because workers are also endangered by heat, toxic chemical exposure, substandard housing, COVID-19, smoke from wildfires, and more. Some states have already passed bills to address these problems.
  4. Even in states with progressive legislatures, large growers and other agricultural interests have a lot of influence at the state house. Changing the system requires buy-in from a variety of stakeholders.
  5. The best policies will come from including farm and food workers at the table. These are skilled laborers and they know what policies are necessary.
  6. National grassroots coalitions can help connect legislators to farm and food worker organizations in every state. SiX can help connect you!

Medication Abortion: A 20-year Anniversary and an Opportunity

[et_pb_section fb_built="1" admin_label="section" _builder_version="3.22" custom_padding="0px|||||"][et_pb_row admin_label="row" _builder_version="4.7.7" background_size="initial" background_position="top_left" background_repeat="repeat" custom_padding="2px|||||"][et_pb_column type="4_4" _builder_version="3.25" custom_padding="|||" custom_padding__hover="|||"][et_pb_text admin_label="Text" _builder_version="4.7.7"]

Medication abortion care is a safe and effective method of abortion care that has been studied extensively since it was approved by the FDA 20 years ago this month. 

Still, many Americans are unfamiliar with medication abortion care -- what it is, how it can increase access to care during a pandemic and beyond, and the state and federal level policy barriers that stand in the way.

To assist state legislators' work in this area SiX Reproductive Rights teamed up with Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, an expert in medication abortion care from the University of California San Francisco, and Innovating Education in Reproductive Health to make this short instructive video

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version="4.7.7" _module_preset="default"][et_pb_column type="4_4" _builder_version="4.7.7" _module_preset="default"][et_pb_video src="https://vimeo.com/423397643" _builder_version="4.7.7" _module_preset="default"][/et_pb_video][et_pb_text _builder_version="4.7.7" _module_preset="default"]

Click here to read video transcript.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version="4.7.7" _module_preset="default"][et_pb_column type="4_4" _builder_version="4.7.7" _module_preset="default"][et_pb_text _builder_version="4.7.7" _module_preset="default"]

Some topline takeaways to keep in mind:
  • Medication abortion care is an FDA-approved option for ending an early pregnancy.
  • Medication abortion care has been shown to be safe and effective over the last 20 years with a more than 99% safety rate.
  • Despite its 20-year safety record, FDA restrictions (called REMS) still limit the number of providers that can stock and dispense the medication used in medication abortion care, reducing the options for patients to access it.
  • Unnecessary state level restrictions on the use of telemedicine for medication abortion care — which have been passed in 18 states — add to the burden by requiring people to travel for an in-person visit, even though it is just as safe and effective to consult with a provider over video or phone.
    • In July a Federal Court blocked the enforcement of the FDA restriction that requires people to pick up the medication in-person from their provider for the duration of the COVID public health emergency.
    • The Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to re-instate that requirement.
  • Restrictions on medication abortion care, and abortion care in general, fall hardest on those who have low incomes, live in rural areas, are women of color, undocumented, or are young.
  • It doesn’t have to be this hard to get medication abortion care. Pregnant people should be able to have medication abortion prescribed by their health care provider and receive their medications in the way that makes the most sense for them, whether that is having it delivered to their home or picking up at a local pharmacy or at a health center.

 

Medication abortion care has been researched extensively.
This list contains a selection of issue briefs and fact sheets summarizing the research and the state-level policy implications:  

 

For additional resources, messaging guidance, or to be connected with a research expert on reproductive health topics, please reach out to fran@stateinnovation.org.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

SiX Repro Book Club: Michele Goodwin's Policing the Womb

Policing the Womb brings to life the chilling ways in which women have become the targets of secretive state surveillance of their pregnancies. Dr. Michele Goodwin expands the reproductive health and rights debate beyond abortion to include how legislators increasingly turn to criminalizing women for miscarriages, stillbirths, and threatening the health of their pregnancies.

Legislators can protect workers’ rights by partnering with AGs

The fight for worker’s rights rages on through the pandemic. Everyone deserves a safe workplace, yet the average American worker currently finds themselves in a troubling situation: risk their health or go to work. Millions of Americans are relying on elected officials to enact policies that will protect their rights and ensure their safety. Fortunately, workers are not the only ones calling for strong reforms such as paid sick leave, recovering stolen wages, and fighting misclassification of workers, amongst many others. 

A new EPI report documents the dramatic increase in the involvement of state attorneys general (AGs) in protecting workers’ rights in the past two years. The report recommends that state legislatures grant attorney general offices jurisdiction to enforce workplace rights laws. It also urges state AGs to expand their involvement in this area using a range of their existing powers and authority.

 “Many workers held precarious jobs and experienced high rates of wage theft and retaliation... In response to the dire challenges facing workers today, a number of state AGs have emerged as leaders in enforcing and protecting workers’ rights,” said Terri Gerstein, director of the State and Local Enforcement Project at the Harvard Labor and Worklife Program, and a senior fellow at EPI. 

Unfortunately, several states have already taken steps to grant business liability protections from workers’ lawsuits during the COVID-19 crisis. These liability laws have dire consequences such as unsafe conditions for both workers and daily consumers. 

The State Innovation Exchange commissioned a recent poll surveying Americans in ten states and it revealed that voters strongly support policies that would provide immediate pocketbook relief for families and workers. Even more, results show that a majority of voters side with workplace safety requirements over liability protections for corporations (55% to 26%).

There are a number of common sense measures state and local officials should be considering to put worker and public health front and center. To see what else you can do to help keep workers safe, visit SiX’s Coronavirus Response Resources page.

For more on the Economic Policy Institute, see their report and press release.

Defending Against Harmful Policies

State legislatures are on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic, trying to do their best to protect and provide vital social services to their constituents. While some states are passing inclusive policies to stabilize our local economies, others are using the pandemic as an opportunity to pass harmful policies that will have devastating impacts on our communities. Additionally, some policies are intended to support struggling families but are having unintended consequences. 

Resources: 

Americans Want Community Investment, Not Cuts

A recent poll surveying Americans in Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and conducted by TargetSmart, shows voters’ strong support for: state investment in ensuring residents are safe, healthy, and economically secure; progressive solutions to revenue shortfalls; and policies that benefit workers like paid sick days, enhanced unemployment benefits, and child care. A majority  also believe the state government should address economic barriers that impact Black people. The survey was conducted online and by phone in late June/early July and included results from more than 5,000 respondents.

Voters are against budget cuts

By a three-to-one margin, voters want their state government to invest in residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (60%) rather than lowering taxes and cutting funds to services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (19%). Voters see a major or some role for state government in: 

Voters support progressive solutions to revenue shortfalls

Voters support a wide range of proposals to raise revenue to prevent large budget cuts to things like education, health care, infrastructure, and human services, including: 

Voters are with workers

Voters strongly support policies that would provide immediate pocketbook relief for families and workers, including:

A majority of voters side with workplace safety requirements (55%) over liability protections for corporations (26%). 

Voters want state government to remove racial barriers in the economy

Nearly 7-in-10 voters across the target states believe state government should play an active role in acknowledging and addressing systemic racism (68%). Voters also believe the state government should address economic barriers faced by Black Americans (57%). 

Click here for more results.

Multi-State Poll: Opinions on Economic Response to COVID-19

During the briefing, you’ll hear:

SiX and TargetSmart fielded a poll in ten states to assess voter concerns and preferences on a variety of revenue and economic policies. The poll was fielded in late June/early July while economic and budget implications of the pandemic intensified and with racial justice protests sweeping the country.

COVID Response: Resources for State Legislators

As the coronavirus situation continues to unfold, we’re compiling resources here to help you navigate the many challenges this presents to your community.  We know that crises like these have disproportionate impacts on vulnerable and low-income communities and want to make sure we stand up for those most at risk. As legislators, you are uniquely positioned to find solutions that mitigate the harm for at-risk medical populations (people with chronic health conditions, people with disabilities, the elderly), hourly workers, the millions of Americans without access to health care or paid sick days, and everyone who is one health emergency away from financial ruin.

The resources we've linked to below can help you use your platform to provide clear, scientifically-based information to the public and advocate for better policies.

If you have actions or new policies that are happening in your states, please share them so we can provide them to other legislators across the country. Please email helpdesk@stateinnovation.org.


Canva null scaled

Race and the Virus: Bias, Data, Testing, and Impact

The spread of COVID-19 took longer to reach rural America, however, once it did, it highlighted some basic infrastructure needs that are lacking for rural residents. During COVID-19, rural people have faced many of the same challenges as urban residents, yet have struggled to access adequate information, medical services, food and medicine due to an erosion of public investment in rural infrastructure. 

See more here.


hospital scaled

Health Care

In addition to the risks to individuals’ physical health, the COVID-19 pandemic affects every health care system in the United States (medical, public health, insurance) and each of their corresponding workforces. State legislatures have a responsibility and opportunity to ensure that these systems are operating effectively and equitably for the health of all people.

See more here.


business office scaled

Unemployment and Worker Protections

The Covid pandemic has had devastating impacts on every single worker and every aspect of our economy, particularly women and Black, Brown, and Indigenous workers. Too many are grappling with how to pay for the basic necessities they need to survive and many are being forced to decide between going back to a job that may be unsafe or protecting their health. Fortunately, legislators and partners can implement  innovative solutions that will make our workforce and our local economies safer and stronger.

See more here.


projects housing apartments scaled

Preventing Evictions

Our nation is in the midst of a housing crisis, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Under our nation’s system of racial capitalism, housing serves more as a financial asset or investment than a basic human right. The current system disproportionately harms working-class, Black, Indigenous, and communities of color (BIPOC)—leaving them out of both asset building opportunities and housing protections. Evictions already place a disproportionate harm on Black women and their families, who are almost four times as likely to be evicted as households led by white men. Housing stability has always been a civil rights issue that directly descends from our nation’s history of segregation and racist housing practices. 

See more here.


Official Election mail voting register scaled

Democracy and Voting

2020 Census 

Voting & Elections


albany

Reproductive Rights

COVID-19 poses specific threats to reproductive health care access and needs; further, some states have taken advantage of the crisis to play politics and restrict abortion care access. But research shows that even in the midst of COVID—and despite disinformation spread by the anti-choice opposition—people continue to oppose restricting access to reproductive freedom. 

See more here.


education young black student writing on white board

Education

The Department of Education and the White House are pressuring schools to open in the fall but are providing little to no guidance for doing so safely, threatening to withhold funding for states or districts who do not comply. While the pressure to reopen schools in the fall grows, so does the number of coronavirus cases, leaving school districts and states scrambling to keep up with a quickly changing situation. States will have to consider how to keep all students, teachers, faculty and support staff safe—not just those in wealthy communities—through budget considerations, remote learning options, financial aid, school meals, testing and tracing, and more.

See more here.


tolu bamwo nappy

Food Systems and Agriculture

Covid-19 demonstrated that the corporate food supply chain is one crisis away from failing, which puts communities at risk of being food insecure and could cause barriers for local farmers working to address the food needs of their community. In order to ensure that communities are resilient in their ability to access food during a crisis, legislators should work to ensure that there is a sound regional and/or local alternative food supply chain with a plan to get food to those who need it while also ensuring that food and farm workers are adequately protected in their workplaces.

See more here.


Canva Close up of Globe scaled

Immigration

Undocumented Immigrants make up a disproportionate share of frontline workers and are especially concentrated in high-risk industries such as food production, health care, and transportation. However, these same immigrant workers have been excluded from any economic relief included in the CARES Act and are unable to access unemployment insurance. To compound this devastating situation, Trump’s immigration enforcement machine continues to target undocumented residents and separate families at astounding rates, which has led to extreme health risks within immigration detention centers across the United States.

See more here.


rural wind turbine scaled

Rural Communities

The spread of COVID-19 took longer to reach rural America, however, once it did, it highlighted some basic infrastructure needs that are lacking for rural residents. During COVID-19, rural people have faced many of the same challenges as urban residents, yet have struggled to access adequate information, medical services, food and medicine due to an erosion of public investment in rural infrastructure. 

See more here.


shutterstock 1091186714 scaled

Defend Against Harmful Policies

State legislatures are on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic, trying to do their best to protect and provide vital social services to their constituents. While some states are passing inclusive policies to stabilize our local economies, others are using the pandemic as an opportunity to pass harmful policies that will have devastating impacts on our communities. Additionally, some policies are intended to support struggling families but are having unintended consequences. 

See more here.

What the Pandemic Primaries Can Teach us for November

SiX and the National Task Force on Election Crises discuss lessons learned from the 2020 primary elections in the midst of a pandemic and what this means for ensuring the November election is safe and accessible.

The National Taskforce on Election Crises shares lessons learned and state-level implications from their new report, "Lessons from the Primary Elections: Recommendations for a Free and Fair Election in November."

New Poll Shows Minnesotans Want Action to Address Systemic Racism & COVID-19

Overwhelming support for bold policy solutions to address systemic racism surfaces as a top priority. Coronavirus is a close second.

In the wake of the murder of George Floyd and the ensuing protest movement, a recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and conducted by TargetSmart shows Minnesota voters hold deep concerns over systemic racism, COVID impacts on elections, and economic barriers. 

Voters See Expanded Role for Government in Addressing Crisis

In an open ended question Minnesotans cited racism, injustice and police brutality as a top concern (26%), followed closely by the COVID pandemic (19%). Voters see the state government playing a major role during this crisis in the following areas: 

Voters Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections

Although voting in-person on Election Day remains the most popular option (56%), a sizable portion of Minnesota voters report that they will vote by mail (32%), and just a few indicate they plan on voting early in-person (11%). 

Whether or not they are choosing to vote in person or by mail, voters supported policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible for all eligible voters:

Voters Concerned about COVID Impact on Unemployment and Strongly Support Bold Economic Policies

By a nearly three-to-one margin, Minnesota voters want state governments to invest in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (56%) rather than the state keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (20%).

Nearly 4-in-10 Minnesota respondents reported they have been laid-off or had their hour cut (39%). Voters express grave concerns about small business closures (85%) and losing work and income (84%). Minnesotans also believe businesses should be required to provide safe working conditions or be penalized for negligence if workers get sick (50%).

Given the current crisis, Minnesotans support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many:

Click here for more results.

After Voting Debacle, New Poll Shows Wisconsinites Want Election Security

Overwhelming support for state investment to ensure health and economic security while also bolstering a fair election 

In the wake of Wisconsin’s much-criticized spring elections, a recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and conducted by TargetSmart shows Wisconsin voters broadly support reforms to safely administer elections, increase the role of the state government, and address health & safety. 

Voters Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections

Wisconsin voters strongly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (86%). Voters are split between planning to vote by mail (45%) and vote in-person on Election Day (39%).

Whether or not they are choosing to vote in person or by mail, voters supported policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible for all eligible voters:

The Role of Government in Issues Facing Wisconsin

When asked if the state government should play a role in investing in the health, economic, and overall security of the people, voters overwhelmingly supported government engagement in:

Voters Concerned about Pandemic’s Impact on Health & Safety and Support Bold Economic Policies

Almost 6-in-10 Wisconsin voters want the state government to invest in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (57%) rather than the state keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (21%).

Over 1-in-3 Wisconsin respondents reported they have been laid-off or had their hour cut (33%). Voters express grave concerns about small business closures (83%), losing work and income (81%), and being unable to afford rent or mortgage (69%). Wisconsinites also believe businesses should be required to provide safe working conditions or be penalized for negligence if workers get sick (52%).

Given the current crisis, Wisconsinites support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many:

Click here for more results.

New Poll Shows Mississippians Want Bold Policy Action

In a recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and conducted by TargetSmart, Missippians expressed a strong desire for bold policy action by the state government to address the impact of COVID on the economy and election safety and accessibility. 

Voters Concerned about COVID Impact on Health and Strongly Support Bold Economic Policies

Mississippi voters want state governments to invest in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (55%) rather than the state keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (19%).

Nearly 2-in-5 Mississippi respondents reported they have been laid-off or had their hour cut (39%). Voters express grave concerns about small business closures (87%) and losing work and income (90%). Mississippians also believe businesses should be required to provide safe working conditions or be penalized for negligence if workers get sick (52%).

Given the current crisis, Mississippians support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many:

Voters Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections

Mississippi voters overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (92%). An overwhelming majority of Mississippians plan to vote in-person on Election Day (80%) because alternatives are limited, even during the pandemic..

Missippians support policies to ensure the election is accessible for all eligible voters and want voters have a range of safe options when registering and casting their ballots:

The Role of Government in Issues Facing Mississippi

When asked if the state government should play a role in investing in the health, economic, and overall security of the people, voters overwhelmingly supported government engagement in: 

Click here for more results.

New Poll Shows Georgia Voters’ Deep Concern About Pandemic

Strong support for bold policy solutions to help working families, businesses, and ensure the safety and accessibility of elections

The coronavirus surfaces as the top issue priority for Georgia voters and this concern cuts across partisan lines.  A recent poll conducted by TargetSmart and commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) shows Georgians have deep concerns about the pandemic’s impact on the 2020 elections and the economy.

Georgians Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections and Reduce Barriers for Black Voters

Georgia voters overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (92%). Georgians are split on how they plan to vote in November, with fairly even shares of voters reporting intentions to vote early in person (30%), by mail (30%), and in-person on Election Day (37%).

Whether or not they are choosing to vote in person or by mail, voters supported policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible for all eligible voters:

Notably, Georgians agree that the state should reduce barriers that stop Black people from voting (68%) and a majority of voters (56%) agree that systemic racism has prevented Black people and other people of color from being able to participate fully in our democracy.

The Role of Government in Issues Facing Georgia

When asked if the state government should play a role in investing in the health, economic, and overall security of the people, voters overwhelmingly supported government engagement in: 

Voters Concerned about COVID Impact on Health and Strongly Support Bold Economic Policies

By a nearly three-to-one margin, Georgia voters want state governments to invest in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (61%) rather than the state keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (20%).

Over 2-in-5 Georgia respondents reported they have been laid-off or had their hour cut (41%). Voters express grave concerns about small business closures (85%) and losing work and income (87%). Georgians also believe businesses should be required to provide safe working conditions or be penalized for negligence if workers get sick (62%).

Given the current crisis, Georgians support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many:

Click here for more results.

New Poll Shows Coronavirus Pandemic is the Main Issue on Texans’ Minds

Strong support for bold policy solutions to help working families and ensure safe and accessible elections

A recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and conducted by TargetSmart shows that Texans hold deep concerns about the risk COVID-19 poses to their health, the impact on the economy and the election and they support bold policy action. 

Voters Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections

Texas voters overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (89%). Given the limited options for voters even during a pandemic, voters report they will still plan to vote early in-person (53%) or on Election Day (29%). Even though the state has taken steps to make vote by mail more difficult, 15% of Texans still prefer that option.

Texans strongly support policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible for all eligible voters:

The Role of Government in Issues Facing Texas

When asked if the state government should play a role in some of the issues facing working families, voters overwhelmingly supported government engagement in:  

Voters Concerned about COVID Impact on Health and Strongly Support Bold Economic Policies

By a nearly three-to-one margin, Texas voters want the state government to invest in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (62%) rather than the state keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (18%).

Over 1-in-3 Texas respondents reported they have been laid-off or had their hour cut (35%). Voters express grave concerns about small business closures (79%) and losing work and income (83%). Texans also believe businesses should be required to provide safe working conditions or be penalized for negligence if workers get sick (57%).

Given the current crisis, Texans support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many:

Click here for more results.

COVID Resources: Unemployment and Worker Protections

The Covid pandemic has had devastating impacts on every single worker and every aspect of our economy, particularly women and Black, Brown, and Indigenous workers. Too many are grappling with how to pay for the basic necessities they need to survive and many are being forced to decide between going back to a job that may be unsafe or protecting their health. Fortunately, legislators and partners can implement  innovative solutions that will make our workforce and our local economies safer and stronger.

Resources:

COVID Resources: Reproductive Health Care

COVID-19 poses specific threats to reproductive health care access and needs; further, some states have taken advantage of the crisis to play politics and restrict abortion care access. But research shows that even in the midst of COVID—and despite disinformation spread by the anti-choice opposition—people continue to oppose restricting access to reproductive freedom. 

Always work with your state’s reproductive rights, health, and justice coalition - contact us for support if needed!

Resources:

COVID Resources: Race, the Virus: Bias, Data, Testing and Impact

Existing demographic data has revealed the disproportionate health effects of the coronavirus on Black and Brown people, communities of color, and Indigenous people. However, comprehensive racial and ethnic data does not exist in every state nor are there uniform reporting guidelines across the country. In order to better address racial disparities, legislators are pushing for improved data collection, an investment in contact tracing programs, and greater transparency on racial impact.

Resources:

COVID Resources: Preventing Evictions

Our nation is in the midst of a housing crisis, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Under our nation’s system of racial capitalism, housing serves more as a financial asset or investment than a basic human right. The current system disproportionately harms working-class, Black, Indigenous, and communities of color (BIPOC)—leaving them out of both asset building opportunities and housing protections. Evictions already place a disproportionate harm on Black women and their families, who are almost four times as likely to be evicted as households led by white men. Housing stability has always been a civil rights issue that directly descends from our nation’s history of segregation and racist housing practices. 

Now, with the pandemic and economic crisis already harming Black Americans and people of color at astonishing rates, inaction by policymakers will drastically intensify the housing crisis, destroy the lives of millions of people, and destabilize our entire nation.

As of September 4, there is now a federal eviction moratorium from the CDC that extends protections to some renters at risk of eviction for nonpayment of rent during the COVID pandemic. For more on this, see  NLIHC for this overview of the moratorium and this FAQ for Renters. At-risk renters should contact their local legal aid  offices, tenant associations, or local bar associations ASAP.  

In addition to pressuring Congress to pass emergency rental assistance, broaden eviction preventions, and suspend rent and mortgage payments, what action can state lawmakers take?

First, see how your state ranks on Eviction Lab’s COVID-19 Housing Policy Scorecard. Then consider what immediate emergency measures your state needs to prevent mass evictions and what longer-term solutions should come next.

IMMEDIATE MEASURES

Whether by bringing legislation (if in session) or by pressuring the governor, these are key policies to consider to immediately put in place:  

LONGER TERM 

The national housing crisis will exist past the end of the pandemic, and we need systemic solutions to provide affordable housing and protect renters. These are key policies that states can pursue:

RESOURCES: 

To watch and listen:

Organizations, online resources, and written materials:

COVID Resources: Immigration

Undocumented Immigrants make up a disproportionate share of frontline workers and are especially concentrated in high-risk industries such as food production, health care, and transportation. However, these same immigrant workers have been excluded from any economic relief included in the CARES Act and are unable to access unemployment insurance. To compound this devastating situation, Trump’s immigration enforcement machine continues to target undocumented residents and separate families at astounding rates, which has led to extreme health risks within immigration detention centers across the United States. 

Resources:

COVID Resources: Health Care

In addition to the risks to individuals’ physical health, the COVID-19 pandemic affects every health care system in the United States (medical, public health, insurance) and each of their corresponding workforces. State legislatures have a responsibility and opportunity to ensure that these systems are operating effectively and equitably for the health of all people. 

Resources: