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)

SiX_How_States_Support_Workers_During_COVID-19_2021Download

Center for Economic and Policy Research

APM Research Lab

Brookings Institute

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.

  • Michigan State Senator Stephanie Chang with COVID-19 test kit in the Michigan State Capitol
    Michigan State Senator Stephanie Chang with COVID-19 test kit in the Michigan State Capitol
  • Michigan State Rep. Darrin Camilleri at the Michigan State Capitol
    Michigan State Rep. Darrin Camilleri at the Michigan State Capitol
  • Abraham Aiyash at Michigan State Capitol
    Michigan State Rep. Abraham Aiyash at Michigan State Capitol

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. 

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.  

Chart shows that Black & Indigenous Americans experience highest death tolls from COVID-19. Source: https://www.apmresearchlab.org/covid/deaths-by-race
Source: APM Research Lab

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

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

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]

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: 

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.

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:

COVID Resources: 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. 

Resources

Support for Farmers

Local Food Infrastructure

Food Security

Farm & Food Worker Safety

COVID Resources: 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.

General Resources

Resources: K-12

Resources: Institutions of Higher Education (IHE)

COVID Resources: 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. 

Resources:

What the Pandemic Primaries Can Teach Us for November

SiX and representatives from the National Task Force on Election Crises to 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 will share lessons learned and state-level implications from their new report, "Lessons from the Primary Elections: Recommendations for a Free and Fair Election in November."

The conversation will include action items for state legislators to contribute to urgent election preparations happening in your states. Join this conversation to deepen your knowledge of voting processes and to learn about the most critical issues facing the 2020 General Election.

Arizonans Overwhelmingly Support Proactive Policies in COVID Crisis

Strong support for progressive solutions to help working families and ensure the accessibility of elections

A recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) shows Arizona voters hold deep concerns over the risk that COVID-19 poses to their health and the impact on the economy.  The poll showed that Arizonans believe that the government should play a constructive role in people’s lives.  

The Role of Government in Issues Facing Arizona

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 Overwhelmingly Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections

Arizona voters overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (93%). The majority of Arizonans report that they will vote by mail in the November election (77%). However some Arizonans still report that they will go to the polls on Election Day (14%), or that they will vote early in person (7%). 

Voters overwhelmingly supported policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible:

Voters Concerned about COVID Impact and Strongly Support Progressive Economic Policies

Two out of three voters believe Arizona state government should invest more in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (65%) rather than state government keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, unemployment, and health insurance (16%).

Arizona has been hard hit by the pandemic with one in three reporting that they have been laid off or had their hours cut (34%).  Arizonans report they are concerned about the people losing work and income due to the virus (87%), small businesses and restaurants closing down permanently (85%), unable to afford their rent or mortgage (76%) and people being forced to choose between their health and their job (72%).

Given the current crisis, Arizonans support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many and make life easier:

Click here for more results.

Floridians Want State Lawmakers to Act on Threats Created by COVID Crisis

Strong support for progressive solutions to help working families and ensure the elections are accessible and safe

A recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) shows Florida voters hold deep concerns over the risk that COVID-19 poses to their health and the impact on the economy and the election.  Two in three Floridians believe the worst of the pandemic is yet to come (65%). 

The Role of Government in Issues Facing Florida

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 Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections

Florida voters overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (92%). The majority of Floridians report that they will vote by mail (52%). However, 47% still plan to vote in person, with 27% planning to vote on Election Day and 20% planning to early vote.

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 and Strongly Support Progressive Economic Policies

By a four to one margin voters believe Florida state government should invest more in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (64%) rather than state government keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure and unemployment insurance (16%).

Florida has been hard hit by the pandemic with one in three of Floridians responding that they have been laid off or had their hours cut (34%).  Two out of three Floridians support extending and expanding unemployment for those workers who have been laid off (65%).    Support for this policy cuts across partisan lines  with Democrats (78%), Republicans (52%)  Independents (65%) in favor.

The pandemic is a top of mind concern for Floridians who report they are concerned about the people losing work and income due to the virus (84%), small businesses and restaurants closing down permanently (84%), Floridians contracting the virus and dying (79%), people of Florida unable to afford their rent or mortgage (79%) and people in Florida being forced to choose between their health and their job (71%).

Given the current crisis, Floridians support policies that will address the hardships being faced by many and make life easier for working families:

Click here for more results.

###

As State Legislature Goes Into Special Session, New Poll Shows Nevadans Support Action on Threats Created by COVID Crisis

Strong support for bold policy solutions to help working families and ensure the safety and accessibility of elections

As the Nevada state legislature is set to begin a special session to address COVID-19 related issues, a recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) shows Nevada voters hold deep concerns over the risk that 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

Nevada voters overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (89%). The majority of Nevadans report that they will vote either early in person (39%) or vote by mail (34%).  However one-in-five believe that they will go to the polls (22% on Election Day). 

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:

"Nevadans want this legislature to take action to ensure all eligible voters have the opportunity to vote and aren’t forced to choose between their health and their vote," said Stacey Shinn, Nevada State Director for SiX.

The Role of Government in Issues Facing Nevada

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 and Strongly Support Bold Economic Policies

By a three-to-one margin, voters believe Nevada state government should invest more in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (58%) rather than state government keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure and unemployment insurance (23%).

Nevada has been hard hit by the pandemic with over half of respondents reporting that they have been laid off or had their hours cut (52%).  Nevadans report they are concerned about the people losing work and income due to the virus (89%), small businesses and restaurants closing down permanently (89%) and people of Nevada unable to afford their rent or mortgage (81%).

Given the current crisis, Nevadans support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many and make life easier for working families:

“These results show how hard hit Nevada has been by this pandemic. People all across this state are hurting and they strongly support bold policy action by this legislature,” said Shinn.

Click here for more results.

###

Michiganders Want State Lawmakers to Act on Threats of COVID Crisis

Strong support for progressive solutions to help working families and ensure the safety and security of elections

A recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) shows Michigan voters hold deep concerns over the risk that COVID-19 poses to their health and the impact on the economy.  The poll showed that Michiganders believe that the government should play a constructive role in people’s economic lives.  

The Role of Government in Issues Facing Michigan

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 Overwhelmingly Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections

Michigan voters overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (87%). The majority of Michiganders report that they will vote by mail in the November election (60%). However one-in-three believe that they will go to the polls (34%). 

Voters overwhelmingly supported policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible:

Voters Concerned about COVID Impact and Strongly Support Progressive Economic Policies

By a three-to-one margin, voters believe Michigan state government should invest more in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (58%) rather than state government keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, unemployment, and health insurance (18%).

As for how legislators should address the potential budget shortfalls due to COVID, respondents overwhelmingly favored closing corporate tax loopholes (90%) and increasing taxes and financial penalties on companies that pollute Michigan’s air and water (88%). There is also strong support–77%–for increasing taxes on the wealthiest individuals in Michigan. 

Eight-in-ten voters are concerned about people in Michigan losing work and income due to the coronavirus outbreak. Michiganders are equally concerned about small businesses and restaurants closing down permanently in Michigan (81%). 

A majority of voters also support measures that would benefit those returning to work and those who remain unemployed, including requiring businesses to provide safe working conditions and penalties if workers get sick (56%) and extending the length of time that laid-off workers can receive unemployment compensation and increasing the amount they receive (55%).

Given the current crisis, Michiganders support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many and make life easier for working families:

Click here for more results.

###

Pennsylvanians Support Progressive Agenda in Harrisburg

A recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) shows Pennsylvanians are concerned about the spread of COVID-19 and support widespread testing, prioritize working people in the economic response, and support reforms to make our democracy stronger. 

Pennsylvanians Broadly Support Widespread Free Coronavirus Testing, Vaccination, and Treatment 

Residents strongly agree with: 

Pennsylvania Voters Support Various Economic Responses that Prioritize Working People

A majority of residents agree that: 

Additionally, when presented with two possible solutions for addressing Pennsylvania’s budget shortfall due to the coronavirus pandemic, a solid majority of people gravitate toward the progressive argument for increasing taxes on the wealthy and out-of-state corporations. Nearly two in three Pennsylvanians express a preference for increased taxes while fewer than one in three voters prefer spending cuts on core services. 

Pennsylvanians are also broadly open to a range of working people’s policies, including a $15 minimum wage, paid family leave, and paid sick leave. 

Democracy Reform Agenda Broadly Popular, Particularly Among Black Voters 

Pennsylvanians are very supportive of democracy reforms, including:

For the full poll memo, see here. 

The COVID Crisis Reveals Deep Fissures in American Society

“Many Americans are now experiencing what poor communities live with daily. We have communities perennially facing lower wages, higher poverty, lack of access to health care, and lack of access to child care. Shift workers, low-wage workers, agrarian workers, and service workers are now being pushed over the edge. We must be intentional about identifying these challenges and concrete about naming and pursuing the solutions. These issues aren’t ancillary. They are central to who we are. The poor deserve expanded and deepened support. The poorest among us are often the people working the hardest. And they deserve to be protected. It is not socialism to have a social safety net.”

-- The Hon. Stacey Abrams, former GA House Minority Leader,  on COVID as featured in Elle Magazine April 15, 2020

For over 40 years, we’ve witnessed the erosion of our public structures and social safety net programs while extremists have weaponized the idea of who is worthy of care or support during moments of need. By using a divide-and-conquer framework that devalues some people because of the color of their skin or where they come from, we are all left with a system that is incapable of weathering the current storm. COVID shows us that this old approach to policymaking leaves all of us—Black, white, and brown alike—too vulnerable to ongoing harm.

SiX believes this analysis is central to the work ahead for state legislators and must be core to our collective response. Based on this framework, we want to offer specific guidance to state legislators seeking clarity on how to orient to the weeks and months ahead:

1. Advance race-forward policies and analyses.

From expanded COVID testing to access to health care to paid sick time to expanded medical leave to unemployment insurance to managing state budgets, legislators will uniquely be faced with balancing bold ideas with impactful implementation. Essential workers—nurses and health care workers, delivery workers, farmworkers, restaurant staff, and many others —are more likely to be women and people of color and are disproportionately impacted by this crisis. As you consider any policy topic, we encourage you to make an explicit commitment to ensure your actions have equitable impacts by centering those most impacted in your policy response. 

2. Protect and expand our democracy.

If we understand the current crisis as an extension of our underlying economic and societal challenges, we must expand and protect access to democratic safeguards—from voting-at-home to transparent governance to equitable decision-making in public life.

3. Use all of the tools you can to effect change.

Some of you may return back to legislative sessions while others of you are facing indefinite recesses, early adjournment, or uncertain special sessions. Although each of your circumstances may differ, we implore you to be bold in advocating for your communities by using a wide array of tools to meet your policy objectives. 

4. Focus on resilience, not nostalgia.

For many of us, we eagerly want to return to a time before this crisis—when thousands of our friends and families were not taken by COVID, when millions of our neighbors weren’t unemployed or facing eviction, and when gathering at the local watering hole was more common than wearing a face mask in public. But nostalgia can cloud our thinking, even when done with the best of intentions. We must remember how precarious our democracy, economy, and society were before this crisis and remind ourselves of what we’ve learned from seeing the failures of our systems in full view. With this clarity, focus your efforts on rebuilding a resilient, healthy, and prosperous country for generations to come.

We have faith in your ability to lead, even in the most difficult of circumstances, and SiX is ready to help you in the weeks and months to come.

Abortion is Essential Healthcare

Crisis does not erase inequality. It lays it bare.

We've seen how low-income communities of color, have been hardest hit by the COVID-19 crisis. And we've seen how anti-abortion officials are pulling out all the stops to use this crisis as an excuse to ban abortion.

During this unprecedented pandemic, our elected officials should be focused on our families’ health and safety. It’s unconscionable that politicians would use a national crisis to try to deny critical health care to anyone. Now more than ever we should be coming together as communities to make sure everyone can safely get the healthcare they need, not actively working to deny our neighbors care--including and especially abortion care.

That's why SiX Repro Team worked with legal, medical, and legislative experts to release a 19-minute video on abortion as essential healthcare.

Legislating in a Pandemic: Transparent & Remote Governance

Contents

Table Of Contents
  1. Considerations for Transparent & Accessible Governance in Emergencies
  2. Examples of Remote Governance Transitions
  3. Reads & Resources

As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, a growing list of state legislatures have postponed session and legislators themselves have started testing positive for the virus. While some states quickly moved to remote sessions and amended open meeting laws to prevent crowds at state capitols, many are struggling to make this transition in a transparent and accessible manner. Other states have limited or no government continuity plans in place, and some are grappling with constitutions or state laws that appear to prohibit remote governance and voting altogether.

While this is an unprecedented time in American history, where preserving the public health and the continuity of government collide, it will not be the last time that legislatures must shift how they do business. At extraordinary moments like today, state legislatures must adopt methods of flexible, remote governance while prioritizing transparency and public access.

State legislatures adapting to the new reality of governance can learn from early experiences, challenges, and critiques that other state and local governments have faced in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. We recognize that shifting your state’s approach to governance will not be easy and that there will be hiccups and mistakes along the way. To anticipate and overcome these challenges and to find viable solutions to keep government working and accessible, we encourage state legislators to work with their executive branch counterparts, state technology officers, local officials, state/local advocates, peer legislators from across the country, and of course, SiX.

After reading this blog, email democracy@stateinnovation.org with your remaining questions and your asks for direct support. We are all taking this transition one step at a time, and we want to meet you and your state where you are.

Considerations for Transparent & Accessible Governance in Emergencies

Common Cause released a strong set of transparency recommendations for national, state, and local officials to follow when transitioning to remote forms of governance and adjusting open meeting laws. SiX strongly recommends that state legislatures consider these guidelines when setting up new, emergency governance structures: 

SiX also recognizes that, even by following the above principles, a rapid transition to remote governance can and will exacerbate barriers to participation in governance for many community members. While continuity of governance through remote voting and committee hearings is key as this crisis evolves, legislators must consider how this transition will impact equitable access for marginalized constituents and work to find creative solutions. This includes (but is not limited to) ensuring access for people with:

Examples of Remote Governance Transitions

Below we highlight several examples of rule changes, statutory changes, and executive orders that have enabled states to adapt and govern flexibly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Note that these are not perfect examples and many could benefit from stronger or clearer transparency provisions in line with the above guidance from Common Cause. That said, we hope sharing these examples offers a helpful base of information for other states to analyze and build on.

We will continue to update this list with new examples as more states make this transition and learn from each other.

Vermont

Vermont legislators and other public bodies must now convene electronically and provide virtual public access to all meetings. Legislators are primarily using Zoom to convene and deliberate. (This Tweet from a Vermont government reporter offers a taste of what remote legislating looks like!)

2020 Vermont H 681

Sec. 5. LEGISLATIVE INTENT; COVID-19 RESPONSE AND OPEN MEETINGS BILL AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE

It is the intent of the General Assembly that during the continued spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the State of Vermont public bodies should organize and hold open meetings in a manner that will protect the health and welfare of the public while providing access to the operations of government. Public bodies should meet electronically and provide the public with electronic access to meetings in lieu of a designated physical location. Accordingly, this act sets forth temporary Open Meeting Law procedures in response to COVID-19.

Sec. 6. OPEN MEETING LAW; TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DESIGNATED PHYSICAL MEETING LOCATION REQUIREMENTS

(a) Notwithstanding 1 V.S.A. § 312(a), during a declared state of emergency under 20 V.S.A. chapter 1 due to COVID-19:

(1) a quorum or more of the members of a public body may attend a regular, special, or emergency meeting by electronic or other means without being physically present at a designated meeting location;

(2) the public body shall not be required to designate a physical meeting location where the public may attend; and

(3) the members and staff of the public body shall not be required to be physically present at a designated meeting location.

(b) When the public body meets electronically under subsection (a) of this section, the public body shall use technology that permits the attendance of the public through electronic or other means. The public body shall allow the public to access the meeting by telephone whenever feasible. The public body shall post information on how the public may access meetings electronically and shall include this information in the published agenda for each meeting. Unless unusual circumstances make it impossible for them to do so, the legislative body of each municipality and each school board shall record its meetings held pursuant to this section.

(c) In the event of a staffing shortage during a declared state of emergency under 20 V.S.A. chapter 1 due to COVID-19, a public body may extend the time limit for the posting of minutes prescribed in 1 V.S.A. § 312(b)(2) to not more than 10 days from the date of the meeting.


Rhode Island

On March 16, Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo issued Executive Order 20-05 which relieved state/local officials from open meeting law prohibitions on the “use of telephonic or electronic communication to conduct meetings.” Though the Executive Order provided for virtual public access to government meetings, technical challenges and ambiguities to these rules became apparent in just the first week. Common Cause Rhode Island and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Rhode Island quickly sent a letter to state officials urging modifications to the Executive Order including: clarifications to transparency requirements for government bodies that continue to meet in person but are no longer accessible to the public (i.e. because of closed capitols) and protocols to safeguard public participation in the event of technological glitches or connectivity issues (i.e. dropped video conference or conference call lines). Other states can anticipate and learn from the Rhode Island experience.


Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania lawmakers enacted multiple pieces of legislation to enable remote governance. Legislators in both the House and Senate are now able to vote on legislation and participate in committee hearings remotely. As of March 26, 2020, the State Capitol remained open for (in-person) session but a large portion of legislators intentionally participated remotely via video chat to enable social distancing.

2020 Pennsylvania HR 834 RESOLVED, That a member who is not present in the Hall of the House may designate either the Majority or Minority Whip to cast the member's vote on any question as to which there has been consultation between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader; and be it further
RESOLVED, That, after consultation between the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, if the process permitted for designated voting under this temporary rule is not agreed upon, the vote shall be cast pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives in existence on March 15, 2020; and be it further
RESOLVED, That a designation shall be accomplished by filing an attestation with the Chief Clerk which affirms that the member will not be present in the Hall of the House and identifies either the Majority or Minority Whip as the designee; and be it further [...]
RESOLVED, That, unless amended or revoked by the House, the temporary rules adopted in this resolution shall expire when the declaration of disaster emergency issued by the Governor on March 6, 2020, is terminated by executive order, proclamation or operation of law.

2020 Pennsylvania S.R. 318 RESOLVED, That, notwithstanding Rule 14(h) of the Senate, members may remotely participate in committee meetings as follows: remote participation means simultaneous, interactive participation in a committee meeting by committee members not physically present at the location of the meeting, through means of communication technologies designed to accommodate and facilitate such simultaneous, interactive participation; committee members participating remotely shall be counted for the purpose of determining a quorum; a quorum shall be established through a roll call; and technology employed for remote committee meetings must safeguard the integrity of the legislative process and maintain the deliberative character of the meeting by providing for simultaneous, aural and verbal communication among all participants.

Maine

Before adjourning early for 2020, Maine lawmakers enacted legislation to allow public bodies covered by the state’s open meeting law to conduct business remotely provided that the public is given advance notice, all participating members are able to hear and speak to one another, there is a clear method of electronic public participation, and all official votes are taken by roll call.

2020 Maine LD 2167 §403-A. Public proceedings through remote access during declaration of state of emergency due to COVID-19

1. Remote access. Notwithstanding any provision of law or municipal charter provision or ordinance to the contrary, during a state of emergency declared by the Governor in accordance with Title 37-B, section 742 due to the outbreak of COVID-19, a body subject to this subchapter may conduct a public proceeding through telephonic, video, electronic or other similar means of remote participation under the following conditions:

A. Notice of the public proceeding has been given in accordance with section 406, and the notice includes the method by which the public may attend in accordance with paragraph C;

B. Each member of the body who is participating in the public proceeding is able to hear and speak to all the other members during the public proceeding and members of the public attending the public proceeding in the location identified in the notice given pursuant to paragraph A are able to hear all members participating at other locations;

C. The body determines that participation by the public is through telephonic, video, electronic or other similar means of remote participation; and

D. All votes taken during the public proceeding are taken by roll call vote.

2. Application to legislative proceedings. This section does not apply to public proceedings of the Legislature, a legislative committee or the Legislative Council, except that while the state of emergency as set out in subsection 1 is in effect, the Legislature, a legislative committee or the Legislative Council may restrict attendance by the public to remote access by telephonic, video, electronic or other similar means. This section also does not apply to town meetings held pursuant to Title 30-A, section 2524 or regional school unit budget meetings pursuant to Title 20-A, section 1483.

3. Repeal. This section is repealed 30 days after the termination of the state of emergency as set out in subsection 1.

Nebraska

On March 17, 2020, “Governor Pete Ricketts issued an executive order [(Executive Order No. 20-03)] to permit state and local governmental boards, commissions, and other public bodies to meet by videoconference, teleconference, or other electronic means through May 31, 2020. The Governor’s order stipulated that all such virtual meetings must be available to members of the public, including media, to give citizens the opportunity to participate as well as to be duly informed of the meetings’ proceedings. The Governor’s order did not waive the advanced publicized notice and the agenda requirements for public meetings [(set forth in (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1411)].”


New Jersey

The New Jersey legislature enacted a fairly simple statute to allow lawmakers to use technology or electronic means to conduct business if the Governor has declared a state of emergency. It does specifically outline transparency requirements. Lawmakers simultaneously enacted a law that allows local government bodies to govern remotely as well (see 2020 New Jersey A 3850).

2020 New Jersey A 3852
b. All sessions of the Legislature shall be held at Trenton or, on a temporary basis, for ceremonial or commemorative purposes or, notwithstanding section 1 of P.L.1963, c.118 (C.52:1-1.1), by reason of emergency or other exigency, at such other locations in the State as shall be designated by the Legislature by concurrent resolution.
c. During a period of emergency or exigency, as determined by the Governor pursuant to the laws of this State or by the Legislature pursuant to concurrent resolution, the Legislature may use any technology or electronic means to conduct its business or otherwise carry out its purposes, or to comply with the requirements of paragraph 6 of Section IV of Article IV or, for the purpose of ensuring the continuity of governmental operations, of paragraph 4 of Section VI of Article IV of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey.

Texas

On March 16, 2020, Texas Governor Greg Abbott suspended provisions of the state’s open meeting law that requires “government officials and members of the public to be physically present at a specified meeting location,” while emphasizing key transparency provisions for remote meetings. According to the Governor’s office:

The directive also allows state and local officials to contact the Texas Department of Information Resources for information and support setting up teleconferences and video conferences. Governor Abbott invoked emergency authority under Texas Gov. Code § 418.016 to change these requirements.

Reads & Resources

COVID-19 Repro Resources

In this urgent global health pandemic, anti-abortion lawmakers are once again playing politics with people's lives and health, and there are very real reproductive health impacts and needs this moment presents.
 

Click here for general RFLC talking points on the coronavirus.


Important: Here are some issues that you should talk to your repro coalition and abortion and family planning providers about. In some states, they may want public support and in other places, it may be harmful to raise these issues at all, even within the administration or with other, less friendly, legislators or officials. Your support of reproductive health care is crucial at this time. Please check in with the state coalition organizations and reproductive health care providers to see how best you can support them during this difficult time, and we encourage you to reach out to us to connect you if you don’t already have an existing relationship.
 

Coronavirus 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 will use this space to share policy, communication, and organizing resources that you can use to respond to the health, economic, and social impacts this is having on your communities.  

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 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.

The Basics

Legislative Sessions and Operating Remotely

Race and the Virus: Bias, Data, Testing, and Impact

Structural racism puts people of color at greater risk to both the health and economic impacts of COVID-19.

Racial data
Coronavirus data released from the CDC does not yet include breakdowns by race. We cannot continue to fight this pandemic blindly.

Impacts
The Coronavirus Pandemic and the Racial Wealth Gap
Coronavirus Compounds Inequality and Endangers Communities of Color
On the Frontlines at Work and at Home: The Disproportionate Economic Effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Women of Color

Health Care

Unemployment and Protecting Stimulus Paychecks

See SiX’s Paid Family and Medical Leave Policy playbook here.

Policy Recommendations:

Examples of States’ Paid Leave Legislation in response to COVID-19

Additional Resources

Preventing Evictions

Preventing Utility Shut Offs and Payment Deferment

Democracy and Voting

2020 Census 

Voting & Elections

Reproductive Rights

Medical and Research Resources

Education

Rural Communities and Agriculture

See SiX's talking points and policy solutions for rural communities and local agriculture and our memo outlining how stimulus money is expected to come into states to aid agriculture and rural communities. There are still a number of unknowns and we are continuing to monitor the situation closely.

The $2 trillion stimulus package included $9.5 billion dollars for agricultural producers impacted by coronavirus, including producers of specialty crops, producers that supply local food systems, including farmers markets, restaurants, and schools, and livestock producers, including dairy producers. You can read a summary compiled by the National Farmers Union here. Here is an analysis from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

The United States Senate Committee on Finance has a breakdown on their website of the rural healthcare resources in the recent Stimulus package. You can read it here.

Resources for Farmers in Your District

Resources for Farm Workers

Here is a guidance from NC Health & Human Services for migrant farm workers and their employers (only in English)

Immigration

Other Policies to Consider

Child Care

Consumer Protection

Criminal Justice

Economic Development

Judicial

Social Services

Hate Crime Prevention

Broadband Access

Quarantined Individuals

Miscellaneous

State Budgets

Messaging and Connecting with Constituents during Social Distancing

Messaging

Connecting with Constituents

Here are some ideas and examples to help you connect with your constituents remotely:

Reach out if we can help you plan or execute any of these ideas.

National Resources on Economic Impact

Overview of the Federal Response Package

Overview of the Federal Response Package

Defend Against Harmful Policies

Opportunistic Abortion Bans

Elected officials in numerous states --including West Virginia, Alaska, Texas, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Iowa and Indiana-- have taken steps to restrict abortions under the pretense of preserving medical supplies and hospital beds, claiming abortions are not “nonessential” procedures that can delayed till the end of the epidemic and most abortions do not take place in hospitals. See the Reproductive Health Care section on this page for more.

Reopening Too Soon?

Elected officials in Pennsylvania, Minnsota, Michigan, Idaho, and Florida have pushed back against stay-at-home orders, non-essential work bans, and school closures. The premature calls for returning to ‘business as usual’ threaten the safety and lives of communities.

Check out the LSSC Virtual Training on What Local Governments Can and Should Do to Respond to the Public Health Crisis for further guidance on the importance of local and state governments using their authority to protect communities from the virus.

Also check out the CAP tracker on how states and localities are enforcing stay-at-home orders

Limits to Voting Expansions

As states grapple with how to prepare their electoral systems to handle the pandemic’s unique challenges, legislators across the country have pushed for reforms (mail-in-ballots, absentee voting, deadline extensions, etc.) as a safe, secure, and accessible way for voters to participate without risking their health. However, opposition to such expansions, in states like Minnesota, Arizona, and Wisconsin, jeopardize citizens’ abilities to safely vote. See the Democracy and Voting section on this page for more.