A Message from SiX and SiX Action's Board Chairs, Cathy Duvall and Tamieka Atkins
As the board chairs of SiX and SiX Action, it’s with deep gratitude that we share Neha Patel and Jessie Ulibarri are transitioning from their roles as co-executive directors of SiX and SiX Action with thoughtful intention. Their last day with SiX will be March 31, 2025.
On behalf of the SiX and SiX Action boards, we are grateful to Neha and Jessie for co-creating a vibrant and resilient organization that will last well beyond their leadership. Their vision and planning has prepared SiX to continue building power with state legislators and partners for the long-term.
Over the past seven years Neha and Jessie have more than tripled the size of the organization’s operating budget, doubled the size of staff, built a strong financial reserve and multi-year funding pipeline, and have helped SiX’s programs to grow in their impact.
SiX has never been stronger.
Our state legislator and partner network is over12,000 members strong - across all 50 states - and growing. Our legislator cohorts continue to innovate with programming like partnering with FTC Chair Lina Khan to hear anti-monopoly concerns from midwestern farmers and legislators; amplifying the voices of state legislators time and again who push back against attempts to limit abortion access at the U.S. Supreme Court; training over 1,000 state legislators through the Progressive Governance Academy, a joint partnership with Local Progress and re:power; producing research reports on child labor and taxing investment gains; and launching two new legislator cohorts – Economic Power Project and State Gender Policy Collective – within the past year.
To our partners, our funders, our legislative network - we’re just getting started. Thank you for entrusting your time, talents, and trust with SiX. We are confident in SiX’s ability to thrive for its next chapter. To this end, we will be launching a formal search for executive leadership in early fall.
Jessie and Neha will see us through organizational milestones and external dynamics, including the 2024 election, our 10 year organizational anniversary, and SiX’s high-profile 2024 National Conference. SiX will continue to be with you in this work for the long-haul.
Should you have any questions or want to reach out to us, the board chairs, please contact us at boardchairs@stateinnovation.org.
In shared power,
Cathy Duvall and Tamieka Atkins SiX and SiX Action Board Chairs
A Message from SiX Co-Executive Directors Neha Patel and Jessie Ulibarri
We’re writing with joyful and bittersweet news. We will be transitioning out of our roles as co-executive directors in 2025. We are so proud of the organization we’ve helped to build and we also know it’s time for a new chapter. We are leaving the organization from a position of strength and joy -- both for ourselves and for the colleagues who will remain at SiX. After over 7 years of co-leadership at SiX, we have envisioned a different future for ourselves and for SiX.
We arrived into our partnership with intention, care and love and we want to transition out of SIX in the same way.
Most people don’t know this - we didn’t know each other before we entered into these roles together. But it was clear from the first day that we would need each other - our experiences, our talents, and our support - to build an institution that could transform American governance from the states outward. We didn’t realize how radical it was at the time, but we trusted that if we started in relationship, with respect and love for each other as people, we could build an intentional and enduring partnership. We know that the way you build power is by sharing power -- and that is as true in organizational leadership as it is in elected office. It should be no surprise then that we are ready to pass the baton of leadership to others who will grow power by/with/for our communities. We build a bigger “we” by ensuring there is more space for folks to lead across our movements.
When we came to these roles, we experienced pretty traditional views of how leadership looked, where a single leader was responsible for every major decision. But our lived experiences told us that we could build a very different approach to leadership. In our families, in our communities, and in our relationships with our movement peers, we see that collaborative governance is the way we build durable outcomes that can last beyond any one single leader.
We set out to challenge the status quo of what leadership could look like so folks of color could thrive in leadership. There were central questions of our leadership journey that have been foundational to us since day one. Could leadership be for people like us in a way that wasn’t extractive, but generative and joyful? This has influenced every aspect of our work at SiX.
How we govern.
How we build a culture of care as managers.
How we incorporate other worldviews into our own.
How we manage conflict and disagreements.
How we movement stitch.
How we center each other’s humanity.
How we love.
We knew what we needed for us and our people. That is why we fight for collaborative governance as a way to be. More people need to be involved for the outcomes we fight for to be real for everyone. So we structured leadership in a way that isn’t focused on just the two of us. We know in our bones that individuals aren’t the answer -- it is community that saves us. When we treat people as people first, and do the work together, we can overcome every obstacle and that is true of our institutions. We are so proud that this is true for SiX. Which is why we think this is exactly the right time to plan a transition.
It is a responsibility to set the conditions for who comes after us – so they can lead with abundance - and this is our way of meeting that responsibility with love and care. We have shared power at SiX and this is a moment for us to share it again. This is our way of doing that. Our identities and lived experiences as people of color are so central to how we have led, that it’s hard to separate this aspect from our leadership to how we transition. This is the best time for others to lead this organization, and we feel called to other forms of movement leadership and presence in our own lives.
The SIX of today is not Jessie and Neha's SiX. It is the SiX of everyone who has helped to build this place over the past decade and everyone who is still here, building for the future. We couldn’t be more proud of the journey we have been on with SiX and its incredible board, staff, partners and funders. We have collectively built an enduring institution that is centered on the values we hold dear to us, building a future we haven't seen yet.
It has been an honor to meet so many of you who are doing so many great things. As we say, movement work is like a choir - the singing continues with joy - even when some take a breath. We aren’t done world-building with you or with each other. You’ll hear our voices again in a different part of the choir.
In Solidarity,
Neha + Jessie
P.S. We invite you all to continue building our future with joy and to join us December 11-13 in Atlanta, Georgia as we celebrate the 10 year anniversary of SiX at our national conference!
Pressure's On: How SiX Legislators are Fighting Back
Pressure's On: How SiX Legislators are Fighting Back
By: Nahal Zamani, Senior Vice President, State Strategy & Services
Across the country many statehouses have wrapped up their legislative sessions, and have faced extraordinary challenges along the way. SiX’s network of legislators engages in a strategic deliberation each legislative session by responding to immediate threats and the onslaught of attacks on our rights, while also daring to be visionary. This is never an easy balance.
Below, we share significant learnings and moments from this year’s legislative session:
When anti-abortion lawmakers came after bodily autonomy, SiX’s network of legislators was on the frontlines.
This June, our SiX Reproductive Rights team premiered Fractured, a five-part, first-of-its-kind docuseries spotlighting legislators in action amid one of the most contentious and monumental fights of our lifetime.
Caption: North Carolina Sen. Natalie Murdock, Former Kentucky Rep. Attica Scott, and Florida Rep. Anna Eskamani, all participants in the Fractured docuseries, hold pañuelos verde, a symbol of solidarity with the transnational movement for abortion rights ignited in Argentina.
Fractured captures lawmakers from our Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council, medical professionals, faith leaders, and activists mounting a response to the most dire assault on abortion rights in decades. At a time when Americans’ fundamental rights are increasingly under threat from authoritarian forces, Fractured showcased a cross-section of elected officials who work with communities, not against them; support bodily autonomy, not undermine it; and inspire hope, not cynicism.
This legislative session, our Reproductive Rights team worked closely with legislators and movement partners to advance and protect abortion access across the country. Despite consistent public opinion in support of legal abortion, abortion is banned in 13 states, leaving large regions of the country without abortion care and contributing to increased wait times at clinics in states where abortion remains legal. Some states are further testing the legal limits of the post-Roe landscape by passing extreme restrictions, such as a ban on helping a young person travel out of state to access legal abortion care. Find out more in our latest publication, The State Abortion Policy Landscape One Year Post-Roe,in partnership with the Guttmacher Institute.
Lastly, states like GA, TX, MS, and MO expanded postpartum Medicaid coverage, an issue that has been championed by Black women legislators and reproductive justice groups for years. And in a major win, over-the-counter and pharmacist-prescribed birth control was expanded in states like IL, NV, NY, and MD.
We championed working families and advanced economic justice.
In May, a strong comprehensive paid family and medical leave insurance program was signed into law in MN, making it the first midwestern state to pass paid family and medical leave. Under the new program, most workers in the state will be able to take up to 20 weeks of job-protected paid leave if they qualify. This legislation was led by Sen. Alice Mann and Rep. Ruth Richardson, members of SiX’s Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) Legislator Cohort Project.
Earlier this month, ME became the 13th state, along with D.C., to pass paid family and medical leave legislation. Under this legislation, nearly all workers in ME will be entitled to up to 12 weeks of paid leave each year if they qualify. This legislation was also led by our cohort members, Sen. Maddie Daughtry and Rep. Kristen Cloutier. Similarly, MI repealed its anti-worker ‘right-to-work’ law; NV and VT passed state-sponsored retirement savings plans; and MN passed a new antitrust law establishing a “public interest standard” for hospital mergers, protecting access to care and workers’ collective bargaining power.
The fight continues in all states, and as we celebrate the victories, we also recognize that working families faced a plethora of regressive legislative proposals, too. IA and AR passed dangerous laws weakening child labor protections; FL passed legislation undermining public sector unions' right to organize, and TX passed an omnibus preemption law erasing countless local laws, including heat stress protections for outdoor workers.
We remained steadfast in our commitment to advocate for Black farmers and rural communities against corporate lobbyists.
We hosted U.S. Sen. Cory Booker’s staff for a Justice for Black Farmers: Where Are We Now? Webinar, focusing on the Justice for Black Farmers Act and how to advance farmer equity in the states. The SiX Agriculture & food systems team also supported legislators who organized alongside advocates and impacted individuals to advance farmer equity bills, including a Black farmer breakfast for legislators in GA and Black Farmer Lobby days in NC and IL.This work demonstrates the power that comes from legislators and advocates working in partnership to advance good policy forward.
For the past two years in OR, rural community members, advocates, and legislators have been attempting to strengthen the way the state regulates mega livestock operations or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) in order to protect rural communities and the environment from the negative impacts associated with raising massive numbers of animals in confinement. SiX partnered with local impacted communities to host a legislator tour of proposed poultry CAFO sites, leading to a working group examining shortcomings with how states regulated mega livestock operations and culminating with the introduction of the CAFO Moratorium bill. This bill, despite being amended and weakened due in part to pressure from the corporate agribusiness lobby, demonstrates what can be achieved when legislators work directly with impacted communities, farmers, and advocates instead of corporate lobbyists.
Protecting democracy remains a crucible for our work together.
Democracy remains under threat. This legislative session, CT expanded early in-person voting, preclearance requirements for problematic jurisdictions, expanded language assistance, increased protections against discrimination in voting, and instituted a civil offense for poll worker intimidation; ME expanded mail ballot access for caregivers and people with disabilities, and instituted automatic voter registration; in AL, compensation for election clerks and inspectors was raised; NV created a new reservation based polling system; and in AR, we saw increased flexibility for overseas voters returning ballots and for election officials to establish vote centers. CT, MN, and NM passed state Voting Rights Acts. We also remain extraordinarily proud of the leadership of the legislators of Southern Freedom to Vote Alliance who are working across the South to advance democracy.
As we saw in the resolution of crucial U.S. Supreme Court cases,state legislators remain at the front lines of how we protect our freedom to vote and uphold the tenets of our democracy.
We fought back against the passage of anti-LGBTQ+ laws that were both heinous and insidious.
This session, we also saw efforts to protect access to gender affirming care, expand existing civil rights provisions, and ban conversion therapy. When anti-LGBTQ fights in FL spread outside the state into NC, SiX connected advocates on the ground in FL to both NC and GA to learn best practices and build off of our collective work.
SiX has maintained a deep focus on organizing and caucus work, especially with regard to racial, gender, and LGBTQ identity. We believe that supporting and empowering identity caucuses is one of the most powerful strategies for legislators to reshape the center of power in their respective legislatures, and to ultimately build long-term durable power for their communities. From helping launch the first LGBTQ caucus in NV, to coordinating public support from all four identity caucuses in CO for the Equal Pay bill, to garnering support from members to speak up for OK State Rep. Mauree Turner and MT State Rep. Zooey Zephyr after they faced calls for censure for defending the rights and dignity of transgender, non-binary, and intersex people – SiX is embedded with our caucus members and chairs.
The road ahead.
While we may have struggled, each and every one of us consistently showed up and engaged to fight for our values and defend our freedoms. What some consider to be “legislative losses,” SiX sees opportunities for guiding how we must work and govern differently. Together, we must look forward and strategize with our movement partners and our legislator network to shape the country we want to live in.
This is co-governance at its finest.
Census Get Out the Count Toolkit for State Legislators
The 2020 Census officially kicks off March 12th, when households across the country have started receiving mailed invitations with instructions to respond to the census.
State legislators have a uniquely strong platform and a responsibility to get out the count in communities all across the country. And SiX is here to help.
Offers sample digital content for legislators/staff to directly pull, adapt, and schedule (e.g. social media, graphics, website blurbs); and
Lists an extensive set of resources to help you tailor your outreach to different hard-to-count communities.
Feel free to email the SiX Democracy Team with any questions or for support.
Quick action step! Post SiX's census graphic and use this link to update your Facebook profile frame showing your support for the census!
New Legislator Resource: Ending Prison Gerrymandering
State legislators have a crucial role in advancing accurate and equitable redistricting. That means ending prison gerrymandering: the harmful practice of counting incarcerated people as residents of prison districts instead of at home.
Our brief includes messaging guidance, policy design considerations, practical lessons on bill drafting, coalitions, and implementation, and sample legislation.
Why take on prison gerrymandering? Because the 2020 Census is about to count more than 2 million people in the wrong place. Counting incarcerated people at home is a crucial correction that will make redistricting in your state more accurate and equitable.
Shout out to Colorado legislators, Reps. Kerry Tipper and James Coleman, whose bill to end prison gerrymandering is currently on the Governor's desk! Check out their op-ed on why this reform matters for the state. Legislators in eleven other states have also filed prison gerrymandering bills this session (CT, FL, IL, LA, MI, MN, NE, PA, RI, VA, WI). If you've already sponsored a bill, review our resource to see how your proposal could be strengthened and how to talk about this issue effectively. And reach out to SiX and Prison Policy Initiative for support!
Many thanks to Prison Policy Initiative for their partnership and support to state legislators ending prison gerrymandering across the country!
New Maine Focus Group Results Show Support for Progressive Ideas from the Legislature
Recently concluded focus groups built on polling conducted last year and reveal Mainers strongly support many of the policies the state legislature has recently passed or considered with residents most supportive of legislation to make prescription drugs more affordable, ones that will hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for the opioid crisis, and establishing more protections for workers.
As the 2019 legislative session came to a close, SiX commissioned Lincoln Park Strategies to conduct a poll to gauge voters’ feelings on the progress of the legislative session. To build on that knowledge, SiX commissioned focus groups of Mainers prior to the 2020 legislative session to gauge swing residents’ feelings about the state’s future and their views on the legislative leadership’s policy agenda. One thing is clear: Mainers are looking for solutions to their everyday problems and largely support the progressive ideas the legislature has passed and considered.
Mainers are most worried about issues around healthcare, especially access to quality and affordable care, the cost of prescription drugs, and opioid abuse.
Voters are also very worried about job opportunities in the state, the cost of higher education, property taxes, income tax fairness, access to quality education, and climate change.
Grateful for Michigan Lawmakers and a Governor who Fight for Working People
During this season of reflection and gratitude, we would
like to pause to acknowledge the bold steps some lawmakers and Governor
Gretchen Whitmer are taking on behalf of people in Michigan who work more than
40 hours each week but who aren’t being compensated for their extra hours.
Several weeks ago, the Governor announced a plan to initiate a new rule that
would qualify nearly 200,000 additional salaried workers in Michigan for
overtime protections. This follows strong legislative proposals introduced in
both chambers spearheaded by Senate Minority Leader Jim
Ananich (Flint) and House Minority Leader Christine Grieg (Farmington Hills).
The bills have 46 cosponsors.
For decades, middle-class Michiganders have been working
longer and harder than ever, but the wages they take home are falling further
and further behind. The current overtime eligibility situation exacerbates
those dynamics. A recently announced weak federal rule would still mean that salaried
workers earning anything over $35,568 a year would not be paid time-and-a-half when
they work more than 40 hours in a week. Fortunately, these Michigan lawmakers
and Governor Whitmer are proposing much stronger standards that would help
hundreds of thousands of workers and pump more than $30 million into our
economy.
It’s not just numbers on a spreadsheet that make sense when
it comes to this issue. We have heard from actual workers like “Julia,” the
West Michigan retail manager who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of
retaliation. She regularly works over 50 hours a week and still struggles just
to pay her bills because her employer is not required to provide overtime pay,
regardless of the number of hours she works. Too many Michiganders can relate, which
is why there is broad
public support for expanded overtime protections.
Lawmakers and the Governor heard directly from business
owners and workers who would benefit from increased overtime protections when
they recently sat down together in a New
Boston diner. Representatives Darrin Camilleri (Brownstown), Mari Manoogian
(Birmingham), and Matt Koleszar (Plymouth) joined the Governor in listening to
the concerns of local families and shared how the proposals they support would
make a real difference in people’s lives. The Governor will continue to hear from
residents and share support for strong pro-worker policies when she holds a telephone
town hall on Tuesday, December 10 from 5:30-6:30 EST with Representatives
Lori Sone (Warren), Nate Shannon (Sterling Heights), and Senator Paul Wojno
(Warren).
As 2019 comes to a close and we head into an important
legislative season at the beginning of 2020, it will be more important than
ever to continue the fight for an economy that works for everyone. Officials in
other states like Pennsylvania and Washington have already moved forward on
expanded overtime protections and several others like Maine, Massachusetts and
Colorado are also considering measures. We must remain united in pushing back
against conservative opponents who would prefer stalling or who advocate for weakened
versions. Hundreds of thousands of working people are counting on it.
Growing, Giving Thanks, and Getting Ready to Govern in 2020
As we approach the holidays, we at SiX want to thank our incredible network of state legislators. Serving as a state legislator is no easy task, and we are grateful for the dedication and courage they bring to the job.
Since our founding in 2014, legislators have relied on SiX to provide customized policy support, trainings, research, communications support, and connections with grassroots and national partners. We’ve grown to an organization of almost 30 passionate and talented staff members.
This year, we focused on year-round support and in-state, regional, and international trainings. In 2020, we are deepening this approach to better tailor our support to our expanding and diversifying network of legislators.
Here's just some of what we've been up to in the last year:
We hosted 89 trainings, reaching 1,352 legislators;
Our research team tracked 3,612 bills across 100 policy areas and developed 91 unique, in-depth research policy memos;
Our Democracy Project launched with members from every single state and hosted eight trainings;
We unveiled our Agriculture Program! The program visited four states and provided strategic and technical advice with legislators who are looking to cultivate just and healthy economies through local food and ecologically responsible agriculture;
We collaborated with legislators to host 33 tele-town halls reaching 130,345 Americans; and
We helped gain earned media for state legislators and progressive issues in 103 stories in local and national media outlets.
The PGA is a joint project between Local Progress, SiX, and re:power to build and develop the leadership and governance skills of progressive state and local elected officials across the country. Trainings cover a range of topics including: developing a policy agenda, tools for accomplishing their goals, and navigating complex challenges of governing as an elected official. Email john@stateinnovation.org to find out more.
Here are some more highlights on how we're growing and changing to better support progressive state legislators:
State Director Model
Two years ago we started our new State Director model based on what we’ve heard from state legislators: they don’t need a national organization that parachutes in and offers one-time resources that don’t reflect the unique and ever-changing dynamics on the ground in their state. To make sure support is ongoing, tailored to each state, and builds over time, we currently have State Directors in AZ, CO, FL, MD, ME, MI, NC, NV, PA, VA, and WA. This model has proved to be hugely impactful in these states and we hope to be able to grow and expand into more states in the coming years. By focusing resources on-the-ground in state capitols rather than in Washington, D.C., SiX is bringing essential tools and supports where we know legislators need them most.
For states where we do not yet have an in-state presence, our issue programs and central staff continue to offer services including communications support, research, and trainings.
The Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council (RFLC) is a cohort of over 400 state legislators from around the country standing up for a bold vision of abortion rights and access. Members of the RFLC gain access to skills-building events and opportunities both on-the-ground and online, and are part of a national network engaging in cross-state learning and amplification. Contact reproductiverights@stateinnovation.org for more information.
The Democracy Project empowers and emboldens state legislators to be dynamic advocates for a powerful, inclusive and participatory democracy. The project unites state legislators and grassroots movements behind a bold platform of reforms and deepens legislative impact in state legislatures across America. To learn more, reach out to democracy@stateinnovation.org.
The SiX Agriculture Program supports policies that promote thriving rural communities through ecologically and socially responsible agriculture and local food systems. The program provides resources and strategy advice to state legislators who know that the production of our food doesn't have to come at the expense of our water and air-or healthy conditions for workers or neighbors. Contact kendra@stateinnovation.org.
Legislators and partners are welcome to reach out to helpdesk@stateinnovation.org at any time. We welcome partnership, collaboration and ideas as we move forward.
Broad Popular Support for Economic Security Reforms Among Colorado Voters
SUPPORT FOR A PAID FAMILY LEAVE PROGRAM
A recent poll conducted by Strategies 360 for State Innovation Exchange (SiX) revealed that Colorado voters overwhelmingly support a paid family and medical leave program that is available to all Colorado workers. Across age, gender, and geography, a strong majority of Coloradans favor the creation of a paid insurance program that is funded by employees and employers. From working families who are expecting children to older adults who face potential medical emergencies, Coloradans have spoken in favor of an insurance program that works for everyone in their most difficult moments.
SUPPORT FOR A STATE-BACKED RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN
Coloradans are equally enthusiastic about a proposal to create a retirement savings plan accessible to all workers and backed by the State of Colorado. The popularity of this program transcends ideology and income, as 69% of Colorado voters support the idea. With nearly a quarter of respondents reporting that they have no retirement plan, a state-wide program has obvious appeal. Additionally, there remains intense support for the program even for those with an existing retirement plan. In the 21st century, Colorado workers understand the value of a retirement plan that moves with an individual from job to job.
Strategies 360 conducted an online survey among 600 registered voters in Colorado. The survey was conducted June 21 - 26, 2019. The margin of error for a survey of 600 interviews is ±4.0% at the 95% confidence level for each individual sample. Respondents were randomly selected from a statewide panel of residents and screened on their voter registration status.
Progressives Fight for Sunrise Agenda in Stormy Legislative Session
Progressive legislators and partners kicked off the 2019 legislative session with a bold Sunrise Agenda focused on the economy, affordable health care, education, the environment and a welcoming Florida.
But during the legislative session, conservatives, who control both chambers, refused to debate the priorities that Floridians identify as critical—like affordable healthcare and housing—and instead fought for priorities that rig the rules for the wealthy and big businesses and protect their own power. The legislative session showed how out of step conservatives are with the will of the people. The contrast between conservatives and progressives couldn’t be more clear.
Our Economy
Instead of focusing on helping Floridians make ends meet, conservatives passed legislation to ban Florida cities from requiring big developers to build any affordable housing as part of new construction. This just further lines the pockets of big businesses and the wealthy, while exacerbating the challenge in creating affordable housing in our cities and surrounding areas.
Progressive Representatives Jacquet and Joseph with Senators Rodriguez, Cruz and Stewart advanced legislation that would help improve the lives of all Floridians. The legislation which would address equal pay, paid family leave and an increase to the minimum wage was introduced but never heard in committee, debated or voted upon.
Our Health Care
Floridians are deeply concerned about the cost and accessibility of health care and prescription drugs. Instead of addressing these issues, conservatives sought to limit women’s access to health care and the right to choose by sponsoring a six-week abortion ban, a 20-week abortion ban and a parental consent law, which was voted out of the House.
Progressive Representative Cindy Polo and Senator Taddeo proposed expanding Medicaid to Floridians under 65 who are at or below 138% of the federal poverty line. This would provide health coverage to an estimated 850,000 hard-working Floridians currently lacking coverage—like single-moms working hard to support their families and adults working multiple jobs but still not making enough money to make ends meet. Conservatives shut down the proposal, refusing to even hear it in committee.
Our Students
Strengthening the public education system that supports 90% of Florida students is a priority for all progressive legislators. Instead of taking steps to improve public education, address the root cause of gun violence in schools and ensure Florida is able to stay competitive and keep great teachers, conservatives prioritized arming teachers and funding vouchers and charter schools in an effort to privatize our public education.
Progressive Representative Margaret Good filed a bill that would address the critical teacher shortage. Her legislation, which had bipartisan support in the Senate, would have allowed retired educators to immediately fill substitute teacher positions helping to fill some of the 2,000 teacher vacancies across the 67 counties. The conservatives shut down this legislation and it was never heard in committee.
Our Environment
The red tide and the other impacts of climate change have taken a toll on our health, our communities and our economy. The short- and long-term economic and health impacts have Floridians along the Gulf Coast struggling. The conservative-controlled legislature took no significant action to help address these challenges.
Progressive Representatives Diamond, Eskamani and Good with Senator Rodriguez filed legislation to help us understand and address these critical issues that will shape our economy and health into the future. Progressives advanced legislation to create a climate change research program, develop a renewable energy plan and address water quality and a decrease in the use of herbicides that created the red tide. All these bills were introduced, but never heard in committee.
Our People
After the 2018 election, Florida again received national attention for our difficulty in making sure that every eligible voter’s ballot was counted. Instead of taking steps to modernize and secure the process for all eligible voters, conservatives made unnecessary changes to the rules for vote-by-mail—which is used by many Florida voters to avoid long lines at the polls. They also took steps to obstruct the will of the people by placing exorbitant fees and other requirements on those formerly incarcerated before they are allowed to vote. This after the progressive community worked to bring the Constitutional amendment restoring these rights to a vote—which was supported by 65% of the people in November 2018.
Finally, conservatives changed the process by which signatures are gathered by everyday Floridians to amend the state constitution. Over the last decade this process has been used by the voters to address some of Florida’s most pressing issues—from pocketbook issues to who has the right to vote—because conservative lawmakers refuse to enact the policies that reflect the will of the majority of Floridians.
While the 2019 legislative session saw little progress on issues to help everyday Floridians, progressive partners and legislators will continue to work with constituents and colleagues to build on the groundwork laid in 2019 to advance the priorities in the Sunrise Agenda.
While Federal Gridlock Dominates the News, State Legislators are Fighting for Families
By Jessie Ulibarri, Executive Director of the State Innovation Exchange
While many pundits and politicos have been focused on Washington this week, we at the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) are focused on the progressive legislators who are fast at work in state capitols advancing legislation to improve the lives of working families. That is why we created our #FightingForFamilies Week of Action: to highlight the work of state legislators who are taking on greedy special interests and fighting for people from all walks of life.
When it comes to education, health care, and raising incomes, the vast majority of policy change will happen on a state level.
These are not just progressive issues! Polling conducted in nearly a dozen states shows broad bipartisan support for economic issues like lowering cost of health care, investing in education, raising wages and increasing access to paid sick days.
This week also marks the 26th anniversary since the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was signed into law, guaranteeing many American workers unpaid time off from work to care for sick family members or to welcome a child through birth or adoption. While a majority of Americans understand that job security in the face of medical challenges is one of the things critical to make life better for working people, we know this federal measure falls short of what is needed for families to thrive. Today, state legislators are leading the fight for the next step: paid family and medical leave--because no one should have to choose between caring for a loved one and their paycheck.
And it’s not just paid family leave, across the country progressive state lawmakers are advancing a progressive agenda that that centers the needs of working families – issues like paid sick days,, equal pay, expanding overtime pay, combatting wage theft, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, increasing access to affordable housing and raising the minimum wage.
Progressive state legislators, in conjunction with SiX, are showing what responsive, transparent and accountable government should look like. For example, state lawmakers in Ohio and West Virginia hosted Facebook live town halls, in Maryland, there was a “Fight for $15” press conference and progressive legislators in Minnesota hosted a press conference focused on wage theft. Legislators in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Maine, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Maryland and Pennsylvania are hosting tele-town halls that will connect with tens of thousands of Americans this week. In states across the country, people are being heard and lawmakers are acting on the priorities that impact families most.
Federal gridlock might dominate the news, but working families can’t wait any longer for bold action. State legislatures show that a different and more immediate path is possible. Progressive state lawmakers demonstrate daily the power of an inclusive and accessible democracy, and the world should take note.
Jessie Ulibarri is the Executive Director of the State Innovation Exchange. Before this role, he served as a Colorado State Senator, where he represented the community in which he was raised, including the trailer park where he spent his earliest years of his life. He currently lives with his family in Pennsylvania.
States Are Fighting for Families by Advancing Paid Leave, Building Momentum Toward a National Policy
By Ellen Bravo and Vicki Shabo
Ellen Bravo is a
co-founder and director of Family Values @
Work, a network of broad coalitions working for—and
winning—policies such as paid sick days and family leave insurance.
When the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) reached President Bill Clinton’s desk 26 years ago today, similar laws had already passed in multiple states. The FMLA was an important first step in transforming our workplaces and culture – and it wouldn’t have succeeded without state laws laying the groundwork for progress.
Advocates for paid family leave in New Jersey.
The FMLA has allowed millions of working people to manage their care responsibilities without risking a job or health coverage; and in 26 years it has been used more than 200 million times. Despite its popularity, it is clear: unpaid time is not enough. In fact, nearly 40 percent of the workforce is not eligible even for unpaid leave under the FMLA, and millions more simply cannot afford to take unpaid time away from their jobs. The need for paid family and medical leave will only grow as our workforce and population ages and the number of available family caregivers shrinks.
State legislators and the organizations that serve them,
like the State Innovation Exchange, aren’t waiting around for federal lawmakers
to address this looming crisis. Just as they led on unpaid leave, states are fighting for families again, acting as laboratories
for paid family and medical leave programs. Today, paid family and medical
leave laws are in place and working well in four
states – California, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. State and citywide paid leave programs will soon be
in place in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts and Washington as well.
Each program is sustained through small payroll contributions from employers,
workers or both, so people can draw a wage while providing care for themselves
or a loved one.
Just weeks into new legislative sessions paid leave bills
have been introduced in 20 state legislatures, including Virginia, Connecticut,
Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon and Vermont - all bolstered by broad
and diverse coalitions.. Legislators have also filed policies in deep red
states like Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma and West Virginia.
It is not surprising that lawmakers
across party lines are eager to ensure working people in their states have
access to paid leave given the positive outcomes the programs are yielding in
states with established funds. Studies in Rhode Island and California found
that the states’ paid leave programs help families care for a new child and
arrange child care. Research on New Jersey’s paid leave program show that, for
low-income families, mothers who use the paid leave program breastfeed longer
than those who do not. These programs also help working people care for aging
relatives. California’s statewide paid leave law is credited with reducing the use of nursing homes.
Businesses in states with paid leave laws benefit as well
since paid time to care can have a positive impact on employee morale, increase
productivity and improve employee retention, especially among workers who are
paid low wages.
The state policies also provide guidance on designing policies that are more
responsive to the needs of working people, especially people with jobs that pay
lower-wages, communities of color and part-time workers. For example, state
innovation shows that creating higher wage replacement rates for lower-wage
workers; broadening the range of family members eligible to provide care to an
ailing loved one; and ensuring that the jobs of part-time workers and employees
of smaller companies are protected when they take leave are all essential to
promoting program use, gender and racial equity and workers’ economic security.
While we celebrate state-level progress, and expect more
victories in 2019, overall access to paid leave in this country remains far too
rare. No matter where they live or work, everyone deserves time to care for
themselves or a loved one without risking their economic security. Yet only 17 percent of all working people have
paid family leave through their job and less than 40 percent have personal medical leave
through an employer-provided short-term disability program. Disparities in
access to paid leave between lower- and higher-wage workers are actually
growing.
Working families in the United States need a national paid
family and medical leave policy that covers all working people for the full
range of caregiving needs reflected in the FMLA; provides a meaningful duration
of leave and a substantial share of their wages; protects workers from
retaliation for taking leave; and is sustainably funded without harming other
essential government programs. The Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY)
Act is the only federal proposal that aligns with these criteria. Members of
Congress should support the FAMILY Act to strengthen our nation’s families,
businesses and the economy.
As federal lawmakers work toward paid leave for all, we urge
them to look to state paid leave models, research and best practices. Every
statewide law proposed, every expansion considered and every bill signed builds
momentum toward a strong, comprehensive national paid family and medical leave
policy.
Voices from the Future: Storytelling Our Way to Collaborative Governance
Voices from the Future: Storytelling Our Way to Collaborative Governance
By the SiX Communications Team
From May 6-10, SiX’s communications team had the privilege of attending the 2025 Narrative Power Summit hosted by Reframe and RadComms. Our session, Voices from the Future: Storytelling Our Way to Collaborative Governance, invited participants to reimagine the future of state governance and use storytelling as the vehicle to get us there.
In a moment when reactive strategies aren’t enough, we challenged attendees to dream big. What if by 2035, your state was a national model for collaborative governance? What relationships would have made it possible? What narratives would we have let go of—and which ones would we have built together?
Participants broke into small groups to explore these questions and created “oral histories” from a future where power is shared, legislators co-govern with communities, and policy reflects lived experience. These imagined futures weren’t abstract: they were deeply strategic, grounded in real shifts in trust, relationship-building, and collective power.
We wrapped it all up by asking everyone to write down three tangible actions they’d take when they returned home on postcards they’d receive in the mail in a few weeks as reminders for their future selves. The session reflected the very core of SiX’s mission: helping legislators and communities govern together in new, transformative ways. As we face authoritarian threats, we need more than resistance; we need irresistible, actionable visions. We’re so grateful to everyone who joined us in building one.
Black Maternal Health Week 2025: Honoring Legacies, Advancing Justice
Black Maternal Health Week 2025: Honoring Legacies, Advancing Justice
Every year during Black Maternal Health Week (April 11–17), we come together with urgency, purpose, and hope. In 2025, the theme—“Healing Legacies: Strengthening Black Maternal Health Through Collective Action and Advocacy”—invited us to uplift Black-led wisdom and demand the policies and resources Black Mamas and birthing people deserve.
At State Innovation Exchange (SiX), we met this moment with action.
Centering Legislator Voices and Black-Led Leadership
Working alongside the Black Mamas Matter Alliance (BMMA) and the National Organization of Black Elected Legislative (NOBEL) Women, we proudly supported state legislators in introducing Black Maternal Health Week resolutions and proclamations in nearly 20 states. These efforts garnered national and local media attention, underscoring the urgent need for systemic change.
In Colorado, State Director Maggie Gómez coordinated a powerful proclamation and tribute honoring local leaders at Soul 2 Soul Sisters, Elephant Circle, and Sister-To-Sister. In Nevada, State Director Stacey Shinn supported Assemblymember Linda Hunt’s efforts to mark the week with an official proclamation.
Left: Group photo in Colorado honoring local leaders at Soul 2 Soul Sisters, Elephant Circle, and Sister-To-Sister. Right: Assemblymember Linda Hunt with an official proclamation for Black Maternal Health Week 2025.
And in Michigan, our State Director Tom Lenard backed Rep. Donavan McKinney’s moving op-ed, which shared his personal commitment to ending the Black maternal health crisis.
Lifting Bold Legislative Champions
This week, we also amplified the voices of 26 legislators from across the country who are leading the charge for Black maternal health. These messages, featured in a custom social media campaign by our Communications Team, reflected a deep commitment to justice and equity and were shared widely across SiX’s platforms and beyond.
From sample social posts to ready-to-use graphics, we equipped our network of over 12,000 state lawmakers with the tools to engage with Black Maternal Health Week and show up for their communities.
Driving Policy, Shaping Narrative
Throughout the week, SiX hosted and participated in key events that brought policy expertise and community experience together:
Our Repro Rights Rapid Response Room featured legal and policy strategist Bridgette Jackson, JD, from In Our Own Voice.
We also contributed to Project Michigan’s Lake Effect Poll, which elevated questions on midwifery education and economic support during pregnancy, critical issues for advancing maternal justice.
Our Commitment Moving Forward
Black Maternal Health Week is more than a week on the calendar. It’s a reminder of the structural inequities we must dismantle and the collective action we must sustain. At SiX, we are committed to advancing policy, centering community, and transforming power so that Black Mothers, families, and communities not only survive but thrive.
We’re proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with movement leaders, legislators, and advocates in this fight. Together, we’re healing legacies and building a future rooted in justice.
How Abusive Preemption Undermines Rural Democracy and What We Can Do About It
How Abusive Preemption Undermines Rural Democracy and What We Can Do About It
As we approach the anniversary of the first 100 days of the second Trump administration on April 29th, we have seen corporate power over the government reach unprecedented levels. While corporate capture of policymaking is not new, the influence of big business is now more blatant than ever in a system already built to benefit corporate bottom lines.
For decades, large corporations have built power in state legislatures, usually at the expense of local communities. One of the primary tools they have used for their benefit are preemption laws—sweeping measures that prevent local governments from enacting regulations on vital issues. These laws have also become increasingly common at the federal level, which invalidate laws at all levels of government below and are often modeled on state-level preemption laws.
Preemption has long been used to both help and harm rural communities. Traditionally, it ensured uniform state laws and allowed local governments to build on minimum standards, like state civil rights laws that set a floor to prevent abuse rather than a ceiling to limit reform. However, in recent years, corporate interests have increasingly exploited preemption to override local control.
Much of rural America has been shaped by “abusive” preemption laws pushed by agribusiness, energy companies, and other corporate interests in profound ways. These laws have allowed corporations to exploit land and resources and tied the hands of county or local governments. Preemption laws have also been leveraged by corporate-backed religious extremists to push culture war issues. A notable example is North Carolina’s 2016 HB2, the first-in-the-nation “bathroom bill,” which restricted transgender people from using public restrooms aligning with their gender identity. This law also blocked local governments from enacting anti-discrimination ordinances.
Many of these abusive preemption measures have been pioneered in rural states, where corporations and extremists exploit economic anxieties to stoke divisions, using racial and cultural divides as wedges to advance their true political goal: total control through resource concentration.
The Agribusiness industry has been particularly successful at replicating this preemption strategy in multiple states, often disguising these policies as “pro-farmer” while the real beneficiaries are corporate shareholders. One of the earliest abusive agricultural preemption laws, Iowa’s HF519 in 1995, eliminated the ability of communities to have local control in the siting or regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), also known as factory farms. Thirty years later, Iowa leads the nation in number of hogs, and its pork industry interests are booming. As these interests of consolidated agribusiness blossomed, the state lost thousands of family farmers, its rural poverty increased, and it came to lead the nation in water pollution from agricultural runoff. Iowa faces the fastest rising cancer rate and the second highest total incidence of cancer in the country, and the higher-than-average use of glyphosate alongside nitrates in drinking water likely contributes to the state’s illness epidemic.
The latest battleground for preemption laws is the pesticide industry, which has been pushing for state-level legislation known as "Bayer bills" because of its connection to the German agrochemical giant Bayer (which bought Monsanto in 2018). Model legislation, introduced in four states in 2024 and expanded to eight states in 2025, would prevent legal action against manufacturers of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides for their health and environmental impacts. Major chemical companies, including Bayer and Syngenta, have poured millions into lobbying for these laws, despite mounting evidence linking their products to serious health conditions like cancer and Parkinson's disease. In response, state legislators in Iowa (where the bill was introduced in 2024 and 2025) are building a grassroots movement of farmers and rural community members to oppose these policies.
In a recent victory, Iowa’s Bayer bill was defeated in Iowa after it failed to receive enough votes in the House. This is an example of co-governance, where grassroots power works in tandem with legislators, working to protect the basic welfare of the people. Bayer and other chemical companies have conducted a years-long lobbying and information campaign to control the narrative, arguing that these bills would actually protect farmers—in reality, the legislation benefits their bottom line at the expense of independent farmers, public health, and rural communities. For more information about this legislation and different approaches to it, see SiX’s toolkit on the topic.
A central reason as to why corporations have been particularly successful at passing abusive preemption policies is that rural communities often face structural barriers to advocacy while corporate lobbyists maintain a constant presence in every statehouse across the nation. Everyday citizens struggle to have their voices heard while lobbyists have mostly unlimited access to legislatures across the country. However, state legislators can resist industry influence by listening to the voices of rural residents and advocating for policies that protect communities, not corporations.
Actions You Can Take to Combat Abusive Preemption:
Make It Clear: It’s Us (The People) Versus Them (Corporations and Oligarchs) — Working-class people across the United States and world, urban and rural, conservative and liberal, have a lot in common. Corporations, industries, and the rich that exploit our resources and amass wealth from our labor do not share our interests. Our fight is with them, not with each other.
Strengthen Local Control Over Land Use and Agriculture – Advocate for policies that restore the power of county and municipal governments to regulate corporations in their own communities.
Organize Against Industry-Backed Preemption Laws – Support grassroots movements opposing preemption bills like the "Bayer bill" by inviting rural community members to share their stories and testify, countering corporate narratives.
Increase Legislative Engagement in Rural Areas – Go to where the people are. Hold listening sessions in rural communities to document the impacts of preemption laws, amplify concerns about corporate influence, and build coalitions across political divides.
Expose the Role of Corporate Lobbying – Investigate and publicize the financial ties between agribusiness, chemical companies, and lawmakers who push preemption bills, making clear who benefits and who suffers from these policies.
Support Family Farmers and Rural Economies – Invest in small farms, sustainable agriculture, and fair economic opportunities to counteract the consolidation of corporate power in rural America.
A sustainable and equitable agricultural future depends on shifting power away from corporate interests and back to the people. This moment requires coordinated, collective action against corporate dominance by rooting in shared values and community-based solutions. By working in a collaborative governance stance, state legislators, alongside rural communities, can resist corporate overreach and challenge abusive preemption policies.
If you are a state legislator interested in working on preemption issues in rural communities, please contact the SiX Agriculture and Food Systems program at agriculture@stateinnovation.org.
State Strategies to Challenge Corporate Subsidies
State Strategies to Challenge Corporate Subsidies
By Jessica Garland, Senior Associate of Legislative Affairs
Corporate tax giveaways come in many forms. They can be tax breaks, exemptions, subsidies, incentives, loopholes, grants; even deregulation and privatization can include fiscal notes. These corporate tax giveaways are what we call “invisible spending” in our state budget, and communities foot the bill. We have lost billions to corporate tax giveaways that simply transfer our public dollars to the ultra-wealthy, rather than funding for education, healthcare, and housing.
Fighting corporate subsidies as a legislator can feel isolating and futile – these fights involve challenging multinational corporations, and a media machine falsely branding corporate tax giveaways as “economic development.” But wins are possible. Past successes in New York, Virginia, Missouri, and Maryland demonstrate that wins are possible.
Below find a summary of key strategies and resources to challenge corporate subsidies in your state. Special gratitude to Arlene Martínez of Good Jobs Firstand Pat Garofalo of American Economic Liberties Project whose expertise is reflected in this summary.
State Strategies
Collaboration Between Legislators & Community Advocates – Working together, legislators and community advocates can build stronger strategies with secure wins. By ensuring the community members most impacted by policy decisions have a seat at the decision-making table alongside elected officials, legislators and advocates can amplify community needs and priorities over those of corporate interests, better coordinate their efforts on the ground and in state chambers, and build grassroots momentum that shifts political realities towards implementation of economic policies that empower everyday people rather than centralize power and profits in the hands of the elite few. At SiX, we call this governing model, which centers the inherent authority of the people most impacted by policy decisions, “collaborative governance.”
Engage Local Communities – Effective community engagement is fundamental to successfully oppose corporate subsidies and/or negotiating deals to mitigate harm from such tax giveaways. Engaging local residents on proposed corporate tax giveaways and economic development plans not only strengthens communities’ capacity to fight back via political pressure in the moment but also empowers residents to identify solutions that meet their needs (ex: crafting and enforcing community benefit agreements).
Lean into transparency– Expose how incentives pass versus the incentive itself. Often, the lack of transparency behind incentive deals can derail the incentive and is easier to communicate to the public than the actual incentive.
Fighting Corporate Giveaways is Bipartisan – As seen with the partnership between MI Reps. Carra and Wegela, fighting corporate subsidies is a bipartisan issue and important both to legislators and residents regardless of their political identity.
The Data is On Your Side – Data consistently shows that corporations dramatically overestimate their economic benefits (such as the number of jobs they’ll create), strain local resources, and increase the cost of living without increasing residents’ quality of life. Beyond the fact that corporate tax giveaways draw money away from community benefits and public services by functionally transferring more wealth to the rich, many of the corporations pursuing tax giveaways violate regulatory laws meant to protect workers, consumers, the environment, and residents.
Lead with an Affirmative Vision – It is not enough to pursue economic development by solely resisting corporate tax giveaways. Legislators, partners, advocates, and community leaders should emphasize the programs and benefits that community tax dollars could fund if channeled back to public services instead of subsidies for the corporate elite. Painting an affirmative vision of how tax dollars should be spent on supporting local communities not only weakens corporate power hoarding but also generates buy-in and public momentum for funding public programs like schools, mass transit, affordable housing, and affordable healthcare.
Know What You Can Demand – State and local lawmakers have the power to demand more standards, information, and regulatory requirements in economic development deals than they may think. Knowing what questions to ask and what requirements to include within deals (such as performance based incentive agreements, community benefit agreements, additional workers rights protections, accountability to specific outcomes, regulatory data tracking, water use requirements for data centers, and transparently shared reports) will affect how harmful corporate tax giveaways can be and shape economic development plans to better meet community needs. Protip: Corporate tax giveaways are an inherently bad use of public tax dollars. It’s strategic to oppose them fully and organize from that position.
State Resources
Good Jobs First’s State Profiles provide a brief history of each state’s track record on the use of economic development subsidies, a list of the state’s key subsidy programs, state-specific research, and leading subsidy watchdog groups where relevant
Good Job’s First numerous trackers (including the Subsidy Tracker, Amazon Tracker, Violations Tracker) provide excellent data to demonstrate where corporations get taxpayer assistance, the revenue governments forgo to tax abatements, which corporations are breaking what laws, and how much the public subsidizes Amazon. Similarly, their Tax Break Tracker reflects how much revenue state and local governments have reduced or foregone through their tax abatements.
American Economic Liberties Project’s Taking on Corporate Subsidies Toolkitoverviews nine policies that state and local lawmakers can pursue to reform and rework corporate subsidy programs (in the event such subsidies cannot be fully abolished) so that programs are more transparent, better serve local communities, and don’t entrench dominant corporations in local economies.
Floodlight coverage on Harvard’s Electricity Law Initiative report projections showing all U.S. consumers will pay billions of dollars to build new power plants to serve Big Tech, how utility companies are using or scaling dirty power plants to meet data center demands, and regulatory suggestions to protect ratepayers.
SiX’s Corporate Tax Giveaways Questions for Policymakers guide provides a list of simple questions lawmakers can ask to the bill sponsors of potential corporate tax giveaways during committee hearings to help the public understand how much the bills will cost them and who will actually benefit. The resource also includes guidance for effective testimony and some amendment ideas.
SRA’s Community Economic Development Agenda Resources outlines seven guiding principles for progressive economic development as well as resources from Good Jobs First, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), Economic Power Institute (EPI), and the Roosevelt Institute on both why current corporate economic development strategies don’t benefit local communities and how to improve economic incentive strategies.
We already know that Big Tech’s Data Centers are the latest frontier of this fight
Big Tech’s data centers and utilities costs are the next frontier of attempted corporate tax abatements. Beyond data centers guzzling communities’ water and electricity (which drives up the utilities cost for local ratepayers) to enhance their profit margins, utility companies often use the higher energy demand from data centers to justify expanding their gas and coal infrastructure (while charging wholesale rates to data centers) instead of investing in cleaner energy. This means communities will pay even higher utilities costs while the environment – locally, regionally, and globally – becomes even more polluted, fragile, and hazardous to human health, while the data centers get tax breaks. SiX is here to support you in this fight. Contact us here.
New Guidance on Caregiver Discrimination Policies
No One Should Lose Their Job for Taking Care of Family: New Guidance on Caregiver Discrimination Policies
Every day, millions of workers across the country make impossible choices—between earning a paycheck and caring for the people they love. For too long, outdated workplace policies and unchecked bias have penalized family caregivers, pushing people—especially women, LGBTQ+ folks, and people of color—into economic insecurity.
At the State Innovation Exchange (SiX), we believe that care is essential, and caregiving should never be a cause for discrimination. That’s why we’re excited to share our new Family Caregiver Discrimination Policy Guidance, a resource for state legislators and advocates working to end this all-too-common form of workplace bias.
What’s Inside the Guidance?
This new resource outlines:
What caregiver discrimination looks like, from denied promotions to job loss based on caregiving responsibilities—not job performance.
The current legal landscape, highlighting gaps in federal and state protections.
Policy solutions, including examples of state laws that prohibit discrimination and offer job accommodations for caregivers.
The benefits of reform, from advancing gender equity and reducing poverty to improving mental health and boosting workplace retention.
Why It Matters
Whether it’s parenting, caring for an aging parent, or supporting a loved one with a disability, most people will be caregivers at some point in their lives. But the burden of discrimination falls heaviest on those already pushed to the margins—especially Black, brown, and low-income women.
Caregiver anti-discrimination laws are a crucial step toward economic justice and gender equity. They ensure that people can show up for their families without being punished at work—and that our policies reflect the realities of people’s lives.
A Tool for Change
This guidance isn’t just a document—it’s a tool to support proactive policymaking. Legislators can use it to craft stronger protections for workers. Advocates can use it to build campaigns grounded in lived experience. And all of us can use it to reimagine workplaces where care is valued, not penalized.
Want to collaborate or learn more about how to use this guidance in your state? Get in touch with the SiX team—we’re here to support state leaders in building a future that honors both work and care.
Strengthening State Anti-Monopoly Laws with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Strengthening State Anti-Monopoly Laws with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Reining in corporate monopoly power is an essential role of state governments, and a priority initiative at State Innovation Exchange (SIX). In April, our Senior Director of Legislative Affairs, Ida V. Eskamani, sat down with Ron Knox, Senior Researcher and Writer for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) Independent Business Initiative to discuss ILSR’s latest resource hub for legislators, legislative staff, state agencies and advocates: Strengthening State Antimonopoly Laws.
This resource hub includes essential antimonopoly tools, including:
A database of antitrust statutes of all 50 states and the District of Columbia
An issue brief on how states can strengthen monopoly laws and enforcement
How state attorneys can reverse the rise of concentrated corporate power
Corporate monopolies impact every facet of our lives; connected directly to expanding wealth disparities and the rising cost of living, the existential climate crisis, and rampant expansion of authoritarianism. The concentration of corporate power does not happen by accident; it’s not the result of inevitable forces. It is a product of deliberate policy choices over decades and centuries. But historically, state legislators, in collaboration with the communities most impacted by these policy choices, have led the fight challenging corporate power– organizing our communities and taking on the corporate lobby to build economies that empower people.
For all those reasons and more, anti-monopoly reform is a critical pillar of SIX’s work. We know states are the frontlines for safeguarding our freedoms and advancing justice. SIX is here to work in collaboration with state legislators and partners like the Institute for Local Self-Reliance Independent Business Initiative towards this goal.
State Power to Protect Medicaid & Build a Caring Economy
State Power to Protect Medicaid & Build a Caring Economy
What is the Care Economy?
From childcare to elder care, to disability rights, to caring for those who are ill, we all provide care and are cared for. The care economy refers to the paid and unpaid work of caring for others. Though essential, the care economy is undervalued and underfunded. Care workers, predominantly women, Black, and immigrant workers, are underpaid and overworked. Care infrastructure, like hospitals, childcare facilities, and nursing homes are increasingly privatized and monopolized by big corporations and private equity firms. And care programs, like paid sick, family and medical leave, VPK programs, and medicaid, are hard fought, and under threat.
Nevada Assembly Member Cecilia González presents legislation providing legal protections for breastfeeding parents, along with her 11-month-old daughter in Carson City on Feb. 28, 2025
A robust care economy is a caring economy. It’s an economy that centers care for people and communities, versus an individual's profits. And it is possible. There are examples throughout history and across the world. At SiX, our team is working in collaboration with legislators and partners towards this vision in state capitols across the country – from legislation strengthening legal protections for breastfeeding parents and access to public buildings for people who are deaf & hard of hearing in Nevada, to organizing support to fund care infrastructure in Georgia, and everywhere in between, states are where we can make vision into reality. And in all 50 states, Medicaid is an essential part of our care economy, and facing direct threats. So how can states defend our wins towards building an inclusive care economy? Let’s dive in.
Medicaid Works (that’s why it’s under attack)
We know that Medicaid works, transforming health care for low-income families and individuals, including children, parents, pregnant mothers, seniors, and people with disabilities since its creation in 1965. A jointly-state and federal funded program, Medicaid covers 1 in 5 people living in the United States, providing comprehensive coverage of health and long-term care to more than 80 million low-income people. In 2023, Medicaid covered nearly 4 in 10 children, over 8 in 10 children in poverty, 1 in 6 adults, and almost half of adults in poverty. Medicaid covers more than 1 in 4 adults ages 19-64 with disabilities, and provides coverage for 41% of all births. To date, 41 states (including DC) have expanded Medicaid, but nine states have so-called trigger laws that would automatically end Medicaid expansion if the federal government reduces their share. Overall, Black, Hispanic, and Native people, and rural communities would be hit the hardest by proposed cuts to Medicaid.
Understanding Our Opponents
Medicaid’s success is exactly why the ultra-wealthy want to dismantle it, and coordinated state attacks are not new. The Trump/Musk economic plan relies on tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and a permanent, obedient underclass based on race, gender, and class. Programs like medicaid that effectively lift working families out of poverty threaten that plan and their power. That’s why Project 2025 and the congressional budget are targeting cuts to Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-rich. Testifying before the DOGE subcommittee, Stewart Whitson of Foundation for Government Accountability made the clear:
A key source of wasteful spending that DOGE and the subcommittee should set their sights on next, and that's Medicaid waste and fraud. While initially meant as a program for the truly needy, Medicaid has bloated into a massive welfare program for millions of able-bodied adults lured into the trap of government dependency.”
State legislators in all 50 states play an incredibly important role in protecting our care, and expanding it. Every state will have unique strategies, but there’s a few key considerations:
Connect real stories to the data. Storytelling is incredibly powerful. It helps bring data to life, and for others to see themselves in someone else’s shoes. Link the impact of Medicaid funding to real people in your district– on both the benefits of Medicaid and the harms if funding is lost. Ask constituents for consent before sharing stories.
Name our opponents: According to Navigator Research, nearly two in three Americans are concerned that Trump will give tax cuts to his billionaire friends at the expense of programs Americans rely on, and that billionaires are gaining too much power under his administration. This is exactly what is at stake – it’s important to say it out loud.
Work in collaboration with state advocacy efforts to protect our care. As a legislator, your sphere of influence is essential to state-based advocates working to protect medicaid. From congressional relationships, media engagement, hospitals and care providers, and constituent outreach and story collection, your contributions are essential. Not sure where to get started? SiX can help.
Colorado President Pro Tempore Senator Dafna Michaelson Jenet and Assistant Majority Leader Senator Lisa Cutter speak to the value of Medicaid on the Senator floor on March 11, 2025
Messaging Guidance
Cuts to programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security are the issue Americans are most concerned about. Keep the following messaging guidance from Navigator Research from February in mind:
When communicating these sweeping executive actions, it’s essential that messengers clearly outline the human impacts of the Trump Administration’s latest moves to cut programs that benefit all Americans to enrich billionaires. Focus on the true victims of this decision – the people in your state losing healthcare coverage.
Medicaid and Medicare are places to take a firm stand. There is no public appetite for cutting Medicaid or Medicare. In our Navigator survey, 81% of Americans opposed any cuts to Medicaid. Similarly, 72% opposed cuts to SNAP and Head Start childcare funding. Put simply, Americans consistently reject slashing essential programs that people rely on to fund government handouts for billionaires and mega-corporations.
Frame this as protecting programs Americans rely on. People do not like having things they rely on taken away, and when asked about budget priorities, 62% of Americans said it is more important to “protect important programs that Americans rely on,” while only 38% preferred cuts. Americans are under no illusion about who benefits from these cuts – most believe that the proposed tax plan is designed to serve the wealthy, with the rich and big corporations seen as the biggest winners
Tie these cuts to Medicaid to Trump’s plans to write a massive tax handout to the wealthy. The top concern in Navigator’s testing on Trump’s tax cuts was “Trump’s tax plan wouldn’t help middle and working class people struggling to deal with rising costs” with 32% finding the statement most concerning. Followed closely by “Trump's tax plan would cost the government billions and limit… programs like Social Security and Medicare” with 29% of Americans finding the statement most concerning. It is advocates’ job to make these seemingly disparate actions clearly connected.
We know Project 2025 began in the states. As we face attacks from all directions, it’s essential that we build an affirmative economic vision for the future in states, in collaboration with the communities most impacted by these cuts. SiX is working to organize partners in-state and across states in support of legislators defending care for all. If you need support, let us know.
SiX’s Next Chapter: A Future Rooted in Strength and Vision
SiX’s Next Chapter: A Future Rooted in Strength and Vision
After eight years of leadership at SiX, this is our last week as co-executive directors. While we’ve spent the last year preparing for this moment, it is different experiencing all of the emotions of stepping back and saying goodbye to each of you. Sci-fi author Octavia Butler teaches, “All that you touch, you change. All that you change, changes you.” We leave these roles transformed - shaped by the staff, legislators, partners, board members, and funders we’ve been fortunate to be in relationships with over these years. And we hope you feel changed as well.
When we began our tenure at SiX, we were grounded in a fierce belief that state-level governance could be a transformational place rooted in values. A deep knowing that when everyday people are involved at all levels of the policymaking process, and there is an importance placed on building relationships across legislators, partners, and communities–not only do our public structures become more responsive to their needs, but these people also build greater power to shape the future. This radical paradigm shift is what we define as collaborative governance. The how matters more than the what, and we have been proud to orient towards this approach over the years.
We’re proud of the work we’ve led SiX, from convening senior legislative leaders and national movement leaders through the Outside Voices convening series, which organized state legislators and movement partners to offer a proactive vision for what it could look like to build a collective vision and practice a collaborative governance approach; to creating a home for values-aligned state legislators where we engage with policymakers as whole people; to building a culture of care and abundance for our staff, this work has been a labor of love and vision.
As we transition out of SiX, we are confident and optimistic about the organization’s leadership and direction.Molly Noble, our current senior vice president of operations who has been with SiX for over ten years, will be stepping in as interim executive director while we finalize our hiring process. Molly brings a deep understanding of SiX’s mission, a commitment to collaborative leadership, and years of experience navigating the complexities of state-based organizing. We have worked closely with Molly throughout our entire tenure, and she truly embodies the SiX values and integrity in her daily life and work. We couldn’t be more assured that SiX is in capable hands. The search process for permanent leadership is well underway, and we intend to announce new co-executive directors this summer.
The movement building we have contributed to at SiX is deeper than any one set of leaders. Our staff is leader-full, rooted in values and vision, and responsive to the needs of state legislators–like creating a new Federal Rapid Response Strategy Session bi-weekly series to adapt to an evolving landscape. This is the SiX of today and tomorrow.
It has been an honor and a privilege to lead SiX. We are grateful to the staff, board, funders, partners, and movement peers who made this journey possible. Together, we built an enduring institution—one that is stronger, more expansive, and more collaborative than we ever imagined when we began.
Though we’re stepping back, we aren’t stepping away from this movement. As we often say, movement work is like a choir – the singing continues with joy, even when some take a breath. You’ll hear our voices again in a different part of the choir.
In solidarity,
State Power to Protect our Farmers, Food, and Rural Communities.
State Power to Protect our Farmers, Food, and Rural Communities.
By: Kendra Kimbirauskas
The agricultural community has long been the backbone of our economy, but recent Trump administration policy decisions have placed unprecedented strain on farmers and rural communities across the country. In light of these actions—particularly the use of executive orders and the systematic dismantling of federal agencies—state legislators must be well-informed about the direct and indirect impacts on their states. These actions often create policy gaps, regulatory challenges, and funding shifts that significantly affect state governance.
The unprecedented decisions have had a significant impact on farmers and rural communities. Navigating these changes has been challenging, from the instability caused by tariffs to the USDA's cancellation of $1 billion in funding for local food purchasing programs that support schools and food banks. Additionally, funding freezes and plans to eliminate the EPA’s environmental justice offices have further compounded these difficulties. These decisions will have direct, serious, and long-lasting consequences for working families, with communities of color, rural populations, farmers, and farmworkers bearing the heaviest burden. However, this moment also presents an opportunity for state legislators to step up and take action in response to these challenges.
Content summarized from our rural communities, farmers, and our food briefing as part of our bi-weekly federal rapid response series. Legislators and legislative staff can register here for this ongoing series.
The Growing Uncertainty in Rural Communities
The federal funding freeze has left farmers and rural people with a wave of uncertainty across the rural landscape. USDA local offices closing, employees being laid off, and critical conservation programs frozen have left farmers without the support they rely on. Contracts that were once secured are now uncertain, causing financial strain and distress. Many fear that these cuts will accelerate trends of farm consolidation, pushing out small and mid-sized family farms and favoring large agribusinesses.
The ripple effects of these policy changes extend far beyond individual farms. Community banks, rural businesses, and local economies are all feeling the pressure. Tariff threats and shifting market conditions have only exacerbated the situation, creating a "whiplash effect" that makes long-term planning nearly impossible for many farmers.
The Threat to Equity in Agriculture
There are deeply concerning effects of recent executive orders that have targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the USDA. These rollbacks are not just policy shifts but direct attacks on 40 years of the civil rights movement’s progress in agriculture. There have been harmful dog whistles and lies about these advances coming at the expense of white farmers. This false narrative is intended to undermine civil rights and interracial solidarity between family farm organizations, like the National Farmers Union, with predominantly white members, and those organizations working directly in communities with farmers of color. The result of these actions has been chilling and profound for community-based organizations. Many serve the most vulnerable farmers, who are now facing threats, seeing grant funds being delayed or withheld, and are being silenced by the fear of retaliation.
Additionally, the elimination of the Local Food Purchasing Program is resulting in funds being withheld that would have otherwise gone to food programs for purchasing local healthy foods directly from local farmers. This action is causing harm to the most vulnerable farmers and the communities that they serve.
Furthermore, these funding cuts and regulatory rollbacks are having a significant mental health impact on farmers. With Medicaid rollbacks occurring simultaneously, farmers are left without critical safety nets, compounding their daily stress and uncertainty.
Dismantling USAID’s impact on farmers and rural communities
While the future of the agency hangs with the courts, it is currently not operating on a day-to-day basis, which has led to layoffs and disruptions in critical food supply chains globally while impacting farmers here at home.
Representative Sonya Harper (IL) is Fighting Back
In mid-March, Representative Sonya Harper, who chairs the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee, held a hearing to uplift the stories of farmers who were being harmed by the Trump administration’s funding freeze. With a forum to lift up the voices of those most impacted, advocates were able to quickly mobilize their members to share stories. This hearing garnered considerable media attention and highlighted the severe repercussions of the USDA’s decision to remove funding for critical programs such as the Illinois Eats Program and the Resilient Food Systems Program. These cuts, coupled with mass layoffs at the USDA and looming threats of tariffs, have created economic uncertainty and disruption for many farmers across the state. Additionally, the closure of key research institutions like the Peoria Ag Lab and the termination of federal agreements, such as those funding the Soybean Innovation Lab, have only added to the instability.
Rep. Harper’s hearing underscored the real-world impacts of these decisions—farmers struggling to stay afloat, food banks unable to provide fresh produce, and conservation programs left in limbo.
Actions Legislators can take
Regardless of whether urban or rural, state legislators have an opportunity to use their platform to raise awareness of how Trump administration policies and actions are impacting farmers and rural communities while directly threatening the food security of so many Americans. Immediate action legislators can take:
Host a hearing: If you are a legislator in a position to request that your state’s equivalent of an agriculture committee hold an information hearing on how farmers feel about Trump administration policies, this can be a powerful forum to lift up the voices of those directly harmed. If you are unable to get an official hearing through your state’s agriculture committee, host an unofficial hearing at a local business or a public library and work with your local food and farming community to invite farmers and the media.
Introduce a resolution: Use your power in the legislature to call on the Trump administration to reinstate the funding to support farmers, food for schools, and reinstate USAID as a way to support farmers and rural communities in your state.
Write an Op-ed: Use your voice to tell the stories of the farmers, farm workers, universities, or rural communities that are impacted by the Trump administration policies. Continue to make visible the consequences of federal action at a local level.
Advocate for state-level policies: Continue to be a champion for state-level policies that support farmers and build resilient food systems. Stay in relationships and connected with community partners (outside of the corporate ag lobby), and continue to advocate for organizations working to support farmers of color in your state. Collaborate with tax advocates and allied Ways & Means legislators to identify new forms of sustainable revenue in your state.
Relevant Resources:
If you have farmer constituents experiencing stress, here are some resources for them. (Note this is currently housed on a USDA site. It would be a good idea to download and file this document in the event it disappears)
Use these graphics to lift up the impacts that the elimination of USAID has caused to your state. Use these graphics to tell the story of how your state’s universities will be affected by losing resources from the program.
Keep this resource handy from our partner Dãnia Davy, who has been holding office hours about the funding freeze called What the Funding?!?!
Keep up to date on recent Trump administration actions and the impact to food and farming by bookmarking Civil Eats’ Policy Tracker.
The SiX Ag team has been following some of the recent federal administration’s actions in our CROP HOT Takes emails. You can find more information here. Additionally, we’ve created several new toolkits on dangerous state policy trends this session including on the pesticide preemption “Bayer” bills and the impacts of the Immigration Executive Orders on farmworkers. With the extreme attacks on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, we’ve also compiled a messaging toolkit for state legislators to support Black farmers.
Blog Series: Grounded in Our Values: Belonging and Difference - Part 1
Blog Series: Grounded in Our Values: Belonging and Difference - Part 1
This blog kicks off a series exploring SiX’s updated values to reflect who we are and how we work. After a thoughtful and collaborative process led by SiX’s operations team, we’re proud to share this updated articulation of our core values. This process was a demonstration of those values in action, shaped by the ideas and feedback of our staff. We know we each play a role in upholding these commitments—not only in our policies and programs but in the America we’re building together.
As the Trump administration attempts to undermine our country's progress on diversity, equity, inclusion, and access to opportunities through a series of executive orders, SiX knows that diversity, equity, and inclusion are core to our work and we reaffirm our commitment to belonging and difference.
We are committed to upholding the inherent value of all people across identities, experiences, and perspectives. We actively work against systems of oppression that harm the communities we are a part of and collaborate with, striving to build a world where equity and justice are the norm. We are intentional in addressing racism and continuously learning to shift behaviors, beliefs, and policies that reinforce injustice.
Belonging and Difference in Action at SiX
Black Maternal Health Week
SiX is committed to advancing Black maternal health all year and celebrates Black Maternal Health Week, April 11-17. Even under a federal administration committed to removing DEI and targeting communities of color, state legislators across the country are committed to addressing maternal mortality rates among Black birthing people.
SiX is calling on legislators for quotes stating why addressing Black Maternal Health is a priority. Similar to previous years, legislators will be able to share their graphics on various social media platforms during the week of action. Legislators, if you are interested, submit a 40-50 word quote and a high-quality headshot by Friday, March 14th at 5:00 PM ET using this form.
Black Farmers Equity Working Group
SiX honors the contributions and resilience of Black communities across the country in building a sustainable and equitable food and agriculture system for all. Despite the hostile, anti-DEI landscape created by the Trump administration, communities and farmers continue to fight for greater equity in our food and agriculture system.
SiX actively contributes to this fight by organizing a Black Farmer Equity Working Group with state legislators. Legislators use this space to discuss their Black farmer equity work and how they are approaching it differently in this anti-DEI moment. To help legislators meet this moment and continue supporting Black and brown farmers in their communities, check out our Legislator Resource on Celebrating and Supporting Black Farmers with updated talking points, trends, and state policies.
Paid Family Medical Leave Legislator Cohort
Care work affects everyone — from childcare and elder care to healthcare and paid leave — but it’s often undervalued. Big corporations and private equity firms are taking control of the care industry, putting profits before the needs of care workers and the people receiving care. This leaves many caregivers overworked, underpaid, and unable to care for their own families. Women, immigrant workers, and Black workers represent large sectors of this essential but undervalued workforce. But across the country, caregivers and state leaders are fighting back, working to make care a public good, not a product for profit. They’re pushing for things like paid family leave, affordable childcare, and better jobs for care workers. To help this effort, SiX, A Better Balance, and New America started a Paid Family Medical Leave Legislator group in 2022. It includes 16 lawmakers from seven states who meet each month to share ideas, plan strategies, and find ways to create strong, fair policies that support care workers and families. To learn more, click here.
New Series: Federal Rapid Response Strategy Sessions
New Series: Federal Rapid Response Strategy Sessions
In light of the authoritarian actions of the Trump administration—particularly the use of executive orders and the systematic dismantling of federal agencies—state legislators must be well-informed about the direct and indirect impacts on their states and how to respond. These actions often leave gaps in policies, create new challenges, and shift funding, which can make things harder for state governments.
To help state lawmakers stay informed and ready, SiX and State Futures are hosting bi-weekly Federal Rapid Response Rooms. These virtual meetings give state leaders the tools, strategies, and support they need to respond to federal changes and, when possible, push back.
In these sessions, state legislators and policy experts come together to talk about new federal actions, figure out how they affect states, and plan ways to respond. The goal is to make sure states aren't just reacting to federal decisions but are also creating their own strategies and a proactive vision for the future.
State legislators and staff, click here to join us for our next Federal Rapid Response Room!
So far we have covered:
Executive Orders and State Impact
Federal actions can quickly change state funding and priorities. This first session gave lawmakers important information about these fast-moving decisions, their impacts on states, and how to respond. Experts like Somil Trivedi from Democracy Forward and Michigan Senate Leader Winnie Brinks shared their insights. Lawmakers also joined small group discussions to talk about challenges, solutions, and ways to work together across states. The meeting wrapped up with a summary, helpful resources, and next steps.
State Power to Protect Public Schools
Florida Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost, the Education Law Center, and North Carolina State House Representative Lindsey Prather joined this session to talk about public education. Access to education is directly tied to economic and political power — and public education wasn’t handed to us, it was fought for. But for decades, there’s been a strong, well-funded push to privatize schools.
Click here for a recap of the public education session.
Agriculture, Rural Communities, and Food
The Trump administration’s latest moves are already hitting farmers, rural communities, and our food system. In this session, expert speakers broke down what’s happening, how it’s affecting farms and families in rural areas, and what it all means for the future of agriculture and food.
Click here for a recap of the rural communities, farmers, and our food briefing.
Federal + State Regulatory Attacks and State Response
In this session, experts and lawmakers covered DOGE, efforts to weaken federal regulatory agencies, state-level DOGE actions, and positive state responses.
Rapid Response: Social Safety Net Programs
In this session, we focused on Medicaid and social safety nets. Read more about defending Medicaid here.
Education access is directly tied to economic and political power, which is why universal public education was never given to us – it was hard fought, and incredibly popular. But for decades we’ve faced a multi-pronged, coordinated, and well-funded state-by-state effort to privatize public schools. Now, those ongoing threats are compounded by extremists in the federal government eliminating programs critical to student success in school and life in order to give tax breaks to the rich.
Over the past two months, Donald Trump and Elon Musk have aimed their wrecking ball at public schools and the futures of the 50 million students in rural, suburban, and urban communities across America by dismantling public education to pay for tax handouts for billionaires. They have issued reckless, destructive, and even illegal directives to destabilize public schools and target some of our most vulnerable students. They include executive orders to eliminate the Department of Education, mass layoffs, blocking DEI initiatives, allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids on public schools, former wrestling CEO Linda McMahon as education secretary, Musk & DOGE’s hostile takeover, congressional action, and a pending supreme court ruling– states have an essential role to protect the freedom to learn for all students. Below are resources to understand the impacts of these actions and how to act.
Content summarized from our public education briefing as part of our bi-weekly federal rapid response series. Legislators and legislative staff can register here for this ongoing series.
Who is impacted if the Department of Education is eliminated?
Established in 1980 by Congress, the department is intended to collect data and research on schooling and education, direct supportive funds to targeted communities, and investigate and enforce civil rights anti-discrimination law. It's the smallest Cabinet-level department, with less than 5,000 employees.
One of the Department of Education’s core responsibilities is to administer programs created by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, under which 7.5 million disabled students—roughly, 15 percent of the student population—have received individualized education services, including pre-employment transition services, special education support services, and much more. While the Trump administration cannot scrap IDEA or its funding without Congressional approval, it could attempt to move the administration of IDEA over to another government agency.
The largest K–12 program run through the U.S. Department of Education is Title I, which provides funding to schools that enroll high percentages of low-income students. Nearly two-thirds of all public schools receive Title I funding. These federal funds ensure that schools have extra supports—more teachers, money for supplies, access to better curriculum, behavioral and mental health programs, and more—to help low-income children succeed and help make up for the gaps between rich and poor school districts. According to the Center for American Progress, 2.8 million students benefit from this program. Find a state-by-state breakdown here.
The Department of Education plays a key role in enforcing civil rights laws that protect students from discrimination based on race or national origin, immigration status, sex, disability, and religion through the work of its Office for Civil Rights (OCR). OCR investigates individual complaints, such as when a child is denied access to special education services outlined in their Individualized Education Plan, as well as complaints seeking to protect groups of students, such as when Black students are receiving harsher discipline than white students for the same offenses.
For rural communities dismantling the Department of Education would severely harm rural students by cutting crucial federal funding for low-income and special education programs, worsening teacher shortages, and reducing access to student aid. Without federal oversight, education quality could become inconsistent, leaving rural schools with even fewer resources and lower standards. Programs that provide free meals, after-school care, and broadband access would also be at risk, widening the gap between rural and urban students. This would deepen inequities and limit opportunities for rural students, making education less accessible and effective.
Disrupting student loan infrastructure could barrel the nation toward higher rates of student loan default. By dollars and cents, student loan debt is the federal government’s largest financial asset. The Department of Education manages that $1.6 trillion asset: it not only disburses student loans, but also provides vital information to borrowers, investigates fraud and abuse in federal student aid programs, and manages servicers.
The Department of Education employees are experts in education; their work serves our public school students in every community in every corner of this country. They are researchers who develop best practices for engaging students with disabilities and lawyers who protect students’ civil rights no matter their skin color or gender. The Department of Education employees also process student loan forms so students can attend college or career training programs. These are students who may otherwise not have the means to extend their education and reach their full potential. The Department of Education employees are experts in the field of education who have a singular purpose and commitment to our students and their well-being. The Trump Administration's actions are gutting education and destabilizing schools in neighborhoods around the nation.
Messaging Guidance
Though our opposition paints our fights as “left versus right,” we know this is actually about folks on the bottom versus the very top. Public education is an issue that unites working families, no matter what we look like, where we’re from, where we live, or who we love. So how do we talk about it? From Navigator Research: When communicating these sweeping executive actions, it’s essential that messengers clearly outline the human impacts of the Trump Administration’s latest moves to cut programs that benefit all Americans to enrich billionaires. Focus on the true victims of this decision - students, teachers, and parents. This move will impact the success of students and schools nationwide to make room for tax cuts that benefit the few.
With their consent, share real-life impact stories of students and families in your district. Here’s a few from the National Education Association:
An educator in Georgia who worked with students with disabilities, helping them in their transition out of high school. She lost her job because federal funding was cut and her students now are left without this critical support.
A former Teacher of the Year in Kansas who teaches special education has talked about the risk Kansas faces, losing 4,000 educator jobs if they gut the Department of Education. More than 81,000 students receive services under IDEA in Kansas.
An educator in California told me that her students are worried about how to take care of their siblings if their parents get deported. Trump’s comments on deporting all immigrants have students fearing for their safety.
A high school teacher in rural Ohio said she has students who read at a middle school level, and she worries they won’t be able to read at a necessary level as adults. Less federal funding means less individualized help for students.
Many believe the elimination of the Department of Education will lead to federal block grants for federal dollars. But why are block grants so dangerous?
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities details the threat of federal block grants. Block grants are fixed pots of money that the federal government gives to states to provide benefits or services. Block grant funding levels typically are fixed; this contrasts with an entitlement structure, in which anyone who is eligible for benefits or services can receive them and funding increases automatically and immediately to respond to increased need due to economic downturns, natural disasters, or higher-than-expected costs (such as when a new drug or procedure increases health care costs). Block-granting these programs would strip away the federal commitment to help vulnerable individuals and families who are eligible for these programs when they need them. Fixed annual funding would render the programs unable to automatically respond to increased need, as they do today. As need increases, states would have to cut eligibility or benefits or establish waiting lists to stay within capped funding. When it comes to public education, federal block grants would lead to an unprecedented expansion of vouchers and the privatization of public schools.
Working in collaboration with public education advocates in your state and educating constituents and your colleagues on what is at stake is essential. Consider bringing a delegation of your colleagues into a public school for a day, to fully understand the benefits and the hard work that goes into teaching. Connect constituents with community organizations working to protect and expand public education access. State legislators can also be essential partners in litigation support, ballot initiatives, and in securing new sources of state funding for the long-term, such as this proposal from Maryland. States like Virginia have also launched emergency task forces specifically dedicated to responding to federal threats to funding of essential programs and jobs.
Building an Affirmative Vision for Public Schools
We know Project 2025 began in the states; as we face attacks from all directions, it’s essential that we do not just defend the status quo, but build an affirmative vision for the future in states. People love public education and as In the Public Interest details, community schools are transforming public education. Working in collaboration with students, parents, teachers, and the workers who keep our schools running, we can build that vision in the states.
SiX is working to organize partners in-state and across-states in support of legislators defending public education. If you have a research request, let us know.
How State Spending Can Build a Good Jobs Economy
How State Spending Can Build a Good Jobs Economy
State governments invest billions of public dollars into goods, services, and infrastructure. But too often, these investments lead to low-wage, poor-quality jobs that fail to uplift local communities.
Our new report, How State Spending Can Create a Good Jobs Economy, written in collaboration with Karla Walter, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, lays out clear solutions for policymakers to use public funds as a force for good—raising job quality, ensuring fair wages, and creating economic opportunities for all.
Read the full report and see how we can build a stronger, fairer economy together.
From the Field: Nevada’s Identity Caucuses Stand United
We’re proud to launch From the Field, a new series highlighting powerful wins and policy progress in states across the country. In many of these moments, SiX has played a role behind the scenes, helping connect partners, align priorities, and strengthen legislative strategy.
And one such moment just unfolded in Nevada.
For the first time in the state’s history, all four of Nevada’s identity-based legislative caucuses—the Latino, Black, AANHPI, and LGBTQ+ caucuses—came together to issue a unified statement opposing harmful federal actions that threaten the health, rights, and dignity of communities across the state. Their message was clear: Nevada will not stand idle as federal leaders attempt to roll back civil rights and strip away protections for marginalized communities.
The statement calls out dangerous federal attacks on healthcare, immigration, transgender rights, and civil liberties, and outlines a state-level legislative response rooted in justice and solidarity. From bills protecting access to gender-affirming care, to efforts that safeguard students from immigration enforcement, these caucuses are building a strong policy front grounded in lived experience and shared values.
SiX was honored to support this historic cross-caucus collaboration—helping to coordinate and refine the messaging that shaped this joint statement. Read the full statement below.
State Innovation Exchange (SiX) released findings from a recent poll highlighting the perspectives of registered Latino voters across the state. The survey, conducted by GSP Research, underscores support for key economic issues – such as the vast majority of respondents indicating they believe it is important for the state government to take steps on providing employees with paid family medical leave and (92%) and creating or expanding a statewide program to make childcare more affordable for working families (90%).
Protecting Immigrant Communities: A Toolkit for State Action
Protecting Immigrant Communities: A Toolkit for State Action
Across the country, immigrant communities are facing increasing threats—from aggressive federal enforcement tactics to harmful state-level policies designed to criminalize and marginalize. But state lawmakers have the power to push back.
SiX is proud to offer the State Power to Protect Immigrant Communities toolkit, a resource designed to help legislators develop proactive policies, strengthen worker protections, and expand access to critical services.
The toolkit is password-protected for the safety of our partners and communities. To access the document, please fill out this form.
What’s Inside?
A landscape of current threats and state-level responses
Proactive policy examples, from sanctuary measures to professional licensing reforms
Strategies for supporting immigrant workers and preventing retaliation
Guidance on legal clinics, mutual aid networks, and Know Your Rights resources
Messaging tips and data-backed research to support policymaking
As lawmakers, we are responsible for crafting policies that reflect our values—policies that ensure safety, dignity, and opportunity for all. This toolkit provides concrete steps to resist harmful measures and build a more inclusive future.
New Report: Prohibiting Surveillance Prices and Wages
New Report: Prohibiting Surveillance Prices and Wages
Corporations use vast amounts of personal data to set individualized prices and wages. They charge some people more based on their perceived financial situation while paying workers as little as possible. These practices deepen economic inequality, threaten privacy, and strip power from working people and small businesses.
Together, we can build an economy that prioritizes fairness, transparency, and economic justice.
Blog Series: Global Solidarity for Reproductive Justice - Part 2
Blog Series: Global Solidarity for Reproductive Justice - Part 2
Fighting Back in Washington, D.C.: Global Strategies to Defend Reproductive Freedom
In January 2025, SiX and Women’s Equality Center brought together U.S. and Latin American legislators to share insights and strategies in the global fight for reproductive justice. Alongside US state legislators, four Latin American lawmakers – Mexico’s Deputy Patricia Mercado, Deputy Liliana Aguilar Gil, Municipal Union of City Hall Mónica Silva Ruiz, and Argentinian Senator Guadalupe Tagliaferri – engaged in a week of learning, exchange, and collaboration designed to strengthen their work in defending abortion rights.
After traveling from Georgia to Washington, DC over four days, meeting with reproductive justice leaders, researchers, red and blue state legislators, abortion funds, clinic staff, abortion providers, abortion storytellers, and legal experts, Argentinian Senator Tagliaferri summed up an aspect of the delegation’s learning: “What’s clear to me, is that the American dream does not include women.”
This is the second installation in a two-part blog series where you’ll get a behind the scenes account of what these legislators learned. For the first, click here.
Day 3
Latin American legislators traveled to Washington, D.C. and led a congressional briefing with members from SiX, Women’s Equality Center, and Guttmacher Institute’s teams. Latin American leaders emphasize solidarity in defending reproductive rights, highlighting Argentina’s fight against restrictive policies and Mexico’s recent decriminalization of abortion. They stress the importance of proactive legislation, allyship with men, and reframing discussions beyond morality. U.S. legislators are urged to treat abortion as a public health issue and collaborate internationally. Economic disparities limit access, making government action crucial. Organizing at local levels is key, with Latin America’s "Green Wave" serving as inspiration for U.S. movements. Immediate action is needed to protect and expand reproductive rights.
Latin American legislators at the U.S. Capitol. (L-R) Senator Guadalupe Tagliaferri; Mónica Silva Ruiz; and Liliana Aguilar Gil
After the congressional briefing, legislators met with Maryland Delegate Nicole Williams and Executive Director Arianna Kelly, Maryland Commission for Women. The discussion highlighted disparities in healthcare access across U.S. states, particularly reproductive care. Maryland policies are on the vanguard of expanding reproductive health access and officials discussed the importance of vigilance in making sure they continue to improve access. They discussed how they’re looking to eliminate maternal health disparities that persist across racial and ethnic lines, worsening in later generations. While these legislators collaborate across states to protect abortion rights, funding and political challenges remain. Conservative opposition threatens progress, requiring strategic solidarity. Both Latin American and state legislators stressed shifting from survival to thriving, with policies grounded in human rights. Maryland’s abortion laws are protective, but financial and logistical barriers persist. The discussion emphasized the need for continued advocacy, legislative action, and countering misinformation to uphold reproductive rights.
The Latin American legislators meet Maryland officials. (L-R Senator Guadalupe Tagliaferri; Liliana Aguilar Gil; MD Del. Nicole Williams; Arianna Kelly, MD Commission for Women; Mónica Silva Ruiz).
Day 4
On the final day of the delegation, legislators began the day by grounding themselves in storytelling. Access to abortion care varies widely, with stigma and restrictions affecting providers and patients alike. Storytelling plays a key role in shifting narratives, offering catharsis, and creating space for those impacted. Training for providers remains difficult, especially in restricted states, with fewer opportunities post-Dobbs. Advocacy efforts push for expanded telehealth, harm reduction approaches, and post-abortion care. Latin America’s evolving abortion discourse highlights public health and equity issues. Reducing stigma and increasing accessibility, including through abortion doulas and policy changes, remains crucial. The goal is to normalize abortion as essential healthcare and improve provider training and patient support.
And finally, legislators met with legal scholars at Georgetown Law’s O’Neill Institute to understand the legal efforts to reverse abortion bans at the federal and state levels. Abortion restrictions in the U.S. have intensified post-Dobbs, with 12 states enforcing full bans and others imposing harsh penalties on providers. Criminalization disproportionately affects women of color, with prosecutions for pregnancy loss and self-managed abortion increasing. Internationally, a total abortion ban is recognized as a human rights violation, yet the U.S. is disregarding global norms. Latin America tracks regional trends, advocating against criminalization. Fetal personhood laws expand restrictions, while legal battles challenge bans on constitutional grounds. Activists push for protections, decriminalization, and policy shifts to counter growing prosecutions and safeguard reproductive rights.
To learn more about SiX’s reproductive freedom work, visit www.sixrepro.org and if you’re a state legislator, join the Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council here!
Throwback: SiX’s 2024 National Conference – A Powerful Gathering For Progressive State Leadership
Throwback: SiX’s 2024 National Conference – A Powerful Gathering For Progressive State Leadership
It’s hard to believe nearly two months have passed since our 2024 National Conference, held December 11–13 at the Marriott Marquis in Atlanta, Georgia. Last year’s conference—marking SiX’s 10th anniversary—was an incredible opportunity to convene progressive state legislators, advocates, and partners from across the country under the theme:
Irresistible Futures: Moving from Impossible to Inevitable
Focusing on co-governance, equity, and movement-building, the conference brought together 547 attendees from 45 states, including 191 legislators.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
Powerful Keynote Address by Stacey Abrams and Loretta Ross
Former Georgia State Representative and national voting rights leader Stacey Abrams headlined the event, inspiring attendees with a call to action for state-level progress and collaborative governance.
Engaging Conversations & Movement Building
Breakout sessions focused on racial, gender, social, and economic justice while equipping legislators with the tools to champion progressive policies.
“Election Reflections and Charting A Path Forward Together”
Held on Day 2 of the 2024 National Conference, this powerful plenary explored how state legislative and judicial races shaped the future of reproductive rights, democracy, and governance. Now available to watch, this session featured movement leaders and legislators reflecting on the election’s outcomes and strategizing for the road ahead.
Stay tuned for exclusive video content featuring state legislators and partners sharing their vision for the future.
We’re deeply grateful to every attendee, partner, and funder who made this conference a success. Together, we’re turning the impossible into the inevitable—one policy, one partnership, and one state at a time.
Want to stay involved? Follow us on BlueSky, Instagram, and YouTube for ongoing updates and resources!
Resisting Authoritarianism Through State Legislatures
Resisting Authoritarianism Through State Legislatures
Here are three ways state legislators can plug into SiX’s organizing work:
SiX is partnering with State Futures to host a virtual rapid response briefing on Thursday, February 20, 2025, to discuss the state-level impact of recent federal executive orders and explore strategies for legislative response. Register here.
This event will provide an opportunity for lawmakers to:
Gain insights from policy and legal experts on key federal actions, including executive orders affecting state budgets and policy priorities.
Hear from state legislators about how they are responding and preparing for potential challenges.
Participate in breakout discussions to connect with fellow lawmakers and strategize on coordinated state-level actions.
Are you ready to go deeper in your organizing around issues like reproductive rights, agriculture, and economic justice? Make sure you’re signed up for SiX’s Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council (RFLC), Economic Power Project (EPP), and Cohort for Rural Opportunity and Prosperity (CROP)! In signing up for these emails, you’ll have early access to strategy rapid response rooms with experts and like-minded legislators from across the country, customized research and resource requests, and in-person and virtual trainings.
Blog Series: Global Solidarity for Reproductive Justice - Part 1
Blog Series: Global Solidarity for Reproductive Justice - Part 1
Southern Lessons: How U.S. and Latin American Leaders Are Fighting for Reproductive Freedom
In January 2025, SiX and Women’s Equality Center (WEC) brought together U.S. and Latin American legislators to share insights and strategies in the global fight for reproductive justice. Alongside US state legislators, four Latin American lawmakers–Mexico’s Deputy Patricia Mercado, Deputy Liliana Aguilar Gil, Municipal Union of City Hall Mónica Silva Ruiz, and Argentina’s Senator Guadalupe Tagliaferri–engaged in a week of learning, exchange, and collaboration designed to strengthen their work in defending abortion rights and maternal health.
After traveling from Georgia to Washington, DC, over four days, meeting with reproductive justice leaders, researchers, red and blue state legislators, abortion funds, clinic staff, abortion providers, abortion storytellers, and legal experts, Argentinian Senator Tagliaferri summed up an aspect of the delegation’s learning: “What’s clear to me, is that the American dream does not include women.”
This is the first of a two-part blog series that will give you a behind-the-scenes account of the lessons learned throughout the delegation.
The Latin American Delegation meets with leaders in the reproductive justice movement. (Front row, L-R) Liliana Aguilar Gil, Paula Avila-Guillen, WEC; (Back row, L-R) Jennifer Driver, SiX; Sukari Olawumi; Mónica Silva Ruiz; Senator Guadalupe Tagliaferri; Kwajelyn Jackson, Feminist Women Health Center; Patricia Mercado; Breana Lipscomb, Center for Reproductive Rights; Gabriela Hernandez, Sisterlove.
Day 1:
Latin American legislators met with reproductive justice leaders and learned the history of the movement, with an emphasis on addressing systemic issues like poverty, racism, and patriarchy alongside securing legal abortion access. Panelists discussed how southern U.S. states face severe abortion bans, disproportionately impacting Black and Latina women and marginalized communities, increasing maternal mortality, and driving providers away. Southern community-based solutions focus on comprehensive care, filling gaps for underserved populations, and countering misinformation from fake clinics—a strategy now exported to Latin America. Reproductive justice leaders urged global collaboration, proactive policies (e.g., legal protections, access to full-spectrum care, repealing barriers), and cultural change to tackle shared challenges.
After participating in an Atlanta civil rights tour, legislators met with researchers at Emory University’s Center for Reproductive Health Research in the Southeast (RISE). Researchers shared their efforts to address restrictive abortion policies through a focus on research, education, advocacy, and community partnerships. Programs like RISE emphasize evidence-based approaches, addressing structural barriers, stigma, and misinformation. Speakers shared how community-centered principles, such as self-determination and shared knowledge, guide their initiatives to align policy with public beliefs about autonomy and freedom. RISE’s research and advocacy efforts highlight the disproportionate impact of bans, including increased maternal deaths and pregnancy criminalization, while emphasizing the need for global collaboration.
Latin American legislators ended their day discussing insights and strategies on expanding reproductive freedom with Georgia state legislators. Georgia legislators emphasized that they are fighting to expand reproductive freedom beyond Roe, focusing on healthcare access, pregnancy decriminalization, and expanding insurance coverage. In Georgia, a narrow vote passed a restrictive abortion ban in 2019, forcing women to seek care out of state and allowing misinformation to thrive in clinics. While the ban is being litigated in the state, the maternal mortality crisis worsens as oversight committees are dismantled and physician shortages persist. Advocates remain committed to pushing bold legislation, even when success is uncertain, to keep the fight alive.
The Latin American delegation meets with Georgia legislators. (Front row, L-R) Jennifer Driver, SiX; Patricia Mercado; Mónica Silva Ruiz; Senator Guadalupe Tagliaferri; GA Sen. Nabilah Islam Parkes; GA Rep. Shea Roberts; (Back row, L-R) Elida Caballero Cabrera, WEC; Paula Avila-Guillen, WEC; Liliana Aguilar Gil; GA Rep. Eric Bell; GA Rep. Kim Schofield.
Legislators from Argentina and Mexico shared strategies from their successful movements—leveraging media, reframing messaging, and countering misinformation. Fear and disinformation now shape conversations in the U.S., with simple yet misleading narratives gaining traction. To shift public perception, legislators discussed refining their messaging, mobilizing younger voices, and creating compelling, accessible narratives that resonate widely.
Day 2
Legislators began the day by visiting Atlanta’s only birth center. This birth center is the third busiest in the U.S. and one of two operating in Georgia. Most midwives at the birthing center have transfer privileges at Grady Hospital and partner with Morehouse School of Medicine. They provide gynecological care, preconception counseling, and Certified Nurse Midwife services. Initially out-of-network, the birthing center now accepts insurance and Medicaid but faces financial deficits due to low reimbursement rates. Medicaid covers 50-55% of patients, with few cash-pay clients. Staffing is a challenge due to lower wages than hospitals, and philanthropy is essential for sustainability of the center.
Next, legislators met with leaders from ARC Southeast, a regional reproductive justice organization that serves six states, providing direct funding to Feminist Women’s Health Center, practical support, and Plan B kits. They offer travel accompaniment but logistically are challenged to offer childcare – a high need since 65% of abortion clients are parents. Over 80% of callers travel out of state, averaging a drive time of four and a half hours. Speakers encouraged the reproductive freedom movement to think bigger, challenge outdated rules post-Roe, and build cross-movement alliances. Latin American legislators shared lessons to highlight the importance of community-led support and policy enforcement to sustain reproductive rights and care.
Finally, legislators ended their time in Atlanta with a tour of Feminist Women’s Health Center, a reproductive health, rights, and justice organization offering a range of services and programs including abortion care, annual exams, birth control options, emergency contraception, HIV and STI testing and counseling, pregnancy testing, and trans health services. In addition to these essential services, they also offer community programs that engage community members in policy and advocacy efforts, Lifting Latinx Voices Initiative which addresses reproductive and sexual health issues faced by Latinx families through education, outreach, and leadership development.
Stay tuned for the second blog in this series for what the Latin American legislators learned in Washington, DC!
To learn more about SiX’s reproductive freedom work, visit www.sixrepro.org and if you’re a state legislator, join the Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council here!
Threats and Opportunities Facing State Budgets in 2025
Threats and Opportunities Facing State Budgets in 2025
Budgets are an essential responsibility of state legislators. Every year legislatures approve trillions in public spending. Budgets are also a reflection of a state's values and priorities and can be a powerful tool to advance justice and secure meaningful, material gains for working families.
State budgets were already expected to face shortfalls in 2025 as pandemic-era federal dollars conclude, and automatic tax cuts threaten state budgets. However, with the advancing Trump administration, the possibility of completely eliminating federal public programs, grants, and jobs is real – alongside a punitive federal government that could target and scapegoat states that don’t go along with the federal agenda.
SiX created the webinar State Budgets: Threats and Opportunities in 2025, in partnership with our colleagues at the Center for Budget & Policy Priorities (CBPP), the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the State Revenue Alliance (SRA), and more, to help state legislators, legislative staff, advocates, and movement partners navigate the unique dynamics facing state budgets in 2025.
The webinar overviews how federal and state budgets interact with each other, who contributes to our state budgets, and the power – as well as mass popular support – state legislators have to pass common-sense tax solutions to ensure working families have access to public education, healthcare, childcare, and retirement.
If you would like to access the recording and slides or receive follow-up support on advancing state budgets that center on the needs of people over corporate and billionaire profits, fill out this password form. If you’d like to share the webinar recording or slides with a colleague, please send them the password form instead so we can keep track of who has access!
During the webinar, SiX and our partners at CBPP, ITEP, and SRA shared some essential tools and resources we’ve released for legislators, legislative staff, and advocates to defend and advance progressive state budgets:
This webinar is part of SIX’s Economic Power Project, our national economic justice initiative, organizing legislators committed to building economies that empower people and advance justice. With alarmingly rising corporate and billionaire influence in the federal government, the states are the frontlines for building people-centered economies that deliver tangible wins for working families. Learn more and join here.
State Legislatures and the Fight for Reproductive Rights in 2025
State Legislatures and the Fight for Reproductive Rights in 2025
Written by Jennifer Driver, Senior Director of Reproductive Rights at the State Innovation Exchange
52 years after the Supreme Court first handed down the Roe v. Wade decision, abortion has gone from a constitutionally protected right to the focus of an all-out fight in the states, with state legislators on the frontlines. This year, the inauguration of Donald Trump—and one of the most anti-abortion administrations and congresses in our country’s history—signals the next chapter of that fight, and lives are on the line—but not lives that these politicians care about.
Politicians like JD Vance have built their identities and platforms around words like “pro-life.” But their agenda is not about protecting life, and it never has been.
I know this because their playbook is nothing new for SiX. For decades, our Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council members have seen this extremist agenda play out in statehouses and communities and the harm it causes, especially to Black and brown communities and those working to make ends meet–people who were most likely to lack access to abortion even before Roe fell.
And it’s not just abortion policies that call anti-abortion politicians’ values into question. Politicians who preach family values are planning mass deportations that will tear families apart. Lawmakers who sound the alarm about “protecting children” are proposing legislation to deny transgender children health care, while doing nothing to regulate guns despite hundreds of school shootings each year.
If these politicians cared about life, they would take up policies and allocate resources that protect it. They would strengthen state maternal mortality review committees instead of appointing anti-abortion extremists. They would push to expand contraception instead of attacking it. They would protect Medicaid and other programs to meet people’s basic needs instead of gutting it.
The administration that gutted Roe will be emboldened. But so will we.
This year, state legislatures must hold the line, defending our freedom, health, and well-being in the face of renewed attacks. State lawmakers have incredible power to make decisions that protect our lives and our freedoms. We’ve seen incredible examples of this, from Michigan’s Senate advancing the “Momnibus” package to address maternal health disparities, including a bill requiring reports of obstetric racism and another protecting reproductive health data, to California Democrats introducing several bills to safeguard medication abortion and enforce the state’s Reproductive Privacy Act, which ensures the right to make reproductive care decisions without government interference, to Kentucky pushing for postpartum insurance coverage, diversifying medical teams, and increasing access to doulas.
In the face of a Trump presidency and the ongoing attacks on our democracy, state lawmakers are on the frontlines. They have a renewed duty to use their power for good and to advocate for policies that allow us, not politicians, to make our own decisions about our lives and futures.
That’s pro-life.
To learn more about SiX's reproductive rights work and to join the Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council, visit sixrepro.org.
New Poll Shows Coloradans’ Strong Support for a State Voting Rights Act
New Poll Shows Coloradans’ Strong Support for a State Voting Rights Act
State Innovation Exchange (SiX) is thrilled to release findings from a recent poll highlighting overwhelming support for the Colorado Voting Rights Act among registered voters across the state. The survey, conducted by Aspect Strategic, underscores Coloradans’ pride in their state’s election system and their commitment to ensuring fair and equitable access to the ballot box.
At a time when federal voting protections are being eroded, and many states are implementing restrictive voting laws, Colorado voters are championing reforms that protect civil rights and strengthen democracy.
Key Findings Include:
Two-thirds of Coloradans support taking action to protect civil rights and liberties in elections.
Voters back the Colorado Voting Rights Act by a 28-point margin (61% to 33%), with significant support across all major demographic subgroups.
Unaffiliated voters and self-identified independents also show strong support, with margins of 64% to 28% and 62% to 30%, respectively.
"The results are clear: Coloradans want bold action to protect our civil rights and build a more equitable democracy,” said Maggie Gómez, SiX Colorado State Director. “The Colorado Voting Rights Act sets clear and fair standards to ensure that every community member has an equal voice in our elections.”
As courts continue to undermine federal voting rights protections, Colorado has taken a different approach. It has increased access to mail-in voting, enacted same-day voter registration, and created opportunities for incarcerated individuals to vote. These poll results affirm that voters are ready to take the next step: pass CO VRA to solidify Colorado’s status as a leader in election access and equity.
The poll was conducted online from January 6 to 9, 2025, and surveyed 500 registered voters statewide using SMS-to-web methodology. The margin of error is ±4.9% at a 95% confidence level.
How States Can Take the Lead Challenging Corporate Monopolies
How States Can Take the Lead Challenging Corporate Monopolies
Days before the next presidential administration begins, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan joined state legislators from across the country for a conversation on how state policymakers can challenge corporate monopolies and secure federal wins at the state level – fighting for fair markets and protecting workers, consumers, and local businesses in states across the country.
As Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan and her team adopted and championed a wide range of key protections for US workers, consumers, and local business. These have included a proposed rule to ban noncompete clauses, scrutinizing dominant middlemen across sectors, protecting people’s sensitive data from unchecked surveillance, and fighting for Americans’ right to access affordable, high-quality healthcare.
During the briefing, our partners at the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), National Employment Law Project (NELP), and the NYU Wagner Labor Initiative shared some essential tools they’ve released for legislators and legislative staff to continue the anti-monopoly momentum:
AELP, NELP, the NYU Wagner Labor Initiative, and SiX are here to support you year-round in building people-centered state governments.
Also in January, Lina Khan’s Federal Trade Commission voted 5-0 to seek public comment (including legislators & constituents) on mega investors' single-family home holdings. In another 5-0 vote, the FTC and the State of Colorado announced that they are taking action against Greystar, the nation’s largest multi-family rental property manager, for deceiving consumers.
We cannot extend our gratitude enough to Chair Khan and her team, for doing the hard and brave work of challenging the most powerful corporations and individuals in the world, and for investing so much time and passion into centering the needs and stories of those closest to the ground: legislators, workers, consumers, and local business.
State legislators across the country are ready to pick up the baton and build state governments that work for people. Together we can secure federal wins at the state level, and protect these essential safeguards for working families.
For more insights on how states can take on corporate monopolies and rebuild local economies going forward, check out the recording of SiX and the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s (ISLR’s) briefing on the future of antitrust policies.
Watch: SIX and the Institute for Local Self-Reliance also hosted a briefing on States and the Future of Antitrust
SIX’s Economic Power Project:
This briefing is part of SIX’s Economic Power Project, our national economic justice initiative, organizing legislators committed to building economies that empower people and advance justice. With alarmingly rising corporate and billionaire influence in the federal government, the states are the frontlines for building people-centered economies that deliver tangible wins for working families. Learn more and join here.
About Chair Khan:
Lina M. Khan served as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces the nation’s antitrust and consumer protection laws, from June 2021 to January 2025. Khan got her start in antitrust as a business reporter and researcher examining consolidation across markets, from airlines to chicken farming. Since joining the FTC, Khan focused on exercising the full suite of the FTC’s statutory authorities, regularly engaging with and hearing from the public, and ensuring the agency is updating its tools and skillsets to tackle new market realities and next-generation challenges.
Under her leadership, priority initiatives included a proposed rule to ban noncompete clauses, scrutinizing dominant middlemen across sectors, protecting people’s sensitive data from unchecked surveillance, and fighting for Americans’ right to access affordable, high-quality healthcare. Prior to joining the FTC, Khan served as counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law. She was also an associate professor at Columbia Law School. Khan is a graduate of Williams College and Yale Law School.
Building Bold Futures: Key Themes for 2025 State Legislatures
Building Bold Futures: Key Themes for 2025 State Legislatures
No matter who holds power at the federal level, the majority of policymaking happens in the states. In many states, legislators have spent years working to beat back Project 2025 priorities that extremists are actively field-testing. But defensive work alone won’t win us the future. We must also build a bold affirmative vision that centers care for working families and advances justice in all states– in all constituencies and all communities — rural, urban, and suburban.
SiX is dedicated to empowering state legislators to lead boldly with their communities and make transformative changes. We have a decade of success supporting state legislators by addressing their governing needs and helping them organize with their communities.
After the election, SiX invited legislators from our network to share their priorities for the 2025 legislative session. Legislators shared plans spanning diverse political contexts, including harm reduction through community-based approaches, strengthening bipartisan relationships, and bold initiatives on racial equity, immigrant justice, reproductive rights, taxes, climate change, worker power, and anti-monopoly reform.
And at SiX’s National Conference in December 2024, state legislators and movement leaders reflected on what the election results mean for the future of state governance and discussed the work ahead in the mainstage panel, “Election Reflections and Charting a Path Forward Together.” You can watch the plenary here.
As we prepare for 2025 state legislative sessions, here are trends we’re anticipating:
Economic Justice
Building economic power for working families is essential to all of our organizing power efforts. These must center racial, gender, and immigrant justice while building class solidarity across racial and ethnic lines, immigration status, and geographies. In doing so, we’re strengthening a common thread through all topics and communities: economic justice.
Progressive economic policy measures won across the country this election, from paid leave to raising the wage, to the right to organize, abortion rights, and getting big money out of our politics. Efforts to roll back our progress failed too– voters protected public education in every state with a private school voucher measure on the ballot. Similarly, efforts to repeal state capital gains tax and climate programs also failed. With these electoral victories, we’re anticipating legislators will feel emboldened to introduce additional progressive economic policy measures.
States are the frontlines for building worker power and protecting consumers from corporate monopolies rigging the economy to their advantage. They’ve protected workers’ rights to organize and collectively bargain, leveraged public dollars to build a good-jobs economy, stopped anti-competitive corporate mergers and safeguarded workers and consumers from abusive AI, junk fees, and non-compete agreements. But there are still countless opportunities for state legislators to build economies that advance tangible gains for working families, empowering them to pass local laws that meet their needs and defend local freedoms.
Budgets are an essential responsibility of state legislators. Every year, legislatures approve trillions in public spending. Budgets also reflect a state's values and priorities, and can be a powerful tool to advance justice and secure meaningful, material gains for working families. State budgets were already expected to face shortfalls in 2025 as pandemic-era federal dollars conclude, and automatic tax cuts threaten state budgets. However, with the advancing Trump administration, the possibility of completely eliminating federal public programs, grants, and jobs is real– alongside a punitive federal government that could target and scapegoat states that don’t align with the federal agenda.
For a deeper dive into how federal and state budgets interact with each other and how states can lead in 2025, legislators and staff are invited to the “State Budgets: Threats and Opportunities in 2025” briefing on January 23, 1-2 pm. Organized with the Center for Budget & Policy Priorities, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, and the State Revenue Alliance, this meeting will overview federal and state budget interactions, contributions to state budgets, and the influence of legislators in enacting tax solutions for public education, healthcare, childcare, and retirement access for working families.
As the states approach the third anniversary of Roe v. Wade's reversal, legislatures are gearing up to debate laws that either broaden or restrict access to abortion and reproductive health care. States with strong safeguards for reproductive rights are proposing measures to protect patients and healthcare providers should the new administration roll back abortion policies even further. We anticipate states in more progressive climates to safeguard contraception, medication abortion, and telehealth, as well as introduce further protections to guarantee the right to make reproductive healthcare choices free from government intrusion.
Meanwhile, states with abortion bans are advancing proposals such as fetal personhood laws (a radical legal doctrine that seeks to endow fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses with full rights and legal protections), penalties for abortion pill use, and other restrictive measures. After Louisiana passed a law last year classifying mifepristone and misoprostol controlled substances, other states, like Texas, are introducing similar measures.
Restrictive measures aren’t simply targeted at abortion access. The state legislators seeking to restrict abortion access are setting their sights on limiting access to minors, whether through constraining travel for health care, including gender-affirming care or imposing unnecessary parental notification.
And still, other states are prioritizing improving maternal healthcare, especially for communities of color and rural populations. Michigan's Senate advanced the "Momnibus" package to address maternal health disparities, including a bill requiring reports of obstetric racism and another protecting reproductive health data. In Virginia, lawmakers plan to expand Medicaid and offer remote monitoring for high-risk rural patients. Kentucky is pushing for postpartum insurance coverage, diversifying medical teams, and increasing access to doulas, while California proposes reimbursing alternative birth centers under Medicaid. Texas is considering initiatives to combat its "maternity care deserts," where nearly half of counties lack maternity services, exacerbating pregnancy complications.
Legislators and legislative staff are invited to join us for our next Rapid Response Room meeting – a virtual space for state lawmakers and staff to collaborate as they work on reproductive health, rights, and justice laws in their states on January 13, 12 pm. Professor Zakia Luna PhD, MSW will be discussing reproductive rights as human rights. Register here.
State and federal agriculture and environmental policies are deeply interconnected. States rely heavily on federal funding for climate, agriculture, and food and nutrition programs. A Trump administration alongside a Republican-controlled Congress could lead to significant changes in federal policies, which would directly affect state budgets and state programs.
A Trump administration may prioritize deregulation, cut critical programs, and shift focus to market-driven solutions. This could result in looser environmental protections, such as easing restrictions on industrial animal agriculture, pesticide use, and water quality standards; consolidation of the agriculture sector, benefiting large corporate agribusinesses at the expense of family farms, rural communities, and the environment; and volatility in trade policies and tariffs, creating instability in agricultural markets, potentially increasing costs and reducing export opportunities for farmers.
While federal cuts and policy shifts could present significant challenges, many states have already built the foundations for resilient and sustainable local food systems and healthy rural communities, and we have no doubt that legislators will continue advocating for these solutions to protect the people living in communities that they represent.
States are moving forward with climate-resilient policies to promote regenerative agriculture, soil health, and agro voltaics (solar-powered farming). This will support farmers and ranchers to implement practices that are good for the climate. Similarly, local food infrastructure and procurement policies have been supporting rural economic development, ensuring food security and benefiting independent family farms, and farmer equity programs in many states have resulted in legislators and farmers working together to ensure that the unique barriers farmers of color face are addressed through policy and programs.
Join us in driving real change. Watch and share this video on SiX’s agriculture and food systems work today!
2024 National Conference - Atlanta, GA
2024 National Conference - Atlanta, GA
Day 1
Day 2
Welcome to Atlanta Guide
Welcome to Atlanta Guide
Irresistible Futures: Moving from Impossible to Inevitable
We are overjoyed to be with you for SiX’s National Conference in just a few days. We’ll be gathering over 500 state legislators and movement partners in Atlanta, exactly 10 years—to the date—from when SiX was first publicly launched in 2014 at a conference in Washington, DC. This year’s conference, “Irresistible Futures: Moving from Impossible to Inevitable,” celebrates our work together and the work that each of you drives in your states and communities. We can’t wait to reflect on the last decade, build community, and strategize for the future with each of you in a place that holds so much historic significance to our movement.
At SiX, we know that state legislatures have long been on the front lines of protecting and advancing our most fundamental rights. Our decision to gather at this pivotal moment in Georgia is a direct reflection of our belief that our collective power to deliver a brighter future lies in the hands of state legislators working in collaboration with their communities all across the country. More than ever, we understand that states hold the mantle of a fragile democracy on their shoulders. We are prepared to help you combat authoritarianism, build relationships, and focus on long-term building to win the future we all deserve.
We recently announced that we'll be transitioning out of our roles as Co-Executive Directors at the end of March next year. Alongside our team and movement partners, including many of you, it’s been our honor to build the SiX that exists today: an institution that stands ready to transform American governance from the states outward. Looking back on the last seven years of our leadership, we are proud to pass the baton to others who will continue to grow power by, with, and for our communities.
Our time together in Atlanta is both a celebration of the past and an invitation to each of you to co-create the next chapter of our work to build power in the states alongside our communities. The power that has been built by the collaborative efforts of legislators and activists for generations here in Georgia stands as a beacon of light for how our movements can make our vision for the future irresistible to those around us when they see their own hopes and dreams in the future that we unfold. This is what we mean by collaborative governance: the people most impacted by governing decisions have real agency, through collaboration with their elected decision makers, to pursue racial, gender, social, and economic justice by shaping the rules, processes, and structures that govern their lives.
We assembled a Local Advisory Committee, including Georgia-based legislators, partners, and SiX staff, to support us in ensuring that while we are in Atlanta, we can tell the story of how local legislators, advocates, organizers, and community members have built power in service of justice and liberation. We’ve also asked the Committee to facilitate meaningful connections with the city of Atlanta for our attendees in ways that invest in local communities, and they have generously compiled some of their personal favorites in this guide. We encourage you to take full advantage of this guide to plan around the conference (view the agenda here) in ways that invest in local communities.
As we gather together in Georgia, we recognize that the movements we fight for today were cultivated by generations of leaders, including many whom we may never meet and others who will be speaking at this very conference! Let us move forward together to prepare the ground for the next generation to walk on as they build an irresistible future.
In solidarity, Neha Patel and Jessie Ulibarri Co-Executive Directors, State Innovation Exchange
PS: If you are looking for some airplane reading, we’d like to suggest this list of articles, podcasts, and resources curated by our team to help us root in a common framework and language about how we can build a new world from the states outward. Please consider taking some time to review these materials as you prepare for our time together in Atlanta!
Welcome to Atlanta from SiX’s National Conference Local Advisory Committee
Dear colleague,
We’re thrilled to welcome you to Atlanta, a city we love and are proud to call home. Whether it’s your first time here, or you’re a long-time visitor, we hope you’ll be able to experience a bit of Atlanta while you’re here for the conference. But first: a brief introduction to our host city.
For centuries, the Muscogee (Creek) people called present-day Atlanta home, in addition to much of the southeastern part of the country. The Muscogee built an expansive network of towns and a complex political structure to govern the Confederacy. Subsequently, they were violently removed from their lands by the United States government in the early 19th century. As we gather in this city, we honor this land and its Indigenous caretakers and recommit ourselves to dismantling oppression in all its forms and continuing to care for the land and its people.
Today, Atlanta is perhaps best known as the cradle of the Civil Rights Movement. Throughout the movement, the city was a critical hub for iconic leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King, U.S. Rep. John Lewis, and C.T. Vivian, as well as powerhouse organizations like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) that paved the way for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. There are many historic and cultural sites commemorating the Civil Rights Movement we hope you will consider visiting during your stay here, many of which we’ll highlight in our recommendations.
We also want to share a brief, but far from comprehensive, history of the lesser-known contributions that Georgia and its people have made to advancing democracy, racial justice, and civil rights in this country.
Reproductive justice—the right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities—has deep roots in Atlanta. The founders of the reproductive justice movement, highlighted how mainstream reproductive rights activists failed to consider the intersectional barriers that burdened women of color, marginalized women, and trans people when they tried to access reproductive health care. This group of Black women went on to establish Atlanta-based SisterSong, the nation’s largest multi-ethnic reproductive justice collective. On our final day together, during the closing plenary, we’ll hear from one of the founders of SisterSong, local Atlanta resident, Professor Loretta Ross! Today, Atlanta is also home to several notable organizations working to advance reproductive health, rights, and justice. Access Reproductive Care-Southeast is an abortion fund that provides critical support to help pay for and access abortion care for people living in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The Feminist Women’s Health Center is the only independent abortion clinic in the region that also works to protect and expand access to reproductive health care with a full-time lobbyist and legislative advocacy program.
Atlanta also has an enduring legacy as the Black Gay Mecca of the nation and as the LGBTQ+ capital of the South. In 1969, just six weeks after the Stonewall riots in New York City, Atlanta City Police conducted a raid of a screening of a film at a queer-friendly theater. This sparked a wave of organizing in the local community, including the city’s first Gay Pride March and winning the passage of three anti-discrimination ordinances in the Atlanta City Council. Faced with anti-Black discrimination in queer communities and businesses, often led or owned by white gay men, Black queer movement leaders mobilized to create spaces that centered their own experiences. Black queer spaces flourished across the city, and Atlanta Black Pride, which began as informal picnics hosted by friend groups in the 1980s, became the largest Black gay pride celebration in the world. In the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, Atlanta-based activists played pivotal roles in developing an effective response, including pressuring the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to be responsive to the needs of women living with HIV, providing prevention and treatment services to Black women, and marshaling resources for Black queer communities.
As you prepare for the 2024 SiX National Conference, we hope you arrive in Atlanta inspired by the incredible resilience, strength, and solidarity that our communities have been building here for centuries. This guide includes some of our favorite places in the city as a starting point for you to explore Atlanta yourself. There is so much more to see and discover here—welcome!
See you in Atlanta! The 2024 SiX National Conference Local Advisory Committee
Reverend Senator Kim Jackson Senior Vice President of Programs, State Innovation Exchange and Georgia State Senate, District 41
Representative Jasmine Clark, PhD Georgia House of Representatives, District 108
Eric Paulk, JD Chief of Staff, ProGeorgia
Alaina Reaves Georgia State Director, State Innovation Exchange
N. Sydney Jemmott, MD, MPH Director of Reproductive Rights Policy, State Innovation Exchange
Recommendations for Exploring Atlanta
GETTING AROUND ON MARTA
We hope you’ll consider taking advantage of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) to get you around town while you’re here! Getting to and from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is a breeze on the MARTA. The Airport Station is inside the airport’s domestic terminal (between the North and South baggage claim)—and is more convenient than the walk to the rideshare pickup location. MARTA Passes, which provide unlimited rides for a consecutive period, are available for purchase (1-day for $9, 2-day for $14, and 3-day for $16).
To get to the conference hotel, take the Gold line (heading north to Doraville Station) and get off at the Peachtree Center Station. The conference hotel is just a short 8-minute walk from the station.
The Sweet Auburn neighborhood, just a 25-minute walk or 2 stops on the MARTA from the conference hotel, is a historic Black neighborhood in Atlanta. Black businesses and families sought safety and refuge in the neighborhood after the 1906 Atlanta Race Massacre, in which dozens of Black people were murdered by white mobs and police officers over the course of five days. In the decades since, Auburn Avenue has served as the center of Black businesses in the city, anchored by a number of historic churches and cultural institutions, including many Civil Rights landmarks.
Midtown
The Midtown neighborhood of Atlanta has been home to many of the most iconic queer businesses in the city for decades. Walk the Rainbow Crosswalks at Piedmont Avenue and 10th Street on your way to catch a drag show, or check out one of the many art and cultural venues in the neighborhood.
The Atlanta Beltline is a 22-mile loop of trails and parks connecting 45 neighborhoods across the city. Take a walk or rent a bike to visit restaurants, breweries, art galleries, and more!
Visit Piedmont Park for a walk or reserve a bike to explore the sprawling 185-acres of green space in the middle of the city! If you've extended your stay in Atlanta for the conference, check out the Weekly Walking Club (12/10 at 10 am), the Green Market (12/14 from 9 am - 1 pm), and the Guided History Walking Tour (12/14 from 10 - 11:30 am).
Atlanta's oldest public park is also the final resting place of many notable Atlantans, including Maynard Jackson, the city's first Black mayor, and Carrie Steele Logan, who founded the oldest Black orphanage in the country. After over a century of neglect, the cemetery recently completed a large-scale restoration of the African American Burial Grounds. Take a self-guided dial-in tour of those grounds by dialing (678) 365-0232.
248 Oakland Ave. SE Atlanta, GA 30312
Visitor Center and Museum Store: Monday - Friday: 10:00 am - 2:00 pm Saturday - Sunday: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm The cemetery is open from dawn to dusk
Charis Books and More is the oldest independent feminist bookstore in the South, specializing in a selection of books on feminism, cultural studies, anti-racism, and ending white supremacy, as well as queer fiction and non-fiction.
My Sister's Room is the longest-running lesbian-queer bar in the South. Head over to My Sister's Room for Every Wednesday Karaoke, Thursday R&B, and Femme Friday.
1104 Crescent Ave. NE Atlanta, GA 30309
Wednesday: 8:00 pm - 2:00 am Thursday: 10:00 pm - 3:00 am Friday - Saturday: 8:00 pm - 3:00 am Sunday: 7:00 pm - 12:00 am
Have a meal in the same place where Civil Rights Leaders met at this historic, James Beard-winning Atlanta restaurant that has been serving its famous fried chicken since 1947.
810 Martin Luther King Jr Dr. SW Atlanta, GA 30314
Located in the Municipal Market, just a 20-minute walk from the hotel! Known for award-winning mac and cheese and Caribbean flavors. Entrees made with certified 100% Halal meats.
The park campus includes a number of historical sites dedicated to the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Visit the King Center (open daily from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm), to browse Freedom Hall and the Eternal Flame. Just a short walk away is the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church, where Dr. King served as a co-pastor.
450 Auburn Ave. NE Atlanta, GA 30312
Sunday - Saturday: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Admission: Free
Immerse yourself in the history of the Civil Rights Movement and the global human rights movement at the NCCHR. Plan for about 90 minutes to an hour to experience this 42,000-square-foot museum in full.
100 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd. Atlanta, GA 30313
Tuesday - Friday and Sunday: 12:00 pm - 5:00 pm Saturday: 10:00 am - 5:00 pm Admission: $19.99 for adults
Originally founded as a grassroots artists' cooperative, the Atlanta Contemporary is a nonprofit art museum showcasing contemporary art from over 200 artists each year. WE KEEP US SAFE, from Tatiana Bell, an Atlanta-born-and-raised artist, is one of many exhibits on view now, which "is an ever-growing archive of community offerings, serving as a meditative space to grieve, rage, resist, and rest."
535 Means St. NW Atlanta, GA 30318
Sunday: 11:00 am - 6:00 pm Monday - Wednesday: Closed Thursday - Saturday: 11:00 am - 8:00 pm Admission: Free
The High Museum of Art features over 19,000 works of art, including 19th and 20th century American art, photography and folk art created by Southern artists, modern and contemporary art, African art from prehistory through the present, and European paintings and art. Check out the Giants exhibition, a collection of art from Swizz Beatz and Alicia Keys, now on display until January 19.
Hammonds House Museum features a collection of more than 450 works by artists of African descent, housed in the former residence of the late Dr. Otis Thrash Hammonds, a prominent Atlanta physician and art collector. Check out the Converging Realities exhibition, an exploration of the interconnectedness of African, African American, and Caribbean artistic expressions through the historical and cultural tapestry of the Black Atlantic.
ZuCot Gallery is the largest African-American-owned fine art gallery in the Southeast. While the gallery is only open by appointment during the week, several virtual experiences are available, including the Legacy exhibition, which showcases the undeniable strength and enduring legacy of Black women across various spheres of life.
100 Centennial Olympic Park Dr. SW Atlanta, GA 30313
SiX has partnered with former Georgia State Representative and CEO of Courage for Progress, Renitta Shannon, and Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) to create a new report: “Maternal health, Criminalization of Pregnancy, and Economic Wellbeing: Research Summary and Message Guidance for State Legislators on the Impacts of the Dobbs Decision.”
The report provides research summaries, key takeaways, and evidence-based messaging guidance- all in easy to pull out sections- to meet the unique needs of state legislators. Whether speaking to colleagues or press, this packet provides references and tools to discuss the impacts of the Dobbs decision in these three key areas.
Read the report to access research summaries, key takeaways, and message guidance.
From having our freedom to vote and our judicial systems and the free press undermined, to having to deal with disinformation, surveillance, and money in our politics, we’re fighting for a functioning democracy that will serve the majority of people in the United States on particularly difficult terrain.
And unlike the physical world, the virtual world of the internet has no borders and no government. It is dominated by profit-driven private companies led by CEOs who have made it clear that they value their pocketbooks over people’s safety and run their business on the commodification of our personal information. They have unfettered control and set the stage and terms for democratic discourse and movement building; they are determined to monopolize their control over our democracy in order to guarantee their control of our economy.
Watch: Housing Justice in the States - Trends, Tools & Tenant Power
Watch: Housing Justice in the States - Trends, Tools, & Tenant Power
By Ida V. Eskamani
We all have a right to safe, affordable, sustainable housing. We also know housing is an intersectional issue that touches all facets of our lives. From racial justice, to infant mortality, to the climate crisis, and more, housing sits at the intersection of countless identities and policy areas:
Our Economic Power Project's October briefing focused on renters. Renters in all states face skyrocketing costs and unfair evictions, while unchecked corporate landlords and private equity firms consolidate housing supply and price gouge working families. These corporate actors dominate the policy landscape— often through trade associations like the Apartment Association, Realtors, Homebuilders, and Chambers of Commerce— while policy decisions affecting renters are often made without renters at the table.
Corporate-backed solutions are generally “build-build-build,” through developer subsidies and incentives— but we know that we must go beyond supply-side strategies to ensure we’re not simply building more unaffordable housing and rewarding the same bad actors responsible for the housing crisis with more of our public dollars.
Tram Hoang, Senior Associate, supports the PolicyLink housing team in transforming our nation’s housing system through policy analysis, research and advocacy, narrative change, and building the capacity of our partners in movement spaces. She brings experience working on ballot initiative campaigns, tenant protections, and housing and equitable development issues in roles with non-profit community developers, city planning departments, and policy advocacy organizations. In 2021, Tram led the historic Keep St. Paul Home campaign, which saw St. Paul voters pass the strongest rent stabilization ordinance in the country. Tram holds a master of urban and regional planning degree from the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, where she was a Charles R. Krusell Fellow in Community Development at the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs. She was born and raised in Portland, Oregon and currently lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where she spends her free time seeking elevation, ocean vibes, and recipes to replicate grandma-level food.
Pat Garofalo is the Director of State and Local Policy at the American Economic Liberties Project. Pat is the author of The Billionaire Boondoggle: How Our Politicians Let Corporations and Bigwigs Steal Our Money and Jobs. Prior to joining Economic Liberties, Pat served as managing editor for Talk Poverty at the Center for American Progress. Previously, Pat was assistant managing editor for opinion at U.S. News & World Report and economic policy editor at ThinkProgress, and his work has also appeared in The Atlantic, The Nation, The Guardian, and The Week, among others.
Jordan Ash is based in Minnesota and is the Housing Director for the Private Equity Stakeholder Project where he has been for 3.5 years. Prior to this, he worked for a dozen years doing research and strategic campaigning for labor unions, including SEIU, LIUNA, and the St. Paul Federation of Teachers. Before that, he was at the grassroots community organization ACORN for 12 years, where his work focused on community reinvestment and fighting predatory lending.
NEW VIDEO: SiX's Agriculture and Food Systems Program
NEW VIDEO: SiX's Agriculture and Food Systems Program
Our rural, agriculture, and food systems programming is a cornerstone of the work that we do here at SiX.
In this new video, Kendra Kimbirauskas, senior director of agriculture & food systems talks about the importance of this work and why state legislators have the opportunity to be leaders in advancing rural, agriculture, and food systems policy that not only is good for people, the planet, rural communities and animals, but also advances economic and reproductive justice and our democratic values.
State lawmakers can be powerful advocates for change, and this video highlights the importance of their leadership in advancing a more just and sustainable future for everyone.
Watch: Legislative Briefing on Tax Justice Trends in the States
Watch: Legislative Briefing on Tax Justice Trends in the States
On September 25th, SiX and State Revenue Alliance (SRA) organized a joint-briefing for legislators and legislative staff across the country on all things tax justice in the states. The briefing featured the latest research on tax justice initiatives across the country, overviewing notable state revenue bills introduced in 2024 as well as anticipated trends in the future.
This presentation is part of a series of briefings organized under SiX’s Economic Power Project, SiX's national economic justice initiative, organizing legislators committed to building economies that empower people and advance justice. At SiX, we know another world is possible – where our economies center people, not corporate and billionaire profits. And that world starts in the states. Learn more about our Economic Power Project here.
Preparing for Election Harassment and Violence
Preparing for Election Harassment and Violence
State legislators face persistent violence in and outside of legislatures. In the face of this, SiX stands as a steadfast ally for state legislators. SiX is dedicated to providing the support and resources necessary for our leaders to thrive, even in the most daunting circumstances. We offer a community where legislators can find solace, guidance, and the strength to continue their vital work.
Inside state legislatures work environments have reached new levels of toxicity, and women of color, LGBTQ+, young, and disabled legislators bear the brunt of racism, sexual harassment, and anti-trans and abelist rhetoric and harassment.
We know this from listening to state legislators like Colorado Representative Elisabeth Epps on her experience: “The Capitol is not a safe place for folks who prioritize following the law and telling the truth...It is a very racist place. It is a place that is very anti-Black, it is a place that is anti-immigrant, it is a place that is misogynistic."
According to their data, state and local officeholders report alarming, increasing levels of threats and other abuse. Forty-three percent of state legislators experienced threats; 38% of state legislators reported that the amount of abuse they experience has increased since first taking public office; and larger shares of women and people of color serving in local elected office experienced abuse related to their families — including their children — than did other officeholders.
Now more than ever, it is essential to lead with hope and resilience. By coming together, we can foster a political environment rooted in relationship with our communities.
In addition to resources like the ones listed below, SiX offers decompression and healing spaces for state legislators. These spaces are created to be a soft landing space of restoration and renewal after attacks in statehouses on legislators’ racial and cultural identities, their support of abortion access, LGBTQ+ liberation, and other marginalized communities. Join us in Atlanta on December 11-13 to participate in a healing space!
The following are readings and resources to support legislators:
The Digital Defense Fund was established in 2017 in response to the increased need for security and technology resources in the abortion rights movement after the 2016 election. Many of the resources below are adapted from this resource.
Keep your browsing private with Tor or a no-logs Virtual Private Network (VPN), to the extent permissible under your state’s transparency laws. A virtual private network is a mechanism for creating a secure connection between a computing device and a computer network, or between two networks, using an insecure communication medium such as the public Internet. You can have a VPN on your laptop, desktops, and phone. Keep in mind that state open-records laws can have a bearing on the technology you use, although your state’s rules might impact only your email and not your browsing. Check with your state ethics officer and state house information technology staff.
Tor is a secure, free browser that encrypts your internet traffic and routes your internet traffic through multiple different computers, which masks the origin of your traffic.
VPNs route your internet traffic through their servers instead of your internet service providers. It’s important to choose a VPN that doesn’t keep track of what you’re doing - commonly called a no-logs VPN. Most no-logs VPNs cost a few dollars a month (such as Proton VPN), but there are two free options: ProtonVPN’s free tier, and Tunnelbear’s limited free tier.
Limit Location Services on Phones and Devices To turn off location sharing,
For IPhones:
go to Settings > Privacy & Security > Location Services. You can choose when to share your location for each app.
For Androids:
Open Settings> Location > Turn Use location on or off.
DeleteMe opts you out from sites that collect and sell your data using a combination of automation and direct human intervention. This includes information like your address, email, and phone numbers. It costs $129 annually for basic plans, with more advanced security subscriptions as well.
Use a Password Manager and 2 Factor Authentication (2FA)
Password Managers such as 1Password, Bitwarden and Dashlane ensure your accounts are secure and less hackable or vulnerable to identity theft. Make sure to also enable 2FA, especially on any social media or other public facing accounts.
Block harmful words on social media comments
Social media websites such as X, Facebook and Instagram have settings that allow you to block slurs, swear words, and other derogatory phrases. Consider blocking these words on your social media pages. Similar filters can also be set for most websites created on common platforms like Wix and WordPress. Consult with legislative ethics counsel to ensure your actions are consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lindke v. Freed, which addresses government officials’ ability to block people on social media.
Create a physical safety plan
A physical safety plan can include: A security team (if your municipality/state provides one); familiarizing yourself with your buildings’ entry security, guest procedures, and policies; a safe place ready to go if you need to leave your home; a home security system; and support network of neighbors and friends. A safety plan can also include participating in an address confidentiality program (ACP).
The Surveillance Resistance Lab is focused on challenging technologies that fuel state and corporate power. You can view their resources here.
The Harnessing Our Power to End Political Violence Project is the culmination of many organizations and individuals from across the country who have joined forces to better understand the problem of political violence and strategize and mobilize together across many lines of difference. View their guide here.
Women’s Democracy Lab has trainings and programs that address elected Indigenous women, women and femmes of color, and those seeking to engage with or support them most pressing challenges, including fostering a sense of belonging, ensuring safety, securing a living wage, and delivering culturally responsive professional development.
Over Zero’s Guidance for Reporting on Extremist Groups and Threats resource outlines considerations and guidelines for responsible and de-escalatory reporting on extremist threats that clearly outlines the threat white supremacist groups pose without amplifying their message or enabling them to use you to shape their narrative. Over Zero is an organization that works to prevent and reduce violence based on identity.
End Tech Abuse across Generations (eTAG) created a Digital Evidence Collection Guide in English and Spanish to help folks collect digital evidence of cyber abuse that can be used in civil and criminal court cases, including protection orders. It is a good idea to document and store digital evidence even if you aren’t ready to pursue legal action in case you change your mind later.
Crash Override published a guide on what to do after you’ve been doxxed. They define doxxing as “the act of publishing someone’s personal information, of which there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy and dubious value to the conversation, in an environment that implies or encourages intimidation or threat.” Their guide provides a high level overview on the realities, consequences, and considerations of being doxed.
Building State Power in Response to Project 2025
Building State Power in Response to Project 2025
At this moment, every potential future is in play.
Extremists continue to advance a dangerous agenda rooted in white Christian nationalism consolidating their political and economic power, as seen in Project 2025.
And at the same time, state legislators and our communities in states across the country remain on the front lines to push back against these attacks and, against all odds, build people-centered policies to create an equitable, resilient, healthy, and prosperous future for all. This webinar seeks to align state legislators and partners to the organized threat from extremists and redirect our movement from a rapid response orientation to an approach of building toward a future that works for everyone through collaborative governance.
Check out the video below to learn from SiX's Co-Executive Director, Jessie Ulibarri about collaborative governance -- the antidote to the authoritarian playbook and from Damaris Allen, executive director at Families for Strong Public Schools and Nayda Benitez, director of organizing at the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition on how they are organizing in the face of rising extremism.
Learn more about the threats Project 2025 poses to states:
People seeking abortion care, abortion clinics and providers, and people who help facilitate abortion care, such as abortion funds and practical support networks, are being surveilled by both state agencies and private actors. The corporations that govern our digital spaces act as a significant, largely unregulated arm for these surveillance systems, constantly collecting and sharing intimate data about our behaviors, movements, and communications that are easily weaponized. And while some medical information that flows through Big Tech is protected by expanded HIPAA protections, anti-abortion lawmakers are already suing to remove those safeguards.
Big Tech companies and data brokers have supplied anti-abortion groups and law enforcement agencies with the information they need to surveil, criminalize, stalk, doxx, and harass abortion seekers or anyone connected to them. These companies have:
Collected personal information and communications including private Facebook messages and shared them with law enforcement in states that have criminalized abortion.
User Error: Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice
User Error: Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice
People seeking abortion care, abortion clinics and providers, and people who help facilitate abortion care, such as abortion funds and practical support networks, are being surveilled by both state agencies and private actors. The corporations that govern our digital spaces act as a significant, largely unregulated arm for these surveillance systems, constantly collecting and sharing intimate data about our behaviors, movements, and communications that are easily weaponized. And while some medical information that flows through Big Tech is protected by expanded HIPAA protections, anti-abortion lawmakers are already suing to remove those safeguards.
Big Tech companies and data brokers have supplied anti-abortion groups and law enforcement agencies with the information they need to surveil, criminalize, stalk, doxx, and harass abortion seekers or anyone connected to them. These companies have:
Collected personal information and communications including private Facebook messages and shared them with law enforcement in states that have criminalized abortion.
Surveillance, work intensification, algorithmic management, and loss of autonomy are not new trends in the workplace. These are tactics that abusive employers have used for centuries. But the rapid introduction of technology, especially artificial intelligence (AI)-driven technologies, in the workplace supercharges existing trends that are harmful to workers.
Technology can be used to advance or undermine progress. Technology does not have to undermine workers’ rights. Tech companies and employers that use these tools are taking advantage of the emergent nature of these technologies to dictate regulatory frameworks, including whether there is one at all. But contrary to what the tech industry might suggest, the proliferation of these abusive tools isn’t inevitable or uncontrollable. They can and should be regulated, including prohibited, to safeguard our rights.
It is important for legislators to understand these harms and who is behind them, and to collaborate with impacted workers and work toward solutions. Black, brown, indigenous, and immigrant workers, especially those who are undocumented, continue to be disproportionately at risk of being exploited, discriminated against, and made victims of predatory practices in the workplace by these technologies. Both private- and public-sector workers are also impacted, and while the use of tech in the workplace undoubtedly affects blue-collar workers, the use also extends to white-collar workers such as educators, writers, lawyers, healthcare professionals, and others, as was highlighted during the SAGAFTRA and WGA strike in 2023.
By: Kairos Action, SiX, and Economic Security Project
Surveillance, work intensification, algorithmic management, and loss of autonomy are not new trends in the workplace. These are tactics that abusive employers have used for centuries. But the rapid introduction of technology, especially artificial intelligence (AI)-driven technologies, in the workplace supercharges existing trends that are harmful to workers.
Technology can be used to advance or undermine progress. Technology does not have to undermine workers’ rights. Tech companies and employers that use these tools are taking advantage of the emergent nature of these technologies to dictate regulatory frameworks, including whether there is one at all. But contrary to what the tech industry might suggest, the proliferation of these abusive tools isn’t inevitable or uncontrollable. They can and should be regulated, including prohibited, to safeguard our rights.
It is important for legislators to understand these harms and who is behind them, and to collaborate with impacted workers and work toward solutions. Black, brown, indigenous, and immigrant workers, especially those who are undocumented, continue to be disproportionately at risk of being exploited, discriminated against, and made victims of predatory practices in the workplace by these technologies. Both private- and public-sector workers are also impacted, and while the use of tech in the workplace undoubtedly affects blue-collar workers, the use also extends to white-collar workers such as educators, writers, lawyers, healthcare professionals, and others, as was highlighted during the SAGAFTRA and WGA strike in 2023.
Building Rural Power: Midwest CROP Workshop Brings Legislators and Partners Together
Building Rural Power: Midwest CROP Workshop Brings Legislators and Partners Together
By Siena Chrisman
At the end of June, SiX hosted its first Midwest Movement-Building Convening and Farm Tour, in and around Omaha, Nebraska. Ten state legislators from six Midwestern and Plains states joined SiX staff, our partners at Nebraska Communities United, and other regional rural advocates for two days of tours, learning, and strategy sessions.
The event was part of SiX’s ongoing investment in progressive organizing across perceived urban/rural divides. While urban and rural communities are often painted as diametrically opposed, the reality is that Americans face common struggles and share common values no matter where they live. Bringing together urban and rural leaders to build relationships and learn about each others’ realities is a critical way to build progressive power for the future we want.
After setting the stage with a short Nebraska agriculture history, analysis of corporate power, and research on rural values, the group spent a day on the ground in rural Nebraska, seeing both some of the worst extractive industrial agriculture practices and inspiring, scalable regenerative farms.
Greg Lanc, a farmer and farm machinery mechanic, took the group on a tour of his rural neighborhood, which has been overrun by dozens of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs): large-scale chicken barns, a cattle feedlot, an enormous calf-feeding operation, a mega dairy, and more. A CAFO of one kind or another is visible from nearly every intersection of the gravel roads in a several-mile radius of Lanc’s house.
The chicken houses, where millions of Costco’s $4.99 rotisserie chickens are raised, are the worst, spouting dust, bacteria, and an overpowering smell of ammonia into the surrounding air. Many days, Lanc cannot spend time outside on his property because the smell is so bad. Chicken and feed trucks kick up dust and wear down the gravel roads and Lanc has documented dead chickens left in open dumpsters just uphill from streams. Costco promised the barns and the nearby chicken processing plant would bring jobs and other economic benefits to the community, but that has not been the case.
This kind of factory-style farming is often touted as an economic boon for rural communities, but research repeatedly proves what the neighbors know: industrial farms extract far more than they add. There are, however, numerous models of beneficial farm operations, including nearby in Nebraska.
Legislators and partners had lunch and a tour of Grain Place Foods, a regenerative farm and grain business. The farm has been certified organic in 1978 and its fields go through a nine-year rotation of grains and pasture for cattle, building healthy soil and a thriving ecosystem. The grains are processed at an on-site mill and sold in products locally, around the country and the world. Between the farm and the mill, Grain Place employs about two dozen workers, many of whom have worked there for decades, ensuring that the business not only invests in its natural resources, but in the economic health of its community.
Low clouds had threatened rain all day, but by the time the tour reached its last stop at Alex Daake’s farm, the sun was shining through. Daake has recently taken over part of his family’s land and is in the process of transitioning to a four-year rotation of corn, soybeans, small grain, and pasture. He grazes cattle on the pasture and sells them for beef. Between keeping a lookout for the newest calf born just that morning and admiring the many grasses, forbs, legumes, and flowers growing in the pasture, legislators discussed ways that state policy and other initiatives could support more diversified farm operations like this one.
On the final morning, back in Omaha and absorbing all they had experienced the day before, legislators heard about bridge-building organizing in Nebraska, Louisiana, Illinois, North Carolina, and elsewhere. They had stories of unexpected coalitions creating David-over-Goliath victories, like a mostly-red rural Oregon community partnering with progressive Portland legislators to pass rules to protect communities from new CAFOs; rural and urban Minnesota activists and legislators building long-term trust and determining priorities for a progressive policy agenda for the state, and much more.
Legislators and advocates left the convening excited to keep talking, to visit each other, and to dream across state lines. They went back to their districts with a greater sense of possibility for who their allies and partners might be – one urban legislator, considering previous stereotypes and all the people he had met over the two days, said, “I learned that I’m not as alone as I thought I was.”
Legislators, Indigenous Leaders, and Advocates Gather for First Ever Coastal Convening on Sustainable Aquaculture
Legislators, Indigenous Leaders, and Advocates Gather for First Ever Coastal Convening on Sustainable Aquaculture
By: Emma Newton
In July, legislators from across the country traveled to Seattle for a special three-day convening on sustainable aquaculture, working waterfronts, and tribal food sovereignty. Twenty-two state legislators from coastal states gathered with international advocates, experts, and Tribal Leaders for the first of its kind gathering hosted by the SiX’s Agriculture and Food Systems Program in partnership with Don’t Cage Our Oceans (DCO2). The event aimed to spark dynamic conversations, foster collaboration, and champion the protection of ocean economies and natural resources.
A Grand Opening: Culture, Community, and Celebration
The convening kicked off on Friday evening with an opening dinner. Attendees were warmly welcomed by Chairwoman Cecile Hansen of the Duwamish Tribe and SiX Co-Executive Director Neha Patel, who set the tone for the event by emphasizing movement building, collaborative governance and joy.
Yakima Tribal member Christina White of Native Candies, who’s husband personally fished for the salmon on the Klickitat River that was served at dinner, shared the meaningful story behind the meal. The evening was made even more special with a traditional song from a Yakima Elder, creating a sense of unity and gratitude among attendees.
Diving Deep: Discussions at the Duwamish Longhouse
Throughout the weekend, the Duwamish Longhouse and Cultural Center in West Seattle served as the meeting space where attendees engaged in thought-provoking presentations and discussions. Topics ranged from the threats posed by industrial finfish farming to ocean economies and resources, to the power and influence of corporate entities. Catalina Cendoya of the Global Salmon Farming Resistance shared insights on successful community organizing efforts against corporate fish farms in Latin America, where she stressed the strategic partnership between community leaders, chefs and policymakers.
A Journey to the Suquamish Nation
A highlight of the convening was a visit to the Suquamish Nation, where Tribal scientists and leaders showcased their innovative work in protecting the geoduck and developing a sustainable tribal-led seafood economy. Attendees visited the tribe’s oyster beds and salmon hatchery, and savored a delicious geoduck ceviche snack prepared by Tribal Council Member and fisherman Jay Mills.
Stories from the Waterfront
The final day of the convening was marked by an enlightening visit to Seattle’s bustling working waterfront. Policymakers and advocates heard firsthand accounts from independent fishermen at the Fisherman’s Terminal. The spectacle of “flying fish” as the St. Jude, an independent fishing vessel, docked to sell freshly caught tuna, gave attendees a real-world glimpse into life on a fishing boat.
The convening wrapped up with a compelling presentation from Gideon Mordecai, a fisheries scientist from British Columbia, who shared the science behind the impacts of industrial aquaculture. The event concluded with a picturesque lunch on the shore of the sound, leaving attendees inspired to return home and engage with their communities on these issues.
Building Bridges for a Shared Vision
Throughout the weekend, state policymakers forged meaningful connections and began exploring innovative ways to collaborate with local and international advocates and Indigenous communities. Together, they envisioned a future where ocean economies and natural resources are protected and celebrated.
A participant and Hawai’i state legislator reflected on the experience: “I am used to union organizing, where we are very explicit about expectations around connecting and growing power, collecting ‘data’ and evidence on our effectiveness in that regard. Now, I am thinking about how this translates into change-making in my own context. For policymakers to truly experience that additional level of connectedness, we need opportunities to act in support of each other and a shared vision.”
The Coastal Convening on Sustainable Aquaculture marked the beginning of a powerful movement towards a more sustainable and equitable future for our oceans and the communities that depend on them.
SiX Economic Power Project: Back To School Edition
SiX Economic Power Project: Back To School Edition
By: Ida Eskamani, SiX's Senior Director, Legislative Affairs
The Economic Power Project (EPP) is SiX's national economic justice initiative, organizing legislators committed to building economies that empower people and advance justice. With school back from summer break, our August edition is all about public schools.
WATCH: FTC Chair Khan keynote at the American Federation of Teachers conference, linking labor and antitrust as united fights for workers’ freedoms. Learn more about the FTC’s efforts to ban non-compete agreements nationwide here.
The Hard-fought Promise of Public Schools
Education access is directly tied to economic and political power, which is why universal public education was never given to us – it was hardfought. Today, a coordinated and well-funded state-by-state effort to privatize public schools through vouchers, tax credits, or “education savings accounts,” is rooted in this history, designed to roll back progress and concentrate power in the hands of the elite few.
Organizing Together and Winning for Our Communities
Public schools are the vehicle that anchors our democracy and creates opportunity for all. Across the country, legislators and education advocates are organizing together:
In North Carolina, students, educators, parents, and legislators stopped voucher expansion legislation.
In Virginia, a powerhouse of 27,500 education workers unionized in Fairfax County, creating the new Fairfax Education Unions, an alliance between the Fairfax County Federation of Teachers and the Fairfax Education Association.
In Alabama, advocates and legislators blocked legislation to expand the state’s “Don’t Say LGBTQ+” law. In Florida, 21 of the 22 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were defeated.
Across the country, community schools are transforming public education. See this report by In The Public Interest for details on 20 case studies.
WATCH: Vermont Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone discusses her advocacy for community schools.
People overwhelmingly support improving public education and oppose vouchers. That’s why privatizers have shifted their focus to values-based arguments, like those around school curricula and parental consent, framing voucher expansion as a “path to halt woke indoctrination” and “escape government-run education.”
Extremists often create fake problems to hide their true agenda. The American Federation of Teachers campaign, Real Solutions for Kids and Communities, is working to ensure educational opportunity for all. Learn more here.
Education is Everything
Education is directly tied to economic and political power, sitting at the intersections of policy making: from budgets and revenue, worker power, and civil rights, to criminalization and democracy. Below are additional resources to consider as we advocate for public education for all:
At this moment, every potential future is in play.
And they’re playing out in front of us.
The radical right continues to advance an extremist agenda at every level of governance. And at the same time, state legislators and our communities remain on the front lines to push back against these attacks and build people-centered policies to create an equitable, resilient, healthy, and prosperous future for all.
Join 600 state legislators and movement partners, on December 11-13 in Atlanta, Georgia for SiX's national conference and influence this moment to create futures where all people have power and agency over their lives.
This will be the largest gathering of state legislators post-election. Hundreds of state legislators and trusted partners from around the country will gather, reflect and plan for a future where all people have power and agency over their lives.
We have a slate of powerful speakers joining us on panels like "Election Reflections and Charting a Path Forward Together," "Leading in an Authoritarian Moment: Global Models for Resistance in the State House," and "Looking to the Horizon."
Visit our conference website to register and for the latest updates on speakers!
Middle-Out Economics: Communicating Policies The Empower Workers
Middle-Out Economics: Communicating Policies The Empower Workers
SiX and the Rural Democracy Initiative co-sponsored a webinar on new polling from the Winning Jobs Narrative Project, a working people-centered narrative architecture for talking about jobs, work, and the economy that resonates across race, geography, and issues.
Following an ambitious research agenda, the Winning Jobs Narrative team has developed a narrative architecture that progressive advocates and leaders can draw from to frame a broad range of issues.
As a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization SiX works in close coordination with legislators, advocacy groups, think tanks, and activists to provide the tools and information legislators need to be successful. SiX’s resources are free of charge to state legislators and staff.
Act on Climate by Challenging Corporate Power
Act on Climate by Challenging Corporate Power
By: Ida Eskamani
As the fossil fuel industry works with state legislators across the country to censor “climate change” from state laws, investments, and text books– the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, with human activity as the principal cause. Costs and consequences are increasing for everyone. But it is historically disenfranchised communities – Black, immigrant, indigenous, rural, and working class – who are most harmed. These communities’ expertise and organizing power is essential to combating climate change and building the futures we deserve. Not yet collaborating with grassroots organizations doing this work in your state? SiX is happy to connect.
Climate Action is Economic Justice
The climate crisis is intrinsically tied to economic justice. Rather than embrace a just transition to clean energy, the fossil fuel industry is leveraging state legislatures to preempt local solutions, shield themselves from accountability, and shift costs to consumers. A few examples:
Property Insurance: As legislatures serve fossil fuel lobbyists and ignore the climate crisis, property insurance companies respond by either hiking up rates or leaving state markets entirely. This isn't just a problem for coastal communities; it impacts homeowners, renters, and local landlords nationwide, escalating both costs and risks.
Worker Safety: Outdoor workers, such as those in agriculture, warehouses, construction and hospitality are grappling with severe heat and its devastating consequences. As local governments partner with workers to find solutions, corporations are pushing abusive statewide preemptions that ban local heat stress protections like water, shade, and breaks.
The climate crisis did not happen by accident; it’s not the result of inevitable forces. It is a product of deliberate policy decisions pushed by the fossil fuel industry. The industry has persuaded some policymakers to support its agenda even though we know that states with the highest increases in wind power and solar energy since 2010 – Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas – have all seen customer rates rise slower than inflation because they reduced exposure to fossil fuel costs. However, deceptive "greenwashing" marketing promotes false solutions like “clean coal,” “renewable natural gas,” and “biogas,” which exacerbate the climate crisis. This Climate Integrity report helps identify and counter tactics used by fossil fuel interests to evade accountability.
How Legislators can Act on Climate by Challenging Corporate Power
The United States Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron Deference doctrine at the federal level makes the work in the states even more essential. The fossil fuel industry leverages state legislatures to maintain monopoly power, secure corporate tax giveaways, and undermine our democracy – making more profits while exacerbating the climate crisis. In addition to advancing a justice transition to clean, renewable energy, legislators and organizers are tackling the root cause of the climate crisis in states across the country in a myriad of ways:
Anti-Monopoly Reform: The Institute for Local Self-Reliance published a new report titled “True Costs of the Monopoly Utility Model” detailing the harms of monopoly investor-owned utilities and how states can act.
Accountability in the Courts: A recent poll shows that the majority of U.S. voters support holding Big Oil accountable for its climate lies in court – as in recent California litigation that advocates are referring to as People of the State of California v. Big Oil.
Direct Pay: The IRS issued regulations on direct pay of clean energy credits for state and local governments and tax-exempt organizations. Check out our legislator guide to building jobs and sustainable public energy and our stakeholder webinar, as well as this teaser video from our partners at the Congressional Progressive Caucus Center.
Exposing Private Equity: The first-ever Private Equity Energy Tracker was just updated by the Private Equity Climate Risks data consortium project. The Tracker showcases a list of the energy holdings of the largest private equity firms globally, compiling their energy deals in one, easy-to-access database.
Money in Politics: A growing movement aims to restrict how utilities can use customer money to further their political goals through lobbying, trade association dues, and charitable giving. At least eleven states filed legislative proposals last session to prohibit investor-owned utilities from using customer funds to support political activities.
Property Insurance: Insurance is a key channel through which climate risk is transmitted through the financial system, and it is almost entirely regulated at the state level. This report by Climate Cabinet Education summarizes state policy interventions.
Public Power: Consumer-owned utilities (COUs) are providing reliable electricity to U.S. customers, as they have since the 1890s. Today, about 2,900 “municipal” and “cooperative” COUs serve 91 million Americans. COUs often outperform investor-owned monopoly utility companies (IOUs) because of one essential difference: IOUs serve their shareholders while COUs serve their ratepayer/owners.
Renters’ Rights: Support is also growing for eviction moratoriums during natural disasters – along with other essential tenant protections like required air and heat maintenance, just cause, and right to counsel – that can help protect renters from extreme weather and keep people in their homes. Estimates show measures such as rental assistance and eviction moratoriums helped more than a million households avoid losing their homes due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Revenue: The Center for Policy and Budget Priorities released a brief on worldwide combined reporting (WWCR), a policy solution for states that stops large multinational corporations from dodging state income taxes by shifting hundreds of billions of dollars in profits earned in your state into tax-haven states and nations.
Interested in any of these organizing efforts? SiX can connect you with organizers in your state, legislators, organizers, and climate caucuses in states across the country, as well as national experts.
Making the Connection Between LGBTQ+ Liberation, Racial Justice, and Economic Power
Making the Connection Between LGBTQ+ Liberation, Racial Justice, and Economic Power
By: Ida Eskamani, SiX's Senior Director, Legislative Affairs
The Economic Power Project (EPP) is SiX's national economic justice initiative, organizing legislators committed to building economies that empower people and advance justice. For Pride Month, originating from the Stonewall Uprising of June 28, 1969, we’re highlighting the intersection of LGBTQ+ liberation, racial justice, and economic power.
As a legislator advocating for the LGBTQ+ residents in your state, it is imperative to work in collaboration with our state-based LGBTQ+ organizations and organizers. Need help getting connected? SiX can help. Contact SiX’s Ida V. Eskamani, Senior Director, Legislative Affairs, ida@stateinnovation.org.
By embracing inclusive definitions of family, our laws can better support the diverse structures of all families, including chosen family members, crucial for LGBTQ+ workers. States like Minnesota and Maine are at the forefront, implementing comprehensive paid leave programs that include all families.
From family rejection leading to LGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness, to LGBTQ+ elders facing new forms of discrimination in retirement, and every stage of life in between; housing and LGBTQ+ justice are connected. Tenant organizers across the country are working with legislators to advance this agenda, via just cause eviction, rent hike caps, and opportunity to purchase; as well as regulating corporate landlord AI-rent setting and private equity buyouts.
Pride in Criminal Legal System Reform
Criminalization in itself is a profit-driven agenda: incarceration is a multi-billionaire dollar industry that we all subsidize with tax dollars. The Stonewall Uprising of 1969 was in response to police brutality and criminalization targeting queer communities, and queer people have always been over-criminalized and over-incarcerated. According to the Sentencing Project, LGBTQ+ adults are incarcerated at three times the rate of the general population. Among trans people, 1 in 6 report being incarcerated at any point in their lives, and nearly half of those are Black trans people. From queer youth to adulthood, criminalization sits on the intersection of LGBTQ+ identities, racism, and classism. This brief by the Sentencing Project examines the criminalization and over-incarceration of LGBTQ+ people in the United States, highlighting the drivers of overrepresentation and presenting recommendations for reform.
Pride in Our Irresistible Futures
When we dismantle the structural barriers LGBTQ+ people face, we are all more free. We hope you can join us and 600 state legislators and partners as we build an irresistible future, where all people have power and agency over our lives at SiX's 2024 National Conference in Atlanta, Georgia from December 11-13. Early Bird Registration is now open.
The Economic Power Project is an effort spearheaded by SiX’s Legislative Affairs team. Contact SiX’s Ida V. Eskamani, Senior Director, Legislative Affairs, ida@stateinnovation.org.
Tax the Rich: Implementing a State Tax on Investment Gains
Tax the Rich: Implementing a State Tax on Investment Gains
Introduction
The concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite few impacts every facet of our lives. It is directly connected to expanding wealth disparities and the rising cost of living, the existential climate crisis and the rampant expansion of authoritarianism, and it threatens the very existence of the multiracial democracy that we strive for.
This concentration of wealth did not happen by accident; it is not the result of inevitable forces. It is a product of deliberate policy choices over decades and centuries. Billionaires and centi-millionaires (those with at least $100 million in wealth) in America are amassing wealth, with a record 700% increase in inflation-adjusted unrealized capital gains over the last three decades.
Racism, sexism, and classism are entrenched in our current economic system, by design. As a result, Black, immigrant, and Indigenous people, working class and rural communities, women, and queer people are disproportionately exploited and denied prosperity by our economic policies. Some of these problems could be mitigated if the extremely wealthy paid their fair share toward meeting vital social needs, particularly in terms of spurring opportunities for communities experiencing structural poverty. For example, considerable research has shown that high-quality preschool can play an enormous role in helping every child reach their potential. Given the scale of wealth involved, getting the extremely wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes could raise substantial revenues toward vital initiatives like this.
Unfortunately, the absurd regressivity that is evident at the very top of our tax system at the federal level is even more evident at the state level. This is partly because income taxes, as currently designed at the federal and state level, do not reach unrealized gains. For example, billionaire Jeff Bezos was paid about $1.7 million in total compensation by Amazon in 2022, but his net worth in 2023 increased by a massive $70 billion, which amounts to almost $8 million per hour. Furthermore, states have not levied taxes on broad forms of wealth for almost a century, while other countries, including Switzerland since 1848 and Norway since 1892, have retained their wealth taxes. The extremely wealthy in America have employed armies of lobbyists to ensure that their effective tax rates are kept low and that neither federal nor state taxing authorities can effectively tax intergenerational wealth transfers.
Historically, state legislators, in collaboration with the communities most impacted by these policy choices, have led the fight in challenging corporate and billionaire power by organizing communities and building economies that empower people. Modernizing the tax code is an essential piece of this vision. Taxing unrealized gains, in particular, offers an opportunity to reverse the increasingly widening wealth disparities in the United States and to fund our future.
Note on Terminology
Unrealized gains are the increased value of assets that have not yet been sold (or “realized”).
Unrealized capital gains are a type of unrealized gains, specifically, the increased value of stocks, bonds, and other financial securities that have not yet been sold.
Wealth includes ownership of many different types of assets, including real estate, vehicles, and art, but the largest category among the very rich is ownership of businesses, stocks, and mutual funds. Through a series of tax loopholes dubbed “buy, borrow, die,” the ultra-wealthy can hold on to and use financial securities as collateral for loans (often securities-backed lines of credit) instead of selling investments to cover expenses. The loopholes also allow their inheritors to receive these financial assets on a legally allowed “stepped-up” basis (i.e., based on valuing the inherited stock at the current market value) without paying any capital gains taxes (McCaffery, 2019). This means that all inherited capital gains are provided a tax benefit that would not be allowed if someone sold off their financial securities before their death. To make matters worse, the ultra-wealthy would only need to retire and/or move to a state that does not tax income before realizing their capital gains to avoid state taxation (Galle et al., in press).
For example, although Jeff Bezos relied on public investments in physical and human capital infrastructure in Washington State to establish Amazon, he waited until he moved to Florida (a state without a capital gains tax) before selling $2 billion in Amazon stock, depriving Washington of almost $600 million in state revenue. It is imperative that unrealized gains are taxed, or the massive income and wealth inequalities in our country will continue to grow unabated, with the impacts disproportionately felt by communities structurally denied opportunities (Addo & Darity, 2021).
Note on Securities-Backed Line of Credit (SBLOC)
SBLOC is the most common way to borrow in the “buy, borrow, die” scheme and is similar to a home equity line of credit, but financial investments are the collateral instead of real estate. SBLOC’s advantages include: (1) no capital gains taxes, (2) flexible repayment schedules, (3) simple and low-cost approval process, and (4) relatively low interest rates.
While no state currently has a wealth tax on a broad range of assets, the U.S. does levy taxes on some forms of wealth. Property taxes are an example of taxing assets before they are sold, though overall the property tax is regressive. Another example is the federal expatriation tax, which includes a tax on net unrealized capital gains for individuals with a net worth of at least $2 million who have relinquished their U.S. citizenship. As tax codes are common but can be complicated, the policy design and implementation of a new wealth tax model could benefit from the experience of other countries, from academics who have spent time researching these models, and from state legislation at the forefront of this reform in this country.
The following is a policy design discussion focused on taxing one major category of wealth: unrealized capital gains. This discussion pulls primarily from academic sources and focuses on real-world policy decisions. This is not meant to serve as “model” language, but instead to provide policy design considerations and options that policymakers should discuss with local movement groups and impacted communities.
Notes on Income vs. Wealth
“Income is the sum of earnings from a job or a self-owned business, interest on savings and investments, payments from social programs and many other sources. It is usually calculated on an annual or monthly basis. Wealth, or net worth, is the value of assets owned by a family or an individual (such as a home or a savings account) minus outstanding debt (such as a mortgage or student loan). It refers to an amount that has been accumulated over a lifetime or more (since it may be passed across generations).” (Source: Pew Research Center)
Realized capital gains are considered income, and unrealized capital gains are sometimes understood as a form of future income. But as these gains are part of assets that the wealthy can use as collateral, we refer to them in this report as a form of wealth, and a tax on unrealized capital gains as a type of wealth tax.
Please note: The case Moore v. United States was argued in the Supreme Court in part to decide whether unrealized gains can be treated as income from a federal tax perspective, but states are not necessarily limited by this ruling, as it is focused on Congress’ power of taxation under the 16th Amendment.
Types of Assets Included (or Exempted) and Asset Valuation
The first and perhaps most impactful policy design decision is which types of assets to include as taxable forms of wealth. The broadest definition of wealth includes total net assets, or the market value of all financial and nonfinancial assets after debt. For example, a French wealth tax exempts business assets, shares acquired from capital subscription (e.g., agreement to purchase an IPO), artwork, antiques and collectibles, and intellectual property, and is calculated by taxpayers based on the market value of all their other assets (Garbinti et al., 2023). A U.S. example of a broad wealth tax is 2023 CA AB 259, which, if enacted, would eventually apply a 1% tax on worldwide net worth in excess of $50 million and 1.5% on net worth over $1 billion. Care should be taken when considering what types of assets to exempt, as one study found that European wealth taxes that exempted wealth from owner–manager businesses created a tax loophole for the ultra-rich (Piketty et al., 2023).
Note on Financial Assets
“Financial assets include fixed-claim assets (checking and saving accounts, bonds, loans, and other interest-generating assets), corporate equity (shares in corporations), and noncorporate equity (shares in noncorporate businesses, for instance, shares in a partnership). Financial assets can be held either directly or indirectly through mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, and trusts.”(Saez & Zucman, 2020)
Unrealized Capital Gains
While wealth takes many forms, proposals by advocates, academics, and policymakers in the U.S. have primarily focused on taxing one category of wealth: unrealized capital gains. Not only is this form of wealth massive (estimated at $8.5 trillion nationally), but it is likely the most politically feasible to address and the least complicated to tax as well. A tax on unrealized capital gains is a relatively simple idea, but there are several policy design options that interested state policymakers and advocates can consider. Many of these proposals assess the value of unrealized capital gains based on gains or losses relative to a year-end market value, also referred to as mark-to-market. Two of the issues around a tax on unrealized capital gains using mark-to-market valuation are the price volatility of financial markets and the uncertain valuation of illiquid assets (Saez et al., 2021).
S&P 500 Historical Annual Returns
(Source: Macrotrends, LLC)
For example, looking at the history of S&P 500 returns above, how can a state budget office develop accurate revenue forecasts when the financial markets shift so quickly? The following policy options include unrealized capital gains tax designs that would help to address these mark-to-market tax concerns.
Unrealized Capital Gains Tax Terminology
“Cost basis” is the original purchase price that the asset was acquired for and is used to calculate net gains or losses.
“Deemed realized gains” are unrealized gains (or built-in gains) that are treated as realized for tax purposes and therefore potentially subject to taxation.
“Exemption threshold” is the amount of net wealth exempted from taxation (e.g., the first $10 million) and therefore determines who the tax applies to.
“Realized capital gains” are the profits from the sale of an asset, calculated as the amount received for the sale minus the cost basis.
“Recognized gains” are the amount of realized or deemed realized gains that are subject to taxation (e.g., after subtracting deferred gains).
“Tax limit” is the maximum amount of tax on a given asset (also referred to as a “cap”).
Phased Mark-to-Market Unrealized Capital Gains Tax
A relatively straightforward proposal for taxing unrealized capital gains is to tax a portion of the increase in value of the underlying asset by comparing the current fair market value at a given point in time to the original purchase price (i.e., mark-to-market). One way to do this is to phase in the tax by effectively recognizing only a portion of the deemed realized gains every year. This phased-in approach reduces the risk of volatility inherent in a mark-to-market tax, as only a portion of financial assets would be taxable in a given year. Academic writing on this idea proposes that 50% of deemed realized gains should be recognized as taxable income, which would effectively include 50% of these shares as taxable income in tax year 1, 25% (half of 50%) in tax year 2, 12.5% in tax year 3, and so on (Gamage & Shanske, 2022). The percentage of deemed realized gains to recognize for tax purposes is a policy decision: a larger percentage would raise tax revenue more quickly and reduce the risk of the extremely wealthy using lobbyists to weaken the tax code, while a smaller percentage would minimize tax revenue volatility and the concern of impacting illiquid taxpayers (Gamage & Shanske, 2022).
Under this bill, Vermont taxpayers with net assets in excess of $10 million (the exemption threshold) would be required to include 50% of their unrealized capital gains (i.e., deemed realized gains) in their taxable income for the year, as if all assets had been sold at fair market value on the last day of the year. This taxable amount has an annual tax limit that cannot exceed 10% of the taxpayer’s net assets in excess of $10 million (Gamage, 2024). The bill also provides for an exclusion of $1 million per category of assets (e.g., real estate, nondistributed interest in a trust, and personal property, such as vehicles or art/collectibles) when calculating the net assets for the tax limit. This helps to simplify the valuation process, as a wealthy individual would only need to assess significant asset holdings, which may have already been done for insurance purposes. This bill does not apply a specific tax rate, but instead adds deemed and recognized capital gains to taxable income for individual income tax calculations. The bill also proportionally reduces the tax for residents who have lived in the state for less than 4 years.
Calculation Example: Phased Mark-to-Market
Income deemed realized and recognized:
Assuming a taxpayer holds stock X with fair market value of $25 million and cost basis of $15 million ($10 million deemed realized gain), and stock Y with fair market value of $25 million and cost basis of $30 million ($5 million deemed realized loss), then:
Total deemed realized gains from stock X and stock Y = $5 million ($10 million – $5 million), and 50% of deemed realized gains are recognized = $2.5 million.
Tax limit/phase-in cap amount:
Assuming stock X and stock Y are the taxpayer’s total assets ($50 million), and assuming personal debt of $20 million, net assets = $30 million:
The cap is 10% of net assets beyond $10 million, or 10% x ($30 million – $10 million) = 10% x $20 million = $2 million.
The lower amount from these two calculations, $2 million, is added to taxable income. All else being equal (assuming no other taxable income or tax credits/deductions) and assuming a Vermont income tax of $17K + 8.75% of taxable income over $279K, this would result in a state income tax of about $168K.
Calculation Example: Phased Mark-to-Market for Jeff Bezos
If Jeff Bezos paid this type of unrealized capital gains tax on Amazon shares he owns:
Total deemed realized gains = $166 billion, and 50% of deemed realized gains recognized = $83 billion.
Tax limit is 10% of net worth beyond $10 million, or 10% x ($198.5 billion – $10 million) = $19.849 billion.
The lower amount from these two calculations, $19.849 billion, is added to taxable income. As above, all else being equal and assuming a Vermont income tax of $17K + 8.75% of taxable income over $279K, this would result in a state income tax of about $1.737 billion.
Withholding Tax on Unrealized Capital Gains
Another policy option is to require extremely wealthy individuals to prepay future realized capital gains taxes through a type of withholding tax (i.e., “pay-as-you-go,” where a portion of estimated tax is sent periodically to the taxing authority before the full amount is due) on unrealized capital gains. This estimated prepayment could be based on the value of unrealized capital gains above a specific exemption threshold, which could be set high enough to not target illiquid millionaires and could also include progressive tax rates based on the amount of unrealized capital gains (Saez & Zucman, 2020). An academic proposal of this withholding tax includes both liquid and illiquid assets (except for retirement accounts) and recommends that the withholding tax rate be one-tenth of the top federal capital gains tax rate (Saez et al., 2021). As with the phased tax above, compared to traditional wealth tax models, the withholding tax model would help to smooth out asset valuation volatility, which is especially important to states, as they are required to enact balanced budgets (Saez et al., 2021).
Valuing Private Businesses/Unlisted Shares
One area of asset valuation that warrants careful consideration is shares of private businesses, which is a major asset class for many of the ultra-wealthy (Saez & Zucman, 2020). In France, the tax administration provides guidelines on how taxpayers can value stocks from unlisted companies (Garbinti et al., 2023). There are many ways that states could consider valuing unlisted shares.
Large Private Businesses. For large private businesses, the value could be based on secondary market valuation, such as by venture capitalists, private equity funds, financial analysts, or recent stock trades (Saez et al., 2021). For wealthy individuals who are unable or unwilling to sell their private shares to cover a tax on unrealized capital gains, a government-run credit program could be created to provide taxpayers with government loans, secured by their illiquid assets, with interest accrued at the Treasury rate and repayment triggered when either the asset becomes liquid or control of the asset is transferred to another party (Saez et al., 2021).
Small Private Businesses. Shares in small private companies could be valued using a straightforward formula based on book value, sales, and profits; for example, Switzerland has successfully used this type of formula (Saez & Zucman, 2020). By utilizing a formula with easily available information, small private businesses would not incur significant administrative costs if one of their owners were subject to an unrealized capital gains tax. Data on small business employee size shows that over 80% of small businesses have zero employees and another 16% have only 1–19 employees, and additional data on business owners reveals that private businesses with more than five employees are owned by families with a median net worth of only $1.25 million and median business assets of $400K. It is clear that relatively few small businesses would need to be valued, and the ultra-wealthy likely have accountants who track basic financial data on their small businesses, which might be needed when selling these businesses or using them as collateral for a loan. Valuation of defined benefit pension plans could also be based on a simple formula that looks at age, tenure, and current salary to approximate accrued benefits (Saez & Zucman, 2020).
Calculation Example: Swiss Private Business Valuation Formula
The value of private businesses in Switzerland is calculated as a three-year average of current net asset value (i.e., total assets minus total liabilities) and a three-year average based on a double weighted and capitalized earnings value. This sounds more complicated than it is. The formula is:
Business Value = [(Average of 3 Years of Adjusted Net Profits) x 2 + Net Asset Value] x 1/3
Capitalization Rate
Let’s suppose that this model is used in the U.S. and a private company had a net asset value of $10 million at the end of 2023 and adjusted net profits of $1 million in 2021, $2 million in 2022, and $3 million in 2023. Let’s also assume a capitalization rate (i.e., expected rate of return) of 8%, which would be determined by statute or regulation. This formula results in a total valuation of $20 million:
2023 Business Value = [(($1M +$2M + $3M)/3) x 2) + $10M] x 1/3 = $20M
0.08
Source: Eckert & Aebi (2020)
Legislative Examples: Business Valuation
Both a California bill and a Vermont bill use a straightforward business valuation formula of book value plus 7.5 times book profits in a given year. In particular cases, certified appraisal values can be used to determine the worth of private business assets.
50308.(c) (3) (D) For purposes of this part, if a valuation is to be calculated by the proxy valuation formula for business entities, that valuation shall be the book value of the business entity according to GAAP plus 7.5 times the book profits of the business entity for the taxable year according to GAAP. However, if the taxpayer can demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that a valuation calculated via the proxy valuation formula would substantially overstate the value as applied to the facts and circumstances for any taxable year, then the taxpayer can instead submit a certified appraisal of the value of the taxpayer’s ownership interests in the business entity for that year and use that certified appraisal value in place of applying the primary valuation rules of subparagraph (F) or (G).
[...]
(F) For business entities for which the valuation calculated by the proxy valuation formula for business entities is less than fifty million dollars ($50,000,000), the value of the taxpayer’s ownership interests in the business entity will be presumed to be the percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer multiplied by the valuation calculated by the proxy valuation formula for business entities.
(G) For business entities for which the valuation calculated by the proxy valuation formula for business entities is fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) or greater, the taxpayer shall submit a certified appraisal of the value of the taxpayer’s ownership interests in the business entity. The value of the taxpayer’s ownership interests in the business entity will then be presumed to be the greater of the following:
(i) The certified appraisal value.
(ii) The percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer multiplied by the valuation calculated by the proxy valuation formula for business entities.
5604. (c) (3) (D) Except for assets and entities governed by subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection (c), assets excluded under subdivision (A) of this subdivision (3), and assets attached to an ODA, for all other interests in any business entities including all equity and other ownership interests, all debt interests, and all other contractual or noncontractual interests, the fair market value of those interests at the end of any tax year shall be presumed to be the sum of the book value of the business entity according to generally accepted accounting principles for the tax year plus a present-value multiplier of 7.5 times the book profits of the business entity for the tax year according to generally accepted accounting principles, with this entire sum then multiplied by the percentage of the business entity owned by the taxpayer as of the end of the tax year. However, if the taxpayer can demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that such a presumption would substantially overstate the fair market value, the taxpayer may instead submit a certified appraisal and then use the certified appraisal value as the fair market value.
Indirectly Held Assets. Another consideration is how to deal with assets that are held by trusts or other intermediaries. To reduce tax avoidance, experts recommend that intermediary assets that are controlled by or for the benefit of wealthy individuals be included in a wealth tax, but allocated based on different levels of priority so that the impact is on the wealthiest individuals who control the funds and much less on nontaxable charities that use trust funds for programmatic purposes (Saez & Zucman, 2020). For example, the trust would be responsible for any tax liability related to trust assets unless the beneficiaries receive all of its income distributions, in which case the entire trust would be subject to the withholding tax (Saez et al., 2021).
Legislative Example: Assets in a Trust
A bill in Washington State specifies how to treat the assets of a trust depending on who benefits from or has control over the trust, as well as what happens when intangible assets are transferred to a minor relative.
Sec. 3. TAX IMPOSED. […] (4) The tax imposed in this section does not apply to a resident based on that person’s status as a trustee of a trust, unless that person is also a beneficiary of the trust or holds a general power of appointment over the assets of the trust.
(5)(a) If an individual is treated as the owner of any portion of a trust that qualifies as a grantor trust for federal income tax purposes, that individual must be treated as the owner of that property for purposes of the tax imposed in this section to the extent such property includes intangible assets.
(b) A grantor of a trust that does not qualify as a grantor trust for federal income tax purposes must nevertheless be treated as the owner of the intangible assets of the trust for purposes of the tax imposed in this section if the grantor’s transfer of assets to the trust is treated as an incomplete gift under Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 2511 of the internal revenue code and its accompanying regulations.
(6) Intangible assets transferred after the effective date of this section by a resident to an individual who is a member of the family of the resident and has not attained the age of 18 must be treated as property of the resident for any calendar year before the year in which such individual attains the age of 18.
Unliquidated Tax Reserve Account (ULTRA)
Another option for taxing assets that are difficult to value is to allow wealthy taxpayers to grant the government a “notional equity interest” on the assets in lieu of a tax payment (Galle et al., 2022). This interest would not confer any voting rights and would only be used for future valuation, as the taxing authority would only receive funds after the assets are sold/liquidated. If the value of the assets rises or falls, the government’s eventual tax revenue would also rise or fall, as it is effectively pegged to the stock’s value, not a set dollar amount. If a taxpayer holds on to these assets for several years, they could defer the tax payments by granting additional equity interest to the government. To address concerns that the wealthy will take advantage of this delay in taxation by lobbying for tax code changes instead of paying their fair share, this policy option could be designed in a way that would only allow taxpayers with liquidity challenges (e.g., all of their wealth is in a single private stock) to defer paying a wealth tax on difficult-to-value assets until their private stocks/assets are sold (Galle et al., 2022). The extremely wealthy, who do not face these liquidity issues, could instead be required to prepay a portion of their deferred tax every year (Galle et al., 2022).
Calculation Example: ULTRA “Ownership”
For example, for a 2% unrealized capital gains tax on private stock, the taxpayer could instead provide the government with 2% “ownership” of these assets. If the taxpayer holds on to these stocks, they begin the second tax year with 98% ownership of the private stock (since, in the first tax year, they chose to grant the government 2% notional equity interest in lieu of a tax payment), and therefore the government would receive an additional 1.96% equity interest (i.e., 2% of 98%), for a total of 3.96%.
Legislative Example: ULTRA
A version of an ULTRA was written into a California bill as a liquidity-based optional unliquidated tax claim agreement (LOUTCA).
50310. (a) Liquidity-based Optional Unliquidated Tax Claim Agreements, to be referred to as LOUTCAs, shall be governed by the following rules:
(1) Taxpayers who are specified as liquidity-constrained taxpayers and who have ownership interests in designated highly illiquid assets, such as startup business entities, shall be able to elect to initiate a LOUTCA to be attached to their ownership interests in those designated highly illiquid assets instead of the net value of those ownership interests or the net value of those assets being assessed at the end of a tax year.
(2) Any taxpayer subject to the tax imposed by this part is presumed to not be specified as a liquidity-constrained taxpayer if the taxpayer’s designated highly illiquid assets are less than 80 percent of the taxpayer’s total net worth. The Franchise Tax Board may adopt regulations in regard to substantiating who is a specified liquidity-constrained taxpayer and in regard to what is a designated highly illiquid asset. It is the intent of the Legislature that most taxpayers subject to the tax imposed by this part should not be specified as liquidity-constrained taxpayers and that publicly traded assets and ownership interests conferring control rights in substantially profitable privately held business entities shall not be designated as highly illiquid assets.
(3) To initiate any LOUTCA, a taxpayer shall sign forms to be created by the Franchise Tax Board that shall have the effect of creating a binding contractual agreement between the taxpayer and the state. A LOUTCA shall be legally binding on the taxpayer, and also on the taxpayer’s estate and assigns, until such time as either the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s estate reconciles the LOUTCA so as to fully liquidate the accumulated tax claims and to then pay all tax due on those liquidated tax claims.
Exemptions, Deductions/Credits, and Limits
As with most taxes, a key policy decision is to determine what amount of a taxable asset should be exempted (i.e., the asset threshold) and what specific tax deductions or credits should be allowed.
Exemption Threshold
A national wealth tax in France, for example, included all French residents and potentially all worldwide assets above a €1.3 million threshold (Garbinti et al., 2023). One study found that having a low exemption threshold (e.g., €1 million) created political opportunities for opponents to highlight cases of illiquid millionaires struggling to pay their wealth tax (Piketty et al., 2023). Applying that lesson, a wealth tax proposed by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren had a $50 million threshold and applied a 2% wealth tax rate up to $1 billion in wealth and a 3% tax rate after that (Saez & Zucman, 2020). An academic paper also proposes a $50 million exemption threshold, which would impact the top 0.05% wealthiest families, or about 100,000 households (Saez et al., 2021).
Legislative Examples: Phase-In Cap
Another taxation limit introduced in recent state legislation is a “phase-in cap amount” to limit the amount of unrealized net gains subject to taxation. For example, a bill in New York would set a phase-in cap of 25% of net assets above a $1 billion exemption threshold, and a bill in Vermont would set a phase-in cap of 10% of net assets above a $10 million exemption threshold.
612-a. (b) Subsequent to two thousand twenty-three, resident individual taxpayers with net assets that are worth one billion dollars or more at the end of the last day of any tax year shall recognize gain or loss as if each asset owned by such taxpayer on such date were sold for its fair market value on such date, but with adjustment made for tax paid on gain in previous years. Any resulting net gains from these deemed sales, up to the phase-in cap amount, shall be included in the taxpayer’s income for such taxable year. […]
(c) For each date on which gains or losses are recognized as a result of this section, the phase-in cap amount shall be equal to a quarter of the worth of a taxpayer’s net assets in excess of one billion dollars on such date.
5601. (4) “Phase-in cap amount” means an amount equal to 10 percent of the worth of a taxpayer’s net assets in excess of $10,000,000.00 at the end of the day on the last day of an applicable tax year.
[...]
5602. TAXATION OF UNREALIZED GAINS (a) Tax is imposed for each taxable year on resident individuals with net assets worth more than $10,000,000.00 at the end of the day on December 31 of the taxable year. A taxpayer shall be deemed to realize 50 percent of the gain or loss as though each asset owned was sold for fair market value at the end of the day on that date. A proper adjustment shall be made for assets previously subject to taxation under this section in prior years, pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. All other adjustments to the basis of a taxpayer’s assets shall be made prior to a partial deemed sale under this section. Any resulting net gains from a partial deemed sale, up to the phase-in cap amount, after accounting for losses carried forward, shall be recognized and included in the taxpayer’s taxable income for that taxable year.
Deductions and Credits
The withholding model referenced earlier differs from a basic wealth tax, such as the property tax, in that it allows the withholding to be used as a tax credit when financial assets are sold and capital gains are realized (Saez & Zucman, 2020). This tax credit could have a “withholding account” that carries forward until any of the taxpayer’s financial assets are sold and capital gains are realized (Saez et al., 2021). This way, there is no risk of double taxation, as these capital gains are only taxed once.
Similar to the withholding model, the ULTRA policy option would provide that any prepayment of a deferred wealth tax would generate a tax credit that could be applied against a future tax liability from the sale of a difficult-to-value asset (Galle et al., 2022). In order to take into account individual contributions to assets by wealthy individuals, the percentage of the government’s “stake” in assets that increase due to financial contributions could also be added to the tax credit (Galle et al., 2022).
Calculation Example: ULTRA Tax Credit
Let’s assume that a wealthy individual has difficulty valuing shares of a private company and signs an ULTRA agreement with the government. If, over time, the government builds up a notional equity interest of 10% of those shares and the wealthy individual buys an additional $50 million in that stock, then $5 million (10% of $50 million) could be applied as a tax credit when the stock is sold.
If, soon after, the wealthy individual sells their ownership in this private company for $200 million, then the government would be entitled to $15 million (10% of the $200 million minus the $5 million credit).
Tax Limit
There are many ways that a tax limit can be designed. For example, the French wealth tax provides a tax ceiling of 75%–85% of net taxable income (Garbinti et al., 2023). The phase-in example mentioned earlier includes an annual tax limit of 10% of the taxpayer’s net assets in excess of $10 million. And an academic proposal for a withholding tax on future capital gains proposes limiting the withholding to 90% of the potential federal capital gains tax, which would be accumulated over a nine-year period (Saez et al., 2021). See below for more on this model.
Decision Tree: Withholding Tax on Unrealized Capital Gains
Assuming a $50 million exemption threshold, a 37% federal income tax rate for the highest income tax bracket, and a withholding rate of 10%, then for tax year 1, the withholding calculation would be: 37% x 10% x $165.95 billion = $6.14 billion.
If all else stays constant (e.g., no sale or purchase of additional Amazon shares or change in market value), then Bezos would continue to pay $6.14 billion per year through tax year 9, at which point he would have paid $55.26 billion, which is 90% of the $61.4 billion he could have owed based on a 37% tax rate (after the exemption threshold).
If Bezos sells his shares after that, $55.26 billion in his withholding account would be credited against his realized gains to offset that capital gains tax. If, instead, he continues taking advantage of the “buy, borrow, die” scheme and leaves his Amazon shares to his heirs, then the withholding tax would never be credited back or refunded.
Adjusting the Cost Basis
To ensure that unrealized capital gains are not taxed twice, one policy option is to adjust the cost basis (i.e., the cost used to calculate gains/losses) of these assets based on deemed realized gains or losses. For example, 2024 VT HB 827 would increase the cost basis of assets with deemed realized gains by the amount of gains that are actually recognized, which is the lesser of 50% of total deemed capital gains or the cap amount plus any gains that were offset with the deemed capital losses. This basis increase is proportionally allocated among all assets with deemed capital gains based on their share of total gains. To ensure that deemed capital losses are not taken into account more than once, the bill provides for reducing the basis of these assets by the amount of their recognized deemed capital losses (Gamage, 2024).
Adjusted Cost Basis Example for Jeff Bezos
Going back to our example of a phased mark-to-market tax on Jeff Bezos:
In tax year 1, the lower amount from two calculations (tax limit calculation) results in $19.849 billion being added to Bezos’ taxable income.
Assuming that in the next tax year (tax year 2), Bezos does not sell or buy any additional shares, the value of Amazon stock stays that same, and his net worth holds constant, then the amount applied to his taxable income the previous year would be added to the cost basis in tax year 2:
Total deemed realized gains would be $146.151 billion ($166 billion – $19.849 billion), and 50% of deemed realized gains recognized = $73.076 billion.
Tax limit is 10% of net worth beyond $10 million, or 10% x ($198.5 billion – $10 million) = $19.849 billion.
The lower amount from these two calculations, $19.849 billion, would again be added to the taxable income and to the cost basis of the Amazon stock shares (for tax year 3). Eventually, all else being equal, the cost basis would become large enough to reduce the deemed and recognized realized gains to below the tax limit.
Tax Administration
While different state revenue agencies promulgate administrative rules to implement their state’s unique tax code, there may be additional lessons to learn regarding how to design strong reporting requirements and enforcement tools.
Reporting Requirements
In the French tax system, taxpayers were required to report their wealth tax based on January 1st of the reporting year (Garbinti et al., 2023). For example, if a wealthy taxpayer was filing income tax forms in 2023 for income earned in tax year 2022, they would also complete wealth tax forms for assets as of January 1, 2023 (not 2022). The French tax system provided both a regular tax form and a simplified form for individuals without exemptions or deductions, but a recent study found that simplified reporting may lead to more misreporting of wealth (Garbinti et al., 2023).
A mark-to-market unrealized capital gains tax could follow current tax reporting practices, in which financial institutions share information on assets directly with customers/taxpayers and some third-party reports are shared with the IRS (Saez et al., 2021). This would require filing a new tax form and reporting to the state tax administration both the purchase price and the fair market value of financial assets held by the very wealthy, in order to estimate the taxable value of these unrealized capital gains (Saez et al., 2021). IRS Form 8854, which is used to calculate the federal expatriation tax, is an example of a mark-to-market calculation. Bank valuation of financial securities used as collateral for loans made as part of the “buy, borrow, die” loophole could also be reported to the relevant state tax authority.
Legislative Examples: Tax Forms
An Illinois bill would require the state’s department of revenue to create or amend relevant tax forms, and the bill specified asset categories to include in these forms. A California bill with an ULTRA provision included additional reporting requirements that apply even if residents move to another state, as well as requirements placed on a deceased taxpayer’s estate.
(a) The Department of Revenue shall amend or create tax forms as necessary for the reporting of gains by assets. Assets shall be listed with (i) a description of the asset, (ii) the asset category, (iii) the year the asset was acquired, (iv) the adjusted Illinois basis of the asset as of December 31 of the tax year, (v) the fair market value of the asset as of December 31 of the tax year, and (vi) the amount of gain that would be taxable under this Act, unless the Department determines that one or more categories is not appropriate for a particular type of asset.
(b) Asset categories separately listed shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
(1) stock held in any publicly traded corporation;
(2) stock held in any private C corporation;
(3) stock held in any S corporation;
(4) interests in any private equity or hedge fund organized as a partnership;
(5) interests in any other partnerships;
(6) interests in any other noncorporate businesses;
(7) bonds and interest bearing savings accounts, cash and deposits;
(8) interests in mutual funds or index funds;
(9) put and call options;
(10) futures contracts;
(11) financial assets held offshore reported on IRS tax form 8938.
50310. (a) (4) If a taxpayer has initiated a LOUTCA in any prior year, until that LOUTCA has been reconciled and closed, the taxpayer shall annually complete and file any form or forms that shall be created by the Franchise Tax Board for the purposes of reporting any material transactions made with regard to the LOUTCA. These reporting requirements shall continue even if and after the taxpayer is no longer a resident and shall then be enforced as a legally binding contract with the state. Failure to file these annual forms shall be treated as a breach of contract and shall also be subject to the same penalties as failure to file income tax forms for residents who are required to file income tax forms. Upon the death of any taxpayer who has initiated a LOUTCA that has not been fully reconciled and closed, that taxpayer’s estate and assigns shall be required to reconcile the LOUTCA so as to fully liquidate the accumulated tax claims and to then pay all tax owed on those liquidated tax claims, treating these claims as an unpaid tax liability of the taxpayer owed to the state.
Enforcement Mechanisms
At the most basic level, the potential revenue from a wealth tax is simply: Tax base = total wealth × top wealth share × (1 − evasion rate) (Saez & Zucman, 2020). Minimizing evasion rates is critical to realizing the full benefits of a wealth tax.
The French wealth tax provided that if a wealthy individual is audited and found to be noncompliant with the wealth tax requirements, they may be required to amend their tax returns for up to the last 10 years, depending on the type of noncompliance issue found (Garbinti et al., 2023). A study looking at European wealth taxes found that tax evasion through the use of offshore accounts was a major detriment, along with weak enforcement due to heavy reliance on self-reported assets, and this study recommends the use of a common reporting standard for offshore assets (Piketty et al., 2023).
Legislative Examples: Penalties
Legislation in Washington State would impose a penalty of either 30% or 50% for understating asset valuations, depending on the level of understatement or misstatement. The bill would also require audits of a percentage of wealthy taxpayers, with the required minimum ramping up from 10% in 2025 to 20% in 2027. Legislation in California would add claims, records, and statements made to comply with the proposed wealth tax’s reporting requirements to the state’s false claims act, which could result in civil action and treble damages for costs that the state incurs to recover penalties or damages when a false or fraudulent claim is made.
Sec. 10. SUBSTANTIAL WEALTH TAX VALUATION UNDERSTATEMENT PENALTY IMPOSED. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, if any portion of an underpayment of tax due under this chapter is due to a substantial wealth tax valuation understatement, there must be added to the tax an amount equal to:
(a) In the case of any substantial wealth tax valuation understatement that is a gross wealth tax valuation misstatement, 50 percent of the portion of the underpayment due to the valuation understatement; or
(b) In all other cases, 30 percent of the portion of the underpayment due to the valuation understatement.
(2) The penalty imposed under subsection (1) of this section does not apply unless the portion of the underpayment attributable to substantial wealth tax valuation understatements for the calendar year exceeds $5,000.
(3) The penalty imposed in this section is in addition to any other applicable penalties imposed under this chapter or chapter 82.32 RCW on the same tax due, except for the penalty imposed in RCW 82.32.090(7).
(4) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(a) “Gross wealth tax valuation misstatement” means the fair market value of any financial intangible assets reported on a return required by this chapter is 40 percent or less of the amount determined to be the correct amount of such fair market value.
(b) “Substantial wealth tax valuation understatement” means the fair market value of any financial intangible assets reported on a return required by this chapter is 65 percent or less of the amount determined to be the correct amount of such fair market value.
Sec. 11. ENFORCEMENT. Beginning in calendar year 2025, to the extent that sufficient funds are specifically appropriated for this purpose, the department must initiate audits of at least 10 percent of individuals who are registered with the department to pay the tax imposed in this chapter, increasing to 15 percent in calendar year 2026, and 20 percent in calendar year 2027 and thereafter.
This Washington State bill would also add the following language to the statutory section on tax avoidance:
Sec. 16. RCW 82.32.655 and 2010 1st sp.s. c 23 s 201 are each amended to read as follows:
[...]
(d) Arrangements through which a taxpayer attempts to avoid tax under chapter 84A.--- RCW (the new chapter created in section 21 of this act) through intentional deception, such as by concealing assets or evidence of the location of the taxpayer’s domicile in this state, by transferring assets prior to December 31st when the taxpayer effectively retained control of the assets, or by effectively converting taxable assets into nontaxable assets prior to December 31st when the taxpayer engages in a substantially offsetting transaction. This subsection (3)(d) does not apply to substantial wealth tax valuation understatements subject to the penalty in section 10 of this act.
12651. (f) (1) This section shall apply to claims, records, or statements made under Part 27 (commencing with Section 50300) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code only if the damages pleaded in the action exceed two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000).
(2) For purposes of this subdivision only, “person” has the same meaning as that term is defined in Section 17007 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(3) The Attorney General or prosecuting authority shall consult with the taxing authorities to whom the claim, record, or statement was submitted prior to filing or intervening in any action under this article that is based on the filing of false claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(4) Notwithstanding Section 19542 of the Revenue and Taxation Code or any other law, the Attorney General or prosecuting authority, but not the qui tam plaintiff, is hereby authorized to obtain otherwise confidential records relating to taxes, fees, surcharges, or other obligations under the Revenue and Taxation Code needed to investigate or prosecute suspected violations of this subdivision from state and local taxing and other governmental authorities in possession of such information and records, and such authorities are hereby authorized to make those disclosures. The taxing and other governmental authorities shall not provide federal tax information without authorization from the Internal Revenue Service.
(5) Any information received pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (4) shall be kept confidential except as necessary to investigate and prosecute suspected violations of this subdivision.
(6) This subdivision does not and shall not be construed to have retroactive application to any claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code before January 1, 2024.
Withholding Model Enforcement
The unrealized capital gains tax withholding model could potentially reduce the risk of undervaluing financial assets, as this valuation could provide a future tax credit (Saez & Zucman, 2020). Enforcement could be supported by requiring financial institutions and private businesses to disclose relevant purchase prices and market value estimates, as well as valuing financial assets separately from business operations and assets held indirectly through private businesses, which could limit the risk of tax avoidance through shell corporations (Saez et al., 2021).
Another major benefit of this model for state tax collection is that it reduces “wealth flight,” which is more likely after retirement, as wealthy individuals would not be able to avoid paying taxes on their unrealized capital gains during “productive years” and then retire to a state with no income tax to avoid paying taxes on realized capital gains (Saez et al., 2021). Additionally, the tax withholding allowance would presumably only be useful for individuals who realize their capital gains in a state with a similar withholding tax system (Saez et al., 2021). This may mean that an interstate agreement or compact will become an important tool to avoid double taxation and to support cross-state retirement/establishment of residency.
Note on Wealth Flight
“It is possible that the tax could encourage successful entrepreneurs to leave early to avoid the tax. For example, a [California] billionaire might decide to move to Florida now to avoid paying the withholding annual 1% tax on his accumulated gains (instead of moving to Florida later before realizing capital gains). However, it is difficult to move while you are still running a business (and moving the headquarters of the business is much more difficult). Therefore, mobility risk is most important for retired billionaires.” (Saez et al., 2021)
Large numbers of households — including high-income households — move into higher-tax states every year.
Highly educated and high-income households in higher-tax states are not disproportionately moving to no-income-tax states.
State income tax cuts for high-income people haven’t meaningfully boosted in-migration.
State income tax increases for wealthy people have not led to substantial numbers of them moving to lower-tax states, certainly not enough to result in eroding more than a small fraction of the revenue the tax increases generated.
The most comprehensive nationwide study of millionaire migration ever conducted concluded that “millionaire tax flight is occurring, but only at the margins of statistical and socioeconomic significance.”
Conclusion
A state tax on unrealized capital gains is a relatively new proposal in the U.S., but not globally, and academic experts have analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of various wealth tax models and developed innovative mechanisms to address some of the greatest challenges to practical implementation and political viability. These lessons can provide state policymakers with a starting point for policy design, but as “laboratories of democracy,” state legislatures should prioritize both collaborating with their communities and fostering a spirit of experimenting with, evaluating, and improving their state’s tax revenue laws.
The State Innovation Exchange (SiX) exists to advance a bold, people-centered policy vision in every state in this nation by helping vision-aligned state legislators succeed after they are elected. If you are working to strengthen our democracy, fight for working families, advance reproductive freedom, defend civil rights and liberties, or protect the environment, reach out to helpdesk@stateinnovation.org to learn more about SiX’s tailored policy, communications, and strategy support and how to join this network of like-minded state legislators from across the country.
Academic References
Addo, F. R. & Darity, W. A. (2021). Disparate recoveries: Wealth, race, and the working class after the great recession. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 695(1), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162211028822
Gamage, D. (2024). Testimony on Vermont H. 827: An act relating to applying personal income tax to unrealized gains. University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 2024-02. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4726478
Garbinti, B., Goupille-Lebret, J., Munoz, M., Stantcheva, S., & Zucman, G. (2023). Tax design, information, and elasticities: Evidence from the French wealth tax. NBER Working Paper Series. https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/GGMSZ2023.pdf
McCaffery, E. J. (2019). The death of the income tax (or, the rise of America’s universal wage tax). USC Law Legal Studies Paper, No. 18-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3242314
Iowa Farmers and State Legislators say Keep Koch Industries Out
Iowa Farmers and State Legislators say Keep Koch Industries Out
By Ida V. Eskamani and Kendra Kimbirauskas
“Farmers were really on the frontlines fighting back in history…. Antitrust laws of the past were really designed to make sure our markets were open, fair, and competitive. In the same way we were rejecting monarchs in our political sphere, we were also rejecting monopolies in our commercial and economic sphere. Ultimately consolidation of power was seen as a threat, whether it be in the political or economic sphere.” -FTC Chair Lina Khan, opening remarks
In Iowa this time of the year, if the weather is decent, farmers will be on their tractors planting crops. But on a windy spring day this past weekend, over 100 Midwesterns impacted by agriculture paused their planting to join their neighbors and other farmers from across Iowa and the Midwest to welcome the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair, Lina Khan to Nevada, Iowa.
The listening session was organized by SiX in collaboration with Iowa State Representatives J.D. Scholten, Elinor Levin, and Megan Srinivas, who have been champions for Iowa’s independent family farmers, and the Iowa Farmers Union (IFU). The intent of the event was for farmers to share with the Chair what the multinational corporation Koch Industries’ recent acquisition of Iowa Fertilizer Company means for their farms, families, and futures. For more background on the potential merger, click here.
Photo by Kendra Kimbirauskas, State Innovation Exchange.
In December 2023, the Dutch chemical company OCI Global announced the $3.6 billion sale of Iowa Fertilizer Company to Koch Industries. Koch Industries is one of the largest multinational companies in the world, their influence deeply felt in America’s economy and democracy. If they are allowed to buy the Iowa Fertilizer Company it will merge with one of its five domestic competitors and gain further dominance in the U.S. fertilizer market. This merger is cause for a lot of concern for many Iowa farmers, which they shared with Chair Khan.
At the event, the farmers’ testimony was powerful with details of how corporate consolidation is impacting their bottom line more and more each year. Many described grim situations such as when commodity prices increase and they receive a better price for their crops, their suppliers would also raise the costs for fertilizer, soil amendments, and supplies.
Dwindling competition is driving up prices and making it impossible for young farmers to compete against monopolies that leverage state policy towards an unfair advantage via incentives, deregulation and rising costs. One farmer shared that she was extremely worried that due to the continued rising costs she and her husband would have nothing to pass on to her sons who wanted to farm. As an example, she shared that last year her family spent $20,000 on new tractor tires, the same amount of money that her parents had paid for 80 acres of prime farmland in the 1960s.
IFU President Aaron Heley Lehman provided an overview of the lay-of-the land of the future of Iowa agriculture and shared that he believed the acquisition of Iowa Fertilizer to the multinational Koch Industries would harm the future of Iowa’s farming families and rural communities because Iowa farmers would continue to be squeezed by their suppliers.
National Farmers Union (NFU) President Rob Larew traveled to the event from West Virginia and shared that what is happening in Iowa is a microcosm for what NFU farmers and ranchers have been up-against across the country as less competition in the market is making it increasingly difficult for farmers and ranchers to survive. He reminded the group that capitalism without competition is exploitation.
Iowa state legislators stood with farmers and community members in expressing unease over the potential merger. In traveling his district, Rep. Scholten shared that concerns about lack of competition in agriculture is one of the top worries that Iowa farmer constituents share with him. He said that monopolistic behavior by agribusiness companies is squeezing both farmers and consumers in his district, making in increasingly difficult for the next generation to be able get into agriculture at a time when a significant portion of Iowa’s farmland will be changing hands over the next ten years as the average age of Iowa’s farmers is nearly 60 years old.
Other officials attending the event with Chair Khan included former Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who was the longest serving Attorney General in United States history and Iowa Farm Service Agency Executive Director Matt Russel who farms with his husband in Marion County, Iowa.
Chair Khan expressed her gratitude to SiX and our partners for organizing the listening session and providing a forum for the farmers to share their stories, views and experiences. She said that the information gleaned from the event in Iowa would be used to help the FTC determine if they would challenge the merger.
Before the listening session, event organizers hosted Chair Khan for a local farm tour– so she could see firsthand the impact corporate consolidation has on small and large farms alike.
The FTC is an essential federal agency, tasked with enforcing the nation’s antitrust and consumer protection laws. As Chair of the FTC, Lina Khan has reinvigorated antitrust in the country, prioritizing competition in the economy and fairness for consumers, workers, and local businesses. Under Chair Khan’s leadership, the agency has taken on corporate giants– from monopolies in agriculture, tech companies, grocery chains, healthcare, and private equity.
From left to right: IA Rep. Elinor Levin, IA Rep. Megan Srinivas, IA Rep. J.D. Scholten, FTC Chair Lina Khan, IFU President Aaron Heley Lehman, and NFU President Rob Larew. Photo by Kendra Kimbirauskas, State Innovation Exchange.
To learn more about SiX’s agriculture and economic justice work, click here and here.
Celebrate Black Maternal Health Week 2024 with SiX
Celebrate Black Maternal Health Week 2024 with SiX
Black legislators are spearheading the advancement of Black maternal health outcomes in their states. This year, Black Maternal Health Week (BMHW) will take place April 11-17th, 2023 and the theme is Our Bodies STILL Belong to Us: Reproductive Justice NOW!
Founded by Black Mamas Matter Alliance, BMHW was created to raise awareness, inspire activism and build community support for the issues and policies impacting the health and rights of Black mothers. This week centers the work, values, and traditions of the reproductive and birth justice movements. In honor of #BMHW24, SiX is uplifting state legislators across the country who are committed to supporting Black maternal health.
Show your support as a legislator in the SiX network leading the fight to improve Black maternal health outcomes and please share the following graphic and messages on social media.
Sample tweets:
Message 1: I’m taking part in this year’s #BlackMaternalHealthWeek with @Stateinnovation & @blkmamasmatter! Come engage in unforgettable activities & conversations aimed at shifting the state of Black Maternal Health in the U.S. Learn more: blackmamasmatter.org/bmhw #BlackMamasMatter #BMHW24
Message 2: @BlkMamasMatter advocates for the advancement and investment in practices and solutions that incorporate the true needs, wants and desires of Black women and birthing people! Throughout the week, I’ll be sharing how I am uplifting & empowering Black Mamas through policy. #BMHW24
Message 3: It’s #BlackMaternalHealthWeek and I'm joining @Stateinnovation in centering Black women’s scholarship, maternity care work, and advocacy. #BlackMamasMatter #BMHW24
Message 4: Black women are 3 times more likely to die from preventable pregnancy-related causes than white women. This #BlackMaternalHealthWeek, let's raise awareness and center Black Mamas’ experiences to find solutions! #BMHW24 @Stateinnovation
*Official toolkit from Black Mamas Matter Alliance*
A Movement for Tax Justice: Our Moment is Now
A Movement for Tax Justice: Our Moment is Now
By: Kyle Huelsman
The tax justice movement has arrived at a historic inflection point. One path leads toward massive cuts in government spending, divesting unprecedented levels of funding from our schools, our affordable housing stock, and our broader social safety net. The other path leads toward the ultrawealthy and corporations paying what they owe in taxes, enabling us to fund our future. The next two years will determine whether we can build together, across states and across movements, to fight for the second path, and realize a government that works for us all; or whether we will be overpowered by our opposition and become resigned to the worst possible outcome.
The root of this crisis has two main causes: the loss of federal funds and declining state revenue. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was hailed as a once in a generation investment in states, and for good reason: it provided $350 billion in emergency funding to respond to the COVID-19 emergency. ARPA funds, however, are expiring. States have until the end of 2024 to designate those federal funds, and until 2026 to fully spend down the remaining balance. Simultaneously, structural budget imbalances are starting to appear across the country. California, New York, and Pennsylvania face dramatic, multi-billion dollar deficits heading into 2024, but are by no means the only states with serious issues. Based on budget analyses of states published in late 2023, roughly half of Americans live in states that report short-term budget gaps, potential long-term deficits, or both (Pew, 2024). Across the board, we are seeing systemic and chronic budget shortfalls, which will outlast even the best resourced rainy day fund.
The collision of these two events has created the perfect storm for state government deficits. In no uncertain terms, there are only two possible choices as we move into 2025 and 2026: states can cut critical government programs or increase revenue. Let us be clear, if we do not act decisively to raise revenue from the ultra-wealthy and corporations, the default option is massive budget cuts. We need only look to the Great Recession, when states collectively extracted billions of dollars from their budgets, creating gaps in education funding that persisted over a decade later (CBPP, 2017).
For the 11 states participating in the Tax Justice Initiative cohort, our theory of change is simple: we must maintain and expand our power over 2023 and 2024 in order to be positioned, and strong enough, to win in 2025 and 2026. This frame will be critical to keep us focused on the medium-term objective, while also staying motivated in the face of unfavorable legislative environments throughout 2024.
We know that transforming state tax systems often takes years, which is why SIX and State Revenue Alliance (SRA) are supporting a broad, multi-year effort. The investigative reporting piece from the Center for Public Integrity (The Long Struggle Over Taxing the Rich) lays out the rationale behind our multi-year, multi-state strategy to counter the entrenched power and resources of our opposition, sharpen the inside/outside the building strategy of our allies, and support tax justice across the country. If we were to judge the success of the Tax Justice Initiative on the outcomes of 2023 alone, we would see a modest level of success. In 2024, we are already surpassing the high watermark of the previous year, but will face challenging political headwinds in many states. However, if we step back into a multi-year orientation, we can see the essential building blocks of transformational change. Examples include: favorable polling (70%-78% support for wealth taxes in TJI cohort states), stronger revenue coalitions and legislative champions, and deeper penetration of our message – in 2023, we received 189 media mentions and stories on the Tax Justice Initiative, including top tier national press from: The Washington Post; CBS News; Los Angeles Times; Yahoo! Finance; Bloomberg News; The Guardian; Business Insider; Associated Press; CBS News; Wall Street Journal; Forbes; In These Times; CNBC; and the New York Times in January 2024.
We saw important progress in 2023 with record numbers of cosponsors (256 total), and incredible efforts so far in 2024 - highlighting both the deep popularity of these reforms and the rewards of intentionally building power with legislative champions. Yet, our opposition hired more lobbyists, spent more on paid advertisements, and received more earned media coverage. No matter how popular our policies are outside state capitols, the disproportionate level of resources spent within legislative chambers create a real power imbalance. There is only one answer to this larger problem: we must relentlessly compete for more power because we don’t have enough today. Power is measurable, and we need to stay laser focused on our ability to increase the level of influence inside and outside the building.
For the champion legislators and movement partners leading this work at the state level, we have your back. As legislative leadership and Governors dismiss your reforms as “radical” and “untimely”: know that there is a eleven state network moving forward toward a common goal; know that the biggest revenue measures of the past decades faced the same criticism in the years before passage; know that the pushback is a reflection of the power that you are amassing. The 2024 legislative sessions may largely be a difficult and frustrating time for folks on the ground, but every ounce of power we build this year will mean the difference between success and failure when the moment is ready in the next legislative session. When we build together, over the long-term, we are unstoppable!
States Leading the Way on Paid Family and Medical Leave
States Leading the Way on Paid Family and Medical Leave
By: Ian Pfeiffer
From the first moments of a child’s life to the last moments in the life of a loved one, we all need time to care for our families. No one should have to worry about losing their job for putting their family first during some of the most important moments in life. This simple sentiment is shared by an overwhelming majority of Americans in poll after poll, which makes it so confounding that the United States is one of just six countries on the face of the earth that does not guarantee paid leave for workers.
In the three decades since the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was passed into law, which made some workers eligible for up to 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave, both corporations and extremist politicians–with support from their deep-pocket donors–have stood in the way of strengthening these benefits.
Under FMLA, only 3 in 10 workers are eligible for and can afford to take unpaid leave, deepening divides between historically marginalized communities. A report produced by the National Partnership for Women and Children illustrates the severe racial disparities in wealth and wealth building between white families and Black and Latino families due to past and present institutionalized racism, which are only exacerbated when serious medical and family challenges arise.
In 2021, federal paid family and medical leave was included in the Biden Administration’s “Build Back Better” legislation, coming the closest to enactment in the 30 years since the passage of FMLA. State lawmakers in 10 states and the District of Columbia had enacted legislation establishing a Paid Family and Medical Leave program leading up to this once in a generation moment to pass paid leave at the federal level. State legislators demonstrated the feasibility of the program and led to incredible momentum within Congress. Unfortunately, a small group of conservative Democrats in a closely divided Senate doomed this vital program, frustrating the millions of families that need to support a loved one in need.
State legislators have retaken the movement to pass PFML across the country in the wake of federal inaction. We are seeing incredible movement in Red states passing legislation to extend paid family and medical leave to state employees, including South Carolina, Tennessee and Louisiana. This is an opportunity to build towards a social insurance program, and particularly impactful as an important step towards gender and racial equity, as state employees are disproportionately women and Black workers. Not to be outdone, universal social insurance programs have been passed in Delaware, Maine, and Minnesota. SiX’s PFML Legislator cohort project is committed to help accelerate the second national push for federal PFML legislation, positioning passionate state legislators as national leaders in the fight for a more just economy.
The hard work in State Capitols across the country to discuss, debate, and advance paid leave legislation is vital to the lives of millions of Americans. Each small step builds towards a tipping point in Washington, where eventually federal lawmakers will be forced to react to the community-driven policy-making on paid family and medical leave that has been built in the states.
In an effort to accelerate the progress of these state-by-state fights by supporting and connecting the key legislative champions, SiX partnered with A Better Balance (ABB) and New America to organize a cross-state Paid Family Medical Leave (PFML) Legislator cohort.
Launched in 2022 with 16 legislators from 7 states who joined together to share insights, coordinate cross-state actions, and strategize on shaping the narrative around PFML. We hold monthly meetings centered on in-state and cross-state strategies for long-term PFML advancement. Legislators come to the table to discuss policy language, legislative strategy and any potential compromises, as well as implementation and enforcement challenges.
Importantly, the cohort members are building relationships that allow them to share their personal lived experiences which initially brought them to champion paid leave, organically fostering cross-state peer-learning that influences how they approach their in-state political eco-systems going forward.
This curated space was impactful because the challenges the legislators face are so daunting. They discuss how to navigate “knee-jerk” business opposition, while being encouraged by their business-owning colleagues to calculate and testify on the savings a proper PFML program would provide to actual small business owners. They also push back strongly against watered down versions of PFML designed to undercut our momentum and should be seen for what they are–an attempt to shift the debate in face of strong public opinion support and growing power.
Particularly resonant was the PFML track at SiX’s Innovations Accelerator Conference in September 2023, which brought together legislators and partners together in one room from across 11 states (CO, GA, IL, ME, MI, MN, NV, NM, NY, PA, VT) to share lessons and insights grounded in the necessity of grassroots support behind policy and centering the leadership, experience, and stories of those most impacted by PFML.
Since the PFML cohort was formed, initial cohort members in Minnesota and Maine have passed PMFL laws in their states, joining the now 13 states and Washington, D.C. who have done so. We expect the cohort will both help legislators continue passing these critical protections, including in states that have joined the cohort, Nevada and Georgia, and deepen the connection that leads to further areas of focus.
While the passage of the PFML bills creating these programs is a reason to celebrate, implementation and enforcement of the programs can be a multi-year odyssey. Historically, not enough focus has been paid to how the programs are built in reality and the negative impact these delays have on those who need these important protections the most. Legislative champions and advocates are doubling their efforts to “stay in the fight” to have the programs implemented as soon as possible.
The work that can be done in any state to extend these benefits to workers and their families is vital to this ongoing nationwide struggle. We invite you to join us in this important effort to fight back against those corporate interests that stand in our way while millions of families grapple with an impossible choice between keeping a job and caring for a loved one.
Challenging Corporate Power Initiative
Challenging Corporate Power Initiative
By: Ida V. Eskamani
The consolidation of corporate power in the hands of the elite few impacts every facet of our lives; connected directly to expanding wealth disparities and the rising cost of living, the existential climate crisis and rampant expansion of authoritarianism, and to the very existence of the multiracial democracy we strive for.
Ida V. Eskamani of State Innovation Exchange chats with her twin sister Representative Anna V. Eskamani of Orlando, Florida about challenging corporate power in the states.
The concentration of corporate power does not happen by accident; it’s not the result of inevitable forces. It is a product of deliberate policy choices over decades and centuries. Racism, sexism, and classism are entrenched within our current economic system, by design. As a result, Black, immigrant, Indigenous, working class and rural communities, women, and queer people are disproportionately exploited and denied prosperity by these policies.
But historically, state legislators, in collaboration with the communities most impacted by these policy choices, have led the fight challenging corporate power– organizing our communities and taking on the corporate lobby to build economies that empower people.
Challenging corporate power not only advances justice; it is essential to our organizing, allowing us to build movements that cross racial and ethnic lines, geographies, and issue-silos. Regardless of your area of expertise and the communities you organize with– whether it be education, agriculture, climate, housing, healthcare, criminal justice; or rural, urban, and suburban; the harms of corporate influence tie us together. Challenging corporate power offers easily identified villains, which is critical to organizing; and diminishes our opponents’ power by allowing us to neutralize the faux populism leveraged in the so-called “culture wars,” and expose the corporate donors and billionaires who fund these extremist campaigns.
And finally, challenging corporate power is an opportunity to restore people’s trust in government, by demonstrating that governments can improve the daily lives of people and work with, by, and for all people, versus the elite few. Faith in our public institutions is essential to protecting our democracy from the rising threat of authoritarianism and increasing people’s engagement in our governing system. This work is essential towards advancing racial, gender, and economic justice; and state legislators are uniquely positioned to lead the charge, and win.
Understanding our opponents:
The abuse of corporate power is rampant in our state capitols, where despite public opinion and undeniable economic disparities, the corporate lobby sets the agenda, with bipartisan success.
From seemingly infinite campaign contributions, to state-by-state coordination of model policy, corporate lobbying power is massive– outnumbering public interest lobbyists in every metric. Corporate mergers, tax-giveaways, privatization, deregulation, abusive preemption, and undermining workers’ collective bargaining rights are just a few of the policy tools used to concentrate corporate power over our economy and our democracy. Increasingly, private equity and AI threaten our economic freedoms as well.
The corporate lobby also thrives on anonymity. Corporations protect their brands by hiding behind industry associations, such as state-affiliates of the national Chambers of Commerce, Retail Federation, Restaurant Association and Apartment Association.. The agribusiness lobby is especially good at concealing its true interests; capitalizing on romantic ideals of family farms and the fact that the majority of Americans now live far from farm life. Groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation, a pro-big business insurance company, and state-based groups such as “Oregonians for Food and Shelter,” a front group for the agro-chemical lobby, acclaim to represent farmer interests while actually promoting policies that run roughshod over rural communities, the environment, and public health – meanwhile asserting that anyone who opposes them is an out-of-touch urbanite. All of these front groups lead efforts to lobby policymakers on behalf of a small group of multinational corporations, despite claims that they represent small businesses.
This network promotes a false narrative that “government doesn’t work,” to erode people’s trust in government, leading to less engagement and further justification for the privatization they profit from, with our public dollars. We argue that our government is working very efficiently, but not for people– for corporations and their shareholders. By challenging corporate power, we reclaim control of our public institutions and build governments that work with, by, and for people.
How do we challenge corporate power?
We know that corporate power poisons every industry and impacts every facet of our lives. So how do we effectively challenge corporate power in the states? Our strategy consists of five key pillars:
1) Educate: We consistently educate legislators and partners on the past and present crisis of corporate power in the United States. We demonstrate the interconnectedness of our fights, the long-term and cross-state coordination of the corporate agenda, identify emergent threats and opportunities, and connect the dots of the corporate agenda not just in the economy, but in strengthening white supremacy, ideological extremism, and threatening our democracy. We also dream and build an economy that puts people before corporate power.
2) Name Opponents: Effective campaigns have clearly identified and tangible villains. We are up against a coordinated and cynical machine of corporations, billionaires, and extremist front groups who find power in anonymity. We must name who is financing these campaigns, as well as their financial contributions to lobbying and elections. By exposing the coordinated network we are up against, we weaken their power and undercut their divide-and-conquer tactics.
3) Organize: We organize state legislators in collaboration with the communities most impacted by these policy choices. We build broad, people-centered, multi-racial and multi-issue coalitions that name corporate power at the root of our challenges. We organize in-state and cross-state to facilitate peer-learning and multi-state strategy taking on corporate power. Recognizing that corporate interests have long promoted rural/urban culture wars and antagonism as a way to strengthen their position, our Cohort for Rural Opportunity and Prosperity helps state legislators be bold champions for progressive policies in rural and agriculture spaces that are typically dominated by legislators beholden to corporate interests.
4) Policy Campaigns: Policy campaigns come from the grassroots, reflecting the dreams of communities most impacted by corporate power. There are countless policy campaigns taking on corporate power, from workers rights, rent control and right to repair, to holding corporations accountable, ending private prison contracts and busting corporate monopolies; legislators should be key organizing partners with communities leading the charge. All policy campaigns help to build a cohesive state and national narrative. Defensive fights undermine the faux populist narrative leveraged by extremists and create a platform that speaks directly to the material needs of working families. Offensive campaigns offer real-world models for how the government can offer meaningful services directly to people.
5) Collaborative Governance: Our organizing model centers directly-impacted people working alongside and acting as key decision-makers with state policymakers. This includes policy drafting, passage, and implementation. Co-governance advances racial, gender, and economic justice whilerestoring trust in a government, by improving the material conditions of people and providing services better than corporations can. Ultimately, we seek to build an economy that serves people by promoting public options, fully-funded safety nets, and well-resourced state agencies.
The work ahead:
It’s hard to overstate the influence of corporations in every aspect of our lives. From our freedom to vote to the price of groceries; the cost of housing and healthcare to the curriculum we teach in schools; child labor and the right of workers to organize; the climate crisis, immigrant detention, and mass incarceration– you will find corporate influence at nearly at every level of government , undermining our public institutions to centralize power and profits at the expense of our livelihoods and freedoms.
After a year of planning, partner cultivation, and strategy development, SiX formally launched our Challenging Corporate Power Initiative at our 2023 Accelerator Conference. We organized legislators and partners from across 16 states and DC to learn about the far-reaching impacts of corporate monopolies on workers, consumers, and local businesses, and how we can build an economy that works for us all.
We began the convening with a history of corporate power in the United States, fromour Rural, Agriculture & Food Systems team. The presentation links the concentration of corporate power to white supremacy and the foundation of the US economy, including the genocide of and landgrab from Indigenous people and the exploitation of Africans and Black Americans trafficked into the slave trade. With that foundation, we demonstrated how both everyday people and elected officials have successfully taken on corporate power to advance justice, how corporate power has fought back, and brought us to the present crisis we are in now.
With legislators inspired by the convening, we launched a sign-on letter in partnership with the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), rallying legislators behind the federal government's draft corporate merger guidelines. In less than a week, we secured 56 state legislators from 22 states in support of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed corporate merger guidelines.
As legislative sessions grind on, our team is on the ground and working across state lines to organize lawmakers, workers, and local businesses and leverage legislatures to fight back in ways that advance justice and build long term, durable power. We invite you to join us in this effort to challenge corporate power in our state capitols and our communities, towards a future where people, not multinational corporations, have what they need to thrive.
Acknowledgement: Gratitude to our Agriculture & Food Systems team members Kendra Kimbirakuskas and Siena Chrisman, for their work, and contributions to this piece.
How States Can Stop the Corporate Campaign To Roll Back Child Labor Protections
How States Can Stop the Corporate Campaign To Roll Back Child Labor Protections
The enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938 marked the passage of the first federal standards for child labor in the U.S., prohibiting the long hours, dangerous jobs, and abusive practices that many children suffered at the time. Now, nearly nine decades later, state legislatures, spurred by political operatives working on behalf of deep-pocketed corporate interests, are the epicenters of a national campaign to turn the clock back on child labor protections.
Since 2021, at least 61 bills to roll back child labor protections have been introduced in 29 states, and at least 17 bills have been enacted in 13 states. The proposals, some of which would directly conflict with federal standards, include provisions that would repeal work permit requirements, extend work hours, legalize employment in hazardous occupations, allow children to be paid less than the state minimum wage, lower the minimum age for alcohol service, and preempt the passage of stricter child labor protections at the local level. Without adequate federal or state enforcement capacity, the recent onslaught of legislative activity to bring back 19th-century child labor standards promises to intensify a growing national crisis of child labor violations, especially among migrant youth.
State lawmakers and advocates have the power to organize and push back against these coordinated attacks and to put forward a different vision for the future where labor policies safeguard the safety, well-being, and education of children. This publication is intended to serve as a resource to legislators and state advocates in resisting efforts to deregulate child labor protections. It offers policy options that can strengthen labor protections for young workers. A stronger framework for child labor standards at the state level should consider the following:
Enhancing child labor protections. States can and should establish labor protections that go above and beyond federal standards for young workers. Examples include time and hour restrictions for 16- and 17-year-olds, prohibitions on hazardous occupations, rest or meal break requirements, work permit requirements, repealing youth subminimum wage laws, and strengthening protections for children in agricultural work.
Enhancing enforcement and penalties. States should adopt an enforcement strategy that maintains a credible ability to enforce against violations and includes a penalty regime that provides effective deterrence.
State lawmakers can establish strong civil and criminal penalties, including minimum penalties and damages payable to workers, in addition to enhanced penalties for egregious violations.
Legislators can also enhance enforcement by establishing anti-retaliation protections, extending the statute of limitations on violations, expanding agency enforcement powers, and boosting enforcement capacity, particularly by adding language and cultural capacity to appropriately support migrant children.
State legislators can consider strategies that support enforcement on behalf of the state, like community enforcement programs, private attorneys general laws that authorize aggrieved employees to bring enforcement actions on behalf of the state, or dedicated grant funding to local prosecutors to support labor enforcement actions.
Lawmakers can ensure that children have appropriate legal remedies when they are harmed by child labor violations by ensuring that injured or killed workers are not limited to workers’ compensation as an exclusive remedy and by establishing a private right of action.
Extend liability to all entities that profit from child labor. State lawmakers should modernize child labor protections to account for 21st-century business structures that often allow the most powerful entities to evade accountability. Examples include laws that hold lead corporations responsible for violations committed within their supply chains and laws that establish joint liability for franchisors and franchisees.
Establish public procurement compliance requirements. States can set a standard for strict compliance with child labor protections through the procurement process by requiring contractors to disclose child labor violations and maintaining compliance with child labor protections as a condition for eligibility for public contracts.
Support education, outreach, and service coordination efforts. Legislators can also enable improved enforcement outcomes by supporting education and outreach efforts that ensure that children and their families are adequately informed of their rights under the law and by facilitating coordination among labor officials, public education systems, social services, and immigrant legal services to ensure that investigations of violations do not leave families without access to material and legal support.
The scheme to deregulate child labor state by state is inseparable from attacks on workers’ rights, safety net programs that help families get back on their feet during hard times, the right to an honest and quality education, a fair tax system where wealthy corporations pay what they owe, and our freedom to vote and our right to fair representation. Altogether, these conjoined efforts—driven by insatiable corporate greed and bolstered by outsized elite influence over our democracy—paint a bleak future of an endless race to the bottom for cheap labor, enshrined by the exploitation of children at the expense of their health, safety, and education.
Introduction
In recent years, state legislatures have been the focus of a national operation to repeal laws that protect young people’s health, safety, and educational rights. The campaign to drag labor protections back in time to the 19th century is part of a sweeping, multi-issue effort to further concentrate corporate power, undermine worker rights, and dismantle government regulation, all while cementing wealth inequality by stratifying access to public education and tearing down anti-poverty programs. Since 2021, at least 61 bills to weaken child labor protections have been introduced across 29 states, including 17 bills that have been enacted in 13 states.
The ultimate intent of the corporate lobby is clear: to pave a path to national deregulation of child labor, one state at a time. State lawmakers have the power to put a stop to the plot to build an economy that allows businesses to profit on the backs of children, even in the most dangerous jobs. This publication is intended to serve as a resource to legislators and advocates in responding to the ongoing efforts in state capitols to deregulate child labor. In addition to examining the industry-backed actors behind the corporate conspiracy to roll back child labor protections, the publication outlines the types of regressive legislation that states have considered and passed in recent years and offers potential policy options that legislators may consider to further strengthen state protections for young workers.
History Repeats Itself: A Look Behind the Curtain of the Campaign To Roll Back Child Labor Protections
In the years following the proposal of a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to regulate child labor in 1924, a new organization called the Farmers’ States Rights League (FSRL) distributed over a quarter-million pieces of literature opposing the amendment, spreading false claims that children would be prevented from doing chores around the home and family farm. The propaganda spread through half-page advertisements in small-town newspapers, leaving readers with the misguided impression that the campaign was funded organically by a group of farmers who came together in opposition to the amendment.
In reality, the FSRL was operated by David Clark, a frontman for wealthy Southern textile factory bosses—an industry that thrived on child labor—to create the facade of public resistance to the amendment in rural America. Clark, a virulent white supremacist who frequently railed against integration as the publisher of the influential Southern Textile Bulletin, was also the mastermind behind a litigation strategy to stonewall new child labor protections. His efforts, which included selecting a friendly federal judge and cajoling young cotton mill workers to serve as plaintiffs in lawsuits he paid for, resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down two newly enacted federal child labor protections. One of the plaintiffs handpicked by Clark, when interviewed by a reporter years later, reflected: “I’d been a lot better off if they hadn’t won it. Look at me! A hundred and five pounds, a grown man and no education.”
While the proposed amendment was never ratified, Congress eventually enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938, prohibiting children from being employed in certain types of hazardous work, establishing a minimum age of 16 for most types of work, and limiting the number of hours and the time of day that children are allowed to work to protect school attendance. Nearly a century later, a different set of actors, funded by the newest generation of billionaire industrialist barons, are playing the same cast of characters in another astroturfing production to fabricate the illusion of widespread support for policies that only serve to line the pockets of the wealthy through increasingly dangerous child labor.
Industry Fronts: Agribusiness, the Foundation for Government Accountability, and the Opportunity Solutions Project
Agricultural industry groups continue to be outspoken proponents of weakening child labor protections. In the same model as the FSRL, they point to these protections as being burdensome for family farmers when, in truth, these groups represent multinational agribusiness corporations. Groups opposing a proposed federal rule to increase child protections in the FLSA in 2011, for example, included some of the biggest actors in the industry, such as pesticide trade group CropLife America, the National Cotton Council, and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). The AFBF, in particular, was founded in 1919 as a contemporary of the FSRL but has remained a powerful lobby group in the century since—calling itself “the voice of agriculture” while representing large agribusiness interests. In addition to advocating for weaker child labor protections, the AFBF supported the repeal of both the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Affordable Care Act while consistently pressing for policies that harm the independent family farmers it claims to represent.
Other proponents of child labor rollbacks in statehouses across the country reflect a similar array of lobbyists and trade associations for other businesses and industries that stand to benefit most from child labor, including the restaurant, hospitality, and retail industries. During a hearing on a bill to repeal work permits in Arkansas, the legislative sponsor acknowledged that the legislation came from a Florida-based organization called the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA). At the same time, emails obtained by reporters revealed that similar bills were sent by FGA lobbyists to Florida and Missouri lawmakers.
Reflecting on its work during the 2021 legislative session in states across the country, the FGA boasted in its annual report that thanks to the expansion of its “Super State strategy, which involves doubling down in key states to drive national change with big reforms,” Arkansas legislators enacted 48 “FGA reforms,” while Florida had implemented 26 of the organization’s solutions. Just two years later, lawmakers in Arkansas and Florida, in addition to two of the newest FGA Super States, Iowa and Wisconsin, passed bills to weaken child labor protections.
The FGA and OSP are funded by a number of ultra-wealthy industrialists who have funneled billions into a vast network of organizations to do the bidding of large corporations and conservative extremists. Some known funders of the FGA and OSP are also behind other industry investments to capture judicial and legislative power:
The similarities between the tactics of modern pro-child labor groups and their forebears are striking: front organizations are financed by a wealthy network of elites to create the pretense of citizen-driven campaigns for policies that make benefactors even more profitable in their industries. When paired with the ongoing crusade to push our democracy, state by state, into crisis, policies designed to enact economic oppression on the most vulnerable workers promise to ensure that the power to hoard wealth and opportunity remains a feature of our nation’s laws for generations to come.
Federal and State Enforcement Capacity is Insufficient Amidst Increased Violations and Conflicting State Laws
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that federal law takes supremacy over conflicting state laws. While states may enact laws that provide legal protections above federal law, they may not lower the “floor” set by federal law. State legislatures have a long tradition of establishing and enforcing higher labor standards for their residents, including establishing some of the country’s first child labor protections a century before the passage of the FLSA.
States that roll back state child labor standards are actively diminishing their important, long-standing roles in enforcing child labor protections, leaving more and more of the enforcement burden to an already short-staffed federal Department of Labor (DOL) at a time when employer violations are sharply increasing. Weakening state standards signals to unscrupulous employers that child labor violations are less likely than ever to be investigated in a certain state while creating new confusion, even for well-intentioned employers, about what is and is not legal, increasing the likelihood of additional violations.
During the 2023 legislative session, federal DOL officials responded to a request from Iowa lawmakers regarding a bill (2023 IA SF 542), which has since been enacted into law, to confirm that several provisions were inconsistent with federal law. The DOL more recently alerted employers that they remain legally obligated to comply with federal child labor protections rather than newly enacted and weaker state laws, reminding employers that “[w]here a state child labor law is less restrictive than the federal law, the federal law applies. Where a state child labor law is more restrictive than the federal law, the state law applies.”
Despite the legal impotence of some provisions contained in new state child labor laws, they are deliberately intended to introduce confusion to the existing regulatory framework, take advantage of a vastly under-resourced and understaffed federal labor enforcement agency, and heighten conflicts between state and federal standards to build a case for lowering standards nationwide. The ultimate goal, as the FGA outlined in a recent report, is to “open the door to federal regulatory reform” by getting “enough states to successfully implement a reform.”
Proponents of weakening child labor protections frequently trot out feel-good stories suggesting that the rollbacks will open opportunities for teenagers working at the local movie theater or grocery store to save up for a prom dress when, in reality, these types of jobs are already fully legal options for teens as young as 14 in all states. Deregulation is instead aimed at stripping long-standing safety and scheduling standards that protect the health and education of children. Removing these guardrails will have the most dire, life-threatening consequences for children who are working to survive in some of the most dangerous and hidden jobs in our economy. This is made all the more urgent by a recent increase in unaccompanied migrant children driven from their home countries by economic desperation. State legislatures are the most important stopgap today for preventing the continued abuse, serious injury, and death of children in the workplace.
Compounded by violence and the disastrous effects of climate change, the economic fallout from the pandemic pushed many in Central America into a severe economic crisis. Many families facing extreme hunger and poverty had little choice but to send their children to the U.S. through a narrow opening in an otherwise broken immigration system that, until recently, closed the southern border to unauthorized arrivals and asylum seekers, except for children.
Nearly 350,000 unaccompanied children were released by federal officials in a three-year period between 2020 and 2023—almost a 180% increase from the previous three years. Whereas the majority of unaccompanied minors in years past were primarily released to parents already living in the country, today, only one-third are sponsored by parents, with the remainder being sent to relatives, acquaintances, or strangers. Unaccompanied children are held temporarily at shelters under the care of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) while caseworkers vet sponsors to identify red flags for potential trafficking, such as sponsors that have claimed responsibility for dozens of unrelated children.
About one-third of unaccompanied children who are identified as high-risk continue to receive case management services after release. In most instances, children are released to sponsors with the number of a national hotline and receive a phone call from federal officials within a month of release. In 2022, HHS reported not being able to contact one-third of minors in the month after their release to sponsors, while trafficking reports to the national hotline have increased by 1,300% in just five years.
Child Labor Violations Are Widespread and Largely Unchecked
The stories gathered from interviews with migrant children themselves, as well as the caseworkers, teachers, and community members around them, all bear strikingly repetitive refrains. Upon arriving in the country alone and without work permits, unaccompanied migrant children, often saddled with debt from their journey and with the obligation to support families back home, inevitably end up filling some of the most undesirable jobs that are often outsourced and persistently vacant due to the refusal of corporations to pay fair wages. These children frequently end up dropping out of school or never enrolling at all.
Though federal law prohibits children from being employed in many of these roles, employers frequently look the other way, as was in the case of a 13-year-old worker who presented documents that identified them as a 30-year-old. Even when multimillion-dollar corporations are caught in a federal investigation, the maximum civil penalty for child labor violations—less than 1% of the penalty for insider trading—is trivial to those corporations when balanced against the profits generated by ignoring labor protections. Some of the most egregious violations have been at worksites that are within the supply chain of major household brands like Tyson, Hyundai, and General Mills, which are insulated from liability by layers of subcontractors and third-party agencies.
Over and over, reporters and federal investigators have laid bare the widespread nature of child labor violations in today’s economy. Each story below, alongside many more, shares similar themes of exploitation and willful ignorance by employers, who often face little to no accountability, even in cases involving serious injury or death:
In rural Virginia, a 14-year-old who would finish his overnight shift in a Perdue chicken slaughterhouse 20 minutes before getting on the bus to school was maimed when a conveyor belt caught his arm. Without full function restored to his arm, which still requires at least three additional surgeries, he has no choice but to focus on school—a rare opportunity for unaccompanied migrant children—even as interest accrues on the debt that his family took on to send him to his adult cousin in Virginia. When notified of the maiming incident, OSHA officials handed the investigation to officials in Virginia, who permitted the company to complete a “self-inspection,” resulting in no citations for the company and no reference to the worker’s age.
Reporters recently interviewed more than 100 child roofers working in nearly two dozen states, painting a bleak picture of an industry that relies on children as young as 10 to fill a workforce shortage. The stories are nauseating: a 15-year-old who fell to his death in Alabama with a crew of nine people and only six harnesses; a 15-year-old in Florida who slipped and burned his body when he fell into a vat of tar; a 17-year-old in Louisiana who was electrocuted to death while operating a forklift for the first time; and Antoni, a 15-year-old who fell 30 feet onto concrete from the roof of a South Carolina beach house. The sheer asymmetry between the deadly risks that children take on and the consequences that their employers face is breathtaking—of the three deaths referenced in the article, none has resulted in any child labor fines. As for Antoni, who woke up from a three-month coma and was unable to access rehabilitation services to address memory loss and mobility issues without health insurance, three tiers of roofing contractors each contend the other is liable for workers’ compensation, and only one has been fined $500 by state labor investigators.
A 2022 DOL investigation found at least seven underage workers, including two brothers aged 13 and 15, illegally employed by a Hyundai manufacturer in Alabama through a third-party staffing agency. The brothers, who were also living in a house owned by the president of the staffing agency, reported that one of the intermediaries that recruited them also led them to believe that the entity had the power to deport them. The manufacturer was fined just $30,000; Hyundai was shielded from legal liability by a complex web of suppliers and staffing agencies and is set to receive $2.1 billion in state and local tax breaks and incentives in Georgia.
A massive federal DOL investigation found at least 102 teens working in violation of federal law across 13 facilities in eight states for Packers Sanitation Services Inc. (PSSI), a contractor that describes itself as the leading sanitation company for meatpacking plants. The investigators estimated there were at least five times as many children employed illegally based on observations. According to court records, the children handled high-pressure hoses, scalding water, industrial solutions that caused chemical burns, and power-driven machines like 190-pound saws. Meanwhile, PSSI, which is owned by Blackstone, the world’s largest private equity firm controlling over $1 trillion in wealth, paid a $1.5 million civil fine, or 1% of the company’s cash on hand, and faces no criminal charges.
At one Southern California poultry plant, federal investigators found children as young as 14 deboning chickens and operating forklifts outside of allowable work hours. The investigation also revealed that the processor, which supplies poultry to brands like SYSCO Corp. and Kroger, committed wage theft violations by paying workers less than minimum wage and refusing to pay overtime wages while retaliating against workers who cooperated with the investigation. In total, the poultry processor was ordered to pay $3.5 million in back wages and damages to workers, in addition to over $201,000 in civil penalties. The owner of the plant was recently the subject of an investigation by state labor officials that resulted in a $1.47 million settlement, including over $900,000 in wages stolen from 300 workers.
Federal regulators at the WHD announced an investigation of three McDonald’s franchisees that identified 305 children working in violation of child labor laws—including two 10-year-olds who worked as late as 2 a.m. at a Louisville restaurant. In total, the franchisees were assessed over $212,000 in civil penalties for violations and recovered nearly $15,000 in back wages and damages from one franchisee who failed to pay overtime wages. Since 2021, McDonald’s franchisees have been assessed over $577,000 in civil penalties for violations involving 825 minors. Franchise agreements with brands like McDonald’s are often vague when it comes to compliance with labor laws, to limit the brand’s liability exposure.
A recent OSHA investigation concluded that Mar-Jac Poultry, a Mississippi poultry processing plant, “disregarded safety standards,” resulting in a fatal incident where a 16-year-old was pulled into a machine that he was sanitizing in July of 2023—an occupation prohibited under federal child labor laws. Mar-Jac Poultry was cited with 17 safety violations and fined $212,646; the company is still in the process of contesting a penalty of $27,306 from another fatal incident in 2021. A nonprofit that owns a three-quarters stake in the parent company of the poultry processor, Mar-Jac Holdings, recently reported that its ownership stake in the holding company was equal to over $235 million in assets in 2022.
On its own, the idea of allowing children to work full-time or on graveyard shifts while attending school, to operate dangerous industrial equipment sharp enough to butcher cattle, to work in a bar at the age of 14, to toil in fields while inhaling toxic pesticides at 12, or to handle caustic cleaning solutions while wearing protective gear several sizes too large for less than minimum wage and without oversight is shocking and dangerous. But when taken together with the other priorities of the shadowy network of industry-funded groups that have cloaked their campaign to deregulate child labor as simply a matter of cutting “red tape,” the effort presents an existential threat to the future that most of us envision for our children.
Given the improbability of federal action on child labor, even in the face of rising violations, new conflicting state laws, and lack of federal enforcement capacity, state lawmakers have a central role to play in protecting the health and safety of children in the workplace. In addition to fighting back against continued child labor rollbacks, legislators can strengthen child labor standards and boost enforcement capacity at the state level.
The Campaign To Weaken Child Labor Protections
Since 2021, at least 61 bills to weaken child labor protections have been introduced across 29 states:
17 bills were enacted in 13 states—Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Two additional bills were enacted in Michigan and Wisconsin but were vetoed by the governor in each state.
29 bills (and counting) are currently pending in 19 states—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Recent legislation to weaken protections for children in the workforce has generally included some combination of the following provisions.
Eliminating employment certification requirements. In most states, minors of certain ages must be issued work certificates, sometimes referred to as work permits, in order to be employed. Employment certificates, issued by either state labor officials or school officials, typically document the minor’s work and proposed schedule, affirm parental consent, and verify the child’s age. Many recent bills include proposals to eliminate work permits, bypassing parents while also eliminating documentation that can be used in investigations of potential violations and that serves as notice to children, families, and employers of state child labor laws.
Extending work hours. Federal law limits the times of day and number of hours that 14- and 15-year-olds may work: outside of school hours, no more than 3 hours on a school day, no more than 8 hours on a non-school day, no more than 18 hours during a week when school is in session, no more than 40 hours during a week when school is not in session, and between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. (or 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. between June 1 and Labor Day). Some states additionally have more restrictive limits on the number of hours or times of day that children are allowed to work, including guidelines for the employment of 16- and 17-year-olds enrolled in school. Several states are contemplating changes to their laws that would increase the number of hours that children are permitted to work on a daily or weekly basis or allow children to work later on school nights—even in violation of federal law, in the case of at least one bill (2023 IA SF 542) passed in Iowa.
Expanding types of permissible hazardous employment. Under federal law, the Secretary of Labor is authorized to identify jobs that 14- and 15-year-olds are permitted to do. Any job not expressly identified by the Secretary of Labor is prohibited, and the Secretary of Labor additionally identifies a set of jobs that are expressly prohibited for 14- and 15-year-olds. Federal law additionally prohibits the employment of children under age 18 in occupations identified by the Secretary of Labor to be especially hazardous based on injury and fatality data, which currently includes 17 occupations. In violation of these standards, some recent bills proposed by state legislators would authorize employers to hire children in hazardous industries like construction (2023 MN SF 375/HF 260) or to operate power-driven industrial machinery (2022 IA SF 2190).
Establishing a subminimum wage. Federal law allows employers to pay young workers and students subminimum wages and excludes occupations often held by youth. Some states have considered bills to establish a subminimum wage for workers under a certain age, below the minimum wage required by federal or state law.
Lowering alcohol service age. The minimum age to serve alcohol in most states is at least 18 years, but in recent years, pushed by industry lobbyists, several states have enacted or considered bills to lower the minimum age to serve alcohol, with one proposal in Wisconsin (2023 WI AB 286) contemplating a minimum age of 14.
Weakening protections for homeschooled children. State laws vary regarding homeschool accountability and oversight. In some instances, homeschooling parents are not required to monitor their child’s academic progress or record it in any way. State deregulation of child labor laws may include further loosening of homeschool oversight, or take advantage of already weak regulations, to make it completely legal for a child’s education to be effectively abandoned. One proposal in Florida (2024 FL HB 49) explicitly allows homeschooled children to work during school hours.
Preventing local governments from passing stronger child labor protections. Local communities should have the power to develop policies that reflect the values and needs of the people living there. Some states are also considering child labor legislation that would block local policies that strengthen child labor protections above a state standard, expanding a longer-standing and troubling pattern of state interference with local governments’ ability to strengthen labor standards.
See Table 1 for a summary of legislation to weaken child labor protections that have been considered since 2021.
Strategies for Organizing Against the Rollback of Child Labor Protections
In organizing against the campaign to deregulate child labor, state legislators should consider the following strategies:
Center people. The people most impacted by these proposals should be the center of our work. Organize with community groups, parents, and children impacted by these laws. Worker centers, farmworker associations, student groups, and labor unions are valuable partners in public education, media engagement, legislative strategy, and coalition-building.
Build coalitions. It is important to partner with advocacy on the ground. In addition to worker centers, farmworker associations, student groups, and labor unions, consider public educators and state public education advocates, faith organizations, and anti-poverty organizations as partners. Small businesses and responsible employers (for example, unionized construction contractors who take pride in maintaining high standards for safety and training) can also be key allies.
Name opponents. Effective campaigns have a clearly identified and tangible opponent. Name who is financing these campaigns, as well as their financial contributions to lobbying and elections. This includes the FGA and their key financier billionaire Dick Uihlein, as well as the industry trade associations supporting these bills such as the state Chamber of Commerce, state Retail Federation and Restaurant Association, and the brand-sensitive corporations that make up their membership.
Paint the big picture. Be clear about who is funding this campaign, the history behind this effort, and the interconnectedness between efforts to privatize public education while simultaneously rolling back child labor protections. These laws are about denying young people the freedom to decide their futures in exchange for exorbitant corporate profits.
Use research and data. This report highlights research on the families most impacted by these laws, the deadly dangers associated with child labor, and the impact rolling back child labor has on overall worker wages, benefits, and safety. It is also important to understand the current exemptions in your state law, as well as federal law, in the specific industries the bill impacts. Gathering data on youth employment, high school completion, injury and fatality rates for young workers, and federal and state violations of child labor laws can also help to illustrate the realities of young workers in the economy. This helps debunk myths pushed by proponents, such as that these bills are simply about young people learning new skills or that they align with and do not violate federal law.
Engage with unlikely allies. As noted, industry trade associations such as the Chamber of Commerce and Retail Federation are generally in support of these bills. However, individual companies may oppose them and can be invited in as allies in this effort. There may also be a need for public pressure campaigns to secure opposition from such unlikely allies.
Engage with the media in coalition. Engaging the media on these bills in collaboration with partner organizations and coalitions is an important tactic to educate and organize the public. This includes traditional and nontraditional media, as well as non-English-speaking outlets.
Learn from peers in other states. The campaign to roll back child labor protections is a national campaign rooted in the states; it is important that we don’t operate in state silos but instead learn from peers across the country facing the same legislation. Tools like amendments, questions for the bill sponsor, debate, and public testimony are already publicly available in many states and critical in building public opposition to these bills. State Innovation Exchange can support these efforts.
Table 1. State Child Labor Legislation
Note: This table summarizes the provisions of state legislation related to child labor identified by the authors as of February 9, 2024. The status of each bill reflected in this table may not reflect its current status.
Opportunities To Strengthen Child Labor Protections
State lawmakers have the power to take immediate action to protect young workers against the staggering uptick in child labor violations, especially among children working in dangerous industries. The following sections include examples of provisions that lawmakers may consider in developing a stronger framework for child labor protections in their states, drawn from bills that have been considered at the federal and state levels. In addition to legislation specific to child labor, this section also includes enforcement approaches from other areas of labor law that may be effective against child labor violations.
See Table 1 for a summary of bills referenced in the following sections, in addition to other bills with similar provisions.
Enhancing Labor Protections
State lawmakers have the power to counteract the spread of child labor deregulation by ensuring that state-level protections continue to prioritize the health, safety, and education of young workers. At a minimum, legislators in states where child labor protections are weaker than the FLSA should raise state standards to align with federal requirements.
Establish labor protections for children that exceed federal standards.Federal child labor standards do not include time and hour restrictions for 16- and 17-year-olds, establish rest or meal break requirements, or require work permits for youth to be employed. Many states already have time and hour restrictions or occupational prohibitions that provide additional protections for young workers beyond what is required in the FLSA. Missouri lawmakers are considering a bill (2024 MO HB 1536) that would prohibit overnight shifts for 16- and 17-year-olds on school nights. In Michigan, where existing law already prohibits overnight shifts for 16- and 17-year-olds except if a deviation is granted by the state labor agency, legislators have introduced a bill (2023 MI HB 4932) that would narrow the circumstances in which a deviation may be granted to exclude certain hours or occupations that are “hazardous or injurious to the minor’s health or personal well-being.” Additionally, while most states already require that a work permit be issued to minors for employment, such requirements do not apply to all ages of minors or all occupations, and in most states, the permit includes no process for verifying the ages of minors.
Repeal exceptions that allow minors to be paid less than minimum wage. In addition to increasing the state minimum wage for all workers, lawmakers can ensure that young workers are paid the same as their adult co-workers for performing the same work. Legislators in the 34 states and the District of Columbia, where state law allows subminimum wages or excludes youth from minimum wage protections, can enhance protections for young workers by repealing subminimum wage laws. Rhode Island lawmakers are considering a bill (2024 RI H 7172) that would repeal provisions of existing law that allow some minors under the age of 19 to be paid less than the state minimum wage.
Much of the progress that has been made to improve conditions for farmworkers, including children, has been the result of decades of sustained organizing by farmworkers and their allies across the country. Some of these efforts have yielded legally binding codes of conduct between farmworkers and employers, which prohibit child labor and provide other important standards for worker safety and dignity. The Fair Food and Milk With Dignity Codes of Conduct are two models; these may offer inspiration for policy change.
Lawmakers can bring protections for farmworkers into the 21st century by raising state standards to minimize the risks that children face in agricultural work.
Limit the employment of children in agricultural work. Some states have already raised the minimum age for farmwork above the federal minimum for employment during and outside of school hours or under other specific circumstances, such as migratory labor. At the federal level, the Children’s Act for Responsible Employment and Farm Safety (CARE) Act (2023 US HR 4046) would align the minimum age and work hour standards for agricultural work with that of all other industries. In New York, lawmakers previously considered a bill (2022 NY A 9235) that would have raised the minimum age for agricultural labor to 16 and established new civil penalties for violations of oppressive agricultural child labor. Under the bill, a violation resulting in serious injury, serious illness, or death would be punishable by a penalty between $15,000 and $60,115 and/or five years of imprisonment, with the penalties doubling in instances where such violations are repeated or willful.
Establish stronger protections for the most hazardous types of farmwork. State lawmakers may also consider establishing new protections that apply to the most serious hazards that children face in agricultural work. The federal CARE Act (2023 US HR 4046), for example, would authorize the Secretary of Labor to create new regulatory guidelines for pesticide exposure for children in farmwork. Legislators in Virginia (2022 VA HB 876) recently considered a bill that would have prohibited the employment of a child under the age of 18 in any work involving direct contact with tobacco plants or dried tobacco leaves, which are known to be a significant occupational health risk for children.
Align labor protections for farmworkers with existing standards for other industries. Though not specific to protections for minors employed in agricultural labor, legislators can bring protections for all farmworkers into the 21st century by applying basic labor standards that already exist for all other workers to agricultural workers. Colorado lawmakers recently enacted legislation (2021 CO SB 87) that repealed provisions of state law that exempted farmworkers from wage and hour protections, in addition to granting agricultural workers the right to unionize, certain meal and rest breaks, and whistleblower protections.
Enhancing Enforcement and Penalties
The growing incidence of egregious child labor violations suggests that existing enforcement mechanisms—and the likelihood that enforcement will occur at all—are insufficient to deter employers from violating the law. For profit-driven corporations, the decision is simple math: one analysis of DOL data found that federal penalties for minimum wage and overtime violations are “often relatively small when weighed against the small probability of detection of the violation for many firms.” In other words, an effective enforcement strategy must consider the cost of noncompliance in addition to maintaining a credible ability to enforce.
Increasing Penalties
Research shows that higher penalty amounts are an effective deterrent for labor violations; one study comparing minimum wage violations with state employment laws across all 50 states and the District of Columbia found that “the stronger the state’s employment laws, the lower the incidence of minimum wage violations…states that implemented the strongest penalties—treble damages—experienced statistically significant drops in violation rates.”
Establish strong civil and criminal penalties, including minimum penalties and damages payable to aggrieved workers. State lawmakers can consider proposals that would impose harsher civil and/or criminal penalties or establish minimum penalty amounts to ensure that all violations are met with an appropriate financial penalty. The Children Harmed in Life-Threatening or Dangerous (CHILD) Labor Act (2023 US HR 6079) would increase the existing federal maximum civil penalty amount tenfold and increase the maximum criminal penalty by a factor of 75 to $750,000. Another federal proposal, the Stop Child Labor Act (2023 US S 3051), would establish a new minimum civil penalty of $5,000 and increase the maximum penalty from $11,000 to $132,270. Legislators in Virginia are considering a bill (2024 VA HB 100) that increases the maximum civil penalty for child labor violations resulting in serious injury or death from $10,000 to $25,000 per violation, in addition to establishing a new minimum civil penalty of $500 and raising the maximum civil penalty from $1,000 to $2,500 for all other violations. Under existing California law, violations of child labor laws are subject to civil penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 1288), ranging from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $10,000 per violation, in addition to criminal penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 1303), which carry a minimum fine of $1,000, up to a maximum fine of $10,000 for willful violations. Importantly, an effective penalty regime should also ensure that children subject to child labor violations receive monetary compensation in the form of damages or a portion of assessed penalties.
Enhance penalties for egregious violations. Under federal law, child labor violations that cause serious injury or death or willful or repeated violations that cause serious injury or death are punishable by a higher maximum civil penalty; state lawmakers can consider a similar approach that heightens penalty amounts for the worst offenses. For example, the CHILD Labor Act (2023 US HR 6079) would double maximum penalty amounts for repeated or willful violations, violations involving employment in a hazardous occupation or place of work, violations occurring within 10 years of the final disposition of another violation, and for employers that have employed more than 10 children in a violation. Michigan lawmakers are considering legislation (2023 MI HB 4932) that would create a new felony offense for violations that result in death or great bodily harm, punishable by up to five years of imprisonment for a first offense, up to 10 years for a second offense, and up to 20 years for a third or subsequent offense. In California, severe violations, such as underaged employment in hazardous occupations, employment in excess of daily hour limits, or other violations that present an imminent danger to the youth, are subject to harsher civil penalties as Class A violations (Cal. Lab. Code § 1288(a)). Class A violations involving minors 12 years of age or younger are further subject to a minimum civil penalty of $25,000 and a maximum of $50,000 per violation (Cal. Lab. Code § 1311.5).
Enhancing Enforcement
State lawmakers can also ensure that more employers are compelled to comply with child labor laws by the plausible belief that officials have the capacity to enforce the law. In order to be effective, an enforcement regime must give aggrieved workers the confidence that they will be protected and made whole throughout the process of an investigation.
Establish anti-retaliation protections for workers. Lawmakers can consider applying anti-retaliation protections to child labor laws, which may include establishing a rebuttable presumption that retaliation has occurred under certain circumstances, clearly defining types of protected activity or prohibited adverse actions, providing for increased damages when retaliation occurs, and ensuring that workers can receive injunctive relief before the conclusion of any investigation. For example, the federal CHILD Labor Act (2023 US HR 6079) would create a new anti-retaliation provision within the FLSA for any complaint or proceeding relating to child labor, punishable by a civil penalty of up to $75,000 per violation, in addition to legal or equitable relief. Under California’s Child Labor Protection Act (2014 CA AB 2288), youth workers who have suffered retaliation by their employer for filing a claim or civil action alleging a violation of child labor laws are entitled to treble damages.
Extend statute of limitations for enforcement. Child labor violations involve children who may not come to understand their rights under the law for years to come; an extended timeline for enforcement may allow more investigations to come to light. The federal CHILD Labor Act (2023 US HR 6079) would extend the statute of limitations for child labor enforcement actions from 2 years to 10 years after the cause of action accrued. In California, lawmakers enacted a bill (2014 CA AB 2288) that “tolled” the statute of limitations on child labor violations, effectively suspending the clock on the statute of limitations to begin counting only once a worker reaches the age of majority.
Expand administrative enforcement powers and deterrence strategies. State lawmakers can also give agency officials a wider range of enforcement tools throughout an investigation. States could consider establishing a state-level version of the “hot goods” provisions of federal labor law, which authorize the DOL to seek a court order to stop the shipment of goods produced in violation of the FLSA. The federal CHILD Labor Act (2023 US HR 6079) would authorize the Secretary of Labor to issue a stop work order that applies to one or more worksites of an employer in violation of child labor laws and requires that employers continue to compensate employees affected by the order. In Texas, lawmakers enacted a bill (2023 TX HB 2459) that authorized the state attorney general to seek injunctive relief against employers for repeated violations of child labor laws. Michigan lawmakers are considering legislation (2023 MI HB 4932) that would authorize the Director of the Department of Labor and Opportunity to bring an action to “obtain an injunction against a person who is engaging in, or about to engage in, a method, act, or practice” in violation of child labor laws. State lawmakers may also consider providing resources to labor agency officials that specifically provide the capacity to widely publicize child labor violations, including publicly naming offenders and sharing the results of investigations, such as the penalties assessed and other amounts recovered.
Add labor enforcement capacity, particularly to support migrant children. State lawmakers can also consider approaches that add language and cultural capacity for working with children who are most affected by child labor violations, especially unaccompanied minors, in addition to training that ensures appropriate engagement in ways that do not re-traumatize children. Under California’sDymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act, every state agency serving a “substantial number of non-English-speaking people” is required to employ a “sufficient number of qualified bilingual persons in public contact positions to ensure the provision of information and services to the public, in the language of the non-English-speaking person” and further requires the translation of any materials explaining public services. Michigan lawmakers recently passed legislation (2023 MI SB 382/HB 4720) that creates new requirements for state agencies to “provide meaningful language access to public services for individuals with limited English proficiency,” which includes oral language services and translation of documents.
Authorizing Enforcement on Behalf of the State
To add to state enforcement capacity, state legislators can also consider options that empower other entities to carry out enforcement actions on behalf of state officials. As recent reporting on the child labor crisis shows, migrant children and their families, concerned by the looming threat of deportation, are fearful of government officials. However, they may be eligible for programs like the Deferred Action for Labor Enforcement (DALE) program, which provides temporary protection against deportation and work authorization to noncitizen workers who have witnessed or been victims of labor violations.
Establish grant funding for community-based enforcement. Lawmakers in California enacted a bill (2021 CA AB 138) that authorized a pilot program for community-based enforcement of labor violations against garment workers. Under the pilot, organizations are eligible to receive funds to provide educational programming, direct assistance to workers in filing a wage claim, and legal assistance to garment workers. Community enforcement programs (also known as co-enforcement and strategic enforcement partnerships) allow nongovernmental organizations, often worker organizations, legal nonprofits, or community-based organizations (CBOs), to closely collaborate with governmental enforcement agencies to improve enforcement outcomes. For the purposes of labor enforcement, this approach harnesses the trust that CBOs can build with workers—especially immigrant workers who may be wary of government officials—while also leveraging existing nongovernmental capacity and funding for other efforts that support effective enforcement, such as worker education and outreach.
Authorize aggrieved employees to act as private attorneys general. Under California’sPrivate Attorneys General Act (PAGA), individual workers are authorized to file a claim on behalf of the state to recover civil penalties for labor violations. Aggrieved workers can bring enforcement actions on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, and civil penalties recovered under such actions are distributed between the workers and the agencies to support continued enforcement. In 2019, over $88 million in penalties were remitted back to the state labor agency through PAGA actions, allowing the agency to increase staffing and language efforts.
Establish grant funding for enforcement by local prosecutors. In the state’s 2023-24 budget (2023 CA SB 101), lawmakers approved an $18 million appropriation for the Workers’ Rights Enforcement Grant Program, which provides funding to local prosecutors for the investigation and enforcement of state labor laws.
Establishing Legal Remedies for Aggrieved Children
As an additional layer of deterrence against the most grievous violations of child labor protections, lawmakers can also ensure that aggrieved children have pathways to seek adequate legal remedies against their employers.
Create an exception to exclusive remedies available to workers who are injured or killed and increase benefits for illegally employed workers. Generally, workers and their families are limited to compensation through workers’ compensation as the sole remedy in cases where injury, illness, or death has occurred on the job. In exchange for benefits received through workers’ compensation insurance, workers lose the right to file lawsuits against their employers, who may only face an increased premium payment. Some states have created an exception to workers’ compensation as the exclusive remedy in cases where a child has been injured and employed in violation of child labor laws. Colorado lawmakers recently enacted legislation (2023 CO HB 1196) to clarify that in cases involving injury “during a week when the employer intentionally required the minor to work hours” prohibited by law, or when engaging in work prohibited by law, aggrieved children are entitled to pursue legal action against employers in addition to remedies through workers’ compensation. Under New Jersey law (N.J. Rev. Stat. § 34:15-10), minors who are injured while employed in violation of child labor laws are eligible for twice the amount of benefits available through workers’ compensation, with employers—not insurance carriers—being responsible for the extra compensation or death benefit.
Establish a private right of action. At the federal level, the Stop Child Labor Act (2023 US S 3051) would establish a private right of action for minors who have been aggrieved by child labor violations and hold employers liable for compensatory and punitive damages of up to $250,000.
Extending Liability to All Entities That Profit from Child Labor
The increasingly complex nature of businesses that utilize temporary workers, staffing agencies, contract workers, independent contractors, and other work structure strategies “challenge the nearly century-old workplace policies built around direct, bilateral employment relationships.” Federal employment law generally holds that more than one entity may be held responsible as joint employers for the purposes of labor violations. In announcing its Interagency Child Labor Task Force, the DOL recently signaled that its enhanced enforcement efforts would apply scrutiny to violations committed by entities within an employer’s supply chain, including contractors or staffing agencies. At the state level, legislators can extend liability to include the most powerful and well-resourced entities that have escaped accountability.
Establish lead corporation liability for violations committed within supply chains. At the federal level, the CHILD Labor Act (2023 US HR 6079) creates a new standard for “secondary oppressive child labor,” which creates new responsibilities for employers to take steps to ensure that contractors and subcontractors are compliant with child labor laws. Though not specific to child labor violations, lawmakers in Minnesota recently enacted an omnibus labor bill (2023 MN SF 3035) to hold construction contractors liable for wage and hour violations committed by a subcontractor. In California, such laws exist to extend liability for labor violations committed by labor contractors (2014 CA AB 1897); contractors in the long-term care, janitorial, and gardening industries (2015 CA SB 588); contractors on private construction projects (2017 CA AB 1701); major retailers for shipping logistics contractors (2018 CA SB 1402); and fashion brands for claims made by garment workers employed by manufacturers or contractors (2021 CA SB 62).
Establish joint liability for franchisors and franchisees. Licensing agreements that allow independent owners, or franchisees, to operate businesses under the brand of a franchisor are typically comprehensive and precisely drafted to ensure brand consistency. However, franchise agreements are vague when it comes to compliance with labor laws to avoid liability, even though name-brand franchisors have the power and resources to protect against child labor violations. California lawmakers recently enacted a bill (2023 CA AB 1228) that, as introduced, would have made fast food franchisors jointly liable for labor violations committed in a franchisee’s establishment, though the provisions were stricken from the bill prior to passage. As proposed, the bill would have also voided any agreement between franchisors and franchisees to indemnify the franchisor from liability, allowed franchisees to sue franchisors if the terms of a franchise agreement prevent compliance with labor laws, and established a notice and cure process for franchisors regarding violations at franchisee establishments.
Establishing Public Procurement Requirements
State lawmakers can also amend public procurement processes to require strict compliance with child labor protections by government contractors and their supply chains.
Establish strict disclosure and compliance requirements for public contracts. By setting a state standard for compliance with child labor laws, lawmakers can ensure that no taxpayer funds are spent on contractors that rely on illegal child labor. At the federal level, the Preventing Child Labor Exploitation Act (2023 US S 3139) would require federal contractors to annually disclose child labor and worker safety infractions within the preceding 3-year period, in addition to establishing a new criminal penalty for employers knowingly failing to make such disclosures. The bill additionally authorizes the Secretary of Labor to determine corrective measures that contractors which have committed a violation must complete in order to remain eligible for contracts and to publish a list of entities that are determined to be ineligible for federal contracts due to their history of serious, repeated, or pervasive labor violations or their failure to address corrective measures.
Supporting Education, Outreach, and Coordination of Services
Adequate enforcement of any labor law requires that workers are supported with knowledge that empowers them to exercise their rights. In the case of children, who are new to the workforce and may be unaware of their rights under child labor laws, education and outreach efforts can yield long-term benefits in a workforce well-versed in their rights. States can also fill a critical role by identifying service gaps that exist for children vulnerable to labor exploitation, especially migrant children and children in families with language or literacy barriers.
Develop education and outreach programming for children and families. States can leverage school systems as an access point to ensure that children and their families are aware of their rights under the law. California lawmakers recently enacted a bill (2023 CA AB 800) designating one week as Workplace Readiness Week, during which high schools provide information to students on their rights as workers. The bill also requires that minor work permits include information on workers’ rights in “plain, natural terminology easily understood by the pupil.”
Support coordination among labor officials, social services, and immigrant legal services. Recent reporting shows that in many instances, children subject to child labor violations are often in an extremely precarious and even captive position, in danger of deportation or retaliation against family members in small company towns or eviction when their employer is also their landlord. To minimize barriers to federal programs that offer legal relief from deportation and material assistance with basic needs, lawmakers can lead the coordination of resources across state agencies and with community-based organizations to develop supports that are sensitive to the distrust that families may have for government officials and to the traumatic experiences of young workers.
Conclusion
Industry-driven attacks on child labor standards rely on a false narrative that children universally have the opportunity to “choose” a job where they can learn important lessons for adulthood and “sock away” savings in a Roth IRA. And yet, that narrative couldn’t be further from reality for the children who would be most affected by the deregulation of child labor. As recent reporting and data show, the children most subject to child labor violations have no good choices; they have only the choice to survive.
Trapped in the jaws of our nation’s profit-driven economy and brutally inhumane immigration system, both designed by a relentless corporate lobbying machine that has captured statehouses and courts, migrant children are pushed into the shadows where they are exploited without recourse. In some of the most shocking investigations, employers receive a slap on the wrist, if any at all, and continue operating with their reputations and profit margins intact. Even in cases of injury and death, these children’s families are not afforded the dignity of any measure of accountability or care.
In defending against the corporate conspiracy to deregulate child labor, state legislators should be clear that the campaign is just one piece of a massive and generational project to remake the economy into one that gives corporations license to extract exorbitant profits from increasingly unregulated and dangerous child labor. Other critical pieces of the destructive plan seek to eviscerate the social safety net to ensure that workers have no choice when faced with unsafe and abusive working conditions; to dismantle critical institutions like public schools by robbing taxpayer coffers to pay for colossal corporate tax subsidies; and by demonizing and punishing immigrants, to create a class of workers who suffer violations in silence for fear of deportation and family separation.
A special thank you to Jenn Round, the Director of Beyond the Bill at the Workplace Justice Lab@Rutgers University, for her insightful comments and valuable improvements to this publication.
A State Legislator's Guide to Direct Pay: Building Jobs & Sustainable Public Energy
A State Legislator's Guide to Direct Pay: Building Jobs & Sustainable Public Energy
Executive Summary
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) includes Direct Pay tax credits that have the potential to bring nearly unlimited funding for clean energy projects into the communities that need them most. Direct Pay tax credits will radically expand publicly owned energy, support communities transitioning away from polluting energy sources, generate affordable—and potentially free—electricity, and create good jobs for local communities.This guide is designed to help state lawmakers seize this historic opportunity for their communities through:
Community education and outreach: State legislators are trusted messengers who can spread the word about this opportunity to local governments, community organizations, and other eligible entities within their state.
Implementation: State legislators can ensure that the state government enthusiastically implements the IRA and secures Direct Pay funding for their state by implementing eligible projects across all levels of state government.
Funding and policy making: State legislators can help other eligible entities like local governments and nonprofits implement Direct Pay projects by providing matching funds, creating revolving funds or low/no-interest loans, creating technical assistance programs, and building in policy incentives to increase equity and protect workers within Direct Pay programs in the state.
Direct Pay tax credits are available to tax-exempt entities like state governments, local governments, schools, hospitals, public utilities, houses of worship, and nonprofit organizations for the first time ever. Direct Pay tax credits can fund a wide range of renewable energy projects like solar arrays, wind turbines, electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, and storage resources like batteries. Every project that meets the Direct Pay requirements will receive the tax credit, so communities can implement project after project without competing for limited and dwindling funds. However, it will take robust leadership from state-level elected champions to fully realize this opportunity.State governments can receive Direct Pay tax credits, which can provide significant funding for state-owned green energy projects and can be used on an uncapped number of qualifying projects. In addition, state governments have a critical role to play in ensuring that state residents understand this opportunity and have the knowledge, financing, and technical support needed to seize this opportunity through policies like grants, revolving funds, and technical assistance. This guide is intended for state governments to use and to better understand how to use Direct Pay to help expand resilient, sustainable energy, lower energy costs, take action on the climate crisis, and create good-paying local jobs.
For the first time ever, thanks to the IRA, the federal government will give tax-free direct cash funding to tax-exempt entities like state governments, local governments, schools, hospitals, public utilities, houses of worship, and nonprofit organizations to build renewable energy projects like solar arrays, wind turbines, EV charging infrastructure, and storage resources like batteries. This provision—called Direct Pay, or sometimes Elective Pay—gives tax-free cash payments from the IRS. These Direct Pay tax credits create an opportunity to radically expand publicly owned energy, support communities transitioning away from polluting energy sources, generate affordable—and potentially free—electricity, and create good jobs for local communities.
Understanding the Funding Available Through Direct Pay
The funding available through Direct Pay can be unlimited! Direct Pay funds come in the form of refundable tax credits. Since eligible entities like state governments are tax-exempt, the tax credits are cash payments from the federal government and are paid directly to the eligible entity once the project begins generating energy. The credits last until 2032, and once the IRS determines that the project qualifies, the eligible entity will receive direct tax-free fundscovering 30% to 70% of the project costs or an amount for each kilowatt generated.Every project that completes a pre-filing process and meets the IRS’ requirements will get Direct Pay funds. Projects that meet worker protection standards, buy American-made materials, and support communities with the greatest need will also qualify for more funding. The state governments, cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, and other eligible entities can all access this funding simultaneously and do not need to compete with each other for it. Eligible entities are not limited in the number of eligible projects they can undertake. For example, state governments could put solar panels on state-owned buildings, invest in EV charging infrastructure for state fleets, and create a program to build state-owned solar panels and wind turbines in communities across the state. Each of these projects would be eligible for Direct Pay funding once completed, and there is no limit to the number of eligible projects that the state could complete.
Expanding Racial and Economic Justice Through Direct Pay
Creating Good Green Jobs
Eligible entities can maximize economic justice for working people by meeting the IRA’s requirements to pay workers a prevailing wage and use registered apprentices on projects so workers get the training they need to build careers. State and local governments can also ensure their projects create safe, high-quality jobs and that projects stay on time and budget by using union labor. State governments can also maximize their impact on economic justice by attaching additional worker protection requirements for Direct Pay-eligible projects that receive state grants or state technical assistance. See the Congressional Progressive Caucus Center’s (CPCC) FAQs on How to Protect Direct Pay Project Workers and Guide to IRA Worker Protection Requirements for more information.
Lowering Energy Burdens
In addition to creating good green jobs, states can use Direct Pay to increase economic and racial justice by lowering the burden of high energy costs on low-income households. Twenty-five percent of all U.S. households struggle with a high energy burden (i.e., spend more than 6% of their income on energy bills), and 67% of low-income households face a high energy burden. Black households have a 43% higher rate of energy burden compared to non-Hispanic white households. Native American households face a 45% higher burden, and Hispanic households face a 20% higher burden than non-Hispanic white households. Renters and older people also face disproportionate burdens. Publicly owned clean energy infrastructure can play a critical role in lowering energy costs for households struggling to afford to heat and cool their homes because publicly owned energy can serve the public interest rather than shareholder profits, keeping costs down.
Addressing Environmental Racism
Governments can maximize racial justice by taking on projects that serve the communities that have been hardest hit by racist policies, fossil fuel extraction, and pollution. Black, Indigenous, and other people of color are more likely to live in communities with high pollution burden, that are near dirty power plants, or that are facing catastrophic harm in the climate crisis. For example, the American Lung Association found that people of color are 3.7 times more likely than white people to live in a county with high levels of air pollution. People of color are also disproportionately likely to live in areas affected by heat or flooding and work in occupations where they are exposed to toxic conditions. A rapid and just green energy transition is critical to achieving racial justice.The unprecedented funding offered by Direct Pay is a critical opportunity to begin investing in the communities that have borne the greatest burden under the current extractive energy economy. For example, a state government might build publicly owned resilient power in communities prone to blackouts and outages. Similarly, a state government could build publicly owned utility-scale renewable energy projects to transition away from coal-fired power plants, install community solar for public housing units, or install public EV charging stations in frontline communities.
Redressing Redlining and Bluelining
Environmental racism subjects communities of color to higher rates of toxic exposure and climate risk. Decades of disinvestment and racist policies like redlining also mean that these same communities are more likely to need help securing the up-front funding to pay for green energy projects. The impact of disinvestment and redlining is magnified in many communities by bluelining and systematic financial discrimination against communities because of perceived environmental risk. This financial discrimination could prevent communities of color and low-income communities from securing the financial resources to build clean energy infrastructure and benefit from the green energy economy. State governments can play an important role in ensuring an equitable implementation of Direct Pay by creating grant programs or revolving funds that provide no-cost or low-cost funding for green energy projects, especially by reserving funding for projects serving communities of color and other environmental justice communities.
Centering Community Voices
Direct Pay is a perfect opportunity to engage directly with frontline communities so that state-run and state-funded projects reflect the needs and demands of communities themselves. Governments can also prioritize workers of color when hiring for Direct Pay project jobs. Tools like pre-hire collective bargaining agreements can include hiring targets for workers of color, women, workers with disabilities, or veterans. These agreements bring jobs to target communities and shrink racial and gender pay disparities.
The Role for State Elected Champions
State-level elected champions can help their communities seize this historic opportunity in three key ways:
Community education and outreach: State legislators are important and trusted messengers who can spread the word about this opportunity to local governments, community organizations, and other eligible entities within their state.
Implementation: State legislators can ensure that the state government enthusiastically implements the IRA and pursues Direct Pay projects across the state government and state agencies.
Funding and policy making: State legislators can use their policy-making function to help other eligible entities implement Direct Pay projects by providing matching funds, creating revolving funds or low/no-interest loans, creating technical assistance programs, and building in incentives to increase equity and protect workers within Direct Pay programs in the state.
Community Education and Outreach
Many eligible entities are unaware of the Direct Pay provision in the IRA and its potential to create good green union jobs, lower energy costs, clean up our air and water, and more. State legislators are trusted messengers who can help spread the word about this opportunity to city and county governments and other eligible entities among their constituencies, including school districts, public universities, nonprofit hospitals, houses of worship, and nonprofit community organizations. Opportunities to spread the word about Direct Pay include:
Host a town hall or public meeting on Direct Pay opportunities in your community.
Host a meeting with city and county officials, school board members, key community groups, and leaders of key anchor institutions in your district, such as large public universities, nonprofit hospitals, and school districts, to encourage them to take action with Direct Pay.
Host a meeting with utilities serving your district to encourage them to actively support Direct Pay projects by making interconnection agreements simple and equitable.
Host a meeting with local community foundations and other local philanthropists to encourage them to offer grants and funding to support the construction of Direct Pay projects by small eligible entities.
Share information about Direct Pay on social media.
Sample Direct Pay Communications Materials
The CPCC has created a partner toolkit on Direct Pay that includes sample messaging, sample social media posts, shareable graphics, and a shareable video explaining Direct Pay.
CPCC has created a sample presentation on Direct Pay that you are free to use without attribution or adapt for your purposes however you see fit.
State Implementation
State governments and state agencies are eligible entities under the Direct Pay provisions. The scale of projects possible at the state level helps ensure that the promise of the IRA is made real. Example state-level sustainable Direct Pay projects:
A state implements a 100% clean energy plan or other climate action plan and uses Direct Pay to supplement the cost of implementing widespread clean energy projects across the state. According to the Initiative for Energy Justice’s Environmental Justice Scorecard, New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (SB 6599) and Washington’s Clean Energy Transformation Act (SB 5116) reflected more environmental justice principles in the creation, implementation, and design of their programs than most existing state 100% clean energy plans. Many of the plans envisioned in these laws would now qualify (at least in part) for Direct Pay tax credits.
A state uses Direct Pay to supplement the cost of electrifying the state fleet through building out solar-powered EV charging infrastructure for state-owned and -operated vehicles. Oregon, Hawaii, Minnesota, and Washington have announced plans to electrify state fleets. Today, building EV charging infrastructure as part of those plans would be eligible for Direct Pay tax credits, and many other parts of the IRA include funding for clean vehicles that could further supplement these plans.
A school district in Batesville, Arkansas, installed solar panels and made its buildings more energy efficient, saving nearly $300,000 per year. The district then used the money saved to raise teacher pay. Today, adding solar panels to school buildings or other state-, city-, or county-owned buildings would also qualify for a Direct Pay tax credit, reducing the cost of the initial investment and creating even more savings that can be applied to teacher pay or other critical community priorities.
A state puts solar panels on state-owned buildings from the state house to state agencies, creating good green jobs and lowering energy costs for the state. States can add solar, wind, or other clean energy infrastructure to state-owned buildings directly and claim Direct Pay tax credits or create grant programs to add clean energy infrastructure to other publicly owned buildings.
A state housing agency updates public housing and affordable housing units, including adding rooftop solar to lower energy costs. For example, investments in public housing such as the Massachusetts’ Affordable Homes Act could be expanded using Direct Pay.
A state supports state-funded schools to transition to electric buses by matching federal funds to transition local bus fleets and building solar-powered charging stations on school property. For example, Delaware and Maryland are among the states that are moving toward school bus electrification. The school system saves money and reduces dangerous diesel emissions that put our kids at risk. The school system would be able to claim a reimbursement for up to 70% of total project costs with Direct Pay credits for building EV charging stations and solar panels to help offset the costs of transitioning the school bus fleet and could match that with other federal funding for the purchase of electric vehicles.
Eligible entities will face a number of challenges in seizing the Direct Pay opportunity, including navigating an unfamiliar process with the IRS, planning and implementing sometimes complex energy projects, and finding the up-front capital to cover the cost of construction and bridge the difference between project costs and the portion eligible for Direct Pay funds. State legislators have a central role in ensuring that their communities can fully embrace this opportunity to take urgent action on the climate crisis, lower energy costs, clean up our air and water, and create good-paying green jobs. Beyond ensuring that state governments implement Direct Pay-eligible programs, state legislators have the opportunity to help other eligible entities make the benefits of the IRA real in their communities by using state funding and state policymaking tools to help other entities access Direct Pay tax credits. Policies like those that call for 100% sustainable energy by 2030 create the demand and market assurance necessary to fully maximize the benefits of the IRA, but only if they are created and implemented with a central focus on improving life for communities on the frontlines of the extractive energy economy and the climate crisis. This must include community participation in the lawmaking and implementation process and significant, measurable, and enforceable programs designed to restore the communities that have been most harmed. Providing matching funding will be especially critical for communities with the least access to resources, including frontline and fenceline communities, communities of color, communities transitioning away from extractive economies, rural communities, and low-income communities. Below, we outline some possible examples of Direct Pay financing. We plan to update this when we have more information from the federal government.
Funding for Direct Pay Projects
While Direct Pay tax credits can provide substantial funding for renewable energy, these projects will need additional funds to cover the full project completion costs. Eligible entities will have to cover the cost of project construction before they receive the tax credit. Depending on the exact Direct Pay tax credit, the payment will either be disbursed as a one-time credit covering between 6% and 70% of total project costs when the project is completed or as a payment based on electricity production over ten years. To learn more about the structure of the specific tax credits, see the CPCC’s in-depth explanation of how the investment tax credit (ITC), the production tax credit (PTC), and other bonus credits work here. The Center for Public Enterprise has produced a financial model that makes it possible to compare the ITC and the PTC for a planned project. Many under-resourced communities must raise funds to complete a project before Direct Pay funding is available, which poses a significant obstacle. Access to reliable public funding to match federal funds is necessary for many communities to access the benefits of Direct Pay, or they may be vulnerable to predatory lending. State governments can dramatically increase the reach of the Direct Pay tax credits by providing direct funding through grants and by helping local governments and other eligible entities find safe, reliable, and low-cost financing options that do not undermine the public nature of the ownership of these new sustainable energy generation assets. State funding for Direct Pay-eligible projects increases equity and justice in implementation by adding additional incentives or requirements to target funds toward projects that create good local union jobs and projects that serve frontline communities. The federal government set the floor with the IRA. Now, state legislators can break through the ceiling in achieving maximized benefits for vulnerable communities, the environment, and workers. For example, it is critical to prioritize projects that include community input and reflect community demands rather than simply defining projects by geography, which may unintentionally result in funding projects that disempower or further harm frontline communities. For more information on how to define environmental justice communities in order to prioritize funding for the communities that have been harmed the most, see the Climate and Clean Energy Equity Fund’s report on defining environmental justice communities in policy. Truly just and equitable implementation of Direct Pay will only be possible if policymakers ensure that frontline communities have access to nonpredatory funding. State policymakers can play a critical role in expanding access to Direct Pay in a number of ways, including:
Direct State Funding
States can appropriate funding for grants to local governments or other eligible entities to cover the up-front costs of projects. States can maximize equity and justice in implementation by requiring projects that receive state funds to meet higher labor and community benefit standards. Additionally, they can prioritize grants for the communities that need them most, such as frontline communities and communities of color. For example, several states have implemented grant programs to fund clean energy projects. Washington State’s Department of Commerce provides grants for school sustainability, and Minnesota has proposed a grant program to support the installation of solar panels on public buildings. Minnesota also established a state competitiveness grant fund to award grants to local and tribal governments, utilities, nonprofits, and other eligible entities when they required matching funds to access IRA funds. This type of state grant program is critical because it allows local governments or community nonprofits to finance their projects, and Direct Pay ensures that state funds go further.
State Revolving Funds
To maximize state funds, states could provide funding in the form of a no- or low-cost loan from a revolving fund. While there is not a federally created revolving fund for clean energy, states can establish their own revolving funds to finance clean energy projects. Direct Pay makes those revolving funds considerably less risky, as eligible entities will have a head start on repayment with their Direct Pay reimbursement funds. A no- or low-cost revolving loan fund could work as follows:
A state establishes a no- or low-cost revolving loan fund for local governments, tribal governments, and nonprofit entities within the state. States can add additional worker protections, community participation, and targeting for projects serving the hardest hit communities to the loan fund.
Eligible entities apply to the state for a loan and use the loan funds to complete their project.
The eligible entity pre-files with the IRS once their project is near completion and then applies for Direct Pay tax credits once their project is completed.
The eligible entity receives their Direct Pay funds from the IRS and can apply that toward repaying their loan to the state.
The state reinvests in the next eligible project.
Many states already have an energy loan fund that supports the generation of clean energy projects or energy retrofits within the state. These loan funds could be expanded or modified to create more opportunities to fund Direct Pay-eligible projects and accelerate the clean energy economy. For example, Texas’ LoanSTAR Revolving Loan Fund currently supports energy efficiency retrofits but could be easily expanded to include Direct Pay-eligible EV charging stations and energy generation projects like rooftop solar or wind turbines.
State and Municipal Bonds for Matching Funds
States, cities, and other government entities can authorize the use of bonds to cover the costs of Direct Pay-eligible projects. States can use bonds to fund state-owned Direct Pay projects or authorize bonds to collectively fund smaller projects at the local level. More information on using bonds for renewable energy is available in the Department of Energy bond resource guide for state and local officials.In 2024, California voters will vote on a ballot measure to authorize $15.5 billion in bonds to finance projects for climate resilience, extreme heat mitigation, and clean energy programs, including a $500 million appropriation to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission for grants to assist in obtaining or receiving a state match to regional hubs for IRA funds. In addition to securing federal grant funds, many of the projects financed by this bond, if it passes, may be eligible for Direct Pay.
State Green Banks
Some states have Green Banks, which are financial institutions designed to lower energy costs and encourage the construction of sustainable energy infrastructure by blending public and private capital and financing a broad range of sustainable energy projects. While “Green Bank” is often used as an umbrella term for many types of public-private partnerships that finance sustainable energy projects, the IRA contains specific requirements for Green Banks to be able to receive funding. Many states already have established some form of Green Bank, but some are still creating theirs or are still working to meet the new Green Bank requirements in the IRA.
Using Other Federal Funding Sources
In some cases, eligible entities will be able to further supplement Direct Pay funding by using other sources of funding in the IRA (for example, using grant funding for rural electric co-ops) or using funding from other federal programs such as funding in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act or remaining American Rescue Plan funding.
Going Beyond the Worker Protection Requirements in the IRA
State funding and state technical assistance programs offer an opportunity to support community uptake of Direct Pay, go beyond the IRA labor requirements, and impose additional protections as a condition of receiving state funds. For example, a state revolving fund to support renewable energy programs could require that programs that receive the state matching funds use union labor. Similarly, state funding could be contingent on the use of pre-hire agreements like local hire programs, Project Labor Agreements (PLAs), Community Workforce Agreements (CWAs), and Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs). It is critical that any state incentives or requirements include strong community input and strong enforcement mechanisms. For more information, please see the CPCC’s Guide to IRA Worker Protection Requirements and FAQs on How to Protect Direct Pay Project Workers. States have a critical role to play in supporting workforce development efforts to build the diverse skilled workforce needed to fully embrace a green energy economy. In addition to the jobs created by the IRA and the growth in green energy infrastructure, more than 1.7 million workers are expected to retire over the next decade. Black, Latino, Native, and Asian individuals, and women are dramatically underrepresented in these growing fields, and state agencies must help build inclusive and equitable workforce development programs. The National Skills Coalition has published a report with recommendations for states in building a just workforce development plan.
Technical Assistance and Coordination
States can maximize the number of eligible entities that can access Direct Pay by coordinating technical assistance programs. Creating programs that will qualify for the Direct Pay provisions often requires specialized planning, including conducting an energy audit, creating an interconnection agreement with a utility, and more. Many smaller nonprofit organizations, local governments, and communities that have been systematically excluded, like low-income communities and communities of color, will need help.
Technical Assistance
State governments can reduce barriers by funding technical assistance that could include:
Public information campaigns about the opportunity
Free energy audits
Hands-on support in planning projects
Support in creating interconnection agreements
Help finding reputable high-road union contractors
Support in completing pre-filing paperwork and IRS documentation. By definition, eligible entities do not usually file complex taxes with the IRS and may lack information and experience in navigating the process.
Some states have established technical assistance programs to support their state’s access to IRA funds. For example, Washington established a statewide Building Energy Upgrade Navigator Program to support building owners in accessing electrification and energy efficiency services, with specific priority for low-income households, vulnerable populations, and overburdened communities. Washington also appropriated $2.5 million to support activities related to securing federal funds, including funding to help community-based organizations, local governments, and ports in overburdened communities apply for financial resources. State-funded technical assistance programs can help increase equity with implementation efforts. Communities of color that have experienced high levels of contamination, communities transitioning away from extractive industries, tribal governments, rural communities, and other communities facing systemic exclusion are more likely to struggle to secure the up-front capital necessary to complete a Direct Pay-eligible project. State-funded technical assistance programs targeted to communities that need them most can ensure that all communities have equitable access to the benefits of the Direct Pay tax credits, including cleaner air and water, new green energy jobs, and lower energy costs.
State Direct Pay Coordination Program
Centralizing efforts within a state-run program or with a cross-agency coordinator can help maximize Direct Pay programs that would actively identify possible Direct Pay projects and build them using the state as the eligible entity. A state entity could actively search out Direct Pay-eligible opportunities within communities and build the projects directly (for example, put solar panels on all the schools in a local school district, perform energy retrofits on nonprofit-owned affordable housing units, or build utility-scale solar farms on Brownfield land). If the state retained ownership of the energy-generating facility, the state should claim the credit directly and lift the burden of paperwork from the smaller eligible entity. If the smaller entity plans to retain ownership of the energy-generating facility, the state could still carry out the project and receive funding by creating a side agreement with the eligible entity to transfer the credit to the state in exchange for the state completing the process. Either of these models would streamline the need for many smaller governments and nonprofit organizations to take on the administrative burdens of designing and building eligible programs and navigating the process to receive the tax credit. These types of programs would be embedded within a relevant state agency such as a state department of energy and would need to work closely with local communities to identify projects that reflect community needs, desires, and priorities. This type of approach requires a larger commitment from state champions, but it could significantly increase the speed at which projects could be implemented, reduce administrative burdens on other eligible entities, and allow the state to prioritize projects that serve historically excluded communities.
Further Resources
The Congressional Progressive Caucus Center will provide regular updates and further resources on Direct Pay. You can sign up for CPCC updates,including invitations towebinars, technical assistance to help your community get Direct Pay funds, resources to build support for Direct Pay projects, and more. You can also find additional materials, like FAQs on Direct Pay, on the CPCC’s website. You can also request technical assistance on a Direct Pay project through the CPCC’s website by filling outour technical assistance intake form. The State Innovation Exchange (SiX) exists to advance a bold, people-centered policy vision in every state in this nation by helping vision-aligned state legislators succeed after they are elected. If you are working to strengthen our democracy, fight for working families, advance reproductive freedom, defend civil rights and liberties, or protect the environment, reach out to helpdesk@stateinnovation.org to learn more about SiX’s tailored policy, communications, and strategy support and how to join a network of like-minded state legislators from across the country.For a constantly updated roundup of resources on the Inflation Reduction Act, Direct Pay, and equitable implementation strategies, please visit the Direct Pay master resources list.
SiX Holds Innovations Accelerator Conference in Denver
SiX Holds Innovations Accelerator Conference in Denver
By: Ida Eskamani, Senior Director, Legislative Affairs
We just held our second-ever Innovations Accelerator Conference, bringing together over 150 legislators and movement partners from 29 states to strategize on our work to advance tax justice, gender justice, paid family and medical leave, and taking on corporate monopolies.
SiX joins with movement partners and Legislators at the 2023 Accelerator Conference in Denver.
We are incredibly proud of the diverse states we convened on various issue-specific tracks, from Alaska to Florida and everywhere in between.
Here are a few highlights from the conference:
Tax Justice: Organized in partnership with the State Revenue Alliance, we brought together legislators and organizing partners from across 14 states (CA, CO, CT, HI, IL, ME, MD, MN, NV, NJ, NY, OR, VA, WA) to coordinate on shaping the national narrative around government, wealth taxes, and public investment.
Gender Justice: Organized in partnership with the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), we officially launched the State Gender Policy Collective – a joint project between SiX and NWLC that will resource and harness the collective power of state lawmakers and leaders to advance gender justice wins across all states. We brought together legislators and partners across 17 states (AL, AZ, CO, CT, FL, IL, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, NY, NC, OH, RI, UT, WA) to strategize around the infrastructure that is needed to advance this work.
Paid Family and Medical Leave: We partnered with organizations such as A Better Balance, New America, and 9to5 Colorado, and united legislators and partners from across 11 states (CO, GA, IL, ME, MI, MN, NV, NM, NY, PA, VT) to continue building our coordinated group of legislators leading a national movement around paid family and medical leave.
Anti-Monopoly: We also gathered legislators and partners from across 16 states (AK, CA, FL, GA, IL, ME, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NV, NY, NC, OH, PA) and DC to learn about the far-reaching impacts of corporate monopolies on workers, consumers, and local businesses, and how we can build an economy that works for us all. At the convening, we launched a sign-on letter rallying legislators behind the federal government's draft corporate merger guidelines.
As we continue building momentum from this conference, we invite you to explore our latest publication, “States Leading on Leave: A Playbook on Winning Paid Family and Medical Leave," released in partnership with A Better Balance and New America. Based on lessons learned from state lawmakers and advocates, the playbook outlines strategies around expanding paid family and medical leave (PFML) laws in state legislatures nationwide. It provides guidance for coalition building and management, campaign strategy, policy design, and planning for successful implementation, drawn from SiX’s experts and interviews with state legislators and advocates who have recently won PFML enactment in DE, ME, MD, MN, and OR.
No one should have to worry about losing their job for putting their family first during some of the most important moments in life. From the first moments of a child’s life to the last moments in the life of a loved one, we all need time to care for our families, and yet the United States is one of just six countries in the world that does not guarantee paid leave for workers. Although some workers are eligible for up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), just 39% of workers are eligible for and can afford to take six weeks of unpaid leave—workers of color, especially Hispanic immigrant workers, are the least likely to be able to access federal FMLA protections.
In the absence of federal action, lawmakers in 13 states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation establishing a social insurance program that most workers can access to take paid family and medical leave (PFML) to recover from a serious illness, to bond with a new child, or to provide care to a family member with a serious illness.
Momentum for paid family and medical leave legislation has grown rapidly, with eight PFML campaigns celebrating success in the last five years. This publication summarizes some of the lessons learned by the legislative champions and advocates who led the way in ensuring that no one has to choose between caring for their loved ones and the paycheck that their family relies on.
The Basics of Paid Family and Medical Leave
PFML insurance programs vary from state to state but generally cover leave taken by workers for some combination of the following purposes:
Medical leave to recover from a worker’s own serious illness;
Bonding leave for parents to bond with a new child, including for foster and adoptive parents and those standing in loco parentis to a child;
Caregiving leave to provide care for a family member with a serious illness;
Military family leave to address needs arising from a family member’s military service; and
Safe leave to address personal or family needs arising from domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
In most states with PFML, workers are eligible for at least 12 weeks of benefits for covered purposes, often capped cumulatively for workers requiring multiple types of leave within the same year. Some of the earliest programs for paid leave were implemented by building on the infrastructure of an existing state temporary disability insurance (TDI) program. However, since only a handful of states had preexisting TDI programs, in most states, enacting a PFML law is only the beginning of a multi-year process of building administrative infrastructure, collecting payroll deductions, and conducting outreach to employers and employees before benefits can be distributed to workers. Typically, family leave costs are paid for by workers, while medical leave costs are shared between workers and employers.
Eligible workers apply for and receive a weekly benefit amount from the insurance pool that reflects a percentage of their average weekly wages. Most states utilize a progressive wage replacement calculation that ensures that lower-income workers receive a higher percentage of their wages, and in all states, benefits are capped at a maximum weekly rate that is adjusted annually. To ensure that all workers can access the benefits they are entitled to, PFML statutes also generally include provisions that protect workers from being fired or retaliated against by their employer for exercising their rights under the law. Critically, most states also give many workers the right to return to their job following a period of leave.
Click here for more information on the key elements of PFML policy.
Paid Family and Medical Leave Across the U.S.
Lessons Learned for Paid Family and Medical Leave Champions
This publication shares insights on campaign and strategy decisions gathered from interviews with legislators and advocates in states that have advanced PFML. This resource is intended to support champions who are leading on paid leave in their states in building and winning successful campaigns alongside community advocates and workers, as a complement to a wealth of existing literature on PFML, from its many social, health, and economic benefits, to resources that assess how proposals can be designed to promote equitable and inclusive access, particularly for workers of color and low-wage workers.
The following sections synthesize key themes in coalition building and management, campaign strategy, policy design, and implementation shared in interviews with legislators and advocates in states that have won PFML enactment in Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Oregon.
Delaware Governor John Carney (seated) signs the state's PFML bill into law surrounded by legislators and supporters, including the bill's sponsor, Delaware State Senator Sarah McBride (center-left, in pink). Courtesy of Liz Richards
Section 1: Coalition Building and Management
A well-organized coalition is critical to the success of any legislative campaign, and paid leave champions consistently attribute their success to the many strengths that a diverse membership and a values-based approach to governance bring to a coalition.
Diverse Membership and Capacity
The passage of PFML legislation was often the culmination of many years of organizing, trust- and relationship-building, and collaboration between lawmakers and coalition members. “The workload for this bill was very heavy, and the amount of information, the amount of conversations that needed to be had were certainly more than one person could handle. You have to have a core group of people who understand what the program is, understand what it does, understand the benefits, and they go out and they talk to people,” said Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann. “So I would reach out to coalition members regularly, even daily, to either ask them to talk to more people or to ask them again how the changes we were making as we went along would affect them.”
For Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson, the diversity of the coalition brought strength to the campaign: “It takes a village to do this work and to do it well. In terms of the coalition that was built in Minnesota, one of the things that I loved about it was the diversity of the coalition because you had the voices of families with their powerful stories that were so important and critical to putting a face on this issue that can seem theoretical. Working with the faith community, labor, community-based nonprofits, those in the disability community, those who were focused on maternal health issues, our seniors—it was such a strong coalition because we were able to really show the breadth and the need for leave across the life span, and I think that was really powerful.”
It takes a village to do this work and to do it well. In terms of the coalition that was built in Minnesota, one of the things that I loved about it was the diversity of the coalition because you had the voices of families with their powerful stories that were so important and critical to putting a face on this issue that can seem theoretical.
Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson
Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson (center-right, in green) and Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann (center-left, in floral) celebrates the passage of their PFML bill in the state House with supporters. Courtesy of Rep. Ruth Richardson
Values-Based Governance
The Time to Care Oregon coalition included over 50 member organizations and had a smaller steering committee that was representative of the entire coalition and tasked with making and executing strategy decisions. “Before we ever got to thinking about how we would draft a specific bill, we wanted there to be an agreement on what the components were,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “When initially setting the table for a coalition, we’ll discuss and agree on policy principles and values.”
The shared understanding of values and goals within the coalition also extended to legislative sponsors in Oregon. “Lawmakers and advocates each play their own role, but in order for them to do it effectively on their own and in partnership, everyone needs to be working at the same level and have a discussion before a legislative session really takes off about the strategy,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “It’s really important that advocates and lawmakers also have that discussion and come to an agreement. That’s not to say that everyone’s going to get everything that they want. We had to negotiate a lot to get to the finish line, but there was an understanding and shared agreement on some core things.”
We were really fortunate to have a coalition that, at the end of the day, put their trust in us to move the policy forward, to not give too much but to hold strong in the places where it was important to hold strong. That is ultimately what allowed us to get this over the finish line.
Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier
Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier (right) embraces Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry (left). Courtesy of Rep. Kristen Cloutier
For many legislators and advocates, the practice of developing shared values and principles over the course of years created the critical foundation of trust and relationships necessary to meet the urgent and time-sensitive demands of the legislative session. “One of the things that I’m really thankful for—and I think this is really hard when you’re working with a coalition or any group of advocates—was our ability to maintain trust. The legislature is a really hard place to maintain trust in people and to maintain trust in the process. We were really fortunate to have a coalition that, at the end of the day, put their trust in us to move the policy forward, to not give too much but to hold strong in the places where it was important to hold strong. That is ultimately what allowed us to get this over the finish line,” said Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier.
Section 2: Campaign Strategy
Successful PFML campaigns are often part of a long-term and generative collaboration between lawmakers and advocates to improve the lives of workers in their communities, driven by years of intentional community organizing and thoughtful engagement with all stakeholders.
Preempting Progress: The Intersection of Democracy and Paid Leave
For many states, advancing PFML in the legislature may be a distant reality that will require long-term organizing and investments over many years. In these states, advocates may wish to consider focusing on state employee paid leave campaigns first. Campaigns to pass statewide or local paid sick leave for short-term medical needs, including preventive care, could be another option.
However, lawmakers in 23 states have enacted laws prohibiting localities from passing their own paid leave laws. Across the country, state lawmakers have increasingly wielded abusive preemption laws to take power away from people and local communities in ways that disproportionately harm Black workers, women, and low-income workers. In addition to statewide PFML for government employees and repealing anti-worker state preemption laws, community benefit agreements (CBAs) for public works projects with paid leave requirements for government contractors may be another window of opportunity in these circumstances.
In many states, the passage of PFML legislation was just one piece of a multi-year and multi-issue vision for a care system and economy that works for all of us won by building power with communities historically marginalized by public policy. “This was work that had been going on well before I even thought about running for office—lots of work and lots of different people are part of this chain that got us to this point of getting paid family and medical leave across the finish line this session,” said Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson. “One of the very first conversations that I had with members of the coalition was to ensure that we were going to focus on ensuring those who have so often been left out of the safety net were centered within the work. Getting the bill passed, that’s just the first step. And there’s all of this work that needs to happen so that there really truly is equitable access for folks who have historically been left out of this conversation,” Rep. Richardson added.
Paid leave champions often utilize the formal structure and gravitas of a legislative process to work through the complex details of the program alongside stakeholders over the course of several years. Work to develop legislative buy-in began in 2001 when Maine lawmakers established a legislative study committee. Two decades later, Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry and State Representative Kristen Cloutier co-chaired the legislature’s Commission to Develop a Paid Family and Medical Leave Benefits Program for three years before the bill finally passed in 2023. “We started every commission meeting with public comment,” said Sen. Daughtry. “So a lot of the people who were very opposed or very excited about it already had spent three years going through the process with us. They saw their comments get run in simulation models, and we always did our work out in the open.”
Because we really nailed the coalition building and the values and principle setting process, partners knew that we were going to build an effective coalition that was really based in our values and principles and would have good power-sharing practices.
Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon Courtney Veronneau
The Time to Care Oregon coalition worked alongside lawmakers to advance policy campaigns that built upon each other. “Paid family and medical leave was actually the second policy in a series of policies that we’ve been working on,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “It started when we built the campaign and coalition to pass paid sick days in 2015. Then we used that win—that momentum and foundation—to build toward paid family and medical leave.” The same year that Oregon lawmakers finally enacted PFML in 2019, they also established the Task Force on Access to Quality Affordable Child Care. Just three years later, the coalition won a historic $100 million investment in child care informed by the recommendations of the task force. “Because we really nailed the coalition building and the values and principle setting process, partners knew that we were going to build an effective coalition that was really based in our values and principles and would have good power-sharing practices,” Veronneau added.
“Ripping the Band-Aid Off”: The Urgency of Care in a Public Health Crisis
Under the best of circumstances, our nation’s lack of accessible paid leave exposes families and communities to health risks and economic precarity, but during a pandemic, the urgent need for care altered the discussion of paid leave in state houses. “The COVID-19 pandemic ripped the Band-Aid off of the charade we had that everything’s okay in our country and our state and our communities,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “Even the folks who are against paid family and medical leave had lived that experience of everyone needing time off. People seeing it firsthand is what got it across the line.”
Similarly, in Minnesota, the need for time off during the pandemic helped accelerate the window of possibility for passing PFML legislation. “The tone and the tenor around paid family and medical leave on the floor and in the committee changed while I was carrying this bill,” said Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson. “Instinctively, we all know we need time to care for ourselves, but when you’re in the middle of a global pandemic, I think it becomes harder for people on the other side to say, ‘No, no one needs time away.’”
Moreover, passing paid leave legislation in the wake of a pandemic that worsened health and economic disparities for communities of color, immigrant communities, and low-wage workers was an important opportunity to connect the dots between how fundamentally flawed systems that exclude some of us affect all of us. “I spent a lot of time telling the story about the way that safety nets in our country have been built in a way that, oftentimes, people who look like me were left out of those safety nets,” said Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson. “Being able to trace the historical context of that back, thinking about that for my own ancestors that were enslaved, this whole idea that you’re not worthy of rest—that your humanity is not recognized. We have a system that is disproportionately leaving out Black, Latine, Indigenous folks, women, LGBTQ+ communities. I really framed conversations around how we have a system where the people who are most likely to have access to leave are the people who are most able to afford leave on their own, versus all of these folks who don’t have access to leave and are a paycheck away from losing everything.”
We have a system that is disproportionately leaving out Black, Latine, Indigenous folks, women, LGBTQ+ communities. I really framed conversations around how we have a system where the people who are most likely to have access to leave are the people who are most able to afford leave on their own, versus all of these folks who don't have access to leave and are a paycheck away from losing everything.
Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson
Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson (left) and Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann (right) at the PFML bill signing. Courtesy of Sen. Alice Mann
Community Organizing and Outreach
For many legislators and advocates, the wide-reaching scope of a new social insurance program meant that gathering public input early and often was critical to the success of PFML campaigns. “It’s hard for the average person to be able to make it to their state capitol,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “So we went out on tour. We asked people what they thought and got their feedback. By the time the bill hit the news, people had some sort of experience talking to us or looking into the policy. It made a better piece of legislation. And I think it smooths what is a very rocky road for a bill like it to pass anywhere.”
“People are really not used to being asked for input on legislation. And not only are they not used to being asked, but they’re not used to somebody coming to their community to ask that question,” added Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier. “I think our genuine interest really helped to bring the temperature down a bit in a lot of contentious spaces.”
Similarly, legislators and advocates in Delaware took to the road to bring discussions about PFML to communities. “Once we had a bill and were kind of pushing for it, we did a three-county tour, where we brought a variety of stakeholders to basically have roundtable discussions on it,” said Delaware Cares Director Liz Richards. “It was a really great mechanism to learn, but also to organize and create a shared sense of mission and investment. The legislative sponsors were key to that. That was another way to build champions, like giving folks a platform to share their stories, share their support, and get more invested in the issue.”
For Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes, the fight for paid leave was about centering the workers who need paid leave. “My advice to my legislator colleagues is: this is an issue that touches families in a way that’s immeasurable. And so, oftentimes, I would allow the space for the affected families to really take the lead and give their testimony as to why this is important to them,” said Sen. Hayes.
At the same time, the bill’s passage was deeply personal to Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes: “At a very early age, my grandmother was my caregiver. Fast forward to today, I’ve shared the responsibility of caregiving for my grandmother, which often called for me to step away from work at times to take care of her. In February 2022, I took a week off to spend time with my newborn son, but then I came back to work to make sure this bill got passed. I had to get back to make sure that other families had that opportunity—if they were having a child, that they could actually step away from work and not suffer the consequences of not being compensated by their employer.”
At a very early age, my grandmother was my caregiver. Fast forward to today, I've shared the responsibility of caregiving for my grandmother...In February 2022, I took a week off to spend time with my newborn son, but then I came back to work to make sure we got this bill passed. I had to get back to make sure that other families had that opportunity.
Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes
Engaging with the Opposition
Legislators and advocates approached their engagement with opponents, particularly corporate business interests, with an open mind, often over the course of years in ways that smoothed final negotiations ahead of bill passage. “We never said ‘no’ to any request to meet,” said Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier. “You still learn from meetings with opponents. When people see that you’re willing to be uncomfortable in order to listen, it builds trust in the process.”
As a small business owner, Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry deeply understood the concerns of many business interests about PFML legislation. “I’ve seen firsthand as an employer not only the cost of keeping your doors open, but also how the best investment you have is in your employees, and I’ve actually lost employees because we weren’t able to provide this type of benefit,” said Sen. Daughtry. “For any large policy, when you really take the time to sit with someone who’s opposed to it, you might not entirely win them over, but they’re going to leave the conversation knowing that you listened.”
I've seen firsthand as an employer not only the cost of keeping your doors open, but also how the best investment you have is in your employees, and I've actually lost employees because we weren't able to provide this type of benefit. For any large policy, when you really take the time to sit with someone who's opposed to it, you might not entirely win them over, but they're going to leave the conversation knowing that you listened.
Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry
Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry (left) and Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier (right) speak at a press conference to introduce their PFML bill with coalition members. Courtesy of Rep. Kristen Cloutier.
Paid leave champions also frequently note that opposition often comes from a place of misunderstanding about how PFML programs function as an insurance program and can benefit business owners. “Myself and other co-authors would have one-on-one conversations with people who are on the fence or were opposed to it,” said Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann. “But really, a lot of people that were on the fence or were opposed to it didn’t understand what the program was. We talked one-on-one with almost every single person in the legislature to educate them about the incredible, undeniable benefits of paid family and medical leave. And we did the same thing with business communities. We would talk to them, or we would ask business owners to reach out to other business owners to go over the benefits that businesses incur when they participate in the program.”
In Minnesota, these discussions resulted in provisions enacted into law designed to address small business owners’ concerns without excluding their employees, including premium reductions for small businesses and a grant program for temporary workers. “We ended up working out a space for businesses with less than 30 employees,” said Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson. “We really tried to be thoughtful around how we were negotiating that support for small businesses.”
Section 3: Policy Design
Navigating policy design and the compromises that come out of negotiations that pave the way to passage is challenging in any legislative campaign; when it comes to a policy as complex as establishing and implementing a multimillion-dollar insurance fund, equitable access and solvency can hinge on just a few key decisions.
Starting with a Vision
Both legislators and advocates describe the importance of finding alignment on key policy provisions and setting the expectation that some form of compromise will be necessary early on in the process. “You have to have a vision from the start of where you want this to end up, of how you want this program to look like,” said Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann. “That vision is a culmination of what you think is right, what the advocates think is right, and what will actually benefit people. So when you start crafting the bill, make sure that you have that vision in mind and always start above your vision.”
“With the coalition, in the early stages, we weren’t sure what the lines in the sand were for our partners,” said Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier. “Getting to the point where we understood what the lines in the sand were for our partners, we understood what the lines in the sand were for ourselves, and knowing where we could give and where we needed to hold strong was really important.”
“You have to be really upfront that not everyone’s going to get something. It almost sort of felt like a headline that we’d walk into: everyone would get some wins; everyone would get some losses,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “And once you made it clear that it wasn't going to be ‘my way or the highway,’ I think that really helps. But really building that trust and having the people around you who can be those types of messengers who are not only involved in the policy but understand what the parameters are that have to be kept in check.”
You have to have a vision from the start of where you want this to end up, of how you want this program to look like. That vision is a culmination of what you think is right, what the advocates think is right, and what will actually benefit people. So when you start crafting the bill, make sure that you have that vision in mind and always start above your vision.
Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann
Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann (center) celebrates the passage of the PFML bill in the state Senate with supporters. Courtesy of Sen. Alice Mann
Weighing Compromise
With a vision in hand at the outset, legislators and coalitions can begin to weigh where compromise would and would not be acceptable based on shared values and goals. “Inevitably, you will get to a point where you have to negotiate, and I think the big question is likely going to be, ‘Do we cover everyone for less time? Or do we cover less people for more time?’” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “Are you essentially cutting some people out of the program, like part-time workers or low-wage workers? For our coalition—and lawmakers felt the same way—we were all in agreement that we’re going to go with less time off, but we’re going to cover everybody. That’s something you need to figure out before; I think it does make those things a little bit easier when it comes, if you can figure out those types of negotiation bottom lines first. Think about building the foundation for the best possible program you can absolutely get that covers everyone, that gets them the most time that you can get them, and that is set up in a way that people can actually use it.”
Some common compromises, however, are not only counterproductive to ensuring that workers who can least afford to take paid leave will be able to access the new program but can even undermine the solvency of the insurance fund. “There is always going to be an appetite to make an exception,” said Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes. “The key to paid family leave is to have as much participation as possible so the fund can be and remain solvent. We’ve seen many cases throughout the country in states that have allowed certain exemptions or allowed certain carve-outs where the fund did not generate enough to support itself as it should. The whole idea behind this is for this insurance policy to be self-sustaining, and you don’t want to compromise in a way that jeopardizes the fidelity of the program.”
A Cautionary Tale: Voluntary Paid Leave and Other Alternative Paid Leave Models
The comprehensive programs adopted in 13 states and the District of Columbia are designed to provide access to PFML to all workers, but in recent years, some states have adopted a narrower approach that continues to leave most workers without adequate access. New Hampshire lawmakers enacted legislation (2021 NH HB 2) to provide six weeks of paid family leave to public employees. Under the new law, private employers can voluntarily opt in to the program, and workers can choose to purchase their own paid family leave insurance. A similar approach was adopted through executive action in Vermont.
Legislators in Virginia passed a bill (2022 VA SB 15), based on a model bill proposed by the insurance industry, to allow insurers to sell paid family leave insurance plans that meet certain requirements. Texas lawmakers recently enacted similar legislation (2023 TX HB 1996). This approach provides no guaranteed right to PFML for workers and is billed as a private market solution. However, the private market has not met the incredible demand for PFML nationwide. Moreover, legislation authorizing private insurers to offer voluntary paid family leave insurance policies to employers may not be legally necessary in some states.
Paid leave champions should approach both models with some caution. New Hampshire officials recently announced that only 1% of employers have signed up for the voluntary program, while only 644 individual workers have purchased the insurance. Meanwhile, only one insurer has sought and received approval to offer paid family leave insurance in Virginia.
Building Collaboration into Negotiations
Delaware State Senator Sarah McBride (center-left, holding mic) speaks at a roundtable discussion about PFML. Courtesy of Liz Richards
The Time to Care Oregon coalition would assemble its negotiating team based on which organizations would provide the necessary policy expertise and the power and influence to succeed in the room. “When it came to negotiations where we needed an even smaller set of folks, essentially we were able to then collaborate as a team to strategize heading into negotiations,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “We would always have conversations with our legislative champions beforehand; we were always trying to work as much as we could to get on the same page as much as we could. We saw ourselves as having different roles, but when we were headed into that room, we were like part of a team.”
Long before it came to negotiations, the Time to Care Coalition also agreed to an inclusive process for decision-making on key policy provisions. “If there was ever a policy negotiation on a piece that directly impacted a constituency that was not represented in the room but was part of our coalition, we all had a very firm line and an agreement that whoever was in that room was not going to agree to anything before being able to go back and have conversations with that particular constituency,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon.
This process was recently tested during the 2023 legislative session when lawmakers were considering legislation to amend the state’s PFML program, including expanding the definition of “family member” under the program. “The business lobby wanted to specify what ‘affinity’ meant, and there was a discussion on whether we wanted to specify that in statute or rules, and immediately we wanted Basic Rights Oregon to know about this and weigh in on definitions and what kind of language would be best,” said Lisa Kwon, Policy Manager at Family Forward Oregon.
When it came time for policy negotiations in Delaware, legislators continued to communicate developments with community members. “The willingness, the exercise of listening and continuing to have an open line of honest communication, which I think Delaware State Senator Sarah McBride did extremely well, even in communicating tough choices,” said Delaware Cares Director Liz Richards. “Continuing to talk to people, including the most impacted people, is critical, and frankly, remembering them when they’re not there because they can’t be there. More often than not, low-wage workers don’t have time or aren’t even invited into the room. It’s really, really hard work to advocate and go to powerful people and beg for things that are owed to you—that takes a lot. Legislators are sent there to fight for the people who aren’t in the room.”
Continuing to talk to people, including the most impacted people, is critical, and frankly, remembering them when they're not there because they can't be there. More often than not, low wage workers don't have time or aren't even invited into the room.
Delaware Cares Director Liz Richards
Section 4: Planning for Successful Implementation
Getting PFML legislation signed into law is just the beginning of a multi-year implementation process. Legislators and advocates have a critical role in this process, from working with the administering agency in the regulatory process to educating workers about their new rights.
Agency Partnerships and Regulatory Oversight
Legislators and advocates alike highlight the importance of maintaining a collaborative effort to engage in the implementation of the new law, particularly to monitor the influence of business interests in the rulemaking process. “One of the challenges that we experienced during implementation was continuing the momentum of the coalition that worked together to pass paid leave,” said Lisa Kwon, Policy Manager at Family Forward Oregon.
“Lawmakers shouldn’t underestimate their ability to push back on agencies,” said Courtney Veronneau, Senior Political Director at Family Forward Oregon. “It really helps if agencies are hearing from lawmakers in chorus with advocates. It has much more of an impact. You can pass the greatest, most inclusive, amazing bill that you want, but if you do not stick with it through implementation, where so many decisions can be made, that can undermine the intent of what it was that you were trying to pass. So make sure that you really plan that into your work as a lawmaker and into the work plans of your office and your office staff.”
In Maine, lawmakers also established an independent authority to help oversee the implementation and administration of the state’s new PFML program in future years. “We created an independent authority that has Senate confirmation and has a fiduciary duty to the fund so that we have a body beyond the legislature whose sole job it is to keep an eye on this,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “We built in all these different safeguards so even if there’s something that comes up, we built in the mechanism for it—we looked at what some other states have had to deal with in terms of solvency and some other issues.”
“All the major decisions when it comes to solvency, fund amount, benefit calculation are consistently linked away from legislators, away from politics, and tied into economic data and ongoing actuary science,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “We thought about building the fund to not only protect it from ourselves as a legislature, but also from the economy, and also from proponents or opponents. So it’s a well-guarded economic engine. Not only did we get a great policy, but we built in mechanisms to make it more responsive and be able to adapt and be flexible in itself.”
Public Outreach and Education
The successful utilization of new PFML programs requires an extensive and thoughtful approach to educating the public about how the new law will affect their lives. “One of the things that I’ve learned since passing the legislation is that our outreach efforts need to be intense. This is a different way of doing business—it’s a culture shift. So, there needs to be some intentionality about reaching people in the community on what the benefit is,” said Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes. “We need not underestimate what that will take and how much that will cost. I have been working with the implementing agency and helping them to understand the intensity and level of outreach that’s going to be needed to make sure that this is successful.”
We learned from California that without appropriate outreach the program essentially fails right in their first year...so what we did is we put money aside every year in our bill. That money is going out to community programs that have 'boots on the ground' that can talk to employers about the existence of the program, how to use the program, who qualifies, and how employers can appropriately use the program also. Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann
In the months and years after passage, legislators often face a great deal of confusion about new PFML programs among constituents and businesses alike who have heard about previous versions of the bill or read misinformed media reporting on the bill. “We learned from California that without appropriate outreach the program essentially fails right in their first year, no one knew it existed, and so what we did is we put money aside every year in our bill,” said Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann. “That money is going out to community programs that have ‘boots on the ground’ that can talk to employers and employees about the existence of the program, how to use the program, who qualifies, and how employers can appropriately use the program also.”
“Folks have so many questions about the program, and the rulemaking process hasn’t even started yet, so it’s hard to address some of the concerns being raised,” said Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier. “There were different iterations of the bill that people are responding to. And so we’re having to figure out where their questions are coming from, which iteration of the bill they’re referring to, and answer those questions based upon what they think is factual, which may not actually be included in the law that was passed. That’s been challenging.”
“The other thing for policymakers that I think gets lost in a lot of legislation is to make sure that your authorizing agency has a marketing budget,” said Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry. “Legislators are often quite keen in the budget process to jettison that type of expense, but I think any policy that applies to everyone needs to have posters, easy-to-navigate website, quality design, ensuring that you have the best staff—preferably in-state staff—answering calls and claiming benefits.”
Conclusion
Together, state legislators and advocates have led the nation in ensuring that all workers can afford to take time away from work to be with their loved ones during life’s most important moments. As paid leave champions look to make paid leave a reality in their own states, they can turn to some of the lessons of recent successful campaigns.
Building a diverse and values-aligned coalition of support. Coalitions are made stronger with a breadth of expertise, capacity, perspectives, and political power among their membership, and by strong working relationships founded upon trust and shared values.
Executing a campaign with a vision that extends beyond policy passage. Successful campaigns take the time to center communities and deep discussions with stakeholders to ensure that each policy win builds to the policy win over the course of a generation.
Developing a shared vision for policy while planning for principled compromise. Legislators and coalitions work together to understand where there is and isn’t room for compromise ahead of time and develop a process that prioritizes continued collaboration in the face of time-sensitive negotiations.
Planning for continued coordination through implementation and rollout. Success can only come when policy changes the lives of families and communities; legislators and advocates must continue to collaborate and engage through rulemaking and outreach to ensure that the program achieves the policy’s goal.
Additional Resources
Lessons Learned from State PFML Campaigns and Programs
We are grateful to the following people who generously offered their time and expertise on paid family and medical leave in interviews to inform this publication:
Maine State Senator Mattie Daughtry
Maine State Representative Kristen Cloutier
Maryland State Senator Antonio Hayes
Minnesota State Senator Alice Mann
Minnesota State Representative Ruth Richardson
Courtney Veronneau — Senior Political Director, Family Forward Oregon
Lisa Kwon — Policy Manager, Family Forward Oregon
Liz Richards — Director, Delaware Cares
Fractured: Stories From a Post-Roe America
Fractured: Stories From a Post-Roe America
A new series coming June 24, 2023 chronicles the experiences of state legislators from across the country as they fight to defend abortion rights and expand access for all Americans.
Fractured follows state legislators from across the country as they fight to defend abortion rights and expand access for all Americans after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade
State Government for the People: SiX Principles for State Management of Federal Funds
Each year, state and local governments collectively receive and spend billions in federal funds, which accounted for 40.5% of all state spending in 2021, to provide important services to the public. Federal law and regulation establish some restrictions on the use of federal grants to varying degrees, but state lawmakers have considerable power to leverage federal funds in support of the public services that guarantee all families the opportunity to thrive.
This publication offers a blueprint to state legislators for a values-based approach to managing federal funds from the planning, policymaking, and implementation stages. By working together with advocates and communities, state lawmakers can ensure that we have the resources to deliver quality schools, affordable healthcare, and public services that make communities stronger.
No one should be forced to choose between providing care for their loved ones and keeping the paying job that they need to survive. Prohibiting employment discrimination against family caregivers promotes economic security, health, and equity by ensuring employees can meet all of their obligations.
What Is Family Caregiver Discrimination?
Family caregiver (or family responsibilities) discrimination occurs when parents and those who care for their elderly or disabled family members suffer adverse employment actions due to an employer bias that caregiving responsibilities make workers unreliable, uncommitted, and less valuable as employees—regardless of actual job performance. These assumptions can lead to lower wages, lack of advancement, harassment, and job loss. Employment discrimination against workers with family caregiving responsibilities is common and has devastating economic and health consequences.
Family responsibilities discrimination prevents caregivers from providing adequate care to their family members and can negatively impact an employee’s health.
The income of mothers is critical for most American families, but bias against mothers is the strongest form of gender bias against women and is largely responsible for the gender pay gap.
Workers who care for disabled or elderly family members also face harmful bias. One in every six Americans provides care for a family member over 50, and 82% of Americans who care for both an elderly person and a minor child are also employed.
While most Americans will care for a family member during their working life, women, LGBTQ+ folks, and people of color are the most likely to be driven into poverty as a result.
What Laws Currently Protect Family Caregivers from Discrimination?
Four states (Alaska, Delaware, Minnesota, and New York) and over 200 local jurisdictions around the country explicitly prohibit discrimination based on parental or caregiver status—covering almost a third of the American workforce.
In states where family caregivers are not explicitly protected, employees facing discrimination must instead rely on a complicated and incomplete patchwork of state and federal laws. Laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex, pregnancy, disability, and race, or retaliation for taking/requesting leave can protect caregivers in certain situations, but many are not covered, leaving caregivers with no legal rights. And even when rights do exist, the interplay of anti-discrimination laws and caregiver bias is widely misunderstood by employers and courts. Too many workers fall through the cracks.
What Are the Benefits of Caregiver Anti-Discrimination Laws?
Statutes prohibiting discrimination based on family caregiver status help to ensure workers are treated based on their job performance, instead of bias. This reform has the power to promote economic, health, and gender equity by ensuring that common life events, like becoming a parent or tending to a sick relative, don’t cause families to fall into poverty, and they are critical for women’s economic advancement and closing the wage gap. These laws may also help to improve caregiver mental health and to ensure children, people with disabilities, and the elderly are well taken care of.
Caregiver anti-discrimination laws also have the power to help employers avoid lawsuits. Because discrimination against family caregivers can cause employers to run afoul of laws that prohibit other forms of discrimination (e.g., on the basis of sex, pregnancy, and disability), lawsuits brought by family caregivers for violations of these other laws have been on the rise. However, laws that explicitly prohibit caregiver discrimination provide much-needed clarity to employers that this form of treatment is illegal. And discrimination complaints filed with state enforcement agencies decreased after these laws went into effect. The annual likelihood a company will be sued under a family responsibilities discrimination law is essentially zero (0.001%), according to data from the four states that already prohibit it.
Example Caregiver Anti-Discrimination Legislation
While none of the existing state laws that address family caregiver discrimination require employers to provide worker accommodations, recent legislation includes this pro-worker policy option. See below for examples of both.
Accommodations Not Required: Delaware – Enacted state legislation (2016 DE HB 317/Chapter 292) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an individual due to their family responsibilities. Employment discrimination can take many forms, including decisions on hiring and firing; compensation; employment terms; work conditions; or any privileges, opportunities, or status provided to employees. This law specifies that it does “not create any obligation for an employer to make special accommodations for an employee with family responsibilities, so long as all policies related to leave, scheduling, absenteeism, work performance, and benefits are applied in a non-discriminatory manner.”
Accommodations Required: California – A recent state bill (2022 CA AB 2182) would not only prohibit employment discrimination on account of family responsibilities, but it would also require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee who needs to care for a family member due to unforeseen closure of a school or unavailability of a care provider. These accommodations could include using paid time off, making overtime optional, reducing work hours, working remotely, swapping shifts with a coworker, or temporarily changing job duties. A San Francisco ordinance includes the right to a flexible or predictable working arrangement, which includes accommodations such as changing hours/schedule, job sharing arrangements, predictable hours, and telework.
Policy expert Liz Morris on caregiver discrimination
Resources for Action
Model legislation and a step-by-step drafting guide from the Center for WorkLife Law
List of the 200+ state and local laws prohibiting caregiver discrimination
EEOC Guidance on unlawful treatment of workers with caregiving responsibilities
2021 Report finding that caregiver discrimination laws do not increase litigation rates
2022 Report finding that enforcement agency complaints decreased after enactment
At-A-Glance: Anti-Retaliation Legislation to Protect Workers and the Rule of Law
A joint publication with:
Introduction
States across the U.S. have enacted innovative laws to address rising levels of economic inequality by going beyond the minimum protections offered at the federal level. However, enacting a higher state minimum wage or paid sick leave laws is not enough. Effective enforcement is crucial to ensuring that workers—particularly women, immigrants, and BIPOC workers—benefit from legislation that is intended to raise labor standards. Lawmakers must ensure that state labor agencies have the tools and resources that they need to successfully enforce worker protection laws.
Retaliation through “adverse employment actions”is a means to punish workers who speak out and to discourage other workers from coming forward. For example, workers have been fired, been blacklisted, had their hours reduced, experienced negative changes to their schedules or duties, or suddenly been told that their I-9s were not valid. For labor law enforcement to be effective, “protected activities” like reporting a labor law violation, cooperating in an investigation, and testifying at trial must truly be protected. Without worker cooperation, it is exponentially more difficult for enforcement agencies to conduct thorough investigations into whether employers are violating labor laws.
“The successful enforcement of worker protection law depends on workers being empowered to and feeling safe enough to speak out for themselves and their fellow workers.” — Maia Fisher, Regional Solicitor for the U.S. Department of Labor
Policy Option: Rebuttable Presumption of Retaliation
The challenge for labor standards enforcement agencies and workers is that retaliation, though pervasive, is notoriously difficult to prove. In recent years, actions have been taken in several states to address this challenge and strengthen retaliation protections by including a rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken soon after a protected activity is retaliatory. In effect, this flips the burden onto the employer—the party that holds the evidence as to why it took the adverse action—to prove that the adverse action was taken for a non-retaliatory reason.
State Legislative Examples of Rebuttable Presumption of Retaliation
Rebuttable presumption of retaliation has been included in minimum wage and paid sick leave laws in Arizona; California; New Jersey; and Washington, D.C. Other states have passed laws that apply to certain industries. For example, Pennsylvania’s Construction Workplace Misclassification Act includes a rebuttable presumption of retaliation, and in 2021, Colorado and Nevada enacted this protection for agricultural and hospitality workers, respectively. In 2022, lawmakers across the U.S., including in Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and West Virginia, introduced bills to include a rebuttable presumption of retaliation when an adverse action is taken within 90 days of a protected activity.
Policy Option: Comprehensive Definitions
Where the definitions of “protected activity” or “adverse action” are too narrow, an enforcement agency’s ability to find and remedy retaliation is curtailed. Strong retaliation protections require comprehensive definitions of these elements. For example, “protected activity” should include the exercise of any right guaranteed by the law (e.g., use of sick leave), filing a complaint, participating in an enforcement action, making inquiries about a protected right, and informing any person of an alleged violation of a right guaranteed by the law. Similarly, “adverse action” should be defined broadly enough to account for the many different forms of retaliation.
Policy Option: Increased Damages
Too often, even when the elements of a retaliation are established, the damages the aggrieved person can recover are too low to fully remedy the direct and collateral harm. Likewise, the penalties available for retaliation violations are commonly too small to deter additional acts of retaliation. Strong retaliation protections must include sufficient damages to fully rectify retaliation—including backpay, front pay, and reinstatement—and civil penalties and/or fines that are high enough to serve as a deterrent.
Policy Option: Injunctive Relief
While it is imperative to remedy retaliation for the aggrieved persons, such remedies come at the conclusion of the investigation. In the meantime, those who suffered retaliation still bear the consequences. Additionally, the chilling effect of ongoing retaliation during an investigation can limit worker cooperation such that investigators cannot establish the true extent or nature of the violations. To mitigate the impact of retaliation and preserve the integrity of the investigation, agencies need the ability to immediately intervene and obtain a temporary or preliminary injunction. Such injunctions help to maintain the status quo pending a final judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why is illegal retaliation so hard to prove under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)?
To determine retaliation has occurred, enforcement generally must find that three elements have been established: 1) a worker engaged in a protected activity; 2) an employer took an adverse action; and 3) there is a causal connection between the adverse action and protected activity. Under the FLSA and many state laws, the initial burden is on the worker to prove these three elements. Most often, it is the causal connection that is the hardest to substantiate because the worker rarely has access to any evidence documenting the employer’s true motives, and employers in most states have full discretion to take adverse employment actions against workers for almost any reason, or no reason at all.
2. Is retaliation widespread?
Retaliation is alarmingly common. A national survey found that 43% of workers who complained to their employers about pay and working conditions were subjected to illegal retaliation.
3. What is the impact of retaliation?
For the individual worker, retaliation often results in lost wages, collateral losses (e.g. eviction), and emotional distress. Retaliation also causes a chilling effect that impacts the entire workforce. An adverse action against one worker sends a message about the ramifications of reporting a violation or cooperating in an investigation. The fear of retaliation is especially effective at silencing many of the same workers who are most likely to experience wage theft and other workplace violations. Retaliation often renders agencies’ enforcement efforts less effective, especially against the worst violators.
Policy expert Jenn Round from Rutgers Workplace Justice Lab on Workers' Rights
This primer is part of a series on anti-racist state budgets. To understand the concept of creating anti-racist state budgets, it is important to understand the difference between racist and anti-racist ideas and policies. The following excerpts are from How To Be An Antiracist (2019) by Ibram X. Kendi:
Racist vs. Anti-racist Ideas
A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society. . . An antiracist idea is any idea that suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences – that there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group. Antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities.
Racist vs. Anti-racist Policies
A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. . . There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.
For additional race-equity concepts and definitions, please visit the Racial Equity Tools glossary webpage.
Overview
We all benefit from funding for education, health care, infrastructure, and other vital services regardless of race, gender, or income level. But the wealthy few have used an army of lobbyists and complicit lawmakers to drive down their own tax rates and to rig the rules. This has created regressive state tax systems that too often exacerbate income inequality across both race and income.[i] In “Progressive Wealth Taxation,” UC Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman explained that the top marginal federal income tax rate dropped from more than 70% between 1936 and 1980 to only 37% since 2018, and “when combining all taxes at all levels of government, the U.S. tax system now resembles a giant flat tax.”[ii]
Flat taxes, and even worse, tax codes that levy higher taxes on low- and middle-income families, worsen income inequality and widen the racial wealth gap. Tax structures in 45 states exacerbate income inequality—in the 10 most regressive states, families at the bottom 20% of the income distribution pay up to six times as much in taxes as the state’s wealthiest families.[iii] While the investments made possible by taxes are a powerful force in combating racial inequities, the way those taxes are collected, and from whom, remains deeply inequitable. Regressive state tax policies have deep and lasting roots in anti-Blackness,[iv] and in tandem with discriminatory and exploitative policies that embedded racism across all social and economic systems (e.g., in ownership of land and access to housing, education, and credit[v]), state tax policies have not meaningfully addressed the growing racial wealth gap; and in many states, especially in the South,[vi] these policies actually make racial disparities worse. As of 2016, Black and Latinx families had a median net worth of $17,600 and $20,700, respectively, compared to $171,000 for white families.[vii] A recent study concluded that “if you belong to a historically marginalized racial or ethnic group, your racial status is the stronger predictor of your economic position than your education, income, and in this case, employment status and position.”[viii]
Strong communities and thriving families are built upon a foundation of public investments that benefit us all. Investments in good schools, affordable health care, and transportation infrastructure pay off for everyone. Research shows that higher levels of income inequality create a drag on economic and state tax revenue growth.[ix]States with fairer tax codes enjoy faster economic growth, faster income growth, and increased employment levels than states that are reliant on regressive taxes like sales and excise taxes.[x]
Under a lopsided tax code, a state’s poorest families are paying the most in taxes, while also bearing the brunt of disinvestment when tax revenues decline. During the Great Recession, states slashed education and health care budgets in the face of revenue shortfalls, with lasting consequences for low-income Black, brown, and white communities.[xi] Years of public disinvestment have left the same communities less prepared to weather the COVID-19 public health crisis and future economic downturns. For example, many states have used budget surpluses to push for “shortsighted, costly, permanent tax cuts,”[xii] which leaves these communities more vulnerable to future budget cuts,[xiii] especially as states again grapple with the risk of budget shortfalls.[xiv]
It doesn’t need to be this way; together we can rewrite tax codes to benefit us all. We’ve done this before, so we know that progressive revenue can stimulate economic growth, reduce income inequality, and narrow the gaps in income and wealth created through centuries of racism and discrimination.
Policy Considerations
Policymakers have the power to generate needed revenue by revamping their existing state’s tax codes. They can implement innovative approaches that build a more equitable future and center the needs of communities of color and low-income communities. When considering ways to promote racial equity and reduce wealth inequality in state tax systems, state legislators should refer to the following policy options and work with national and local advocates, especially those groups that center race equity, to develop the best policies for their state.
The wealthy use a range of tax avoidance strategies,[xv] including characterizing income from labor as business income, with pass-through business income in the form of long-term capital gains or dividends, all of which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary personal income. The wealthy can also defer realizing capital gains and their inheritors can avoid taxes on these gains after they die. As explained by USC professor and tax law expert Edward J. McCaffery in his law journal article “The Death of the Income Tax,” the current tax code is really a wage tax, not an income tax, and those in the 1% of net wealth do not rely on their wages but instead use their assets as collateral to borrow tax-free.[xvi] The uber-wealthy are able to avoid income taxes and create generational wealth by relying on wealth instead of income through a process that McCaffery refers to as “buy, borrow, die.”[xvii] Therefore, we start with one of the most impactful progressive revenue reform ideas to address these loopholes: the wealth tax.
WEALTH TAX
Wealth taxes apply to either an individual’s net worth (total assets net of all debts) or some targeted asset class, which could include financial assets such as bank accounts, bonds, stocks, and/or non-financial assets such as real estate, yachts, sports cars, or other luxury goods. A wealth tax on a household above an exemption threshold is a critical tool for capturing revenue from the most affluent members of society who possess substantial wealth but may have comparatively lower incomes.
It is possible for the wealthiest households to have low taxable income because our tax codes have been designed to allow them to escape taxation in different ways. For example, the tax code does not address unrealized capital gains since until these assets are sold, they are not “taxable income” and thus, much of one’s wealth would not appear on their annual tax returns. (See Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ report on the issue of special tax breaks for the wealthy for more information.)[xviii]
Estimates from UC-Berkeley professors Saez and Zucman indicated that a federal tax of 2% on net wealth above $50 million and 3% on net worth over $1 billion would only impact 0.1% of (or 75,000) American households and raise $2.75 trillion over a 10-year period.[xix]
Examples of Wealth Tax Legislation
California took the lead by introducing a first-of-its-kind state wealth tax (2020 CA AB 2088) that would have applied a 0.4% rate to net worth, excluding real estate, in excess of $30 million per household.
New York legislation (2020 NY SB 8277) would have created a billionaire “mark-to-market” tax[xx] on residents with $1 billion or more in net assets that would treat billionaires’ unrealized capital gains as income. It would have directed revenues from such a tax into a worker bailout fund to assist workers traditionally excluded from employment protection programs by providing them access to unemployment benefits. A similar but simpler version of this bill was later introduced (2021 NY SB 4482/AB 5092) without the worker bailout fund and with some additional changes, and this bill was estimated by advocates to have the potential to raise $23 billion in the first year and $1.3 billion per year thereafter.[xxi]
Washington legislation (2021 WA HB 1406) would have assessed a modest 1% tax on “financial intangible assets, such as publicly traded options, futures contracts, and stocks and bonds” on wealth in excess of $1 billion (i.e., the first $1 billion is exempt from the wealth tax).
Wealth Tax Design
An OECD study of European wealth taxes includes the following policy recommendations:[xxii]Low tax rates, especially if the net wealth tax comes on top of capital income taxes;Progressive tax rates;Limited tax exemptions and reliefs;An exemption for business assets, with clear criteria restricting the availability of the exemption (ensuring that real business activity is taking place and that assets are directly being used in the taxpayer’s professional activity);An exemption for personal and household effects up to a certain value;Determining the tax base based on asset market values, although the tax base could amount to a fixed percentage of that market value (e.g., 80%-85%) to prevent valuation disputes and take into account costs that may be incurred to hold or maintain the assets;Keeping the value of hard-to-value assets or the value of taxpayers’ total net wealth constant for a few years to avoid yearly reassessments;Allowing debts to be deductible only if they have been incurred to acquire taxable assets—or, if the tax exemption threshold is high, consider further limiting debt deductibility;Measures allowing payments in installments for taxpayers facing liquidity constraints;Ensuring transparency in the treatment of assets held in trusts;Continued efforts to enhance tax transparency and exchange information on the assets that residents hold in other jurisdictions;Developing third-party reporting;Establishing rules to prevent international double wealth taxation; andRegularly evaluating the effects of the wealth tax.
ESTATE TAX
Another way states can tax wealth is through an estate tax, which is levied on the estate (money and property) of the most affluent individuals who have passed away. While there is a federal estate tax[xxiii] on estates valued over $12 million (as of 2022), only 12 states and the District of Columbia have their own estate tax.[xxiv] More states have considered implementing this extremely progressive tax because it helps to prevent the growth of “dynastic wealth” by directly targeting the intergenerational transfer of wealth and addressing the racial wealth gap. In 2016, 9 out of 10 households with assets above the federal estate tax threshold of $5.5 million were white.[xxv]
Examples of Estate Tax Legislation
Washington has a 20% estate tax (WA Stat. § 83.100.040), which is one of the highest rates in the nation, and Washington is the only state without an income tax that levies an estate tax.
The Hawaii legislature (2019 SB 1361) also increased its top estate tax rate to 20%, which became effective at the start of 2020. For estates over $10 million, the tax is now $1,385,000 plus 20% of the amount the net taxable estate exceeds $10 million.
Maine (2019 ME LD 420/HP 329) legislators introduced a bill that would have increased their state’s estate tax by lowering the exclusion amount for an inheritance from $5.6 million to $2 million.
INHERITANCE TAX
While an estate tax is a levy on one’s estate, an inheritance tax is levied on those who inherit money or property of a person who has died. Inheritances are a major contributor to growing wealth inequality and disparities between white households and households of color. One reason white families hold more wealth is they are considerably more likely to receive an inheritance, a gift, or additional family support.[xxvi] Specifically, nearly 30% of white families report having received an inheritance or gift, compared to about 10% of Black families, 7% of Hispanic families, and 18% of other families. More robust taxation of inherited wealth not only reduces the transfer of concentrated wealth from one generation to the next, but it also serves as a progressive source of revenue for critical services that we all depend on.
Examples of Inheritance Tax Laws
Only six states impose inheritance taxes. Of these states, Nebraska (NE Stat. 77.2004, 77.2005, and 77.2006) has the highest top rate at 18% as of 2022. The state’s inheritance tax is imposed on all property inherited from the estate of the deceased. The value of such property is based on the fair market value as of the date of death, and the amount of the tax depends upon the recipient's relationship to the deceased. The surviving spouse pays no inheritance tax, children and other close relatives pay a 1% tax beyond an exemption amount, and more distant relatives pay a maximum 13% tax. In all other cases, the rate of tax is 18% on the clear market value of the beneficial interests in excess of $10,000. Unfortunately, recently enacted legislation (2022 NE LB 310) will reduce many of these rates and/or raise the exemption amounts starting in 2023.
The following states also levy a tax on inheritance. See below for details on their tax rates:
When the political realities do not allow for a wealth tax of some kind, an incremental step toward reducing the racial wealth gap is to design state personal income tax systems to better ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share. As of 2021, nine states do not even have a broad-based state income tax,[xxvii] many of which heavily rely on sales and excise taxes, a practice that the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) deemed a characteristic of the most regressive state tax systems.[xxviii] States such as California, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Vermont have highly progressive income tax brackets and graduated-rate tax structures that allow them to tax different income at different rates.[xxix] In addition, at least eight states (CA, CT, HI, MD, MN, NJ, NY, and OR) and D.C. have enacted long-lasting millionaires’ taxes since 2000.[xxx] A 2022 ballot initiative in Massachusetts would raise the income tax rate for incomes above $1 million from 5% to 9%.[xxxi]
Examples of Progressive Income Tax Legislation & Ballot Initiatives
The graduated income tax structure ensures the most affluent individuals, who are mostly white,[xxxii] pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than their lower- and middle-income counterparts.
The New Jersey legislature passed 2020 NJ AB 10/Chapter 94, which increased the gross income tax rate from 8.97% to 10.75% on income between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 (this was already the rate for income over $5 million), and provided an annual rebate of as much as $500 for families making less than $150,000.
There are nine states, including Illinois, that impose a flat income tax.[xxxiii] In 2020, Illinois voters failed to pass a ballot initiative regarding a graduated income tax amendment,[xxxiv] which would have raised approximately $1.4 billion for the rest of the budget year and $3.4 billion over a full 12 months.[xxxv] The amendment would have repealed the state’s constitutional requirement that the personal income tax be a flat rate and instead allow for a graduated income tax.
Arizona voters approved a 2020 ballot initiative, Proposition 208, to enact a 3.5% income tax, in addition to the existing income tax (4.5% in 2020), on income above $250,000 (single filing) or $500,000 (joint filing).[xxxvi] This initiative was successfully challenged in court by a right-wing advocacy group with ties to the Koch Family and subsequently overturned based on an interpretation of the state constitution. If the new law had survived court challenges, it would have provided additional tax revenue to support teacher and classroom support staff salaries, teacher mentoring and retention programs, and career and technical education programs.
Millionaire Migration/Tax Flight Myth
This myth refers to the idea that taxing the wealthiest individuals will encourage them to leave and migrate to other states with lower taxes. Anti-tax advocates and politicians often use this myth to advocate for more tax cuts and regressive tax systems. However, the people who tend to move most frequently are not the rich, but instead are typically young college graduates and the lowest income residents who earn below-market incomes and want a better quality of life.[xxxvii] While a very small number of wealthy households may leave as a result of tax increases, migration rates for higher-income earners are low and have little effect on the millionaire tax base.[xxxviii] Research has shown that increasing tax rates on affluent households results in a net positive fiscal impact over time.[xxxix]
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
States should also consider strengthening their taxes on capital gains income—the profits an investor realizes when selling an asset that has grown in value, such as shares of stock, mutual funds, or real estate investments. The Brookings Institution has a resource on capital gains reforms that discusses the current state of capital gains taxes on a federal level and different ways policymakers can use such taxes as a progressive source of revenue.[xl]
While some states levy a tax on personal income and capital gains at the same rate, as of 2021, nine states provide the wealthiest households with special tax preferences for their capital gains by taxing long-term capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income.[xli],[xlii] These special tax breaks and preferences prioritize investors’ capital gains income at the expense of the wages and salaries earned by working families and lower-income households of color.
Examples of Capital Gains Tax Legislation
In Vermont, the legislature passed a bill (2019 VT HB 541) that limits the amount of long-term capital gains a taxpayer can exclude from taxable income to $350,000. Prior to the bill’s passing, Vermont had historically allowed income taxpayers to exclude up to 40% of their capital gains from their taxable income, regardless of the total amount.[xliii]
Similarly, the New Mexico legislature (2019 NM HB 6 - Section 14) enacted a tax and budget plan that scaled back a tax break for the wealthiest New Mexicans by reducing the portion of capital gains that are exempt from taxation from 50% to 40%. While the 10% deduction is a step in the right direction, the 40% exemption still serves as a large and unnecessary tax break to the highest-income earners—the individuals who already pay the smallest share of their income in state and local taxes. Thus, it is more equitable for states to not just scale back, but eliminate preferences for capital gains income.
Not only will repealing tax preferences increase revenue for critical public services, but so will creating new surcharges on capital gains. Connecticut lawmakers (2019 CT HB 7415) considered a proposal to levy a 2% surcharge on the capital gains amassed by the wealthiest taxpayers with incomes over $500,000 (for individual filers) and $1 million (for married joint filers). Minnesota (2019 MN HF 2125) also introduced legislation that would have increased the state’s top marginal capital gains tax rate from 9.85% to 12.85%, the second-highest in the country after California (13.3%).
In Washington, Governor Inslee proposed a capital gains tax on the sale of stocks, bonds, and other assets to increase the share of state taxes paid by Washington’s wealthiest taxpayers.[xliv] Legislation to implement this tax was enacted (2021 WA SB 5096), and the state will apply a 7% tax to capital gains earnings above $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for joint filers.
Legislation has been introduced to close the carried interest loophole. Legislation in Maryland (2021 MD SB 288/HB 215) would have imposed a 17% state income tax on the share general partners receive of a pass-through entity’s taxable income that is attributable to investment management services provided in the state. Similarly, bills in Oregon address the carried interest loophole: 2021 OR SB 479 and 2021 OR SB 482 would impose an additional 19.6% state tax on investment services partnership income, which is currently taxed at the lower net capital gains tax rate.
Note on the Carried Interest Loophole
Investment funds—such as private equity and hedge funds—are often organized as partnerships. These partnerships typically have two types of partners: general partners and limited partners. General partners manage the fund, while limited partners typically only contribute capital to the partnership. General partners can receive two types of compensation: a management fee tied to a percentage of the fund’s assets and a profit share; or “carried interest,” tied to a percentage of the profits generated by the fund. In a common compensation agreement, general partners receive a management fee equal to 2% of the invested assets plus a 20% share in profits as carried interest.The management fee, less the fund’s expenses, is subject to ordinary federal and state income tax rates (the top federal income tax rate for individuals in 2020 is 37%) and the federal self-employment tax. However, taxation of the carried interest is deferred until profits are realized on the fund’s underlying assets, when at such time, the carried interest is taxed [the same] as investment income received by the limited partners. Thus, if the investment income consists solely of capital gains, the carried interest is taxed only when those gains are realized and at a lower capital gains rate on the federal level (the top capital gains tax rate in 2020 is 20%, plus a 3.8% net investment income tax). (Source: Fiscal and Policy Note for 2021 MD SB 288)[xlv]
EXCESSIVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TAX
In addition to a lack of progressive taxes, another contributing factor to the rise in income inequality is the excessive pay for chief executive officers (CEOs). Rather than raising the wages for their workers, corporations are increasing the wealth of their CEOs who make hundreds—sometimes thousands—of times more than their employees. Research has shown that excessive executive pay is not based on value of a CEO’s work and has a spillover effect that “helps pull up pay for privileged managers in the corporate and even nonprofit spheres.”[xlvi] Policymakers can work to address corporate greed and fight for wealth equity by closing the CEO-worker pay gap through an excessive executive compensation tax.
Examples of Excessive Executive Compensation Legislation
The Portland, Oregon, City Council was the first in the country to enact a measure (2016 Ordinance 188129) that levies a tax on companies whose CEOs earned more than 100 times the median pay of their average workers. Corporate income tax increases by 10% if a company’s CEO has a salary ratio of above 100:1, and by 25% for companies with pay gaps equal to or exceeding 250:1. This tax generates revenue for the city’s general fund, which pays for essential city services.
The Washington legislature (2019 WA HB 1681) introduced a bill that would have imposed a surcharge, in addition to business and occupation taxes and public utility taxes, on corporations with excessive chief executive officer pay. Similar to Portland, Oregon’s law, this legislation would have targeted companies with chief executives who were paid more than 50 times the pay of the average worker of that company. The legislature also introduced a second bill (2019 WA SB 6017) that would have imposed an excise tax on annual compensation in excess of $1 million, with a tax rate between 5% and 10% depending on the compensation amount.
Other lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Rhode Island have also introduced similar bills. The Institute for Policy Studies has an online guide that includes a list of federal, state, and local legislative proposals related to CEO-worker pay ratios, along with general resources.[xlvii]
RAISING PROGRESSIVE MUNICIPAL REVENUE
While legislatures have the power to reform their state’s tax codes, they also have the ability to increase municipal revenue through progressive strategies. However, there are states that limit municipal powers from implementing progressive taxation structures. For example, some states have statutory and constitutional limits on the amount of property taxes that can be levied at the local level.[xlviii] As property tax revenues often support locally provided public services and amenities, state limitations on such taxes prohibit local governments from fully investing in such services. As a result, municipalities are forced to reckon with deep spending cuts, resulting in severe consequences for and decreasing the quality of life of their residents.
Income inequality is an issue that significantly affects communities on not only a national and state level, but on a local and regional scale as well. In order to effectively address disparities in wealth, state policymakers can consider legislation to promote progressive tax structures within municipalities, including repealing any state preemption of local revenue-raising authority. (See Local Progress’s 2015 report for more information about the major obstacles of raising municipal revenue, along with policy recommendations for cities, regions, and states to make local tax collections more progressive.)[xlix]
Public Opinion Polling
The following sample of public opinion polls over the last few years demonstrates a strong support nationally and in sampled states for increasing taxes on the rich, including through a wealth tax, and for protecting key public programs.
Most Americans say billionaires in the U.S. generally don’t pay the full amount of taxes they owe, including 60% of Independents and 53% of those with incomes higher than 200% of the median
Nearly two-thirds of Americans support requiring households to pay at least 20% of their income over $100 million in taxes, including half of Republicans and 64% of those with income greater than 200% of the median
Voters support a wealth tax on the richest 5% of Americans. 66% of voters support a one-time, 5% wealth tax on the richest 5%. 60% of voters agree that essential workers are doing their fair share, and that wealthy Americans must do the same with a wealth tax.
Voters support a wealth tax on the richest Americans. 64% of voters agree that the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs. Only 33% of voters believe that the very rich should be allowed to keep wealth that increases inequality.
Voters support increasing taxes on the wealthy, and express even stronger support for wealth taxes as a means to fund infrastructure investments. 56% of voters support the creation of a 2% wealth tax on those with a net worth of over $50 million. When framed as a funding mechanism for infrastructure investments, 74% of voters support a wealth tax, 65% support a surtax on income over $200,000, and 63% support a real corporate profits tax.
75% of voters support raising taxes on the rich. Voters also ranked “making the rich pay their fair share in taxes” as their third-highest priority, after health care affordability and protecting Medicare and Social Security from budget cuts.
68% of voters support raising taxes on multimillionaires by taxing income in excess of $10 million at a 70% rate.
93% of voters support a new tax on luxury homes and apartments that are not a family’s primary residence and worth more than $5 million.
92% of voters support a billionaire’s tax, including 66% in strong support, to apply a 2% tax on wealth in excess of $1 billion.
90% of voters support raising the state income tax rate on income over $5 million per year.
87% of voters believe that billionaires, and 81% believe that those with incomes over $5 million, should pay more in state and local taxes.
Voters overwhelmingly support increased taxes on the wealthy to address the state’s budget shortfall, while strongly rejecting cuts to essential services. To address the state’s budget shortfall:
91% of voters support raising taxes on billionaires.
90% of voters support raising taxes on incomes greater than $5 million.
66% of voters oppose reducing funding for state colleges and universities.
75% of voters oppose reducing funding for local cities and towns.
80% of voters oppose reducing funding for roads, bridges, and transportation.
81% of voters oppose reducing funding for K-12 education.
81% of voters oppose reducing funding for health care for low-income families and seniors.
85% of voters oppose reducing funding for services for the elderly or disabled.
Voters understand that raising taxes on the wealthy is good for all of us. 64% of voters believe that increased wealth taxes will have a good impact on the economy. 62% of voters believe that it will have a good impact on public education, 61% of voters believe that it will have a good impact on public services, and 60% believe that it will have a good impact on access to health care and long-term care.
61% of voters across 11 battleground states are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports a wealth tax. Support was even higher in Maine (69%), Iowa (69%), Arizona (64%), and North Carolina (62%).
62% of voters across 11 battleground states support a 2% wealth tax on individuals with a net worth of over $50 million. Support was even higher in Maine (68%), Colorado (68%), Kansas (65%), Michigan (64%), and Iowa (64%).
79% of voters support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
71% of voters agree that the rich can afford to pay more in taxes, and 66% say that the rich do not currently pay their fair share. 54% of voters consider making the rich pay their fair share to be a very important issue.
80% of voters support raising taxes on households with over $10 million in wealth.
69% of voters agree that the rich take advantage of tax loopholes, leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab, even as they’ve gotten richer.
66% of voters support raising taxes on the rich to protect important government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
72% of voters support raising taxes on the richest 5% of Americans, including 58% in strong support.
62% of voters believe that the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes. 65% agree that the rich take advantage of many tax loopholes, leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab, even as they’ve gotten richer.
63% of voters support raising taxes on the rich to protect important government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
70% of voters support raising taxes on households with over $10 million in wealth.
Progressive Wealth Taxation, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Saez-Zucman_conference-draft.pdf
[i] Wiehe, M., Davis, A., Davis, C., Gardner, M., Christensen Gee, L., & Grundman, D. (2018). Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/whopays-ITEP-2018.pdf
[vii] Dettling, L. J., Hsu, J. W., Jacobs, L., Moore, K. B., Thompson, J. P., & Llanes, E. (2017). Recent Trends in Wealth-Holding by Race and Ethnicity: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.2083
[viii] Addo, F. R., & Darity, W. A. (2021). Disparate Recoveries: Wealth, Race, and the Working Class after the Great Recession. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162211028822
[xi] Johnson, N., Oliff, P., & Williams, E. (2011). An Update on State Budget Cuts: At Least 46 States Have Imposed Cuts That Hurt Vulnerable Residents and the Economy. Center on Budget and Policies Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/an-update-on-state-budget-cuts
[xvi] McCaffery, E. J. (2019). The Death of the Income Tax (or, the Rise of America's Universal Wage Tax). USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 18-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3242314
[xxvi] Bhutta, N., Chang, A. C., Dettling, L. J., & Hsu, J. (2020). Disparities in Wealth by Race and Ethnicity in the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.2797
Karen Camper has represented Tennessee's District 87 for over twelve years and is the first African American House Democratic leader in the state's history. She sits on the House Finance Ways and Means Committee, House Business and Utilities Committee, Ethics Committee, House Rules Committee, and Joint Pensions and Insurance Committee.
This interview is part of a series for No Democracy Without Black Women, a report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.
What drove you to become a leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives?
I started my life on the southside of Chicago, where I was very involved in school and in my community. My mother and grandmother set that tone and expected success. I have lived these values of being active in my community since I was young. I was an activist in college, demanding that the college divest from interests in South Africa over apartheid, and after college I volunteered to serve my country in the United States Army.
In my role as a State Representative, I make sure that the people in my community have their voices heard and that we have a seat at any table where decisions are made. This drive propelled me into leadership.
Today is the 3rd annual celebration of Rosa Parks Day in Tennessee. Sen. Raumesh Akbari and I sponsored the legislation to recognize Dec. 1 as the day our state remembers the sacrifice and tenacity of an ordinary citizen creating an extraordinary legacy. You don’t have to be pic.twitter.com/rAWHaqWwlo
What role do you see Black women playing in state legislatures? And what makes Black women so well suited at this moment to lead?
When we look at the future of our country and how to make things better, one of the most important challenges we must tackle is to make sure that every stakeholder has a seat at the table. It doesn’t matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat. We all need to be able to talk to each other about what is really important—community, family, opportunity, fairness, justice.
I think Black women are well-positioned to lead because we have our roots in community, we know how to build bridges, and we know how to lead in the face of adversity. I know how important it is to spend time meeting with people in my community to make sure they all have a voice in crafting our policy priorities.
There are techniques and strategies that you can use as a leader, and part of it is recognizing your strengths and using them to advocate for your constituents. You also have to remember people come from various walks of life, they all come here out of their love and commitment to the mission. Everyone can contribute. I've walked in that mindset here in the Tennessee General Assembly.
I have had strong mentors and I think that is incredibly important as you navigate this world. Keep following your path, reach out for help and guidance when you need it and the rest will come along.
Looking back over the last few years, could you share a victory that was particularly meaningful?
It is always important to show up and fight every day for your values. I advocate for justice and equality for all human beings. Just three years ago, I collaborated with my colleagues in the Tennessee General Assembly to officially recognize Rosa Parks Day in Tennessee. This acknowledgment was as much a reminder to future generations of Tennesseans as it was a tribute to the past. Three of the four Minority Leadership members in the House and Senate are African American, and two of us are women.. As the two highest-ranked women of color in Tennessee’s legislative history, we recognize that our work would not have been possible without the sacrifices of people who were persecuted for exercising their civil rights and the millions who continue to march in the spirit of equality. The ideals Rosa Parks embodied are those that I continue to fight for today.
Legislator Spotlight: Maryland Speaker Adrienne A. Jones
Adrienne Jones is the first woman and first African-American Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates. In 2021, she introduced and passed an ambitious set of bills to address health and financial disparities in Black communities. This interview is part of a series for No Democracy Without Black Women, a report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.
You have successfully reached the heights of leadership in the Maryland legislature. What propelled your trajectory to becoming Maryland Speaker of the House?
Throughout my career, I worked hard to take advantage of the opportunities that have been presented to me – from my transition from the central committee to delegate and Speaker Pro-Tempore to Speaker of the House.
After graduating from UMBC, I was unsure about my career goals but knew I wanted to make a difference. I applied and was accepted into a federal government program that helped recent college graduates find their first job. Just six months after I graduated from college, I began working for Baltimore County government. My first position was a Clerk III serving as an Assistant to the Assistant Director of Central Service. A few years later, I joined the Baltimore County Executive’s Office as an aide where I discovered my love for public service.
While I continued to work for Baltimore County, I volunteered on several political campaigns, served on numerous community service boards and commissions, and was appointed as a Member Baltimore County Democratic Central Committee.
In 1997, following the death of one of the Delegates in the 10th district, I was encouraged by my Senator Delores Kelley and then County Executive Dutch Ruppersberger to apply for her vacant Delegate seat. But finally agreed to compete for the seat in a crowded field of 16 other candidates and I was appointed in October of 1997 by Speaker Casper Taylor. I subsequently ran for re-election in 1998, won and have won every reelection since then.
On November 20, 2002 at 8:30pm, I received a call from then Chairman Michael Busch that changed everything. He told me that he was going to run for the Speaker position and asked if I would run with him as his Speaker Pro Tem. I told him yes right away, and he and I were Speaker and Speaker Pro Tem for 16 years until his death in April of 2019.
Following Speaker Busch’s death, I was unanimously elected by the full House of Delegates to become Speaker of the House. My story serves as a lesson that you never know who is watching, and you never know when opportunities will become available to you.
What challenges did you face in your rise to leadership?
Initially, I was reluctant to compete for the delegate seat because I was caring for my sick mother, but finally agreed. After being a Delegate for a few years, I would ask myself, “Did I make a mistake?” There weren’t enough women or people of color serving with me. In this country there have been only two other Black women as Speakers in their states—current Congresswoman Karen Bass and New Jersey Lieutenant Governor Sheila Oliver. I spent late nights in my office reading bills only to get on the House floor and hear some men talk loudly and say nothing in their floor remarks. It’s important that women – particularly women of color – have a voice in government. I’m reminded of the old expression “If not you, who? If not now, when?”
You introduced the Black Agenda this legislative session. Can you elaborate on the impact the policies will have on Black communities post COVID-19, especially how they will address the wealth gap?
Absolutely. The Black Agenda is a comprehensive approach to providing more economic opportunity and upward mobility for more Black Marylanders. It targets five key areas including health, housing, corporate management, business, and government. It will have a lasting impact, not just as we recover from COVID.
The most common large investment of any American family is a home, but redlining mortgage rates and banking investments since the New Deal have left Black families in Maryland without this valuable wealth creation tool. As a result, we passed a bill that creates tax-free savings accounts for all first-time homebuyers. We passed a bill preventing housing loan and credit applicants from being denied if they can provide alternate forms of creditworthiness, like a history of rent payments or utility payments. We also passed a bill requiring Maryland companies to report on the racial diversity of their boards to demonstrate diversity in their membership, leadership, or mission in order to qualify for state capital funding tax credit contracts over $1 million. Another part of the agenda is declaring racism a public health crisis and requiring health workers to undergo healthy equity and bias training.
I'm seeing a difference after this legislation was passed. I'm looking forward to doing more to ensure that no communities will be left out. Everyone should have the opportunity to build wealth in Maryland and across the country.
Legislator Spotlight: TN State Senator Raumesh Akbari
Senator Raumesh Akbari is the first African American chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus in the Tennessee Legislature. She serves on the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee and the Senate Education Committee. Akbari has represented the 29th District since 2018 and previously represented the 91st District as a state representative from 2014 to 2018.
This interview is part of a series for No Democracy Without Black Women, a report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.
What compelled you to run for office as a millennial?
I was one of those weirdos that knew early on that I wanted to run for elected office. As far back as middle school, I knew I wanted to run because I thought, “If you don't like the way the law is, you have to change it.” I was inspired by the National Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King, and all of the folks protesting for the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. That really motivated me.
Over the years, I saw a lot of problems in my community and people shared their concerns with me. I knew that actually having a seat at the table where legislation is being made would give me an opportunity to make a direct impact. You can raise awareness of an issue, get people’s attention, and then really make change with legislation. When I first got elected, I was the youngest member in the legislature and I knew that was an important role to fill.
How did you become acclimated to the transition to working in the legislature as an elected official?
I ran for the Senate in 2018 and now serve as the Senate Democratic Caucus Chairwoman, and I'm the first Black woman to be in that role. I understand that I'm not just there for myself and the things that are important to me, but I am also there to represent other Black women and encourage other Black women. Now for the first time ever, we have three Black women in the State Senate.
I'm here, I have a seat at the table and I represent the people who elected me. I did not over promise and I knew there were some good things that I could pass. I also recognized that even while I'm in the super minority, it's about building relationships. Building relationships is the key to actually passing legislation.
As far as my priorities go, I've tried to lean into three main areas: criminal justice reform, education reform, and economic development. I think those issues really translate across the aisle and will also make a big difference for people in my district.
Every day is a different day. This work is not for the faint of heart. It's difficult, it's heavy. Look, you can do this, but you have to know there’s a lot of work that comes along with it.
A criminal justice bill by @SenAkbari passed today with unanimous support!
Under SB1435, police interrogations with juvenile suspects must be recorded. This best practice protects the innocent, helps convict the guilty, and shields officers from false claims of misconduct. pic.twitter.com/o0pqXvYNHy
— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 14, 2021
You have been an advocate for criminal justice reform. Where do you see the political landscape shifting around rights restoration and prison gerrymandering?
We've been talking about prison gerrymandering and restoration of rights for a long time. Our situation in Tennessee is particularly unfair. We are the only state in the entire union that if you exit the justice system and have child support payments still, you have to pay them before you can have your voting rights restored. You also have to pay your fines and fees before you can register to vote.
What happened in the Florida legislature after the victory for rights restoration on the ballot in 2018 was modeled off of Tennessee’s laws. Republicans in the Florida legislature rolled back that victory and the vote of the people with fines and fees and other language meant to dissuade eligible voters from voting. Other southern states also target Black and brown voters with requirements to pay all your fines and fees before you can vote.
Unfortunately, I feel that many legislators are taking steps backwards in Tennessee when it comes to criminal justice reform, but that doesn’t mean we will stop the fight. With the organizing that happened within the Black Lives Matter movement and the national recognition and investment to change these laws, I am hopeful. There are activists and advocates who will not give up this fight.
Legislator Spotlight: TN State Rep. London Lamar
Representative London Lamar is the youngest female legislator in the 112th Tennessee General Assembly. She serves as Secretary of the House Democratic Caucus and sits on the Finance, Ways and Means, and Criminal Justice committees. Lamar has represented the 91st District since 2018.
This interview is part of a series for No Democracy Without Black Women, a report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.
What compelled you to run for office?
I've always wanted to run for office. I spent most of my twenties building up an apparatus for young people to take part in the political process and build up their leadership skills. I always felt like we can make change no matter where we are, no matter what community we live in. If we truly want to change society, we have to put ourselves in positions of leadership.
I am now the youngest woman in the Tennessee General Assembly, and I've been able to show young people what happens when you put yourself in a position to make substantial change. Those who came up under my leadership are now serving in elected offices themselves. As millennials, we have to hold each other accountable for taking part in the political process because it works. And we can make change. We are getting things done.
Today our Tennessee House Democratic Caucus elected our new leaders for the 112th General Assembly. I’m thankful to my colleagues for electing me as Secretary and I plan to continue to serve with the upmost integrity and commitment to advance our Caucus forward. pic.twitter.com/VLeOY11JSG
How do you feel about the current state of millennial engagement in politics especially for Black women?
The world is finally taking notice of the beauty of our intelligence, of our voices, of what we have, and how we bring that to the table. We are able to use technology like social media to get our stories out there and make sure people are listening to us and hearing our stories. For example, I'm bringing moms and women into my brand and my social media, because I'm in the legislature fighting for policies for moms. I have a track record of being a leader and fighting for these issues, and you see it all in front of your face on social media, so I’m able to connect with more people than ever before.
The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman. And if anybody understands that and can articulate the inequities in this system, it is us. And so for me, my voice is so powerful, my experiences are so powerful, the stories of my community are so powerful.
Tennessee State Rep. London Lamar
What do you feel is your greatest asset as a Black, millennial, woman legislator?
My voice. The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman. And if anybody understands that and can articulate the inequities in this system, it is us. And so for me, my voice is so powerful, my experiences are so powerful, the stories of my community are so powerful. And when I’m able to bring those stories and those real-life experiences to the work that I do, especially in my role as an elected official to truly impact policy—to me, that's my greatest asset. Black women are in this fight for justice, in this fight for equity in this country, so we must be at the forefront. Who better to fix it than us?
Black women are 3x more likely than white women to die from issues related to pregnancy — learn how environmental injustice plays a role in the Black maternal health crisis
What ways do you think Black women need to be supported as it relates to public health overall?
We must take Black maternal health seriously. I fight for reproductive justice in my community, my city, and my state. This is a real public health crisis that we must bring to light. Insurance companies must cover the full range of reproductive health options and women must have full autonomy over their decision-making, which includes their ability to have a child or not have a child. Women must be able to live free from judgment and any other government restrictions that deny you the right to make your own choice about your body.
We also must focus on ensuring access to mental health services. This pandemic has exposed the need for more mental health counselors and enhanced insurance coverage for a breadth and depth of services. We need to take care of ourselves physically and emotionally.
Black Women Legislators Leading in Agriculture Policy
Historically, agricultural policy has been made in spaces dominated by rural land-owning, white, male, and conservative voices. That includes state legislatures, where fewer than five percent of legislators are Black women. Far too often, there are limited opportunities for Black women legislators to be at the forefront of policy conversations in agriculture or related legislative committees. That has to change.
SiX hosted this panel with four Black women state legislators who are leading the conversation to address the vast injustices that have been endured by Black and brown communities in the field of agriculture. Hear about their work to make agriculture more inclusive and change who gets to pass agriculture policy.
Panelists:
Delaware Senator Marie Pinkney
Ohio Representative Juanita Brent
North Carolina Senator Natalie Murdock
Illinois Representative Sonya Harper
Moderator: Lauren Bealore, Director of Democracy, SiX
SiX Takeaways:
For generations, agriculture policy impacting Black, brown, and Indigenous communities has been made in rural white, male-dominated spaces. But Black women legislators are stepping into leadership roles on agriculture committees and creating change in the urban and rural communities they represent.
Agriculture is the biggest industry in many states, yet progressives too often don’t prioritize it. Policy-making in the agriculture industry is a huge concern for Black, brown, and Indigenous communities. Everyone eats — so we all have to care about food access, where our food comes from, and how it’s being handled. Much of that work starts at the state level.
In many Black and brown communities, farming has been gentrified, monopolized, and appropriated — and the same is true in agriculture committees. The farming practices in the farm-to-table and regenerative agriculture movements have origins in Afro and Indigenous communities and cultures. Despite this, many of the issues Black and brown communities face are not reflected in agriculture and food policy-making.
Agriculture policy is at the intersection of many other issues in Black and brown communities, including equity, racism, economics, and health. The future of Black and brown communities depends on agriculture in many ways. Agriculture is the number one job producer in some states and effective and equitable agriculture policy is a way for Black and brown communities to create jobs and build a sustainable economy while providing healthy food for community members.
Black women legislators have had to work for years to educate white-male-dominated agriculture committees about the agricultural issues impacting their communities and to center Black and brown voices. For some, this education (about food deserts, urban farming, food access issues, and so much more) has laid the foundation to be able to tackle issues like race and equity when working toward policy solutions.
There are many opportunities for Black women legislators to engage in agriculture policy issues that impact their communities. The panelists encouraged others to fight to be on the committees that oversee agriculture policy in their states. These legislators are disrupting the space and centering the voices and needs of their Black and brown communities while doing it. Join SiX’s CROP and Democracy cohorts for support along the way.
This primer is part of a series on anti-racist state budgets. To understand the concept of creating anti-racist state budgets, it is important to understand the difference between racist and anti-racist ideas and policies. The following excerpts are from How To Be An Antiracist (2019) by Ibram X. Kendi:
Racist vs. Anti-Racist Ideas
A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society … An antiracist idea is any idea that suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences—that there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group. Antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities.
Racist vs. Anti-Racist Policies
A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups … There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.
For additional race-equity concepts and definitions, please visit the Racial Equity Tools glossary.
Introduction
We all benefit when public policies move us closer to realizing our nation’s promise of full and equal opportunity for all. Social safety net programs that help people get back on their feet during hard times and build thriving communities have proven that ending poverty is within reach. To continue our march toward prosperity for all, we must first confront and dismantle a long history of racism and discrimination in our nation’s response to poverty.
For decades, the modern social safety net has kept millions of Americans out of poverty, many of them children. These public assistance programs represent our shared investment in ensuring that all families, regardless of their income, can keep food on the table and go to work knowing that their children are in a safe and enriching environment. Without our social safety net, 37 million more Americans, including 7 million children, would be living in poverty.
Public assistance programs were originally designed as temporary supports for those who fall on hard times, but more and more, they have supplemented the earnings of workers trapped in a lopsided economy rigged in favor of the wealthy and large corporations at the expense of the working class. Walmart, for example, employs the most workers receiving SNAP, leaving taxpayers on the hook for $6.2 billion annually to help their workers make ends meet and access healthcare, all while using tax breaks and loopholes to avoid an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year.
In this report, we consider state policy changes to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the child care subsidy program. Though there are additional safety net policies that state lawmakers can consider, like tax credits for low-income families, school nutrition and early childhood programs, or housing assistance, in this report, we focus on three federally funded, means-tested assistance programs that are generally administered through state human services agencies.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a federal block grant states can use to provide direct cash assistance to needy families. States must maintain a certain level of state funding toward the program to receive federal funds. With a block grant program, states have significant flexibility in the use of federal and state TANF funds and in the administration of TANF cash assistance benefits. Many states also use TANF funds to support other non-cash assistance programs, including job training programs, childcare, and child welfare services.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal entitlement that provides nutritional assistance to low-income individuals. Unlike a block grant program, the federal government fully funds SNAP benefits for all eligible enrolled individuals. The federal and state governments are each responsible for half of the administration costs. Compared to other public assistance programs, states have far less flexibility in administering SNAP.
The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is a federal block grant that supports state childcare assistance programs and provides subsidies to low-income families. States must contribute a certain level of state matching funds to receive federal funds each year. Access to, and eligibility for, childcare assistance varies significantly across states.
The Pervasive Legacy Of Racism In The Social Safety Net
Jana Shea / Shutterstock.com
Public assistance programs should be accessible and effective in moving families out of poverty. But since its inception, racism has shredded the nation’s social safety net, weaving in discriminatory policies designed to leave out Black families and other families of color. Over time, these policies have not only failed the people they were intended to exclude, but they have also left all communities worse off for generations.
A Brief History of Racism in the Social Safety Net
The construction of arbitrary obstacles to prevent people of color from accessing social welfare programs is as old as the nation’s first safety net policies. Federal and state lawmakers have turned anti-poverty policy on its head, using it not to help those living in poverty, but as a tool to preserve a racist economic system dependent on the exploitation of Black workers and other workers of color. Though not a comprehensive historical overview, the following racist ideas and movements were instrumental in the design of the modern social safety net:
Work Requirements. Work requirements in public assistance programs were born out of the same desire to coerce Black people into the low-wage and unstable labor force that propped up white supremacy. In the centuries after the Civil War, enslavers and the beneficiaries of slavery continued to exploit the labor of Black people through new institutions and policies that were “slavery by another name,” like convict leasing, vagrancy laws, and sharecropping. In 1935, the creation of the first federal welfare program, Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), continued this legacy with language that allowed states to consider “moral character” as an eligibility requirement. In practice, this allowed states to impose de facto work requirements by denying assistance to Black women and forcing them into underpaid and backbreaking jobs, while providing assistance to stay-at-home white mothers. Even as modern federal public assistance programs took shape in the late 1960s, one U.S. senator interrupted Johnnie Tillmon, a Black mother and leading welfare rights activist who was unable to access assistance to feed her children when she fell ill, during a congressional hearing to complain that he could no longer find someone to iron his shirts because of welfare.
The “Culture of Poverty” Myth. The transformation of public discourse on poverty into a personal problem to be resolved through personal responsibility, instead of a collective problem rooted in centuries of structural inequality in social and economic systems, paved the political path for punishing reforms to public assistance programs. The change in public narrative about the “deserving poor,” which was driven by racist and gendered stereotypes about welfare recipients, allowed politicians to discuss and advance policies that appeared race-neutral while still conjuring anti-Blackness as a means to tighten access to public assistance.
The cumulative result of decades of racist policymaking in the social safety net has undermined its effectiveness in reducing poverty and helping families achieve long-term financial security. The decentralization of TANF administration with the passage of the PRWORA left recipients at the mercy of states with a long history of political and economic disenfranchisement of people of color. Nearly three decades later, the unmistakable legacy of the 1996 reforms was its orchestration of a flawed response to child poverty that disproportionately failed the nation’s Black children. Indeed, research shows that the least accessible and least generous cash welfare programs are in states with higher shares of Black residents. By one estimate, equalizing the differences in how states use TANF funds to address poverty would narrow the Black-white child poverty gap by 15 percent.
While many of the changes contained in the PRWORA had the effect of reducing access to the safety net for Black families and other families of color, the changes have undermined our nation’s efforts to reduce poverty overall. Research shows that in the long term, the changes contained in the PRWORA failed to improve the well-being of families in poverty. Additionally, the work-centric reforms to the social safety net resulted in an alarming long-term trend: growing shares of families living in deep poverty. Fifteen years after PRWORA, the share of households living on less than $2 per day had increased by 153 percent. The rise in deep poverty was especially pronounced for children of color: in the first ten years after the 1996 changes, the percentage of Black children in deep poverty increased from 4.1 percent to 5.8 percent, and from 5.8 percent to 6.8 percent for Latinx children, while the deep poverty rate declined slightly for white children.
Building an Anti-Racist Social Safety Net
We all have a role in ensuring that no child goes hungry, that parents can afford the childcare they need to go to work, and that families living in poverty have what they need to make ends meet. Policymakers have the power to confront and dismantle the legacies of racism in their states’ public assistance programs. At the state level, there are significant opportunities to reverse harmful policies of the past and make investments in policies to strengthen the reach of the safety net:
Strengthening the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which was significantly weakened when lawmakers turned the program into a block grant in 1996. This led directly to the shrinking of direct assistance to families in poverty. In 2019, only 23 families received cash assistance through TANF for every 100 families in poverty, though some states reached far fewer families. States have considerable flexibility in the use of TANF funds, and lawmakers should prioritize efforts to increase investments in direct cash assistance to families with low incomes and remove barriers to eligibility for assistance.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reaches an estimated 84 percent of eligible people, though the participation rate in 19 states was significantly lower than the national average. Though some requirements are set at the federal level, state lawmakers can maximize access to SNAP by adopting a range of eligibility and administrative policies that increase the accessibility of the program.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) provides broad flexibility to states in designing their childcare subsidy programs, resulting in significant discrepancies in eligibility requirements from state to state. Nationally, only 12 percent of potentially eligible children received subsidies based on state eligibility limits. State legislators can expand investments in childcare assistance programs and reduce administrative and eligibility barriers to accessing assistance.
When considering ways to build an anti-racist social safety net, state legislators should refer to the following recommendations and work with national and local advocates, especially groups that center race equity, to develop the best policies for their states, which may include administrative solutions in addition to the legislative options highlighted below.
TANF Family Cap
During the height of welfare changes in the 1990s, 24 states adopted “family cap” policies that punished families receiving cash assistance through TANF for having another child. Without any evidence beyond racist and sexist stereotypes of welfare recipients, proponents of family caps falsely claimed that cash assistance programs incentivized low-income mothers to have more children to receive additional public assistance.
In Connecticut, families with children born after the initial ten months of receiving TANF cash assistance receive a 50 percent reduction in the benefit. Additionally, families with children born within ten months of program participation are prohibited from qualifying for an exemption from program time limits. A bill (2021 CT HB 6635) that was recently introduced, but failed to advance, would have eliminated both family cap penalties.
Work requirements and penalties are used more harshly against Black and Latina women than white women, and ample evidence shows that work requirements have failed to increase employment and reduce poverty among participants. For the most part, adults receiving TANF and SNAP are subject to work requirements under federal law, but states have some flexibility in both programs to establish exemptions, set the severity of sanctions, and define work activities.
TANF Sanctions
In the TANF program, states have broad authority to determine sanctions for non-compliance with work requirements that range from an initial warning to penalties as severe as immediate case closure and a loss of benefits. All but three states—California, New York, and Vermont—adopted full-family sanctions that cut off benefits to the entire family. In recent years, several states have repealed these harsh sanctions and no longer prevent children from receiving benefits for work-related sanctions.
The District of Columbia amended (2017 D.C. Law 22-33, § 5002/D.C. Code § 4-205.19f) its TANF non-compliance sanctions to minimize the impact of a benefit reduction on children by capping the sanction at 6 percent of the total benefit amount.
Illinois lawmakers enacted a bill (2019 IL HB 3129) that designated 75 percent of the TANF benefit for the children in a household and 25 percent for adult members, and provided that no part of the benefit designated for children shall be reduced due to a sanction. Under the new law, sanctions for cases of non-compliance are limited to 30 percent of the adult portion of a benefit.
Legislation (2020 MD SB 787/HB 1313) enacted in Maryland establishes a similar designation of benefits for children and adults, and limits the reduction of benefits for non-compliance to 30 percent of the adult portion, and prohibits the reduction or termination of any portion of the child or children’s benefit.
In Maine, lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 ME LD 78) to repeal the state’s full-family sanctions and limit the termination of benefits to the non-compliant adult and allow the children and compliant parents to continue receiving benefits.
Ringo Chiu / Shutterstock.com
SNAP Requirements and Sanctions
In SNAP, most adults must comply with basic work-related requirements, such as registering for work or not voluntarily leaving a job. States can require participation in job training activities, which range from job search requirements to educational programs, in addition to setting the number of hours required. Employment and training (E&T) programs must meet some federal requirements, but states have broad latitude in program design. Many states enroll participants in E&T programs on a voluntary basis, which is more effective than mandatory programs.
States can also set sanctions and disqualifications for SNAP recipients who fail to comply with work requirements. There are federal minimums for disqualification that apply only to the individual who is out of compliance (which allows the household to receive a reduced benefit amount), starting with a 1-month sanction for the first instance, and escalating to 6 months for the third instance. States can use the minimum, or use some combination of a longer disqualification period, or extend the disqualification to the entire household. The range of sanctions includes 26 states that use the federal minimum, and the most punitive state, Mississippi (Miss. Code Ann. § 43-12-37), which applies sanctions against an entire household and imposes a permanent sanction for non-compliance after the third instance.
Legislation introduced in Texas (2021 TX SB 1912/HB 1353) would roll back the state’s disqualification policy to the federal minimum by allowing a household to continue to receive benefits when an individual is out of compliance.
Similar legislation was introduced, but failed to pass, in Nebraska (2020 NE LB 1037) to limit the disqualification to the non-compliant household member.
TANF and SNAP Bans on Individuals with Prior Drug-Related Felony Convictions
The federal lifetime ban on individuals with drug-related felony convictions gave states the option to opt out of or modify the ban through state legislative action. Not only does the ban establish a lifetime punishment for a drug conviction, but it also effectively extends the punishment to the children and family of the individual, as the household receives a smaller benefit as a result of the ban.
Many states have lifted the ban in either or both programs, while others have modified their bans to limit those affected by narrowing the types of felonies, shortening the length of the ban, or providing an exception for those that have successfully completed treatment or parole requirements.
Legislators in Illinois (2021 IL HB 88) and South Dakota (2020 SD SB 96) enacted legislation to lift the ban in TANF, lawmakers in Michigan approved a bill (2020 MI SB 1006) to lift the ban in SNAP, while lawmakers in Kentucky (2021 KY HB 497) and Virginia (2020 VA SB 124/HB 566) enacted legislation to lift the bans in both programs.
A bill (2021 NV AB 138) enacted by Nevada lawmakers would lift the bans in both SNAP and TANF. Under current law, the state’s modified bans require participation in, or successful completion of, a substance use disorder treatment program, which can be costly and difficult to access.
Drug testing requires a reasonable basis or suspicion; Michigan and Florida enacted “suspicionless” drug testing for TANF applicants and recipients, which required drug testing without reasonable suspicion of drug use, that were later rejected by courts as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Subsequently, at least 13 states currently require applicants to submit to drug screening questionnaires that are used, along with other information, including criminal history records or even “visual observations” by agency staff, as a basis for reasonable suspicion to require drug testing. Drug screening and testing policies are also costly and ineffective; an analysis of 13 states with existing drug testing policies found that, collectively, the states spent over $200,000 and identified only 338 positive tests, or 1 percent of all applicants.
Legislators in Utah enacted a bill (2016 UT HB 172) that, as introduced, would have repealed the state’s drug screening and testing requirements. As amended, TANF applicants who are screened as likely drug users would be required to take a drug test only upon the recommendation of a licensed clinical social worker.
In Wisconsin, the 2021-23 Executive Budget (2021 WI AB 68/SB 111) proposed by Governor Evers would repeal the state’s drug screening and testing requirements in the SNAP Employment and Training program, but lawmakers declined to include the recommendation in the final enacted budget.
Child Support
Cooperation with child support enforcement is required at varying degrees within the social safety net as a cost recovery mechanism, but many non-custodial parents cannot keep up with payments. A quarter of non-custodial parents live in poverty, and 300,000 of them fell into poverty from paying child support. Children with parents living outside of the home are much more likely to be living in poverty and are more likely to be Black or Latinx. As a result, child support enforcement efforts leave low-income children no better off, since the payments collected are oftentimes reimbursed to the state and not the child, while pushing non-custodial parents into financial precarity and debt.
Under federal law, subject to good cause exemptions, families must cooperate with child support enforcement programs to receive TANF benefits. For SNAP and childcare subsidy recipients, states can require both custodial and non-custodial parents receiving benefits to cooperate with child support enforcement and impose their own sanctions for failure to cooperate.
Child Support Pass-Through and Disregard in TANF
As a condition of receiving TANF benefits, applicants must cooperate with child support enforcement agencies in establishing and collecting support. Child support payments collected on behalf of current TANF participants are shared between the state and federal governments, but the federal government waives its share for child support that is passed through to the family and disregarded as income for eligibility purpose, up to $100 per month per child, or $200 for two or more children.
Half of the states keep all of the child support and do not pass it to the family, but in 26 states, the state agency collects child support payments on behalf of children receiving TANF, but then passes the payment, fully or partially, onto the child. Pass-through policies provide a meaningful boost to TANF recipients, who receive benefits that are woefully inadequate and have been declining relative to the cost of living over the years. Researchshows that pass-through policies incentivize cooperation for non-custodial parents while also increasing compliance with child support orders among non-custodial parents.
Many states’ pass-through policies reflect the amounts waived by the federal government, while others pass through smaller amounts, and some pass through the full amount collected to the TANF family, above the federal amount waived.
Legislators in Colorado enacted a bill (2015 CO SB 15-012) to allow TANF recipients to receive the full amount of the child support that the state collects on their behalf, in addition to ensuring that the additional payments are not counted as income for eligibility in the program. In a recent study, the state’s Department of Human Services reported that the average family received an increase of $167 per month. The state also reported that monthly child support collections increased by 76 percent in the first 18 months of implementation.
Maryland enacted legislation (2017 MD SB 1009/HB 1469) to allow up to $100 per child, or $200 for two or more children, to be passed through to TANF recipients, and to disregard the payment for eligibility for the program.
In New Jersey, a bill (2021 NJ S 2329/A 3905) that was vetoed by the governor would have allowed a portion of child support to be passed through to TANF families, in addition to excluding the pass-through amount from the program’s definition of income.
Child Support Sanctions for SNAP and Child Care Subsidies
States can also choose to impose child support-related sanctions for SNAP and childcare subsidy recipients. Severe sanctions for non-cooperation can have dire consequences, including a loss of subsidies that help parents afford childcare, or reduced food assistance and increased food insecurity for children. Although most states have good cause exemptions for non-cooperation, such as in cases of domestic violence, concerns about how child support enforcement may affect their family relationships can leave some families reluctant to participate.
In Mississippi, where custodial parents can be disqualified from receiving SNAP for failure to cooperate, and non-custodial parents can be disqualified for being in arrears with court-ordered child support payments, legislators considered, but failed to pass, a bill (2020 MS HB 1319) that would have repealed the state’s SNAP enforcement requirements. The state also requires child support enforcement cooperation for child care eligibility, and failed to advance a bill (2021 MS HB 65) that would have eliminated the requirement in the program.
Kansas legislators are considering a bill (2021 KS HB 2371) that would eliminate the requirement for child support enforcement cooperation for SNAP and child care subsidy applicants.
Time Limits in TANF
The passage of the PRWORA in 1996 instituted a dramatic federal 60-month lifetime limit for receiving TANF benefits, though states can—and several states do—impose a shorter limit. Enabled by racist narratives about welfare recipients, proponents argued that the policy would force recipients to find jobs, ignoring the reality that many TANF recipients, especially Black and Latina mothers, face steep and systemic barriers—employment and skills gaps, employment discrimination, lack of access to reliable transportation—to stable jobs that pay enough to make ends meet. Indeed, research shows that time limits are ineffective and do not result in increased long-term earnings.
State lawmakers can ease time limit penalties by providing extensions beyond the 60 months for up to 20 percent of the caseload, by stopping the clock on the time limit for certain groups of families, and continuing benefits for children beyond the time limit. Additionally, state TANF funds are not limited by the federal 60-month limit, so states can use funding flexibly to set their own time limit policies. One way to ensure that families are not punished is by using “good faith” extensions when recipients are participating in work activities but are otherwise prevented from working.
In Washington, where researchers found that time limits were most likely to penalize Black and Indigenous families, lawmakers enacted a bill (2019 WA HB 1603/Chapter 343) that expanded good faith extensions for families facing barriers to work, such as the need for mental health or substance use disorder treatment, or homelessness or risk of loss of housing. Under the new law, recipients are also eligible for an extension if they demonstrate that the time limit would cause undue hardship to the recipient or their family.
Another bill (2021 WA SB 5214) enacted by Washington legislators establishes a hardship exemption for all families receiving TANF since March 1, 2020, when the unemployment rate was equal to, or greater than, 7 percent.
A bill (2020 NJ S 2329/A 3905) that was vetoed by the governor in New Jersey would have continued benefits for children and other household members if at least one adult recipient becomes ineligible as a result of the 60-month lifetime limit.
Arizona legislators considered a bill (2021 AZ HB 2253) that would have increased the state’s lifetime limit of 12 months, the most restrictive in the country, to the federal limit of 60 months.
Asset Limits
Today, the average Black household has just 12 percent of the wealth of white households, and early data shows that the pandemic recession threatens to widen the gap. The racial wealth gap has grown over the course of centuries of discriminatory policymaking and institutional practices that built wealth for white families while preventing families of color, especially Black Americans, from achieving the same generational wealth.
Included in that broad authority are the states’ abilities to set asset limits for TANF, though in 7 states, the asset limit has remained unchanged at $1,000 in the four decades since it was first imposed at the federal level, while 8 states have eliminated the asset test altogether. While federal rules set the asset limit in SNAP at $2,250 for most households, states can establish their own limit by adopting broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE); 37 states have utilized this option to eliminate asset tests in SNAP. In the child care subsidy program, Congress established uniformity for asset limits in 2014, when it required states to allow for self-certification that their assets did not exceed $1,000,000.
In Indiana, legislators considered, but failed to pass, a bill (2014 IN SB 413) that would have eliminated asset limits for SNAP and TANF applicants. The state is one of 14 states that has not eliminated the asset test in SNAP, and one of the seven states where the asset limit is $1,000.
Lawmakers in New York are considering legislation (2021 NY S 742/A 2214) to eliminate asset limits across all public assistance programs in the state. The state has already eliminated the asset test in SNAP, and the bill would eliminate the current asset test of $2,000, or $3,000 for households with someone age 60 or older.
States have considerable flexibility in setting income eligibility requirements across social safety net programs. Aligning income tests with a living wage ensures that people aren’t turned away from the social safety net, even when their jobs don’t pay enough to make ends meet. Rising child care costs that far outpace wages create significant employment instability for parents, especially mothers of young children. By one estimate, a nationwide increase in income eligibility for child care subsidies would result in 270,000 mothers joining the workforce.
Workers who receive a small raise or extra hours at work can also fall farther behind because they lose more in benefits than they received in increased income, in a phenomenon called the public assistance “cliff effect,” which is particularly pronounced for child care subsidies. The cliff effect forces workers into declining pay increases or promotions to maintain the benefits that allow them to pay the bills. Instead of promoting long-term financial stability, the public assistance cliff effect keeps workers on unstable financial footing, which contributes to increased administrative costs resulting from enrollees cycling on and off programs.
Why the Federal Poverty Level Fails to Measure Poverty
The official federal poverty measure (FPL) is a flawed measure that is used to determine income eligibility in some public assistance programs. The FPL is based on an outdated methodology that assumed the average American family spent a third of their household budget on food. Since its inception, its methodology has not been updated, except for annual inflation adjustments, and fails to capture variations by geography, aside from separate calculations for Alaska and Hawaii. Moreover, inflation increases for lower-income individuals significantly outpace average inflation. While there is general consensus among experts that the measure should be updated, until Congress acts to update the FPL, states have an important role in increasing income eligibility to be in line with a family-sustaining wage.
TANF Income Eligibility
States have significant flexibility in determining eligibility criteria for cash assistance programs funded by TANF dollars, resulting in wide variation in eligibility for TANF across the country. For example, a family of three in Alabama can earn no more than $268 per month to be eligible for TANF, while the same family in Minnesota would be eligible with monthly earnings of up to $2,231. States can expand access to TANF cash assistance by increasing income thresholds, adjusting income measurement methods, or allowing some portion of a household’s income to be disregarded in determining eligibility.
Lawmakers in Indiana failed to advance a bill (2021 IN SB 233) that would have increased the income threshold for TANF cash assistance to 50 percent of the federal poverty level over the course of 3 years. The bill would increase eligibility while ensuring that the threshold is updated annually as costs rise. Currently, eligibility for TANF in Indiana is based on a fixed dollar amount that was last updated in 1988.
In Maine, legislators enacted a bill (2019 ME LD 1772) to broaden income disregards in determining TANF eligibility. Prior law provided earnings disregards and childcare expenses for calculating benefit levels; the new law applies existing earnings disregards and child care expenses for the purposes of determining eligibility, in addition to significantly expanding disregards for calculating benefit levels.
SNAP Income Eligibility
Within SNAP, states have much less flexibility in setting income eligibility requirements. States that adopt broad-based categorical eligibility can increase the gross income threshold for the program above the federal minimum of 130 percent of the FPL, which 31 states and DC have already done. While some states have considered legislation to accomplish the change, the option can also be adopted through administrative means.
In Illinois, legislators approved a bill (2015 IL SB 1847) to increase the gross income limit in SNAP from the federal minimum to 165 percent of the FPL, or 200 percent for families with an elderly, blind, or disabled household member.
Minnesota lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 MN SF 759/HF 611) to increase the gross income limit for SNAP from 165 percent of the FPL to 200 percent.
Lawmakers in Nebraska overrode a gubernatorial veto to enact a bill (2021 NE LB 108) to increase the gross income threshold from 130 percent of the FPL to 185 percent. As amended and enacted, the threshold is increased to 165 percent of the FPL through September 30, 2023, and includes legislative intent language that the increase shall be funded through new federal funds provided through the American Rescue Plan Act.
Child Care Subsidy Income Eligibility
States also have broad authority to set income thresholds for childcare subsidy eligibility up to 85 percent of the state median income (SMI). Recent federal changes to index eligibility to SMI instead of FPL ensures that the threshold moves alongside economic conditions and costs within the state. There is significant variation across the country in access to child care assistance: a family of three can earn no more than 39 percent of the SMI in Nebraska to be eligible for child care subsidies, compared to 85 percent of the SMI in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Vermont.
Virginia legislators enacted a bill (2021 VA HB 2206) that temporarily increased income eligibility for child care subsidies to the federal maximum of 85 percent of the SMI if “the family includes at least one child who is five years of age or younger and has not yet started kindergarten.” The increased threshold is effective through August 1, 2021, though families who become enrolled continue to be eligible for a year.
In Iowa, lawmakers enacted legislation (2021 IA HF 302) to ease the cliff effect in the child care subsidy program by establishing a gradual eligibility phase-out to allow families to continue receiving assistance if their income is between 225 and 250 percent of the FPL, compared to current law under which families lose eligibility when they earn more than 225 percent of the FPL. The bill also establishes a higher threshold of 275 percent of the FPL for families with children needing special needs care.
State-Funded Programs for Immigrants Excluded from Federal Funds
Many states have established state-funded assistance programs for immigrants who are otherwise ineligible for federally funded programs, including cash assistance and nutrition assistance substitute programs. States can also use their portion of spending on TANF, which is already required to receive federal funds, to provide benefits to immigrants who are federally barred from eligibility until they have been in the country for five years. At least 22 states have a state-funded TANF replacement program and 6 states have a state-funded food assistance program available to some immigrants who are otherwise excluded from federally funded programs.
Legislators in California introduced a bill (2021 CA SB 464) that would extend eligibility for the state-funded California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) to any noncitizen, including undocumented immigrants. Current law restricts CFAP eligibility to specific categories of lawfully present immigrants.
New Jersey legislators enacted a bill (2020 NJ S 2329/A 3905), which received a conditional veto by the governor, that would have expanded access to TANF for lawful permanent residents, individuals granted relief through the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and any other non-citizens who are authorized to live in the United States.
In Washington, lawmakers enacted a bill (2019 WA SB 5164) to extend state-funded food and cash assistance to noncitizen victims of human trafficking and other serious crimes, and asylum seekers and their family members. Under the new law, individuals are eligible if they have filed, or are preparing to file, an application with the appropriate federal agency for their status. Prior legislation created the Food Assistance Program (FAP) and the State Family Assistance Program, which helps lawfully present immigrants who are otherwise ineligible for federally funded benefits.
Decades of systematic efforts to disassemble the social safety net have disproportionately fallen on Black children—41 percent of Black children live in states where TANF helps less than 10 families for every 100 living in poverty, and 55 percent of Black children live in states where TANF benefits are below 20 percent of the federal poverty level. Lawmakers can ensure that their states’ TANF funds are spent effectively toward reducing child poverty by increasing direct assistance to families in poverty and providing for automatic annual adjustments to benefit amounts.
A bill (2021 GA HB 92) that failed to advance in Georgia would have allowed for automatic annual increases to the maximum TANF benefit, which has been fixed at the same dollar amount for 30 years, by amending the definition of cash assistance to being “based on a standard of need that is equal to 50 percent of the federal poverty level for the applicable family size, and which equates to a maximum monthly amount equal to 75 percent of such amount for each such family size.” By tying the benefit to the FPL, which is adjusted annually, lawmakers could have reversed the declining value of benefits in the state, which has decreased by 40 percent since 1996.
In Mississippi, legislators recently enacted a bill (2021 MS SB 2759) that raises the maximum monthly TANF benefits. Though the state has the highest child poverty rate in the nation, prior to the passage of the bill, TANF benefits in the state were the lowest in the nation; under the new law, a family of three would receive a monthly benefit of $260, an increase from $170 per month.
Massachusetts lawmakers considered legislation (2019 MA S 36/H 102) to increase the monthly benefit annually by 10 percent until the benefit amount reaches 50 percent of the federal poverty level. The bill also would provide an annual adjustment thereafter to align the benefit level with 50 percent of the federal poverty level. The bill failed to advance, but the final FY 2021 budget included a one-time 10 percent increase to the state’s TANF benefit levels. Similar legislation (2021 MA S 96/H 199) has been re-introduced in the 2021 session that contemplates 20 percent annual increases, which are reflected in budgets proposed by both the House and Senate.
In Minnesota, legislators introduced a bill (2019 MN SF 905/HF 799) to increase the benefit amount by $200 gradually in $50 increments through October 2022, and require 2 percent increases annually thereafter. Though the legislation failed to advance, the final enacted biennial budget included a $100 increase to the monthly benefit amount, the state’s first increase in over three decades.
Virginia lawmakers considered a budget amendment in 2020 that would have increased the benefit amount by 18 percent annually until the standard reached 50 percent of the federal poverty level. Although the amendment was not adopted, lawmakers included one-time increases of 15 percent and 10 percent in the 2020 and 2021 budgets. The 2021 budget bill also requires the Department of Social Services to “develop a plan to increase the standards of assistance by 10 percent annually until they equal 50 percent of the federal poverty level.”
Lawmakers in Washington (2021 WA SB 5092/HB 1094) approved a 15 percent increase to benefits for TANF families in the state’s biennial budget, effective July 1, 2021.
Learn more about what your state legislators are doing to protect our voting rights by joining a Telephone Town Hall on Monday September 20th, at 7pm EDT. By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with your representatives and local experts, learn about how they are fighting for your voting rights in North Carolina, ask questions, and discuss what we can do to take care of each other during this difficult time.
Special Guests
Allison Dahle
State Representative
Marcia Morey
State Representative
Zack Hawkins
State Representative
Register
Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.
How do I attend the telephone town hall? We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.
Will I get to ask a question? Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.
What if I miss the call? If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.
Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators? Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.
Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online? Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.
What if I can't be on for the whole time? We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.
2021-2022 Session Highlights: How States Build a Fairer Economy for Working Families
This publication was originally released on September 14, 2021 and was updated on September 1, 2022 to include highlights from the 2022 legislative session.
Background
State lawmakers across the country faced pressing and urgent issues when they convened in 2021 and 2022. Although the recent rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine drastically reduced deaths and infection rates, inequitable access to vaccines compounded existing barriers to health care and Black, Latinx, and low-income communities have reported lower vaccination rates. At the same time, the pandemic-induced economic recession is also widening the wealth gap between the average worker and the wealthy few, and workers of color and low-wage workers are the majority of essential workers—the heroes that are helping us get through this—yet continue to experience the worst and most extended employment losses.
The 2021-2022 legislation outlined below highlights how bold and forward-thinking state lawmakers are working to build a fairer economy by tackling long-standing structural inequalities that were magnified by the health and economic crises of the COVID-19 pandemic. The policy areas discussed in this publication are:
Paid Family and Medical Leave
Paid Sick and Safe Leave
Minimum Wage
Unemployment Insurance
Workers’ Compensation
Wage Theft Protections
Please note that this is neither a comprehensive policy list nor necessarily a list of the most progressive solutions on this subject; when moving forward with legislation, we recommend working with local and national advocates to craft the best solution for your state. Please reach out to SiX if you would like help connecting with national experts.
Paid Family and Medical Leave
Everyone deserves to be able to take paid time off to care for themselves and their families. Lawmakers in eleven states and DC have enacted legislation to establish a paid family and medical leave insurance (FMLI) program. In 2021, Colorado voters overwhelmingly approved a paid family and medical leave ballot measure, while lawmakers in Maryland and Delaware enacted paid family and medical leave bills in 2022. State family and medical leave insurance programs ensure that more working people can take time off from work to recover from a serious illness or care for a loved one or a new child. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides job-protected, unpaid leave to some workers. But low-wage workers who can least afford to take unpaid leave are also the least likely to have access to paid leave through their employers: 91 percent of workers in the lowest wage quartile have no access to paid family leave, compared to over two-thirds of workers in the highest wage quartile.
During the 2021-2022 legislative sessions, policymakers considered legislation to level the playing field so that all workers can afford to take time off from work to be with their families. Lawmakers considered bold policy solutions that would allow workers to take more than the 12 weeks guaranteed by the FMLA in some instances, bringing some parts of the country closer to paid family leave requirements in the rest of the world. In early-adopter states, legislators considered proposals to expand access to and eligibility for existing paid family and medical leave insurance programs.
Recently enacted legislation in Delaware (2022 DE SB 1) establishes a family and medical leave insurance program that provides workers with up to 6 weeks of paid leave in any 24-month period to address a worker's own serious health condition or that of a family member or to address the impact of a family member's military deployment. The new law also provides up to 12 weeks of paid leave during a single year to bond and care for a new child. Legislation in Maryland (2022 MD SB 275), which was vetoed by the governor but overridden by the state legislature, establishes a family and medical leave insurance fund to provide up to 12 weeks of paid benefits to workers for the purpose of caring for a newborn or newly fostered or adopted child, caring for the covered individual or a family member with a serious health condition, or caring for a U.S. service member or dealing with issues arising from their deployment. An additional 12 weeks of paid benefits in a year if the worker needs to address another serious health condition or to care for another new child.
A bill enacted in South Carolina (2022 SC SB 11) provides six weeks of paid family leave for state employees after the birth of a “newborn biological child” or after the initial placement of a foster child with them.
In Arizona, lawmakers introduced but failed to advance legislation (2021 AZ HB 2858) that would have provided up to 26 weeks of medical leave and up to 24 weeks for parental, caregiving, exigency (family leave related to active duty deployment), and safe leave. The new insurance program, funded by employee and employer contributions, would have adopted a progressive wage replacement structure, which ensures that lower-wage workers receive a larger portion of their wages. The bill would have established enforcement protections, including the right to bring a lawsuit for aggrieved workers. A similar package (2022 AZ SB 1644/HB 2767) was reintroduced by Arizona legislators in 2022.
In Illinois, lawmakers introduced a bill (2022 IL HB 5029) that would provide up to 26 weeks of paid family and medical leave, including leave related to a public health emergency or other disaster, and an additional 26 weeks for individuals for leave taken in connection with pregnancy, recovery from childbirth, or related conditions. Importantly, the bill includes certain domestic workers and contractors in its definition of covered workers, and includes a three-part test, or ABC test, for independent contractors.
Under a bill proposed in Pennsylvania (2021 PA SB 580), workers would be able to access up to 20 weeks to welcome a new child into their family or to recover from a serious health condition, while workers who need to care for a family member with a serious health condition would be able to take up to 12 weeks. Workers would receive a portion of their wages replaced through a new employee-funded insurance pool.
North Carolina legislators are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 564/HB 597) that would allow workers to take up to 18 weeks to recover from a serious health condition; 12 weeks to welcome a new child, to care for a family member with a serious health condition, or for exigency leave; and 26 weeks to provide care for a servicemember with a serious injury or illness.
Lawmakers Work to Expand Paid Leave in Pioneering States
Establishing an Inclusive Definition of “Family Member”
A bill (2021 NY S 2928/A 6098) enacted by lawmakers in New York would amend the state’s existing definition of family member for the purposes of caregiving leave to include siblings, defined as “a biological or adopted sibling, a half-sibling or stepsibling.”
Policymakers in Washington approved legislation (2021 WA SB 5097) to expand the definition of “family member” in the state’s existing paid family and medical leave program, which was limited to “a child, grandchild, grandparent, parent, sibling, or spouse of an employee,” to include “any individual who regularly resides in the employee’s home or where the relationship creates an expectation that the employee care for the person, and that individual depends on the employee for care.”
In California, a bill (2021 CA AB 1041) enacted by legislators and awaiting the governor's signature would create a more inclusive definition of family by striking a provision that allows “any other individual related by blood or whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship” and replace it with a “designated person,” defined as “a person identified by the employee at the time the employee requests family care and medical leave.”
Increasing Wage Replacement Rates
A bill (2020 CA AB 123) that was approved by lawmakers, but vetoed by the governor in California would have ensured that more workers, especially lower-wage workers, can afford to take paid leave. The bill would have increased the wage replacement rate for workers earning less than 33 percent of the statewide average wage from 70 percent of their wages to 90 percent of their weekly wages based on their highest-earning quarter.
Leave for Bereavement, Miscarriages, and Stillbirths
Legislators in Washington enacted a bill (2022 WA SB 5649) to expand the state’s existing paid family and medical leave program to include up to seven days of bereavement leave for the death of a family member for whom a worker would have qualified for medical leave or parental leave. The bill also made clarifications on the use of medical leave in the postnatal period, required the publication of a current list of all employers that have voluntary plans under the state paid family and medical leave program, and established new forms of legislative oversight over the program.
A California bill (2021 CA AB 867) would amend existing definitions in the state’s family leave program to provide “leave for a parent who was pregnant with a child, if the child dies unexpectedly during childbirth at 37 weeks or more of pregnancy.”
Paid Leave During a Public Health Emergency
Oregon legislatorsenacted a bill (2021 OR HB 2474) that expands the state’s paid family leave program to include leave required to provide child care due to the closure of a school or child care provider as a result of a public health emergency. The bill also expands eligibility for paid leave benefits during a public health emergency and provides eligibility to workers who are laid off and rehired within 180 days.
Washington lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 WA HB 1073) to provide “pandemic leave assistance employee grants” for workers, particularly part-time workers, who were unable to meet the hours-based eligibility threshold for the program. The bill also provides grants to small businesses for costs associated with an employee who has or will take leave under the new grant program. The program is funded entirely by federal funds received by the state in the American Rescue Plan and expires on June 30, 2023.
In Massachusetts, a bill (2021 MA H 2017) introduced by lawmakers would expand the state’s existing paid leave program to include medical leave “due to his or her potential exposure to a pathogen for which a public health emergency has been declared by the Federal, State, or local authorities, regardless of whether the covered individual is symptomatic or asymptomatic.” Self-quarantine as advised by a health care provider for one individual would apply to all other members of the same household.
No one should have to choose between their health or the health of their family and a paycheck. The COVID-19 crisis has underscored how worker health and well-being affects us all. In 13 states and DC, workers can earn paid sick time to recover from an illness or to care for a sick family member without worrying about losing their job; 12 states and DC also provide safe leave coverage for workers who need time off to attend to their needs or a family member’s needs if they are a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. State legislation to guarantee paid sick and safe days keeps families and workplaces healthy, especially for low-wage workers and workers of color, who are least likely to have access to a single paid sick day at their job.
State lawmakers considered legislation during the 2021-2022 sessions to expand access to paid sick and safe leave for workers on a permanent basis, in addition to a flurry of activity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. New Mexico became the 14th state to enact a paid sick leave law, while other states created emergency sick leave protections for workers during public health emergencies.
States Continue to Lead the Way in Guaranteeing Paid Sick Leave
New Mexico became the latest state to protect the health of workers when the legislature enacted the Healthy Workplaces Act (2021 NM HB 20), which allows workers to take up to 64 hours of paid sick time each year to care for themselves or a loved one. The bill includes strong protections for broad access to leave for workers who are often excluded, including part-time, seasonal, or temporary workers, in addition to establishing financial and legal penalties for employer violations of the act, including misclassification of workers as independent contractors.
Rhode Island legislators enacted a bill (2021 RI SB 434/HB 6011) to amend the state’s existing paid sick time law, which already allows workers to earn up to five days of sick and safe time per year, to include workers in the construction industry who may lose their accrued benefits when moving between short-term projects. Under the new law, construction employers that are a part of multi-employer collective bargaining agreements must adhere to the state’s paid sick time law and would be required to contribute to a central trust for benefits available to workers under the agreement.
The Virginia legislature enacted a bill (2021 VA HB 2137) to guarantee paid sick leave to home health workers who provide care for patients who are enrolled in Medicaid. Eligible workers can accrue and use up to 40 hours of paid sick leave every year. The original bill, as introduced, would have applied the new protections more broadly to essential workers.
Lawmakers in the Minnesota House approved a bill (2021 MN HF 41) that ultimately failed to pass that would have allowed eligible workers to earn at least one hour of paid sick and safe time for every 30 hours worked, up to 48 hours per year. Under the bill, workers would be able to carry over up to 80 accrued hours from year to year, but would be limited to a total of 80 hours of accrued but unused time unless otherwise permitted by an employer.
Legislators in Connecticut failed to advance a bill (2021 CT HB 6537) that would have added all private sector workers, including domestic workers, to those eligible for sick leave. Current law only applies to certain service workers at employers with 50 or more employees. The bill also increases the rate of accrual and eliminates the waiting period for use of leave. Finally, the bill expands the definition of “family member,” which is currently limited to children and spouses, to include adult children, siblings, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, and anyone else related by blood or affinity.
Lawmakers in Iowa are considering a bill (2021 IA HF 275) that would provide paid sick and safe time up to 83 hours per calendar year. Under the bill, workers would be allowed to carry over sick and safe time from year to year up to the annual maximum. In addition to sick and safe leave, workers would be entitled to use such leave during public health emergencies when their place of work is closed for caregiving needs resulting from closure of a school or place of care or to provide care for a family member under quarantine orders.
In New Hampshire, lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 NH SB 67/HB 590) to guarantee that workers, including part-time workers, can earn 1 hour of paid sick and safe time off for every 30 hours worked. Under the bill, workers would be able to accrue and use up to 72 hours of sick or safe leave each calendar year. The bill also provides civil penalties for employer violations and a private right of action for workers who are denied sick leave or receive retaliation from employers for using sick leave.
Policymakers in Illinois introduced legislation (2021 IL HB 3898) that would provide at least 40 hours of paid sick and safe leave to full-time and part-time employees, who would accrue 1 hour of leave for every 40 hours worked. A three-part test for independent contractors is also included in the definition of “employee” under the bill to avoid employee misclassification.
States Move to Protect Worker Health During Public Health Emergencies
In California, where workers already have access to paid sick days, lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 CA SB 95) to establish up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave for workers who are unable to work or telework due to COVID-19 through September 30, 2021. The new leave protections apply to employers of more than 25 employees, and workers can use the leave for quarantine, to receive and recover from a vaccine, to recover from COVID-19, to care for a family member subject to quarantine or isolation, or to care for a child whose school or place of care is closed due to COVID-19.
The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill (2021 MA H 90) to expand access to emergency paid sick leave. The bill would have guaranteed workers access to 40 hours of emergency sick leave for full-time workers and an equivalent amount for part-time workers. Workers would receive their full pay for leave taken for reasons related to COVID-19, including caring for a family member. The bill established a state fund to reimburse employers not eligible for the federal reimbursement under Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Although the bill was returned with amendments by the governor, lawmakers rejected the amendments and passed another bill (2021 MA H 3702) with the emergency sick leave provisions.
A bill (2021 MD SB 727/HB 1326) that failed to pass in Maryland would have amended the state’s existing sick and safe leave protections to provide public health emergency leave. The bill would have provided 112 hours of leave for full-time workers during a public health emergency and would have expanded eligibility for the state’s permanent paid sick and safe leave law to agricultural workers, temporary staffing or employment agency workers, or on-call workers. Finally, the bill would have amended the existing definitions of “family member” and “spouse.”
Pennsylvania legislators introduced a bill (2021 PA HB 657) to establish 112 hours of public health emergency leave for full-time workers. Part-time workers would also be eligible for paid sick time equal to the amount of hours worked on average in a 14-day period. The leave would be available to workers for themselves, to provide care for a family member, for instances where their place of business is closed, or to provide child care when a school or place of care has been closed.
For too many workers, wages haven’t kept pace with the cost of rent, health care, child care, and other basic household expenses. While the federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 since 2009 and the federal subminimum wage for tipped workers at $2.13 since 1991, 30 states and DC have approved a higher state minimum wage, in addition to 45 localities that have enacted a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage ensures that workers can support their families while also narrowing the racial and gender wage gap that disproportionately leaves workers of color, especially Black women, in jobs that don’t pay enough to make ends meet.
In 2021-2022, state legislators across the country considered legislation to raise the minimum wage, address the erosion of minimum wage values by requiring automatic adjustments for inflation, eliminate or raise the subminimum wage for some workers, and repeal state preemption laws that prevent local governments from taking action to increase the minimum wage above the state minimum wage.
State Lawmakers Take Action to Raise the Minimum Wage for More Workers
Lawmakers in Delaware enacted a bill (2021 DE SB 15) that would gradually increase the state minimum wage from $9.25 per hour in 2021 to $15 per hour by 2025.
A recently enacted bill in Hawaii (2022 HI HB 2510) ramps up the state’s minimum wage every two years from the current $10.10 per hour (75 cents for tipped workers) to $18 per hour by the start of 2028 ($1.50 per hour for tipped workers). This law also makes the state’s earned income tax refundable.
Rhode Island legislators also enacted a bill (2021 RI SB 1) increasing the state minimum wage gradually from $11.50 to $15 by 2025.
Arizona lawmakers failed to advance a proposal (2021 AZ SB 1758) that would have increased the state minimum wage for all workers to $20 starting on January 1, 2022, and increased it on an ongoing basis for inflation. The bill would have allowed tipped employees to be paid $3 less per hour than the minimum wage if their employer can prove the tips their employees receive make up the difference.
In Georgia, lawmakers are considering a minimum wage increase to $15 starting in 2022. A bill (2021 GA HB 116) under consideration in the House incorporates this wage increase but allows employers to count tips toward 50 percent of employees’ minimum wage, and it exempts small employers, students, newspaper carriers, and caretakers. The Senate companion bill (2021 GA SB 24) also establishes a yearly cost-of-living adjustment to the minimum wage starting in 2023.
A bill (2021 IA HF 122) introduced by Iowa lawmakers would increase the state minimum wage gradually to $15 by July 2025, and to $13.20 for employees employed for less than 90 days by July 2025. The bill also establishes annual cost-of-living increases beginning in July of 2026.
In Minnesota, lawmakers are considering a bill (2021 MN SF 2031) to raise the state minimum wage starting in 2022. Larger employers with more than $500,000 in gross sales must pay employees a minimum wage of $17 per hour, while smaller employers who do not meet this requirement must raise their wages to $15 per hour. After 2022, this minimum wage is adjusted annually, using the cost of inflation.
Legislators in North Carolina are considering legislation (2021 NC HB 612/SB 673) to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2023 with a cost-of-living adjustment implemented starting in 2024.
Ohio lawmakers are considering a bill (2021 OH SB 51) that would increase the state minimum wage to $12 by 2022 and provide for gradual increases by $1 annually until the minimum wage reaches $15 in 2025. The state minimum wage is adjusted annually thereafter for inflation.
Oregon lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 OR HB 3351) that would have increased the state minimum wage to $17 per hour starting on July 1, 2022. The bill would have also provided an annual cost-of-living adjustment beginning on July 1, 2023.
In Texas, lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 TX HB 615) that would have raised the state minimum wage to $11.25 in 2022 and $15 in 2023. Starting in 2024, the minimum wage would increase with a cost-of-living adjustment. The bill also would have established that tipped workers must be paid at least 50 percent of the base minimum wage.
Eliminating Exemptions to Minimum Wage Protections
Minimum wage laws apply to most workers, but employers are allowed to pay less than the federal minimum wage in some instances. Under federal law, employers can pay workers with disabilities and student workers or workers in training a subminimum wage by obtaining a special certificate. For workers who typically receive tips—a racist custom rooted in slavery that continues to harm Black service workers today—employers are only required to pay the federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13. Thirty-four states and DC have increased the minimum wage for tipped workers, while 16 states continue to use the federal tipped minimum wage, which was last updated in 1991. Another direct legacy of slavery, prison labor, allows incarcerated individuals, who are disproportionately Black, to work for little to no wages.
Tipped Workers
Idaho lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 ID SB 1028) that would have gradually raised the minimum tipped wage to $7.50 by July 1, 2023.
Lawmakers in Nebraska (2021 NE LB 122), New York (2021 NY A 4547), Rhode Island (2021 RI HB 6012), and Wisconsin (2021 WI AB 278/SB 286) all considered legislation that would gradually raise the tipped minimum wage to align with the state minimum wage for all workers over the course of several years.
Legislators in North Carolina are considering legislation (2021 NC HB 612/SB 673) to repeal sections of existing state law that exempt agricultural and domestic workers from minimum wage and overtime protections. The bill would also increase the tipped minimum wage and gradually phase it out by 2025.
Individuals with Disabilities
Colorado lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 CO SB 21-039) to phase out subminimum wage for workers with disabilities by July 1, 2025, and require each employer to submit a transition plan to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment detailing how the employer plans to comply.
Rhode Island enacted a bill (2022 RI HB 7511/SB 2242) to repeal the subminimum wage for workers with physical or mental disabilities, thereby requiring the state’s minimum wage instead. A similar bill (2021 HI SB 793) was passed by lawmakers in Hawaii.
New York lawmakers are also considering legislation (2021 NY S 1828/A 3103) that would eliminate provisions exempting employees with disabilities from the minimum wage law.
Legislation in South Carolina (2021 SC SB 533) introduced in 2021 and enacted in 2022 removes the subminimum wage for employees with disabilities and instead requires that they be paid at least the federal minimum wage. Similar legislation enacted in Tennessee (2022 TN SB 2042) provides for the federal minimum wage as the floor wage instead of a subminimum wage.
In California, lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 CA SB 639) directing a state agency to develop a plan to phase out the use of subminimum wages for disabled workers by 2025. Delaware lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 DE HB 112) to phase out the subminimum wage for disabled workers by July 1, 2023.
Employees in Training
The Delaware General Assembly enacted a bill (2021 DE HB 88) to remove the training minimum wage (for employees in their first 90 days on the job) and the youth minimum wage (for employees under the age of 18).
Nebraska passed a new law (2022 NE LB 1012) that raises the minimum wage for student interns from the federal minimum wage to the state’s $9 hourly minimum wage, with state grants to support employers with less than 50 FTE employees.
Idaho lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 ID SB 1028) that would have eliminated the training wage of $4.25 for the first 90 days of employment for workers under 20 years old.
Individuals in Prison
Enacted legislation in Colorado (2022 CO SB 50) will increase the minimum wage for prison labor in correctional facilities from the federal minimum wage to the state’s minimum wage. In Washington, lawmakers enacted a bill (2022 WA HB 1168) to require that inmate forest fire suppression and support crews be paid no less than the local minimum wage.
In Arizona, lawmakers failed to advance legislation (2021 AZ SB 1751) that would have raised the minimum wage for individuals in prison from $1.50 to match the federal minimum wage. The bill would have also increased the maximum balance that incarcerated individuals can hold in their spending accounts.
States Consider Rollbacks of Local Minimum Wage Preemptions
In 26 states, state law prohibits local governments from setting a minimum wage that is higher than the state minimum wage. During the 2021 legislative session, lawmakers in Florida (2021 FL SB 304/HB 6031), Georgia (2021 GA HB 499), Idaho (2021 ID S 1028), Indiana (2021 IN SB 334), Missouri (2021 MO HB 409), Oklahoma (2021 OK SB 101), and Texas (2021 TX HB 224/SB 389) introduced but failed to advance legislation that would have repealed the state’s minimum wage preemption law. Pending legislation to roll back minimum wage preemption laws are also pending in Iowa (2021 IA HF 122) and Ohio (2021 OH SB 51).
Unemployment benefits ensure that workers can pay the bills while they search for work, while also stabilizing communities during economic downturns. During the unprecedented job losses of the COVID-19 recession, lawmakers sent unemployment benefits, billions of dollars in lifesaving aid, to families across the country. State laws and regulations vary significantly across the country, leaving many jobless workers ineligible for benefits or without enough benefits to offset lost wages, particularly in southern states with higher shares of Black residents.
Across the country, legislators worked to strengthen unemployment insurance programs during the 2021 legislative session with proposals to increase benefit adequacy, expand eligibility for benefits, and to protect workers from overpayment recovery in non-fraud cases.
State Legislators Boost Unemployment Benefits
A bill (2021 WA SB 5061) enacted by Washington lawmakers would increase the minimum weekly benefit amount in the unemployment insurance program from 15 percent to 20 percent of the state average weekly wage, and it caps the benefit amount at the individual’s weekly wage.
In Vermont, a bill (2021 VT S 10), as passed by the Senate, would establish a dependent allowance of $50 per week for claimants with one or more dependent children.
A bill (2021 AZ SB 1748/HB 2884) that failed to pass in Arizona would have increased the maximum unemployment benefit amount incrementally over three years from a fixed amount of $205 to 55 percent of the state average weekly wage for all covered workers.
Another bill (2021 AZ HB 2662) that failed to advance in Arizona would have established a dependent allowance for unemployment benefits. Individuals would have received an additional $25 per dependent, not to exceed $50 per week, in addition to their weekly benefit amount.
Florida lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 FL HB 207/SB 592) that would have increased the maximum weekly benefit amount from $275 to $500, in addition to increasing the minimum weekly benefit amount from $32 to $100. The bill would have increased the maximum duration for receipt of assistance to 26 weeks.
In Massachusetts, legislators are considering a bill (2021 MA S 1214/H 2033) to increase unemployment benefits for low-wage workers. The bill would ensure that more workers with low or unstable incomes would be able to access unemployment insurance by providing an alternate calculation method spread over two quarters, instead of one quarter, for workers who did not earn enough to meet the wage-based eligibility test. The bill also establishes a minimum weekly benefit amount of 20 percent of the state average weekly wage or 75 percent of the individual’s average weekly wage, and it increases the total benefit that an individual can receive during a benefit year to a larger share of their wages from 36 percent to 60 percent.
A bill (2021 NE LB 171) introduced by Nebraska lawmakers would increase a claimant’s weekly benefit amount by 5 percent for each dependent of the individual, up to a maximum increase of 15 percent.
North Carolina legislators are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 320/HB 331) that would increase the maximum weekly benefit amount from $350 to $500 and establish an annual adjustment for inflation, provided that the change is positive. The bill would adopt a more generous method for calculating weekly benefit amounts by using a worker’s wages in their highest paid quarter instead of wages paid in the last two completed quarters. Finally, the bill extends the maximum duration of benefits to 26 weeks.
Lawmakers Take Steps to Increase Access to Unemployment Benefits
Oregon lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 OR HB 3178) that eliminates an existing requirement that part-time workers may only be considered unemployed if their weekly wages are less than their weekly benefit amount.
Michigan lawmakers enacted legislation (2021 MI SB 445) that expands eligibility for federal pandemic unemployment assistance (PUA) to part-time workers. Under prior state law, part-time claimants were only eligible for benefits if they were able and available for full-time work; the bill applies to claims filed after March 1, 2020.
Legislators in Arizona failed to advance a bill (2021 AZ SB 1748/HB 2884) that would have amended the definition of “unemployed” from a weekly wage that is less than the weekly benefit amount to a weekly wage that is less than 140 percent of the weekly benefit amount. The bill would have eliminated the one-week waiting period before workers can receive and qualify for benefits. Additionally, the bill would have allowed more low-wage and part-time workers to be eligible for benefits; existing law requires workers to have been paid wages in one calendar quarter equal to at least 390 times the state minimum wage, and the bill would lower the threshold to 200 times the minimum wage.
In Florida, legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 FL HB 207/SB 592) that would have expanded access to unemployment benefits to more low-wage and nontraditional workers by establishing an “alternative base period” of the four most recently completed calendar quarters before a benefit year if they are ineligible because their wages were too low. Additionally, the wage-based eligibility requirement would have been lowered from $3,400 during a base period to $1,200. The bill would have lowered job search requirements for claimants from five contacts with prospective employers per week to three while allowing claimants to accept only part-time work of at least 20 hours per week. Finally, the bill would have required the Department of Economic Opportunity to establish two alternative methods for submitting a claim for benefits, such as telephone or email, in addition to claims via postal mail or a website.
Lawmakers in Massachusetts are considering legislation (2021 MA S 1202) to expand access to unemployment insurance for workers with fluctuating work schedules. The bill would amend the calculation for an individual’s average weekly wage to allow workers who do not meet the earnings minimum to use an alternate calculation method with a longer base period of two quarters instead of one.
Protecting Against Employee Misclassification
Iowa lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 IA HF 176) that would establish a financial penalty for employers who are found to have willfully failed to pay contributions for state unemployment insurance by misclassifying an employee’s wages equal to the amount that the employer failed to pay.
A bill (2021 MA H 2016) introduced by Massachusetts lawmakers would amend the definition of employer as it applies to unemployment insurance to clarify that employers who contract with independent contractors are responsible for making unemployment insurance contributions.
Access to Unemployment Benefits for Excluded Immigrant Workers
Colorado legislators enacted a bill (2021 CO SB 21-233) that, as introduced, would have established the Left-Behind Workers Program within the Division of Unemployment Insurance that would provide benefits to individuals who are ineligible for unemployment benefits due to their immigration status. Workers would receive benefits equivalent to 55 percent of their average weekly wage, not to exceed the maximum weekly benefit amount for unemployment benefits, for up to 13 weeks. The program was struck from the bill by committee amendments and replaced with a feasibility study before passage.
In 2022, Colorado lawmakers enacted a bill (2022 CO SB 234) to establish the Benefit Recovery Fund to provide benefits to unemployed workers who are ineligible for unemployment benefits due to their immigration status. Under the new law, a portion of existing employer premiums for unemployment insurance is diverted to the fund, and the state is required to award grants to a third-party administrator to provide benefits. Eligible workers will receive benefits amounting to 55 percent of their average weekly wage for up to 13 weeks.
A bill (2021 NE LB 298) that received first-round approval by Nebraska lawmakers would clarify that work-authorized immigrants are eligible for unemployment benefits.
Provisions of a bill (2021 NY S 4543/A 5421) to establish the Excluded Worker Fund were incorporated into the final budget (2021 S 2509/A 3009) passed by New York lawmakers. The new fund will provide cash assistance to residents of the state who have suffered a loss of earnings due to the COVID-19 pandemic and during the state of emergency but do not qualify for unemployment benefits and federal relief payments. Workers with $26,208 or less in earnings in the last 12 months and documentation of their work and earnings are eligible for a one-time payment of $14,820; all other workers without work and earnings documentation are eligible for a one-time payment of $3,040.
Washington legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 WA SB 5438) that would have established the Washington Income Replacement for Immigrant Workers Program to “provide unemployment benefits to low-income workers who are unemployed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and not eligible for state or federal unemployment benefits.” Workers who experienced a week of unemployment after January 1, 2021, and before June 20, 2022, due to COVID-19-related reasons would be eligible for a $400 payment for each week of unemployment.
Work-Sharing Programs
Maryland legislators enacted a bill (2021 MD SB 771/HB 1143) to expand the state’s existing work-sharing plan to include workers who are rehired after a temporary closure or layoff due to COVID-19. Under prior law, employers who reduced their workforce by 20 to 50 percent were eligible for work-sharing programs; the bill widens the range for eligibility employers who reduce their normal weekly work hours by anywhere between 10 and 60 percent.
In Tennessee, legislators enacted a bill (2021 TN SB 958/HB 1274) that establishes a voluntary shared work unemployment benefits program. Under the new law, employers can submit and receive approval from the state for a plan to reduce employee work hours in exchange for employee access to unemployment benefits. In order to receive approval, an employer’s plan must meet certain criteria, including the maintenance of health and retirement benefits for workers and a reduction of work hours by no less than 10 percent and not more than 40 percent.
Under a bill (2021 WV HB 3294) enacted by West Virginia lawmakers, employers can participate in an optional “work sharing plan.” After receiving approval for their plan from the Workforce West Virginia Commissioner, employers can avoid layoffs by reducing the hours of their workforce by no less than 10 percent and no more than 60 percent, while affected employees are eligible for short-term compensation through unemployment benefits.
Wyoming legislators enacted a bill (2021 WY HB 9) to establish the Short Time Compensation Program, which allows employers to submit a plan for approval to request the payment of short time compensation to employees to avoid layoffs. To be eligible for the program, employers must demonstrate that at least two or more employees’ hours will be reduced between 10 percent and 60 percent.
A bill (2021 HI HB 462) introduced in the Hawaii legislature would establish a work-sharing program for eligible employers. Employers whose work-sharing plans are approved can reduce between 10 and 50 percent of weekly hours of work for eligible employees in lieu of temporary layoffs that would affect at least 10 percent of eligible employees and would result in an equivalent reduction in work hours.
Indiana legislators failed to advance multiple proposals (2021 IN SB 44, 2021 IN SB 312, 2021 IN HB 1235, and 2022 IN HB 1215) that would have created a work-sharing unemployment insurance program. Under each bill, full- and part-time workers who have been continuously employed for at least 16 months prior to the work-sharing plan would have been able to receive unemployment benefits proportional to their reduction in work hours.
Good Cause for Voluntary Separation from Employment
Generally, workers are ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits if they voluntarily quit their job or refuse suitable work without “good cause.” While the definition varies by state, good cause exemptions typically protect workers who leave their jobs due to safety concerns, unfair wage or hour violations, to escape domestic violence, or discrimination by their employer. The COVID-19 pandemic spurred many lawmakers across the country to clarify statutory definitions of good cause to accommodate new caregiving needs or health and safety concerns about the work environment.
Nebraska legislators enacted a bill (2021 NE LB 260) that expands the definition of good cause for voluntarily leaving employment to include leaving a job to care for a family member with a serious health condition. Under the new law, family members include children, parents, spouses, grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings, and the definition of serious health condition is the same as defined under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
A bill (2021 NY A 6080/S 2623) enacted by New York legislators would amend existing law to provide that a claimant shall not be disqualified from receiving benefits for separation from employment due to “the need for the individual to provide child care to the individual’s child if such individual has made reasonable efforts to secure alternative child care.”
A bill (2021 WA SB 5061) approved by legislators in Washington provides that during a public health emergency, an individual who is at a higher risk of severe illness or death from the relevant disease, or lives with someone who is at higher risk, is eligible for unemployment benefits if they voluntarily leave employment. The bill also amends the definition of “suitable work” for the purposes of work search activities to include “the degree of risk to the health of those residing with the individual during a public health emergency.”
Arizona lawmakers introduced a bill (2021 AZ HB 2663) that failed to advance but would have provided eligibility for unemployment benefits for individuals who leave their employment or refuse an offer of employment or reemployment for reasons related to unsuitable health and safety conditions. The bill also creates good cause provisions that apply during a public health emergency, including violations of public health guidance, a need to provide care for a child or a household member, or if they leave to care for a seriously ill or quarantined family or household member.
In Kentucky, a bill (2021 KY HB 406) that failed to pass would have expanded good cause for leaving employment for the purposes of eligibility for receiving unemployment benefits to include circumstances directly resulting from domestic violence and abuse, dating violence and abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
A bill (2021 NY S 731/A 2115) introduced by New York lawmakers would provide that a claimant shall not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits in cases where they have left their employment because “the employer maintained or refused or failed to cure a health or safety condition that made the environment unsuitable.”
Legislation (2021 VT H 359) that is stalled in Vermont would have expanded the definition of good cause for voluntarily leaving employment to include a change in the location of their place of work that is more than 35 miles from their residence or a location that takes more than one and a half hours to commute to; working conditions that pose a risk to their health and safety as certified by a health care provider; an unreliable work schedule; to care for a family member who is ill, injured, pregnant, or disabled; or to care for a child due to the unavailability of adequate or affordable child care.
A bill (2021 WA HB 1486/SB 5064) introduced by Washington lawmakers would expand good cause circumstances to replace “immediate family member” with “family member,” and add care for a child or vulnerable adult if caregiving is inaccessible, so long as the claimant has made reasonable efforts to a leave of absence or changes in working conditions or work schedule that would accommodate their circumstances. Additionally, the bill expands the existing good cause definition to include a change in the claimant’s usual work shifts or a relocation that makes care for a child or vulnerable adult inaccessible.
Lawmakers Protect Workers from Clawbacks in Non-Fraud Overpayment Cases
A bill (2021 OR SB 172) enacted by Oregon lawmakers would allow the state to waive clawbacks in cases where an individual received an overpayment of unemployment benefits if recovery of overpayments would be against “equity and good conscience” and if the overpayment was not due to willful misrepresentation by the recipient.
Legislators in Illinois are considering a bill (2021 IL HB 2773) that would permanently waive recovery or recoupment of unemployment benefits from individuals if their benefit year began during the state’s disaster proclamation in response to COVID-19.
In Indiana, lawmakers introduced a bill (2021 IN SB 237) that failed to advance but would have required the Department of Workforce Development to waive repayment of unemployment benefit overpayments made if they were received without fault of the individual.
A bill (2021 KY HB 240) that failed to advance in Kentucky would have allowed the Secretary of Labor to waive an overpayment of benefits upon request if it was determined that recovery would be against “equity and good conscience,” and the overpayment was due to administrative, clerical, or office error; or not the result of fraud, misrepresentation, willful nondisclosure, or the fault of the recipient.
In New Hampshire, legislators introduced a bill (2021 NH SB 161) that would prohibit the commissioner of employment security from charging interest on unemployment benefit overpayments unless an individual willfully made a false statement or knowingly failed to disclose a material fact, and from requiring repayments by any collection method unless the individual has exhausted all administrative remedies. The bill also directs the commissioner to suspend collection of non-fraud overpayments during the state of emergency, including overpayments that occurred or were established prior to the state of emergency.
New York lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 NY S 6169/A 6666) that would protect unemployment insurance claimants from being held liable for overpayments if the overpayment was not due to fraud or a willful false statement or representation, if the overpayment was received without fault on the part of the claimant, and if the recovery of such overpayment would be against “equity and good conscience.” The bill also provides notice requirements for claimants when a determination is made regarding recovery of overpayments.
In North Carolina, legislators introduced a bill (2021 NC SB 320/HB 331) that amends an existing requirement that any person who has been paid benefits to which they were not entitled shall be liable to repay the overpayment and to create an exception for cases where the error was on the part of any representative of the Division of Employment Security.
A bill (2021 VT H 97) that is stalled in Vermont would provide that “an individual shall not be liable to repay any overpayment of benefits that resulted from something other than the individual’s own act or omission.”
West Virginia legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 WV HB 2873) that would allow the Commissioner of Labor to waive repayment of overpayments of unemployment benefits for which the claimant is not at fault. The Commissioner would be authorized to waive repayment when it would be against “equity and good conscience” and cause financial hardship.
Workers who become injured or ill on the job deserve access to medical benefits and adequate compensation as they recover until they are able to return to work. Employers, especially those in low-wage or hazardous industries, should be held responsible for work-related injuries, but increasingly, the financial burden has fallen on workers. This unequal burden falls hardest on Black workers and other workers of color, who are more likely to work in high-risk industries and disproportionately punished for raising health and safety concerns with their employers. Lawmakers have the power to make state workers’ compensation systems fairer for workers and take additional measures to protect workers who file claims.
During the 2021 legislative session, state legislators took steps to rebalance workers’ compensation systems to ensure that employers assume appropriate liability for workplace injuries and unsafe working conditions. Lawmakers expanded coverage of workers’ compensation, including expanding coverage for workplace transmission of infectious diseases like COVID-19, strengthened anti-retaliation protections for workers, and ensured that workers could access necessary medical care and other benefits.
Lawmakers Consider Public Health Emergency Protections
A bill (2021 CT SB 660) enacted by Connecticut legislators would expand eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits to include post-traumatic stress injuries suffered by emergency medical services personnel, Department of Corrections employees, and emergency dispatchers; and, under circumstances related to COVID-19, health care providers.
The DC Council enacted legislation (2021 DC B24-0058) to amend the definition of injury for the purposes of workers’ compensation to include the contracting of COVID-19 in the course of and within the scope of employment. The definition is an emergency act and will remain in effect for no longer than 90 days.
Virginia legislators enacted legislation (2021 VA SB 1375/HB 2207) that establishes a presumption that COVID-19-caused deaths, health conditions, or impairment resulting in total or partial disability of a firefighter, law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or regional jail officer and are classified as occupational diseases suffered in the line of duty for the purposes of workers’ compensation. Another bill (2021 VA HB 1985) enacted by Virginia lawmakers would create a similar presumption for health care providers.
California lawmakers introduced a bill (2021 CA SB 213) that establishes a presumption of workplace transmission when hospital employees who provide direct patient care in an acute care hospital contract an infectious disease. The bill creates a broad definition of “infectious disease” that includes COVID-19.
Hawaii lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 HI SB 1415/HB 1224) that would allow receipt of workers’ compensation as an exclusive remedy by allowing workers who contract COVID-19 due to an employer’s failure to maintain adequate workplace protections against exposure to bring civil action. The bill also creates a presumption of compensability when COVID-19 “has been proximately caused by an employer’s failure to maintain adequate workplace protections against exposure to the novel coronavirus.”
A bill (2021 MD HB 765) that failed to advance in Maryland would have created the presumption of compensability as an occupational disease for public safety workers, including firefighters, police officers, and correction officers, certain health care workers, and certain child care workers who have been diagnosed with COVID-19.
Michigan lawmakers are considering legislation (2021 MI SB 161/HB 4748) that would create a presumption of personal injury for the purposes of workers’ compensation for essential workers who become injured or ill as a result of their exposure to an infectious disease during a declared emergency.
In Minnesota, lawmakers introduced a bill (2021 MN SF 105/HF 37) that would create the presumption of an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of employment in workers’ compensation cases where a school employee contracts COVID-19.
Montana legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 MT HB 550) that would have created a rebuttable presumption that an essential worker contracted COVID-19 in the workplace if the worker receives a diagnosis by a health care provider, presumptive positive test result, or a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis.
A bill (2021 TX HB 3623) that failed to advance in Texas would have provided workers’ compensation coverage for certain health care providers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder caused by one or more events occurring in the course and scope of their employment during a public health disaster.
State Legislators Expand Workers’ Compensation Coverage
A (2021 NY S 3291/A 6077) bill enacted by legislators in New York expands eligibility for workers’ compensation to domestic workers. Domestic workers working a minimum of 20 hours a week will be eligible, up from 40 hours a week.
Another bill (2022 NY S 7843) enacted by New York legislators requires the state workers’ compensation board to provide translations of certain documents and forms. Under existing law, documents and forms used by or issued to injured employees must be published in the 10 most common non-English languages spoken by individuals with limited-English proficiency in the state; under the new law, “all board documents that provide general information to injured employees on the process of applying for workers’ compensation benefits” must be translated.
Virginia lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 VA SB 1310) to expand coverage of employment protection laws to domestic workers. As introduced, the bill ensured that more domestic workers can access workers’ compensation. The workers’ compensation provisions were removed in the enacted version of the bill, which extends wage protections and safety standards to domestic workers.
Washington legislators enacted a bill (2022 WA SB 5701) that amends the benefit calculation for claimants who are injured working while incarcerated. Under prior law, benefits for incarcerated workers are calculated based on wages paid to other employees engaged in like or similar occupations; the bill requires the benefit calculation to be based on the much-higher wages of similar workers who are not incarcerated.
In Kansas, a bill (2021 KS HB 2016) introduced would amend existing workers’ compensation law from requiring that an accident be “the prevailing factor in causing the injury” to “a substantial factor in causing the injury.”
New York legislators introduced a bill (2021 NY A 284) that would provide nail specialists a private right of action against employers who violate workers’ compensation and wage laws. The bill also creates financial penalties for health and safety violations and for unlawful retaliation against nail specialists.
States Strengthen Anti-Retaliation Protections
Lawmakers in New York are considering legislation (2021 NY S 3732/A 6775) to clarify that discrimination and retaliation by an employer against a worker who claims workers’ compensation includes the threat of reporting the citizenship status of a worker’s or a worker’s family member.
Oregon lawmakers enacted a bill (2022 OR HB 4086) to strengthen anti-retaliation protections for workers seeking workers’ compensation. Existing law prohibits retaliatory behavior by an employer—under the new law, anyone acting on behalf of an employer is also prohibited from discriminating against a worker seeking or receiving workers’ compensation. The bill also expands the definition of prohibited retaliatory actions to include actions against a worker who inquires about workers’ compensation. Finally, the bill establishes a more expansive definition of family members eligible for benefits upon the death of a worker to include a worker’s stepparents, stepsiblings, stepchildren, grandparents, grandchildren, or any spouse or domestic partner thereof.
Vermont legislators introduced a bill (2021 VT H 139) to amend existing anti-discrimination protections under workers’ compensation statutes to prohibit employers with 15 or more employees from firing an employee because of their absence from work during a period of temporary total disability.
Legislators Ensure That Workers Have a Right to Choose Their Own Doctor
A bill (2021 CO SB 21-197) that failed to advance in Colorado would have allowed injured workers to choose their treating physician from an existing list of accredited physicians through the Department of Labor and Employment. Existing law limits the selection of treating physicians to a list of designated providers as provided by the employer or by the worker’s compensation insurer.
Indiana lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 IN HB 1339) to allow employees to choose the physician for services required as a result of an employment injury or occupational disease for the purposes of workers’ compensation. Under current law, workers are required to receive treatment from a physician supplied by their employer.
In Montana, a bill (2021 MT HB 412) that failed would have amended workers’ compensation statutes to allow workers to choose their own treating physician. Existing law allows workers to choose the treating physician for initial treatment, but insurers may designate another treating physician or approve the worker’s chosen physician.
State legislators took steps to rein in and deter employer wage theft violations during the 2021 legislative session by strengthening state enforcement practices, increasing compensation for workers, enhancing employer penalties, and closing loopholes that allow employers to evade labor protections.
Lawmakers Strengthen State Enforcement of Wage Theft Violations
Colorado lawmakers passed legislation (2022 CO SB 161) to increase employer penalties for wage theft and redefining wage theft as criminal theft. Additionally, the bill creates a private right of action for employees who have experienced discrimination or retaliation by an employer for filing a wage complaint or testifying or providing evidence in a wage theft proceeding. Such employees are eligible for back pay, reinstatement, interest on unpaid wages, penalties, and inductive relief. Finally, the bill creates new protections against worker misclassification by establishing the Worker and Employee Protection Unit under the direction of the attorney general, which is responsible for investigating worker misclassification.
A bill (2021 MA S 1179/H 1959) introduced by Massachusetts lawmakers would authorize the state attorney general to file a civil action for injunctive relief, damages, and lost wages and benefits on behalf of an employee or group of employees. Where such cases prevail, employees are entitled to treble (or triple) damages and the state shall be awarded the costs of litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The bill also authorizes the attorney general to issue a stop work order against a person or entity found to be in violation of certain wage laws. The bill also creates whistleblower and anti-retaliation protections for workers involved in wage theft claims by creating a rebuttable presumption of a violation of law where an employer discriminates or takes adverse action against a worker within 90 days of their exercise of rights under the law.
New York lawmakers are considering the “Empowering People in Rights Enforcement (EMPIRE) Worker Protection Act” (2021 NY S 12/A 5876), which would allow workers to initiate a public enforcement action on behalf of the state for violations of labor laws and regulation, including wage theft. Under the bill, workers would also be able to authorize a labor union or nonprofit organization to initiate a public enforcement action on their behalf. The bill designates that a portion of civil penalties recovered, depending on whether the state was an intervener in the case, be remitted to the Department of Labor for future enforcement actions.
Introduced legislation in New York (2021 NY AB 8092), which passed out of both chambers in 2022, would add the use of “any legally protected absence” to the reasons that an employer cannot retaliate against an employee, and would include deducting allotted leave time as a potential prohibited employer method “to threaten, penalize, or in any other manner discriminate or retaliate” against an employee.
Another bill (2021 NY A 1893) proposed by New York legislators would require that cities with a population of one million or more residents shall reject bids for contracts where the bidder “has had any safety, wage theft, or other violations involving the mistreatment of employees or contractors,” among other new considerations regarding the bidder’s history of compliance with the law or project performance.
In Texas, legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 TX SB 1834/HB 190) that would have established a publicly accessible wage theft database of employers that have been assessed a penalty, ordered to pay a wage claim, or convicted of a wage penalty offense. Employers would remain on the database for three years after their assessment or conviction.
Lawmakers Improve Recovery of Lost Wages, Damages, and Legal Costs
In Arkansas, legislators introduced but failed to advance the “Right to Know and Get Your Pay Act” (2021 AR SB 600), which would have entitled workers to damages in the amount of twice their wages due. The bill also would have established an employee’s right to file civil action against an employer who fails to comply with the new law. Workers who prevail in such cases are entitled to unpaid wages, an additional 25 percent of unpaid wages as damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs; in cases that are found to be an intentional violation, workers are entitled to double damages. Finally, the bill would have provided new anti-retaliation protections for workers who engage in wage theft enforcement actions, and employers who are found to have retaliated are subject to civil action and a penalty of $5,000.
Lawmakers in Illinois passed legislation (2021 IL SB 2476/HB 118) to increase the amount of damages that workers can recover in cases of wage theft. Under current law, workers are entitled to the amount of underpayments, in addition to damages of 2 percent of underpayments for each month following the date of payment during which such underpayments remain unpaid; the bill would increase damages to 5 percent of lost wages.
A bill (2021 NY S 2762/A 766) introduced in New York would ensure that workers can recover wage claims ordered in court judgments or administrative decisions when an employer transfers or hides assets. The bill creates an employee’s lien, where wage claims can be resolved against an employer’s interest in property.
North Carolina legislators are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 446) that would increase the amount of damages that an aggrieved worker is entitled to in recovering unpaid wages. Existing law provides damages equal to the amount unpaid in addition to 8 percent interest; the bill would increase damages to twice the amount unpaid, plus interest. The bill also authorizes courts to award statutory damages of up to $500 per employee per violation in cases where an intentional violation of wage theft is found, in addition to requiring legal fees to be paid by the defendant. Finally, the bill allows for recovery of unpaid wages to be enforced through a lien on property of the employer or property upon which the employee has performed work.
State Legislators Enhance Employer Penalties for Wage Theft Violations
Lawmakers in California approved legislation (2021 CA AB 1003) that would create a new crime of grand theft for the intentional theft of wages, including benefits or other compensation, in an amount greater than $950, in aggregate, by an employer. As amended, the bill includes theft of gratuities and includes independent contractors within the definition of employee.
Enacted legislation in Oregon (2022 OR HB 4002) provides a “carrot and stick” approach to overtime compensation for agricultural workers. This new law phases in a 40-hour regular workweek for agricultural workers and provides for a civil penalty for any employer violations and also creates a tax credit to employers for a percentage of overtime compensation paid due to this new law.
In Kentucky, lawmakers failed to advance a bill (2021 KY HB 63) that would have created a new Class A misdemeanor for employer theft of wages in cases where the value of unpaid wages was less than $500. Under the bill, wage theft of $500 or more but less than $10,000 would be a Class D felony, and cases of wage theft of $10,000 would be a Class C felony.
A bill (2021 NY S 4009/A 2022) that has passed the Senate in New York would amend the definition of property relating to the existing crime of larceny to include wage theft.
North Carolina lawmakers are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 446) that would establish civil penalties for employers who violate minimum wage, overtime, wage payment, and employee wage notification laws. Under the bill, the maximum penalty would be $500 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent violation.
In Rhode Island, legislators failed to advance a bill (2021 RI S 195/H 5870) that would have strengthened penalties for wage theft and employee misclassification. The bill would have created a new felony for misclassification and wage theft, punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 for the first offense of lost wages of $1,500 to $5,000, or up to five years in prison and a fine of three times the wage amount or $20,000, whichever is greater, for subsequent violations in excess of $5,000.
Legislators Close Employer Liability Loopholes
Georgia legislation (2021 GA HB 389), which passed in 2022, provides the following test for subcontractor misclassification by clarifying that someone who is NOT an employee: “(i) Is not prohibited from working for other companies or holding other employment contemporaneously; (ii) Is free to accept or reject work assignments without consequence; (iii) Is not prescribed minimum hours to work or, in the case of sales, does not have a minimum number of orders to be obtained; (iv) Has the discretion to set his or her own work schedule; (v) Receives only minimal instructions and no direct oversight or supervision regarding the services to be performed, such as the location where the services are to be performed and any requested deadlines; (vi) When applicable, has no territorial or geographic restrictions; and (vii) Is not required to perform, behave, or act or, alternatively, is compelled to perform, behave, or act in a manner related to the performance of services for wages.”
Lawmakers in New York enacted a bill (2021 NY S 2766/A 3350) targeting the evasion of wage theft enforcement by construction subcontractors. The bill would clarify that the general or prime contractor of a construction project assumes liability for unpaid wages, benefits, damages, and attorneys’ fees resulting from civil or administrative actions for wage theft claims against its subcontractors. Additionally, the bill authorizes contractors to withhold payments to subcontractors for failure to comply with wage theft prevention measures, including the provision of payroll records.
In Massachusetts, a bill (2021 MA S 1179/H 1959) under consideration would subject lead contractors to joint and several civil liability (in cases where multiple parties are at fault, each party is independently liable for the full amount of damages) for wage theft violations of any contractor or subcontractor that performs labor or services “that has a significant nexus with the lead contractor’s business activities, operations or purposes.” Under the bill, lead contractors who receive notice of wage theft violations against a person performing labor for them through a contractor or subcontractor may provide the unpaid wages directly to the person or withhold payments to the contractor or subcontractor in the amount of unpaid wages.
After twenty years of war in Afghanistan—after 800,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, after 20,744 American service members were injured, and after 2,461 American personnel were lost—President Biden refused to send another generation of America’s sons and daughters to fight in a war that should have ended long ago. We must continue to support the Afghan people through diplomacy, international influence, and humanitarian aid while also supporting Afghan families seeking refuge here.
Here are some ways to use your power as a legislator to advocate for Afghan families seeking refuge.
Examples of state legislation to support Afghan and other refugees:
New York legislation to provide payment to Afghan allies who assisted our service members in various roles, including as interpreters and guides
Oregon legislation to create a state grant program for refugee resettlement agencies, which builds on 2019 legislation that appropriated $2 million in grants
A 2019 Colorado law codified the state’s refugee services program (originally implemented by executive order) and provided refugees access to cash assistance, medical assistance, and social services
Enacted legislation in Colorado and Virginia created an Office of New Americans to provide support for citizenship, housing, employment services
Enacted legislation in California that provides enhanced services to asylees and vulnerable noncitizens to provide resettlement services
Enacted bill from California that expedites professional licensing for refugees, asylees, and SIV holders
A Virginia budget bill created a workgroup to 1) identify barriers that recent refugees face entering the workforce and 2) make recommendations for addressing any barriers that prevent them from using their work experience gained outside of the United States to obtain employment in these occupations in Virginia
The New Jersey Governor issued an executive order that creates a cross-agency task force on Afghan refugee assistance to coordinate state efforts to appropriately prepare for and respond to the arrival of Afghan refugees and SIV holders in New Jersey
Speak out
Make public statements on social media welcoming refugees to your communities or advocating for support. See below for examples
Write an op-ed or LTE in your local paper urging the quick and safe evacuation of Afghan refugees and advocating for policies to support their resettlement in your state
I recently talked with @thisisinsider about my family’s experience as boat refugees from Vietnam.
Knowing the desperation that makes you flee your home is why I’m pushing for us to do everything we can to protect Afghans who face persecution by the Taliban. https://t.co/ervfI2kOs8
California has long been a beacon for international refugees seeking safety. But adjusting to a new culture can be an incredible challenge. With this modest investment, we can help ensure Afghan refugees have the tools they need to rebuild their lives.https://t.co/fpGuIuywEd
Q&A: What is Redistricting and How Will It Affect NC?
This Q&A is excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone townhall featuring North Carolina State Reps. Terry M. Brown Jr. and Brian Turner.Answers have been edited for length and clarity.
What is redistricting?
State Rep. Terry Brown Jr.: Redistricting is the process states use to draw the maps that determine which district you live in.
As per our Constitution, district lines are redrawn every 10 years based on new census data. And North Carolina is in the redistricting process right now.
Why is redistricting important?
State Rep. Terry Brown Jr.: Redistricting is important because you want representatives in the North Carolina General Assembly or up in DC to reflect the community that you live in. With the new census numbers, we're also getting another congressional seat. So that's going to be a huge change for us.
We want to make sure that we redraw districts in the fairest way possible, and the only way to do that is by showing how many people in North Carolina care about this.
So I encourage everyone to make sure that you, your friends, and your family are engaged in this process. Go to ncleg.gov; there's a tab called "Redistricting" on the right-hand side where you can leave public comments.
Every single member of the House and Senate gets those [public comments]. They may not always respond, but they always see them. And I've been in committee meetings where members pause the process just because they've received so many emails. There's power in that.
How would you like to see North Carolina expand access to voting?
State Rep. Brian Turner: The best thing we can do is get rid of the voter ID requirement. But if it withstands the court challenge, and we have to live with it, I'd want to see the broadest number of IDs eligible to be used, like college student IDs or utility bills. I think it goes a long way to making sure that people have access to the ballot.
State Rep. Terry Brown Jr.: I'd like to see North Carolina continue practices that we had during the pandemic, like when we allowed voter registration through the North Carolina DMV system online. It's important to meet people where they are.
I also want to see expanded early voting locations and hours. The reasons I hear most from people who don't vote is that they didn't have time, didn't know where polling places were located or weren't aware of the elections.
Some politicians in states like Georgia want to create barriers to voting. Are you concerned that some of those threats will come back to North Carolina?
State Rep. Terry Brown Jr.: The threat is always going to be there. If one state is doing something, several other states are not too far behind. We have had some very bad bills introduced here in North Carolina, but luckily, not to the same extent as we've seen in Georgia.
That's why this redistricting process is so important. The maps will determine the future of our state and what type of policies are introduced for the next ten years.
Submit a Public Comment at NC.gov
Submit a public comment about the ongoing redistricting process in North Carolina.
Mary Lou from Charlotte believes that voter ID is a good thing. Can share how voter ID laws affect voter access in North Carolina?
State Rep. Brian Turner: During my first election in 2014, I was working the polls out in Leicester, a rural area in Buncombe County. And many of the voters only came to town once or twice a year and didn't have a driver's license. They're like my grandma, who was born in Flag Pond, Tennessee, on a farm.
These are folks who don't have access to IDs because they don't need them in their day-to-day lives. And just because you don't participate in our economy the way others do, it shouldn't disqualify you from having your voice heard. Your vote counts just as much as anybody else.
Sometimes we have to revisit some of the assumptions in our lives. I've been used to having an ID my whole life. But there are plenty of folks out there who have never had one. I think we need to be sensitive and recognize that.
What does the right to vote mean to you?
On November 3rd 1992, the day after my 18th birthday, I walked down to my local polling place. I was first in line, I was so excited to vote, to have a chance to decide who was going to be our president, our senator, our county commissioner. It really empowered me.
And that's something that I want to make sure that everybody in North Carolina has the opportunity to do. I want to make sure that when they walk into a polling place, that they're not being asked six different questions, all with the intent of keeping them from casting their ballot. That is something that I'm going to fight for as long as I'm in the General Assembly.
There's nothing more basic to our democracy than being able to vote, and it's being threatened. But it will not be undone. Because you've got folks like me, like Rep. Brown, and a bunch of others in Raleigh, who are fighting to make sure that it is preserved.
Connect with your elected leaders
(If you don't know who your state legislators are, look them up using our tool!)
Terry M. Brown Jr.
NC State Representative
Brian Turner
nc State Representative
What We're Reading & Watching: Back-to-School Edition
As summer winds down and students of all ages prepare for a new school year, we've created our very own back-to-school "curriculum." Here are SiX staffers recommendations for what to read or watch this fall.
The framework of rest as a right really resonates with me and serves as a powerful reminder of the central role rest plays in our collective liberation.
Neha Patel, Co-Executive DirectorRecommendation: The Nap Ministry
I see myself as a documentary aficionado so I chose to share quite a few documentaries that range in topic but also have good takeaways that anyone can learn from. The more we learn...the more we grow.
Lauren Bealore, Democracy DirectorRecommendation: Various documentaries
I think we should enjoy the lives that we are fighting for. For most of my life, I believed that rest was a reward (always to come later), and this led to harmful patterns of exhaustion, burnout and showing up without the energy needed to take on the big challenges I faced as a leader.
I am making a shift to the idea that rest is right, and restful leaders are powerful leaders. This article gives me language and daily tools to build rest into my leadership practice - in big and small ways.
Ted Lasso is a brilliant, funny, and heartwarming story of transformative leadership through grounded empathy and optimism. In a field that requires team building as much as politics does, you may be surprised how much you learn from Coach Lasso about connecting and building genuine relationships instead of transactional ones.
Xandre Chateaubriand, Washington State DirectorRecommendation: Ted Lasso
This collection is the perfect summer read because you can dip into one stand alone article at a time, or sink into meaty sections of work like birth justice, family matters, or naked power.
Redistricting reforms will be considered by state legislators across the country in several states in the Fall of 2021, including Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina. Unfair redistricting practices such as gerrymandering exacerbate disparities in public health outcomes, while fair and equitable redistricting has the potential to help communities better address inequities in public health, including reproductive and maternal health and wellbeing.
Fair, transparent, and accountable redistricting led by independent commissions ensures more equitable representation in state legislatures and increases the likelihood that public health concerns (physical, environmental, and social) are addressed with policy solutions.
This is particularly important for communities of color, who, due to systemic and structural racism, experience greater disparities in public health outcomes (including mental and physical health during and after pregnancy) than white communities.
Legislatures created with gerrymandered maps allow legislators to pass policy that the majority of their constituents do not support- including policies that can cause significant public health harm such as restrictions on abortion care and contraceptive access.
Gerrymandering keeps conservative politicians in power and hinders the ability of states to expand Medicaid. Communities of color are underrepresented in state legislatures (and Congress) due to gerrymandering and deliberate voter suppression. Medicaid expansion is associated with improvements in health outcomes, mortality rates, lower rates of housing evictions, lower rates of medical debt, and higher rates of financial wellbeing.
Prison gerrymandering—the counting of incarcerated individuals in the county where they are imprisoned rather than their home communities—impacts representation, power building, and community funding, and disportionately affects communities of color who are incarcerated at higher rates due to the discriminatory judicial system. For example, the Wisconsin legislature's refusal to switch to vote by mail in the midst of the 2020 COVID pandemic resulted in long, crowded, lines and increased risk of voter exposure to infection.
The COVID-19 pandemic has delayed the 2020 census...which has delayed the redistricting cycle.
Delaying the map-drawing process could mean that new maps are not ready before legislative elections in some states, such as Virginia. Delayed maps may force other states, such as Texas, to address redistricting during special sessions. Special sessions have less oversight and increase the risk of unfair maps being drawn.
Learn more about what your state legislators are doing to protect our voting rights by joining a Telephone Town Hall on Monday August 16th, at 5:30 pm EDT. By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with your representatives and local experts, learn about how they are fighting for your voting rights in North Carolina, ask questions, and discuss what we can do to protect our democracy.
Special Guests
Brian Turner
State Representative
Terry M. Brown
State Representative
Register
Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.
How do I attend the telephone town hall? We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.
Will I get to ask a question? Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.
What if I miss the call? If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.
Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators? Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.
Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online? Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.
What if I can't be on for the whole time? We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.
Use #RecessCanWait in your posts! @StateInnovation and @SiXAction will be monitoring the hashtag and sharing your posts.
Tip: Click to tweet or save these tweets in your drafts on Twitter. You can also copy and paste the text into your social media or notetaking app.
Tweets
Messaging Guidance
The messaging guidance below is from DFAD, Opportunity Agenda, and Fight Back Table.
Extremist state legislators around the country are passing laws to deny our freedom to vote. The Senate must act quickly to pass national voting standards that ensure all voters can safely and freely cast their ballots, regardless of where we live or what we look like.
Describe the goal using phrases like “freedom to vote,” “cast our ballots equally,” or “national standards for voting access.”
Describe attacks on voting using phrases like “barriers to voting,” “denying our freedom to vote,” and “anti-voter bills.” Avoid using “voter suppression,” because many people don’t understand it, or conflate it with concepts of “fraudulent” votes.
Avoid abstractions like “democracy,” “voting rights,” and “election integrity.”
Connect voting to specific issues or tangible outcomes. (e.g. Voting is how we have a voice in the healthcare we have access to, the education our kids can receive, etc.)
Technical Guidance
Use camel case format in your hashtags to increase readability and accessibility (e.g. use #RecessCanWait instead of #recesscanwait)
Don't overuse hashtags and mentions because they can clutter your tweet, making it harder to readand less likely that other folks will want to share it.
See our digital tips guidefor tips on taking high-quality photos with your smartphone.
Other Social Media Prompts
Have more time? Brainstorm ways to personalize your social media posts during the week of action.
Contextualize the voting rights battles in your state:
What hurdles have the constituents in your state had to overcome to cast a ballot? (Or what obstacles would they have had to overcome if the anti-voter bills weren’t defeated?)
Share an anecdote from the last election day in your state.
Make the impact of anti-voter bills visceral for people who haven’t experienced them first-hand. What does the impact of the anti-voter bills look like? Feel like? What would it mean for your community to have the freedom to vote?
Call upon the history of resistance that has gotten us this far, and why we’re not willing to give up now. We've collected some historical voting photos for to you to use, including images from voting demonstrations at the Capitol in 1965. Download the photos below or from this Google Drive folder.
Woman at the door of a voting booth during the first election where women could vote, New York City, 1918
Marchers with signs at the March on Washington, 1963
Voting in Cardoza High School in D.C., 1964
Marchers facing a line of state troopers in Selma moments before police beat the protestors on March 7, 1965
Police carry out a civil rights demonstrator from the U.S. Capitol after protesters staged a sit-in demanding action on voting rights, 1965
Voter registration drive at Chicago Black Expo, 1973
Registering to vote at city hall in Tallahassee, Florida, 1957
Digital Tips: Smartphone Photography
As state legislators, you juggle many hats, and sometimes have to be your own photographer.
These five tips will help you capture high-resolution photos using your smartphone:
Smartphone Photography Tips
1) Avoid zooming; instead, move closer to the subject. Most smartphones have a "digital zoom" that enlarges the image artificially, which decreases the resolution. The more you zoom in, the more resolution you lose. So when it's safe to step closer, move towards your subject rather than pressing zoom.
Example: The photo on the left was taken approximately 40 feet away, using the iPhone 7's digital zoom. The photo on the right was taken from about 5 feet away, using no zoom. Notice the difference in photo quality.
2) Stabilize your shot with a tripod or by simply leaning up against a wall.
3) Hold down the shutterbutton until the photo is complete. If you move your finger away too quickly, the image may be blurry. On an iPhone, you can reduce motion by using the volume controls instead of the shutter button.
4) Find the best lit setting for the photo. Most smartphones can take pictures in low-light conditions, but the photo's quality will suffer as a result. Where possible, use a window or the sun as your primary light source. Generally, you should not shoot facing the main light source. (That's why sunset pics are so hard to nail!) Instead, position the light source behind the person shooting the picture.
5) Finally, don't text that photo! Ever wondered why pictures you receive via text message look grainy? The likely culprit isn't the phone itself but the method used to send the photo. Most text messaging apps highly compress images sent via cellular networks. (The same issue holds for videos.)
Instead of texting, save the photo to Google Drive, Dropbox, SendAnywhere, or your preferred file storage or photo app, and then share the link with others. You can also use AirDrop or e-mail, but be careful: some e-mail programs also significantly compress images.
With all that being said, rules are meant to be broken. Sometimes, the best photos are unintentional or gloriously blurry. But when you're taking a professional picture for use in press, print, or the web, be sure to reference the recommendations above.
8 Bold Laws State Legislators Passed This Year
Every legislative session brings its share of twists, turns, and unique hurdles. But 2021 greeted state legislators with an exceptionally challenging session marked by a worsening pandemic and sluggish economy. Despite unprecedented barriers and growing community needs, state lawmakers delivered victories for working people, and even passed laws that seemed unimaginable a few short years ago.
Here are eight of the boldest progressive laws state legislators passed this legislative session.
Virginia passes its own Voting Rights Act
For nearly fifty years, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 acted as a guardrail, steering states away from Jim Crow policies and closer to realizing the principle of "one person, one vote." But in 2013, the Supreme Court gutted a vital part of the law, clearing the way for states with a history of voter suppression to change laws without federal approval. The ruling opened the floodgates to a sea of polling place closures, voter ID laws, and other anti-voter regulations that continue to this day.
As voting rights advocates work to formalize and reinstate voter protections at the federal level, Virginia legislators stepped up to adopt a voting rights act for their state. The first-of-its-kind, the Voting Rights Act of Virginia requires pre-approval before election changes and expressly outlaws racial voter discrimination.
Primary election voters arrive passing “Photo ID Required sign” on the way to polling place in Arlington, Virginia. (Photo: Rob Crandall / Shutterstock)
Maine requires a racial impact analysis of new laws
More Americans than ever realize that even seemingly "race-neutral" laws and customs can disproportionately impact people of color. Maine is one of many states to embrace our national reckoning with race and use it as an opportunity to pass anti-racist progressive policy.
Shortly after becoming the first Black woman to serve a leadership role in Maine's legislature, Assistant House Majority Leader Rachel Talbot Ross sponsored a first-of-its-kind racial impact assessment law. Just as many legislatures evaluate bills for fiscal impact, the new law requires state lawmakers to analyze all proposed bills for impacts on marginalized communities. The law, which will be piloted in the 2022 legislative session, helps make racial equity a central component of the legislative process rather than an afterthought.
Colorado creates a “bill of rights” for farmworkers
One of the biggest triumphs of Colorado's historic legislative session is the "Farmworkers’ Bill of Rights," a law that will overhaul protections for Colorado farm laborers. Because agriculture workers have historically been excluded from many rights that other working people enjoy, they experience disproportionate levels of poverty and fatal work injuries.
California, New York, and Washington have made significant strides to protect farm laborers, but no state has enacted a policy as comprehensive as Colorado's new law. The Farmworkers’ Bill of Rights will require that farmworkers be paid the state minimum wage—$12.32 per hour—rather than the federal rate of $7.25. The legislation will also ensure that Colorado's nearly 40,000 farmworkers receive overtime pay, have the right to organize, and can take meal breaks and rest periods.
California farm laborers harvest strawberries. (Photo: Tim Mossholder/Unsplash)
Nevada waives college tuition for Native American residents
A recent law will waive tuition and fees at Nevada's two-year and four-year state colleges for enrolled members of any of the state's 27 tribes. The legislation also grants in-state tuition to members of federally recognized tribes outside of Nevada.
Though the tuition waiver cannot undo the harms inflicted upon indigenous Nevadans, it is an important step in the state's long-overdue process of repairing generations of state-sponsored violence.
Maryland leads the way on police reform
In 1974, Maryland became the first state in the nation to enact a "bill of rights" for police officers. This year, Maryland made history again, but this time for becoming the first state in the nation to overturn its Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights.
Demonstrators raise their fists during a Black Lives Matter protest on Veteran Plaza in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland (Joao Kermadec / Shutterstock)
New Mexico protects abortion rights
In a year when state legislatures considered over 550 bills to restrict abortion, New Mexico legislators bucked the trend by repealing an outdated abortion statute. The 1969 law was not being enforced, but it left New Mexicans vulnerable to a rollback in reproductive rights if the Supreme Court overturned its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade.
The move underscores the importance of proactively defending the right to abortion care, regardless of what cases are on the Supreme Court's docket.
Washington State makes the wealthy pay their fair share
Washington's new capital gains tax is a monumental victory for working people. For decades, Washington’s upside-down tax code favored the wealthy at the expense of the lowest earners in the state: a 2018 report found that Washington's regressive tax system was the least equitable in the entire country. Beginning in 2022, a new capital gains tax will begin rebalancing the tax code in a way that benefits all Washingtonians.
The legislation will generate an estimated $445 million each year by imposing a 7% tax on profits exceeding $250,000 from the sale of stocks and other investments. Washington will funnel the newly generated funds into the state's struggling public schools.
A father plays on the slide with his daughter at a public city park in Tacoma, Washington. (iStock)
Illinois abolishes cash bail
Activists and researchers have long known that the system of cash bail is inherently biased against low-income defendants. When faced with costly bail or an indefinite stay in one of our nation's inhumane jails, many Americans without means are coerced into a plea bargain, regardless of guilt.
Though several states have reformed cash bail, efforts to pass an outright ban have fallen short—until this year. In February, Illinois became the first state in the country to abolish the use of money bail. The landmark new law, championed by the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus and organizations like End Money Bond, passed alongside a sweeping criminal justice reform package.
Fighting Back Against Anti-Trans Legislation
Anti-transgender lawmakers set records this year with their harmful and hateful legislations: thirty-three states introduced more than 100 anti-transgender rights bills across the country.
SiX convened a panel with Colorado Rep. Brianna Titone, Dominique Morgan (Black & Pink), and Corinne Green (Equality Federation) to discuss how state legislators can fight differently and fight better against anti-trans legislation.
Q&A: Fight Better Against Anti-Trans Bills
Can you give us an overview of what's been going on across the country?
Corinne Green: The largest attacks have come in the form of medical care bans and athlete bans. As broader attacks on the LGBT community start to find less purchase in statehouses around the country, we've seen our opponents hone in on trans youth—the most vulnerable segment of our population. They've found that taking advantage of people's lack of education around trans people, and their wiring to care about children has worked really well.
The number of anti-trans bills is double what we saw just five years ago. These bills are designed to ban transgender kids—specifically transgender women—from participating in school sports, and then also make it very difficult for transgender children to access gender-affirming care.
Unfortunately, these aren't the only kinds of bills we're seeing. There are still efforts to prevent trans people from using the correct restrooms. One of the most egregious bills we saw this session is the Tennessee bill requiring a specific warning sign be placed outside any bathroom that a trans person is allowed to use; it's supposed to be 6x8", use scary red lettering, etc.
We've also seen:
attempts to increase penalties for trans people who are perceived to be in the wrong restroom
limits on people's ability to update their identity documents
limits around including trans healthcare in insurance plans in various states
targeted attacks to exclude trans women from women's shelters when they're on the streets and need a place to stay
So while the moneymakers for our opposition tend to be the athlete bans and the medical care bans, it's still a broad attack.
We're also finding that they're rolling our issues into the intersectional issues that our community has always dealt with. Bills that attempt to limit teaching around racism in America often also have a component limiting teaching around gender identity and sexual identity. And so there's abroad pushback that we need to respond to as a coalition of marginalized people.
Corinne Green is the policy and legislative strategist at Equality Federation. In this role, she tracks all LGBTQ related legislation across the country and provides policy analysis and support to Equality Federation members. Corinne is a harm reduction and queer rights activist from New Orleans, Louisiana. Prior to joining the Equality Federation, she worked for Transgender Law Center, where she oversaw the passage and implementation of California’s Gender Recognition Act, the country's largest expansion of access to non-binary gender markers, and created the Protect Trans Health campaign to defend gender identity protections and the Affordable Care Act.
What tools have you used to combat anti-trans legislation? And what else might you need to be helpful on the ground?
Anti-trans legislation happens all the time. And sometimes, it's not blatant. Sometimes it is hidden.
So, when I was debating bills on the floor, one of the bills said "pregnant people" right in the title. And one of my colleagues came up and said, "We're going to change that to biological women." I heard that and I was like, "Oh, no, no, no, they did not just do that." And I walked down to the well to defend trans people because they were trying to erase us.
So I told them, "You need to understand that biological women are not the only people who can get pregnant. Trans men can also get pregnant, people with uteruses can get pregnant." And I said, "We're not erasing trans people today."
I really put myself out there for my colleagues to understand who I am. And why what they do or say is hurtful to me. And I have to defend myself often.
Not every legislature has a trans person or non-binary person there. So you know, we're relying on allies to stand up for us. And that's really important when we can't be there to defend ourselves in person.
When it comes to legislation in general, especially in committees, I've found that personal stories are important. It's super important to communicate that we're people and we're your constituents.
Representative Brianna Titone was elected in 2018 as the first openly transgender legislator in the Colorado General Assembly. She serves as the Vice Chair of the Joint Technology Committee and serves on the Health and Insurance Committee and Energy and Environment committees. Additionally, she serves as the chair of the House Democrats LGBTQ caucus and is dedicated to eliminating gaps in consumer protections, health care and LGBTQ rights in Colorado.
Many national trans rights organizations are white-led. As a black trans woman leading the largest prison abolitionist organization in the country, how do you hold the importance of visibility in this moment?
Dominique Morgan: I've driven three hours to be heard for two minutes. I've tried to show the world the deepest, darkest parts of how I've been harmed, [all] to sit in front of three or four legislators in Nebraska who acted like I was reading them my grocery list.
I don't want us to keep pushing people to be exposed and go through trauma to prove that they should be treated as human beings. And I don't think [political] positions are the be-all-end-all. But I think it's a step. If you were to look at the queer and trans people in power in our community, you would think that Black and brown trans people don't exist. You would think that our existence is predicated on Pose and sex work. And for many of us, that is our truth. But we also have girls out here who are in tech. There's a spectrum of our experience, right? And I think that's what's really important.
We're talking about amplification; we're talking about a centered experience for trans Black folks. And we're talking about challenging and calling in white, trans and gender non-conforming folks to get comfortable with being de-centered. To be de-centered with love.
Now, I don't know how y'all did in y'all households, but if an elder walks in, did y'all just sit there and look at that elder stand there, or did you get up and give that chair up? You got up and gave them the chair. "Get up, your Auntie need to sit down." "Get up your grandmother's coming in the house." Because you understood what that person went through that day; your body hadn't gone through the same thing. So they needed that seat. I need white folks who are within our queer community to have that sort of grace.
Dominique Morgan is an award-winning artist, activist, and TEDx speaker. As the executive director of Black and Pink, the largest prison abolitionist organization in the United States. She works to dismantle the systems that perpetuate violence on LGBTQ and gender non-conforming people and individuals living with HIV and AIDS, partnering her lived experience of being impacted by mass incarceration, including 18 months in solitary confinement, with a decade of change making artistry, advocacy, and background in public health. She continues to work in spaces of sex education, radical self-care, and transformative youth development with intentions of dismantling the prison industrial complex, and its impact on our communities.
What SCOTUS’s Latest Blow to Voting Rights Means for States
The Supreme Court has dramatically weakened one of the remaining, most vital tools we have to defend and advance multi-racial democracy in America: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
In today’s 6-3 decision, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Court held that two Arizona voting laws that disproportionately disenfranchise Latino, Black, and Native voters do not violate the Voting Rights Act. While the Court did not eviscerate Section 2 wholesale, as many feared, it imposed stricter standards for evaluating future voting rights claims. Moving forward, it will be significantly harder to challenge and overturn racially discriminatory voting laws in federal courts – including the wave of anti-voter bills enacted in 2021.
To help unpack the details of the case, check out pieces from The Guardian, Election Law Blog, Vox, and Slate. You can read the Court’s opinion here, including Justice Kagan’s powerful dissent (starting on p. 45).
Why the Brnovich decision matters for states
Our democracy is at a turning point. In 2021 alone, conservative legislators in nearly every state have introduced over 400 anti-voter bills in a coordinated, national strategy to win elections for the Right. This wave of laws poses an alarming threat to our freedom to vote and intentionally silences the voices of voters of color, young voters, low-income voters, and new Americans. With Republicans in control of 61 of 98 state legislative chambers, there is no end in sight to the assault on our democracy.
The Supreme Court already struck down the Voting Rights Act’s crucial preclearance requirement in Shelby v. Holder (2013), and the For The People Act – which would create national standards for voting – is being blocked by conservatives in Congress. By narrowing the application of Section 2 in Brnovich v. DNC, the court damaged one of the last, most vital tools we have to defend and advance multi-racial democracy in America.
In his majority opinion, Justice Alito endorsed conservative state legislators’ baseless lies and policies on election fraud, noting that a state “may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within its own borders” – even if those laws discriminate against Black and Brown voters. SCOTUS’s nod to a known conservative strategy – invoke fraud to deny our freedom to vote – makes the threat to our democracy even more urgent.
What To Do
State legislatures are the key battlegrounds to protect the freedom to vote. Absent federal legislation, it's crucial that legislators in every state step up. Following the Brnovich decision, legislators can:
Connect directly with your constituents on voting rights (like these legislators in North Carolina and Florida);
Collaborate with your caucuses to advance a cohesive pro-voter and defensive democracy strategy, well in advance of the 2022 legislative season;
Make every effort to engage communities directly in the 2021 redistricting process to ensure political maps are fair and representative (as we discussed in a recent webinar); and,
Advocate for national standards for voting, redistricting, and campaigns proposed in The For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act.
Additional Information on the Case
The Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee decision substantially narrows Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act – one of the last remaining tools Americans have to fight racial discrimination in voting.
In 2016, the Democratic Party challenged two Arizona voting laws as racially discriminatory under Section 2 of the VRA and the 15th Amendment. Section 2 enables voters to dispute policies that disproportionately prevent minority voters from casting ballots and electing representatives of their choice. The two Arizona policies in question barred mail ballot collection by anyone other than a voter’s immediate family, and required election officials to discard all ballots cast by voters in the wrong precinct.
While Section 2 has been primarily used to defend against racial gerrymanders and minority “vote dilution,” this section has become much more important for election policy cases after SCOTUS halted the VRA’s preclearance requirements in Shelby v. Holder (2013). Before Shelby, places with histories of racial discimination in elections had to preclear all voting policy changes with the federal government before going into effect. In fact, Arizona’s ballot collection policy in question in Brnovich was effectively blocked by preclearance in 2011.
In January 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that – in Arizona’s context – ballot collection and out-of-precinct voting restrictions have discriminatory impacts on Native, Latino and Black voters in violation of Section 2. Native Arizona voters who live far away from precincts and mailboxes are much more likely to rely on community ballot collection than White voters. Native, Latino, and Black Arizonans are also much more likely to move residences and to have their precincts relocated than White voters. The Ninth Circuit also found evidence that the ballot collection law was purposefully enacted to target minority voters.
Arizona Republicans petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case, and conservatives nationwide urged the Court to limit the application of Section 2 going forward. Amid an unprecedented wave of racialized, anti-voter laws, Brnovich v. DNC further restricts options for protecting voting rights in America. And it could reshape our democracy for years to come. For additional background on Brnovich, check out resources from The Brennan Center and Harvard Law School.
Why Maryland Needs Paid Family Leave
Nine states and Washington D.C. currently have paid family leave laws on the books, but there is no federal paid family leave policy.
Most Marylanders agree that paid family leave is essential but big business lobbyists are putting up a fight to keep their profits high and benefits for their workers minimal.
In May 2021, advocates and members of the Maryland legislature held a telephone town hall to discuss the issue.
Why do we need a paid family leave policy in Maryland?
Ruth Martin, MomsRising: Last year, my mom was diagnosed with cancer. And I was able to immediately take time off from work to be by her side at the hospital. I live in Silver Spring, Maryland, and my mom is in West Virginia. Though I live the farthest away from her, I was the only one in my family who had paid leave; because of that, I was able to care for her when she needed me the most.
Paid leave is key to our long-term health, stability, and prosperity. It saves jobs, and it can save lives. If we want to build back better from this pandemic, paid leave has got to be part of our care infrastructure.
State Sen. Arthur Ellis: We can develop a workable solution, similar to the pay structure for unemployment insurance, that allows working adults to support themselves and their families during the times of need that happen in all of our lives.
Paid leave is key to our long-term health, stability, and prosperity. It saves jobs, and it can save lives. If we want to build back better from this pandemic, paid leave has got to be part of our care infrastructure.
Del. Edith Patterson: Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, I saw constituents have to decide between work or caring for a sick child. When an ill child has to be sent to school, they may infect other children and teachers.
Some families can afford to take the leave without pay, and others need the money.
Delegate CT Wilson: Nobody's arguing the need, but we must remember that for those 12 weeks that you're not in your position, that business also has to hire someone to fill your place. Coming out of the COVID pandemic, when many small minority businesses are operating at 1% and 2% margins, that's just not tenable.
So again, I don't believe anybody disputes the need for this. The issue is how it's going to be paid for in these trying times. And I've spoken to many businesses; I've not heard any of them say that they want it to be mandatory, and most would rather be state-funded.
What is the Time to Care Act?
Myles Hicks, Time to Care Coalition: The Time to Care Act would establish a family and medical leave program in Maryland. The program would allow employees to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave from their jobs to care for new children, family members with serious health conditions, or themselves.
The program would cost about $7.24 per week, equally split between the employer and employee.
An OpinionWorks poll from December 2020 found that 88% of Maryland voters favor creating a family and medical leave insurance program. Paid family leave will add a new level of economic security that we do not currently have in Maryland. Nine states and Washington D.C. have already passed paid family leave legislation, and we're excited for the opportunity for Maryland.
Why would businesses want to pass this legislation? What are their concerns?
Del. Edith Patterson: It's really important that employees come to work with a clear mind, ready to do the job, and also that they're medically fit. As a mom, I know if you have to leave a sick child, sick parent, or are ill yourself, you're not going to be able to perform 100%.
And in this bill, businesses are not paying 100%—they are splitting contributions with the employee. I think it mustn't be a win for one group, but a win-win for both.
Delegate CT Wilson: My number one concern for this bill is our minority and small businesses. I believe that generational wealth is how a vast majority of my people will escape poverty. And it cannot be done if we don't own our own businesses and ensure that bills like this don't negatively impact African-Americans ability to own business in Maryland, which is already fairly difficult.
We've had one-third of our businesses shutter due to COVID issues. I just met with a group of 20 African-American business owners from Charles County this afternoon, and they were all very fearful of the impact of this bill. An increase of $3.45 per week, per employee would be very difficult for many of them to deal with right now.
I believe in this legislation, and if the state believes in this legislation, they should put their money where their mouth is: instead of forcing businesses to cover the other half of the paid family leave costs, the state should.
State Sen. Ellis: The bill introduced this past session exempted employers with fewer than 15 employees. But they could choose to opt-in if they can.
We are very mindful to look out for small businesses. We understand their struggles; years ago, I was a small business owner, and I've worked with quite a bit of small businesses. So we do take care to make sure we do absolutely nothing legislatively to cause harm to small businesses.
How do other states fund their paid family leave programs?
Ruth Martin: We know that business owners see employees as their most valuable asset, and many small business owners even see their employees as family—so they want to be able to do what they can for them. But competing with larger employers that have the funding to offer lengthy amounts of leave is not on the table for a lot of small businesses.
In some states, only the employees pay a small amount per paycheck into a shared contribution pool, which helps fund the program.
In other states, it is a shared contribution between employer and employee.
Some states like Washington state have also baked in additional incentives to make it easier for small businesses to get up and running with their paid leave programs.
Many businesses in states with paid family leave have found it incredibly useful because the financial burden is no longer solely on an employer. So it levels the playing field in many ways by taking some pressure off smaller businesses and allowing them to compete with businesses with more resources.
What is the difference between paid family leave and sick days?
Ruth Martin: So paid sick days—which is a law that Maryland has, thank you very much, Maryland—is what you would use if you have a minor illness or doctor's appointment. So it's for the short term.
Paid family medical leave is for longer-term use when you're going to need more than a couple of days away from work: like when a new baby has arrived in your family, or you're recovering from surgery.
Paid leave can also be used intermittently for yourself or a loved one. For example, if you have cancer or have to help a loved one get to cancer treatments, you may need a day or two every couple of weeks. So the difference is really about the length of time.
This Q&A was excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone town hall that took place on May 18, 2021. Answers have been edited for length and clarity.
88% of Maryland voters favor creating a family and medical leave insurance program.
What Marylanders Are Saying
The quotes below are from participants who phoned into the town hall meeting.
"I work in D.C., but I'm a Maryland resident and have been for over 40 years. I'm at home now on FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) because my 24-year-old son had COVID and came out of the hospital grossly debilitated. So I had to take FMLA to take care of him.
Fortunately, I have been working for a long time, and I have financial resources available to sustain me and utilized some of the COVID relief options. Had it not been for [that], this would have been a very financially traumatic experience for my family. And it was already emotionally traumatic."
Town Hall Participant
"I understand that we expect people to be fiscally responsible and save. However, I also believe that an employee is giving his or her time and energy so that the company can be prosperous and realize its goals.
And while that employee makes that investment in that company, I'd like to think that employers would demonstrate that they value the worth of their employees by being willing to invest in that employee in their moment of need, with family paid time. In other words, a mutually beneficial employer-employee relationship, where each gives their best for the well-being of the other."
Town Hall Participant
Sign Up For Updates
Fill out the form below to receive e-mail updates about the next State Innovation Exchange Town Hall with Maryland state legislators.
[newsletter_form lists="2"]
Legislator Spotlight: State Senator Kesha Ram
This interview originally appeared on The Brown Girls Guide to Politics in a series spotlighting women of color state legislators who navigated the unprecedented influx of racist, anti-democratic, anti-abortion, and anti-transgender legislation introduced in 2021.
What made you fall in love with politics?
Politics shaped my family's journey and where they landed when I came into the world. My father's family fled the partition of India when it became Pakistan. My mother’s family fled the transition of Eastern Europe and the persecution of the Jews. And so, these global political upheavals shaped where their families ended up, and what that meant for their life and potential, and allowed me to access the American Dream.
When I was a child, I became more keenly aware of the ways that economic policy shaped their potential and opportunities. My mother is a Jewish woman, my father is an Indian immigrant. And when they found resources to open an Irish pub in Los Angeles, it came from the Women's Bank of Los Angeles, because there was a policy commitment to women's financial access to capital. When I was younger, and my parents got divorced, being on the free lunch program, I could take the SATs for free and access college. So I became aware over time that good policies were really important things that made my life, and my potential, able to be realized.
State Senator Ram in front of Vermont state legislature in January 2021 (Photo: Facebook)
And then, when I was a sophomore in college, Bernie Sanders was running for the US Senate for the first time and wanted to have a huge event on campus to encourage young people to vote and kick off his campaign. At the time, he couldn’t draw thousands of people as he can now, so he invited this rockstar—a senator from Illinois, Barack Obama—to come to join him on stage. And the event drew in 7,000 people, which is more than 1% of Vermont’s population. And they said, you know, we don't have any women on stage. My friend was the campus organizer for Bernie and he was like, “I know just the person. She's really not afraid to speak up.” And so I introduced Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders as a sophomore, and Barack Obama in his speech said, “You know what, Bernie, if you don't behave yourself, we're gonna run Kesha for the Senate instead of you.” And it was the first time anyone encouraged me to run for office. All of a sudden, with a father from India and a mother from Illinois, I saw someone who had a father from Kenya, and a mother from Kansas, who had a story like mine, and I thought, “Oh, I'm not that complicated. I'm not too complicated to be in the political arena.” And it really changed everything for me.
It was women who gave me that real sense that it was possible. It's easier for men, even Barack Obama, who I love, to tell me, "You should run for office, go for it," but I had a lot of women in my life who said, "These are the roadblocks you're going to hit and we're here to help you get over them."
Was this the moment you decided to run for office?
There was more to it. I went to Washington, DC, worked for Dianne Feinstein for a summer, came back to school, and ran for student body president. And all of a sudden, I was on people's radar, because when you're University of Vermont student body president, you often represent more people than a state legislator does in Vermont.
My friend, Rachel Weston, who had been the Graduate Student Senate President, had become a legislator at 26 and she kept encouraging me to run. She explained the mechanics of it to me and she had been mentored by Governor Madeleine Kunin.
It was women who gave me that real sense that it was possible. It's easier for men, even Barack Obama, who I love, to tell me, “You should run for office, go for it,” but I had a lot of women in my life who said, “These are the roadblocks you're going to hit and we're here to help you get over them.”
A record number of statehouses passed laws attacking abortion, democracy, and LGBTQ+ rights this year—but Vermont was an outlier. What piece of legislation are you most proud of passing?
One of the things that I'm most proud of is banning the suspension and expulsion of small children from school. I had introduced similar legislation in 2014, that banned expulsion of children under eight and I was almost laughed out of the building. The unions wouldn't support it and everyone was saying this is pretty much impossible to change.
But this year, when introducing a ban on expulsion for young children, I had legislative colleagues who said, “Let's add suspension. Why are we suspending six- and seven-year-olds?” So what happened between 2014 and now? I haven't changed what I fight for. I'm doing the same things I was then, but I was a troublemaker and kind of an outlier. And now there are coalitions built around the state. There's a racial reckoning happening in the country. And all I say to people is I haven't changed, the culture of accountability has changed, and we can't let it change back.
— Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (@KeshaRam) May 15, 2021
Tell us about banning the "LGBTQ+ Panic Defense" in Vermont.
One of my closest friends and someone who inspires me every day in the legislature is Rep. Taylor Small, who is the first openly trans woman to serve in the legislature. I want to give her full credit for working with other members of the House to introduce and advance this legislation.
Vermont is a very LGBTQ-friendly state as compared to most other states, but Taylor faces dangers here. When we would do “honk and waves” together, that was the only time I felt unsafe—and I’m the first woman of color in the State Senate! When I was with Taylor, we would have things shouted at us. I thought people were going to throw things out the window, people would circle back around to yell. So as a trans woman, Taylor faced danger to run for office and continues to face people talking about very intimate parts of her life publicly, and they feel licensed to do that because she is an openly trans woman who is not afraid to have a legislative battle.
The Senate Judiciary Committee almost didn’t hear from Taylor and it felt really important that, before they make a decision or propose any amendments to the bill, they needed to talk to the one legislator in our statehouse who has the lived experience to be personally affected by this legislation. I know how common sense that feels as a person of color and how often that doesn’t happen.
Vermont is also leading on reproductive freedom by advancing Proposition 5, a proposed state constitutional amendment that would guarantee reproductive liberty.
I think it's just as important that we passed an apology for the eugenics movement this year. We apologized for the state's role in the forced sterilization of many Vermonters— mostly women—in a movement that was intellectually led in Vermont.
And those are two sides of the same coin. If you are going to be able to access your full range of reproductive freedoms and liberties, that means access to abortion, it means access to reproductive care to help you bring a healthy child to term, it means childcare, it means maternal health, so it means making any decision that is right for you both emotionally, socially, and economically.
Vermont state legislators Kesha Ram and Taylor Small (Photo: Twitter)
While many state legislatures have seen an uptick in anti-voter bills since the 2020 election, Vermont expandedvoting rights.
This year, we passed S.15, which takes a huge step forward in access to mail-in balloting and convenient voting at home.
One of the other critical steps we took this year is we're starting to allow local municipalities to decide if they want to allow all residents to vote in their elections, like their school board elections and municipal elections, regardless of their citizenship status.
In our capital city and our most multicultural city, about 42% of the kids in the schools come from English-language learning families. And those are families who by and large aren't able to vote in school elections and in local elections that affect their families. They both passed city charters to allow all residents to vote. The Governor vetoed these charters in an unprecedented move and we have an override session where I hope we override his veto. These charters mean just as much to me as the mail-in voting.
I relish being the first woman of color [in the Vermont Senate] only in so much as I have the responsibility now to turn around and make sure there are also Black women, Indigenous women, and trans women in the state Senate as well.
A recent report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures revealed that there are no Black women state legislators in Vermont. How do we help elevate Black women’s voices in state legislatures?
That's a central question in my life.
We just started an organization called the Bright Leadership Institute (BLI) to help BIPOC candidates run for office. It's named after Louvenia Dorsey Bright, the first Black woman and one of two Black women to have served in our legislature. By starting the organization and telling her story, we've got cover page articles about her legacy. Many people didn't even know she existed.
The other Black woman who served in our legislature, Kiah Morris, is still an incredible leader and very involved in politics, and she left the legislature because of racial harassment. And so we're trying to help people understand that it's not just because we're a very white state that Black women are not represented in the Vermont statehouse. They've come to the table, and they've been threatened, harassed, rejected, made to feel less than, and they have taken themselves out of the arena after they've lost a battle to be seen and heard by the communities that they need help and safety from.
I've tried to help white Vermonters understand that saying, “We just need to recruit Black women here,” doesn't mean we've done the work to retain them. Vermont doesn't have a recruitment problem, it has a retention problem. We have had waves of Black communities come to settle here: we've had Buffalo Soldiers, we've had fugitive slaves, we've had waves of Black folks try to make a home here and feel the ever-present racism of “You're not doing it the way we do things here. This is the way Vermont does things.” And that's become shorthand for, “You're not white enough, you don't fit into our culture.” And so we have a lack of diversity not because Black people haven't tried to live here, but because they haven't been able to be part of shaping their communities.
The other thing BLI is focusing on is tapping into these innate skills that already exist in communities of color, particularly among Black women. Black women have organized every important movement in this country. Black women have the skills, the power, and sometimes they just haven't used it in a political campaign way. When you do use it, people realize how powerful you are, and they will challenge you and you need an army of people behind you to back you up when that happens. So often, Black women are left on their own when the really small vocal minority of racist people get really loud, and they're left without support. We need to stop that because that can feel really lonely.
I have my sights set on Black women to join me in the state senate. I relish being the first woman of color, only in so much as I have the responsibility now to turn around and make sure there are also Black women, Indigenous women, and trans women in the state Senate as well.
Q&A: Childcare in Michigan
This Q&A is excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone townhall featuring Michigan Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist, State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, and Eboni Taylor, Michigan Executive Director of Mothering Justice.
Answers have been edited for length and clarity.
Childcare access has been a concern for years. What is different now that can finally help parents tackle the problem?
Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist: You are absolutely right. For too many years, in Michigan and the rest of the country, we've been content with saying that paying for childcare is a parent's responsibility. And we've only made modest investments to help low-income families afford childcare.
Expand access to childcare to an additional 150,000 families at low, and in many cases, zero cost
Compensate child care professionals more fairly and equitably
Incentivize the creation of childcare businesses in childcare deserts
We've also recently received $1.1 billion to invest in childcare, and we're going to be sharing an even bigger and bolder plan to invest those funds wisely. And I'm optimistic that we're going to find a way to get this done on a bipartisan basis.
Lt. Governor Gilchrist with his wife and two children
Senator Mallory McMorrow: I've been speaking very candidly about my experience becoming a mother, going through postpartum depression, and why taking a 12-week leave was so important to me, even though it's not something that legislators technically qualify for.
I was walking down the street in my neighborhood, and a woman stopped me to say she really appreciated me being vulnerable in that way. And then she asked me, "Can you do childcare next?" She said that as a working mother of two young kids, she was effectively using her entire salary to cover their childcare. But she kept working because she needed the health care associated with her job.
So, in the same way that we invest in public education and guarantee that every child has a right to an education, every child should have the right to quality childcare.
We have such a huge opportunity to radically change how we invest and prioritize childcare in this state, which can completely change our economy moving forward.
Currently, I am caring for my adult, disabled brother and am unable to work. What are we doing to increase access to adult care facilities so that people like me can get back to work?
Senator Mallory McMorrow: I feel this, so personally. My husband and I have a fourth-month-old daughter, and my husband also has an older brother who has Down Syndrome and currently lives with his mother-in-law, who's now in her 80s. So many families are part of this "sandwich generation," where you're taking care of either a sibling or a parent, and your kids as well. Part of the solution to these issues is to invest in in-home care providers across the board because caretaking looks very different for many people.
This way, we can enable people to continue their retirement or continue working rather than having to put their entire life on hold to care for family members.
State Senator Mallory McMorrow
I am a grandmother, and my daughter is a single parent. She works midnight shifts, so I have to take care of my granddaughter throughout the night and morning. Is there some type of system where I'm considered a caregiver and paid as such?
Senator Mallory McMorrow: I'm not aware of any programs right now that allow for compensation in a situation like yours, but I think that is something we should absolutely look into because there are so many people who are in multi-generational care situations, caring for grandkids, parents, and other family members.
In other areas of law right now, you can get paid as an in-home caregiver. For example, if your loved one or your family member gets in a catastrophic accident and you're their part-time caregiver, you can be reimbursed.
Eboni Taylor: You are what we at Mothering Justice call an "other mother," which is the term that we use to describe people in the informal childcare space.
We are working diligently to think about "other mothers" all the time. We have an entire strategy dedicated to clearing a better pathway for people like you to become a licensed care providers, such as waiving certain fees and increasing pay for license-exempt child care providers.
Connect with your elected leaders
(If you don't know who your state legislators are, look them up using our tool!)
Garlin Gilchrist
Lieutenant Governor
Mallory McMorrow
michigan State senator
Digital Tips: Using Instagram Highlights
This resource is adapted from our Digital Tips e-mail series. To sign up to receive these resources in your inbox regularly, join our network.
Did you know you can see how many people visit your Instagram profile each month? Every visitor may not opt to follow your Instagram, but each visit is a valuable chance to introduce yourself to constituents and shed light on your current priorities.
Instagram Stories Highlights are an easy way to ensure new visitors can easily find updates about you and your work. You can use Instagram Stories Highlights to highlight legislative updates, break down important issues, and share your personal story.
Below, find three steps to create a quick Instagram Highlight. I did all of the following steps on my iPhone 7 in a few minutes.
Creating a quick Instagram Highlight
1. Find visuals: Start with an app like Unsplash (also available on desktop) to find free, high-quality photos related to the theme of your Instagram Story.
If the subject matter is difficult or inappropriate to visualize, use a photo of your legislature instead, or search "texture" on Unsplash to find an abstract background.
2. Create the first Story: In the first Story, add a photo and a large title to introduce the topic.
3. Add details in consecutive Stories: You can use the same background photo or a different one in the next set of stories. Break up your explanatory text across multiple stories, so the information is not overwhelming. And always provide context: keep in mind that visitors to your profile may be entirely new to the issue you're discussing or even to how a state legislature works.
4. Create the Highlight: After posting your Story, you can easily create an Instagram Highlight. Then, give the Highlight a short title and "cover." or thumbnail.
After posting your Instagram Story, you can add it to your Instagram Highlights
Free Downloads
Here's a little help to get started: download one of SiX's Instagram Stories templates and use our collection of icon thumbnails to make your highlights easy to identify. You can also screenshot all of these resources in SiX's Instagram Highlights!
This primer is part of a series on anti-racist state budgets. To understand the concept of creating anti-racist state budgets, it is important to understand the difference between racist and anti-racist ideas and policies. The following excerpts are from How to Be an Antiracist (2019) by Ibram X. Kendi:
Racist vs. Anti-racist Ideas
A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way. Racist ideas argue that the inferiorities and superiorities of racial groups explain racial inequities in society. . . . An antiracist idea is any idea that suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences – that there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group. Antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities.
Racist vs. Anti-racist Policies
A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. . . . There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.
For additional race-equity concepts and definitions, please visit the Racial Equity Tools glossary.
The following primer examines how policymakers have impacted low-income communities and communities of color through racist transportation policies and practices and, drawing from existing research, analyzes how state budgets can guide racial equity outcomes. It also outlines progressive considerations for state legislators to take into account when crafting related anti-racist legislation. We hope that a better understanding of the effects of state budgets on transportation equity will support progressive legislative efforts to create transportation systems that promote public health, sustainability, and equitable opportunity.
History of Racist Transportation Policies
Sculpture of Rosa Parks at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee. (Photo: Gino Santa Maria / Shutterstock)
Our ability to access affordable and reliable transportation is a basic right that many communities have been deprived of as a result of inequitable transportation investments. Low-income communities and communities of color bear the largest burden of our states’ transportation decisions.
Race and transportation have long been intertwined. In 1955, Rosa Parks became the icon of the Montgomery Bus Boycott by refusing to give up her bus seat to a white rider. Her arrest led Montgomery’s Black community to launch a massive boycott, demanding better treatment for Black riders and equitable access to public transit. In the early 1960s, Freedom Riders challenged segregation laws and asserted their rights to ride interstate transportation.
Although the civil rights movement helped increase the accessibility of transportation, the issue of inequity has persisted. Discriminatory practices, such as redlining, have locked communities of color out of certain neighborhoods and left them without many transportation options. Redlining was followed by other detrimental efforts, such asurban renewal—a nationwide program established by the Housing Act of 1949—that provided federal grants to cities for the purposes of rebuilding their downtowns.
Urban renewal allowed cities to raze and rebuild entire areas, clear slums and blighted properties, and develop highways. This program led to the widespread development outside city centers, also known as urban sprawl. Investments in these developments have changed the urban geographical landscape and displaced communities, disproportionately impacting low-income people and people of color. Similar racist policies and practices persisted after the 1960s and continue today, leading to increased traffic congestion and air pollution, ongoing negative health effects (e.g., respiratory illnesses, lung cancer, and impaired lung development), evictions of marginalized groups, dangerous road conditions for biking and walking, and the destruction of thriving neighborhoods.
Current departments of transportation and transit agencies are still operating systems grounded in racism and guided by the inequitable policies of the civil rights era. Not only do current highway projects continuously displace Black and Brown communities across the country, but also transit agencies have designed their routes and systems around the stereotype that there are only two kinds of riders: “captive” and “choice” riders, with this binary design disproportionately disadvantaging marginalized communities.
Choice Riders vs. Captive Riders
“Choice” riders—who are mostly affluent individuals with cars—are not transit dependent but often want fast, reliable, comfortable transportation with great service. “Captive” riders—who are mostly low-income people without cars—are those who rely on transportation services even if they are unhappy with the service. Categorizing transit this way has led policymakers to prioritize transit projects that place greater burden on communities of color.
In some cities, transit agencies have isolated commuter buses and local buses that reach the same destination by creating vastly different bus routes based on the socioeconomic demographics of the neighborhoods. Oftentimes, such separation of transit networks creates more barriers for low-income, mostly Black “captive” riders who cannot afford the higher-quality bus service and must travel longer to get to their destinations. Agencies have also relied on the police to patrol trains and enforce fares, resulting in increased enforcement that disproportionately impacts people of color and criminalizes poverty.
Development of Highways & Displacement of Communities
In 2018, state and local governments collectively spent about $70 billion on public transportation. At the same time, these governments devoted over $232 billion to highways. Greater investment in highways is one of many examples of how transportation policy priorities have led to an underinvestment in sustainable infrastructure within marginalized communities.
Many highway construction projects have also displaced communities by creating changes in the land value of a neighborhood and destroying the units occupied by low-income households and households of color. These projects contribute to a loss of affordable housing and the disintegration of communities, significantly affecting the quality of the neighborhood and its residents. Similar to the ways urban renewal programs destroyed the homes of marginalized communities to resolve urban blight, the prioritization of highway expansion over public transportation projects has inequitable and disproportionate effects on low-income and minority residential neighborhoods.
Accessibility of Public Transit
Financial Accessibility
Since 1995, public transit ridership has increased by 28%. Contributing to this ridership increase, income and wealth disparities have led many people of color to have relatively less access to cars. As a result, people of color are the ones most likely to rely on public transportation as their main form of travel. Especially in urban areas, Black, Latinx, and Asian people take public transit more often than their white counterparts to access public services and get to work and school. However, the restriction of public funds for transit, along with governments’ prioritization of highways, has shifted resources away from alternative transportation options. If and when municipalities rely on fare increases to manage their budget crises, these increases hurt transit-reliant communities and decrease the financial accessibility of buses. Cities and states can mitigate these issues if they make targeted investments in public transit. One study in Boston found that a 50% reduction in transit-pass costs for low-income riders resulted in about 30% more trips and an increase in trips to health care and social services.
Physical Accessibility
Forty-five percent of Americans have no access to public transportation. Some areas, especially sprawling cities, do not support public transportation due to certain land patterns and the separation of homes from places of work and services, creating longer travel distances and a greater dependence on automobiles. Residents in these areas are then forced to rely on cars, which is an expense many cannot afford, leaving them with few good transportation options and compounding the cycle of poverty. Low-income people of color are already less likely to own a car and their lack of car ownership combined with inadequate and inaccessible public transit further exacerbates their circumstances. Even when people are presumed to have access to transit, these individuals often have to navigate dangerous roadways in order to do so. For more information on the impacts of dangerous road infrastructure, see the section below on Road Safety for Civilians.
Note on Ableism
In addition to people of color, the disabled community has historically been excluded from public transportation. Thirty years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), transportation choices for people with disabilities are still limited. From transit stop and station designs that assume passengers will be able-bodied (e.g., lack of shade or stairs to platforms) to lack of compliance with ADA requirements for announced bus stops, there are many important issues to address when improving the accessibility of bus services for all. Lack of transit-oriented development—“walkable, compact, mixed-use, higher-density development within walking distance of a transit facility”—places a burden on those who cannot drive due to a physical disability, visual impairment, or other reasons.
Privatization Risk
Many cities and transit agencies are partnering with ride-hailing companies, such as Uber and Lyft, to make transportation more affordable and connect more riders to transit hubs through a mobile application that could connect users to cars, bikes, scooters, buses, and trains. Some agencies have already replaced routes with low ridership with credits for Uber and Lyft. While such partnerships will help invite more riders to use these ride-hailing applications, these agreements with Uber and Lyft have many technological, financial, and cultural implications for non-native English speakers and people without access to banks, smartphones, and data plans.
Road Safety for Civilians
Walking, bicycling, and public transit need to be not only accessible to but also safe for everyone. Motor vehicle crash data comparing 2010 to 2019 shows that in urban areas, pedestrian fatalities increased by 62% and bicyclist fatalities increased by 49%, and the proportion of total traffic fatalities that were non-occupant (e.g., bicyclists and pedestrians) fatalities jumped from 15% in 2010 to 20% in 2019. Similar to how states are not investing in public transit, states are also allocating only a small portion of their budgets to improve pedestrian infrastructure. People of color and low-income people often use active transportation to get from one place to another, with Hispanic, African American, and Asian American populations experiencing the fastest growth in bicycling. Yet the street conditions are often more dangerous for these individuals in comparison to the walking and bicycling conditions of their white, middle-class counterparts.
People of color are already twice as likely to be killed while walking than other groups. Not only do high-speed, multi-lane avenues and poorly designed streets contribute to traffic-related deaths, but they also affect the abilities of communities, especially those composed of low-income individuals and people of color, to be physically active. These conditions have the potential to shorten lives and impair people’s ability to thrive.
Environmental Effects on Public Health
The transportation sector emits more than half of the nitrogen oxides in our air and accounts for about 28% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Urban and metropolitan areas with traffic congestion typically experience the most significant pollution, which is often traced to inefficient land use patterns, sprawling development, and policies that favor highway development over transit. Long-term exposure to pollutants can lead to lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory illnesses, and impaired lung development and function in children and infants. These issues are further compounded when unsustainable transportation projects invade communities where poor air and water quality is already an issue. Oftentimes, it is low-income neighborhoods and communities of color who face greater environmental and health consequences from the underinvestment in sustainable transportation infrastructure.
Traffic Enforcement and the Role of Police
Instead of investing in equitable transportation projects, 25 states have used portions of their state highway fund dollars to finance highway patrols as of 2017. Dedicating highway fund dollars for state police not only takes away funding for more equitable transit, but also severely affects people’s ability to benefit from the transportation system. Transportation inequities take place in low-income communities and communities of color, which are often over-policed and under-protected in comparison to higher-income, majority-white neighborhoods.
State and local law enforcement compound such inequities by using traffic laws and minor violations as a pretext for stopping and searching drivers, especially people of color. Coupled with racial bias, these stops often escalate and lead to unnecessary use of force or arrests that disproportionately impact Black people and communities of color. In addition, disparate targeting of fare evasion enforcement on transit systems has led to increased police-civilian interaction for harmless infractions and the criminalization of poverty in Black and Brown neighborhoods.
Incorporate inclusive community engagement practices into transportation planning and decision-making processes. Low-income communities and communities of color bear most of the burden of unsustainable transportation outcomes yet have been historically excluded from the decision-making process. Communities should have the power to decide which transportation projects best meet their needs. Thus, state legislators and departments of transportation should sustain avenues for increased public involvement in transportation planning so communities can directly influence transportation priorities, choices, and budget allocations.
Develop a mechanism for prioritizing and evaluating transportation projects based on sustainability, accessibility, and community priorities. Car-centric transportation planning often result in policies that physically, economically, and environmentally harm low-income communities and communities of color. To better serve those most impacted by transportation projects, state legislators should create a prioritization process that integrates equity principles and considers community needs.
Example of prioritizing equity and community needs
Virginia’s legislature unanimously passed 2014 VA HB 2 (Chapter 726), which directed the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to develop and use a prioritization process to select transportation projects and ensure the best use of limited tax dollars. The bill led the CTB to develop SMART SCALE, a data-driven system that scores projects based on an objective, outcome-based process that is transparent to the public. Factor areas include safety, congestion mitigation, environmental quality, economic development, land use, and accessibility. “Accessibility” considers projects that will ensure access to jobs for disadvantaged groups. The results from the screening process are presented to the public, and the CTB takes public comments into account when selecting transportation projects.
Increase funding for public transportation to provide and maintain quality and affordable transit facilities and services, especially for transit-dependent communities. Currently, many states rely on outdated technology, tools, and policies to inform their decisions on which transportation projects to prioritize and fund. For example, some states prioritize highway projects because they have constitutional prohibitions that limit the use of gas tax revenues to highways only. To ensure equitable investments in public transportation, state legislators should reallocate funding toward sustainable modes of infrastructure by modernizing the policies and systems of their departments of transportation.
Infrastructure Funding
When seeking out revenue sources for public transportation, state legislators need to also evaluate the potential implications of these sources for marginalized communities. The funding source, mechanism, and revenue distribution must all center equity. States’ most important source of transportation funding is state gas taxes. There are many states that have waited a decade or longer to increase their gas tax rates. In addition, some states’ taxes have not been adjusted to keep pace with rising transportation construction costs, negatively affecting funding of economically vital infrastructure projects. When boosting funding for public transportation through gas tax reform or other types of taxes (e.g., vehicle miles traveled tax and congestion pricing), state lawmakers must also reduce regressivity and protect low-income communities from bearing the largest financial burden.
Examples and resources of revenue options
Example: Passed in 1935, Colorado’s constitutional amendment required gas tax revenues and vehicle registration fees to be spent on highways and bridges. However, the state had an unclear definition of “highways,” largely excluding local roads, sidewalks, bike infrastructure, and transit. In 2013, a coalition of transit advocates helped push for 2013 CO SB 48 (Chapter 138) (CO Stat. §§43.4.205,43.4.207,43.4.208), which expanded the interpretation of “highways” and allowed for the entire local share of the Highway Users Trust Fund (derived from state gas tax and registration fees) to be used for public transit and bicycle or pedestrian investments.
Example: In 2007, Minnesota legislators passed a transportation funding bill (2007 MN HF 2800) that included a gas tax increase. To offset the impacts of the increase on low-income communities, the bill also created a lower-income motor fuels tax credit equal to $25 to assist those in the lowest income bracket. However, three years later, the legislature repealed this tax credit through 2010 MN HF 2695 [Section 62(a)].
Resource: The National Conference of State Legislatures has outlined 2013-2020 legislative actions on changing and reforming state gas taxes.
Resource: This resource from American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy covers state legislation that identifies specific sources of funding for public transit and other alternatives to highway modes of transportation.
Resource: The Greenlining Institute’s Greenlined Economy Guidebook focuses on six standards for equitable community investment: 1) emphasize race-conscious solutions, 2) prioritize multisector approaches, 3) deliver intentional benefits, 4) build community capacity, 5) be community driven at every stage, and 6) establish paths to wealth building. These standards can help legislators make equitable community-based decisions on transportation projects.
Address our crumbling roadway infrastructure by reallocating funds from highway construction projects to maintenance and infrastructure that benefit disadvantaged communities. Federal law provides states with the flexibility to spend funds they receive from highway formulas. However, such flexibility grants the states the ability to focus on expanding highways instead of fixing crumbling roads first. While it is critical to put pressure on Congress to prioritize highway formula dollars for maintenance, states can also take immediate action by ensuring their statewide transportation packages emphasize repairing potholes, unfixed highways, and crumbling roads over expansion projects. State legislators should also devote a percentage of their transportation funds to low-income or high-need communities.
In addition, policymakers should consider implementing life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) programs. Such programs enable transportation planners to examine the total costs of a project over its expected life and compare differing life-cycle costs between alternative options. As a result, LCCAs help identify the most beneficial and cost-effective projects and require decision-makers to think more about maintenance over expansion.
Examples of reallocating funds and LCCAs
Example: In 2013, California enacted 2013 CA SB 99 (Chapter 359), which created an Active Transportation Program (ATP). Although the law expressly requires that 25% of funds must benefit disadvantaged communities, the program has seen more than 85% of funds devoted to projects that support high-need neighborhoods. Since its inception, ATP has funded over 800 active transportation projects in both urban and rural areas across the state. Through 2017 CA SB 1 (Chapter 5), California later allocated an additional $100 million per year in funding to ATP.
Example: In 2008, Minnesota enacted 2008 MN HF 3486 / Section 71 (Chapter 287) (MN Stat. § 174.185), which requires an LCCA for every project in the reconditioning, resurfacing, and road repair funding categories. Documentation required includes the lowest life-cycle cost, any alternatives considered, as well as a justification for the chosen strategy if it does not include the lowest life-cycle cost option.
Support transit-oriented development and smart growth initiatives that promote community economic development and incorporate equity principles. Transit-oriented development promotes alternative modes of sustainable transportation and increases access to affordable housing, jobs, and schools for low- and moderate-income families. State legislatures should:
create incentives for integrated transportation planning and land use that enables all people to experience the benefits of pedestrian-oriented development near transit hubs;
address land-use concerns that inhibit transit-oriented development and allow cities to take meaningful action in their municipalities; and
use racial equity outcomes to guide the planning process and ensure that such development does not displace and evict long-term and low-income residents.
Example and resources for transit-oriented development
Example: Delaware passed a bill (2016 DE SB 130) allowing the state department of transportation to enter into an agreement with local governments to create transit-oriented development districts, or “Complete Community Enterprise Districts,” allowing municipalities and agencies to collaborate and create stronger active transportation infrastructure to improve access to transit.
Resources:
Reconnecting America released a report of state, regional, and local programs that fund transit-oriented development plans and projects.
PolicyLink posted a report on advancing equitable transit-oriented development through community partnerships and public sector leadership.
Enterprise, the National Housing Trust, and Reconnecting America present case studies that focus on ways to preserve affordable housing near transit.
The National Conference of State Legislatures has a resource on transit-oriented development in the states.
6. Call on municipalities to adopt and implement Complete Streets policies in low-income, high-need communities. Designing transit-friendly streets and safe roadways for all users will make walking and biking safer and more convenient for pedestrians and cyclists. Complete Streets policies promote infrastructure that reduces reliance on cars, resulting in increased engagement in physical activity and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. State legislators should encourage the implementation of this policy in high-need communities that have more dangerous street conditions.
Example and resource for Complete Streets policies
Example: The Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Complete Streets Funding program was created by legislative authorization through a Transportation Bond Bill (2014 MA HB 4046 / Section 9 (Chapter 79)). The program provides technical assistance and construction funding to eligible municipalities that demonstrate a commitment to embedding Complete Streets in policy and practice.
Resource: The National Association for City Transportation Officials has an Urban Street Design Guide that serves as a blueprint for designing 21st century streets and that charts the principles and practices for making streets safer and more livable in the United States.
7. Redirect funds and responsibilities away from state police and toward investments in communities. Legacies of discrimination and racism pervade our transportation system and policies. Not only do communities of color have a lack of access to mobility options, but they also suffer disproportionately from police-involved violence initiated by traffic stops. In order to achieve transportation equity and ensure safe streets for all populations, states must address both policies that disadvantage biking and walking and the ongoing racist police enforcement of traffic laws that lead to disproportionate harms for Black and Brown drivers.
Examples of alternatives to policing
Example: In 2019, the New York legislature passed 2019 NY AB 6449 (Chapter 30), which granted New York City’s Department of Transportation the authority to expand and enhance its school-based speed camera program from 140 locations to 750. When installation is completed, the city will have the largest automated enforcement program in the United States.
Example: In 2020, Berkeley, California, passed a first-in-the-nation plan to create a newly formed Department of Transportation to replace police officers with a group of unarmed employees who will enforce traffic laws. The city is also establishing a community engagement process to develop a new model for policing in Berkeley.
This Q&A is excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone townhall featuring Florida State Representatives Tracie Davis and Rep. Geraldine Thompson, and Florida State Senator Shevrin Jones.
Answers have been edited for length and clarity.
What voting changes passed this legislative session? How will those changes impact Floridians?
Rep. Geraldine Thompson: One of the most significant things in Senate Bill 90 is the restriction on voting drop boxes. In 2020, we saw drop boxes used in enormous numbers. Now, drop boxes can only be available when the Supervisor of Elections office is open or when early voting sites are open. So, people who work 9-5 will have difficulty accessing the drop boxes.
Another new restriction is that only family members or someone who lives at the same address can drop your ballot off. This will make it especially difficult for people who have no transportation or have medical conditions and need someone else to take their ballot to the polls.
Rep. Tracie Davis: This new law also implements a fine of $25,000 on Supervisors of Election offices if they don't comply with the new dropbox provisions. So if they are being fined $25,000, a supervisor may suddenly not want to use as many drop boxes, or they won't use the drop boxes at all.
FL State Rep. Tracie Davis
FL State Rep. Geraldine Thompson
FL State Sen. Shevrin Jones
I have a ninety-year-old mother who gets an absentee ballot sent to her. Should I request a ballot for her for the upcoming 2022 elections? And do I need to submit a copy of her I.D. to do that?
Rep. Tracie Davis: Yes, you probably want to call to request that ballot for your mother. But you don't need to show her I.D. at the time. When you request the ballot over the phone or by e-mail, you have to give her date of birth; driver's license or I.D. number; or the last four digits of her social security number.
If you go inside to pick up the absentee ballot, you're going to have to have written authorization from your mom. But that's to pick up that ballot—not to request it.
Rep. Geraldine Thompson: One victory was, they did grandfather-in people who already submitted vote-by-mail requests.
But just to be on the safe side, as Representative Davis said, I would request it.
But after the election in 2022, you're going to have to request the vote by mail ballot each year. So it's no longer going to be good for two general elections, as it was in the past. It's better to be safe than sorry.
What recourse do we have concerning the voter suppression law? And are organizations taking this case to court?
Rep. Geraldine Thompson: There has been litigation filed. But while the litigation goes through the courts, you're bound by this law. So we need to prepare for it.
Nonprofit groups are preparing to transport people to drop their ballots at either the supervisor's office or the drop boxes. And they are also going to provide food and water to voters. Voter education will also be a big part of how we counteract the laws that have been put in place.
Person returns ballot at Broward County Supervisor of Elections Building during November 2020 Elections. (Photo by YES Market Media / Shutterstock)
Are there new I.D. requirements when returning ballots through drop boxes or the post office?
Rep. Geraldine Thompson: One of the victories with this legislation is that we were able to get a part removed so that you don't have to show a photo I.D. at drop boxes. There are no I.D. requirements at the post office either.
But please be mindful, the new law does make it a criminal offense to possess more than two ballots, including your own. If you are helping someone else, the best thing to do is take an individual to the dropbox with you and allow that person to drop their vote-by-mail ballot.
And please make sure your signature is updated. The signature on your ballot's envelope will be compared to the signature you provided when you initially registered to vote or last updated your signature.
As we age, our hands are not as steady, or maybe we have arthritis. You want to make sure you have a current signature on file.
Can you explain the recent anti-protesting bill that the governor signed into law?
Sen. Shevrin Jones: At the beginning of September, the governor made HB1, the anti-protesting bill, a priority instead of COVID. This was during the time of the George Floyd demonstrations and Justice for Brianna Taylor.
The bill basically criminalizes protesting. For example, suppose Rep. Davis, Rep. Thompson, and I get together on the side of the road holding up signs. A police officer can deem that to be "mob intimidation," which is not defined, or feel that we are "rioting," which is also not defined. Then the three of us will go to jail and not be released until we see a judge.
And if convicted, we would be convicted of a felony. As you may know, in the state of Florida, a felony restricts me from voting, makes it hard for me to get employment, and hard to get a loan. But let me be clear, the fear they are trying to instill with this law should not scare us and stop us from going out to protest injustice.
Demonstrators protest HB1 in Jacksonville, Florida (Photo by Michael Scott Milner / Shutterstock)
With the new law making many things criminal offenses, voting can be fearful to individuals like me. What do we do?
Sen. Shevrin Jones: That's exactly what they want us to do; they want us to be fearful. But we can't allow that, and that's why we have to organize. We need groups like churches to get communities together to have these conversations, to inform the community of these changes.
We don't have time to be fearful. We have to act right now.
Rep. Tracie Davis: That's why we're having this conversation. We cannot let this law make us fearful. We need to continue to educate our voters, educate ourselves, and educate each other. Churches are having conversations like this. Legislators around the state, including myself, will be coming to talk to our constituents.
We will make it happen. We will continue to register, and we will continue to get people to the polls to vote. Do not be fearful. We have been here before. And we will make it through just like we did before.
If I get a group of 180 people to my church at Miami Garden, can I get a representative to come out and speak?
Sen. Shevrin Jones: Yes, e-mail me with the name of the church and your information, and we'll set it up.
Q&A: Voting Rights in North Carolina
This Q&A is excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone townhall featuring North Carolina State Representatives Ashton Clemmons, Amos L. Quick, and Pricey Harrison.
Answers have been edited for length and clarity.
Can you talk about the struggle for voting rights happening across the country?
Rep. Ashton Clemmons: Every person in North Carolina and the U.S.—no matter who they are—should have an equal voice in electing our state's leaders. But there are four main reasons why we aren't living up to that ideal.
First, there is a blatant attack on voting rights to make it harder for people to vote instead of easier. Second, we are lessening the voices of some folks by packing them into districts through gerrymandering. Third, is the undue influence of money and politics. Corporations overtly influencing the outcomes of elections is an assault on what should be: that no matter how much money you have, your voice is equal. And fourth, we see an intentional effort to undermine the three branches of government by making the judiciary more partisan and limiting executive power at state legislative levels.
Rep. Ashton Clemmons
Rep. Amos L. Quick
State Rep. Pricey Harrison
What existing barriers make it harder for North Carolinians to vote?
Rep. Ashton Clemmons: Right now, we have the voter I.D. provision in litigation. And the research is very clear that voter I.D. laws would disproportionately affect the elderly and voters of color in North Carolina.
We've seen efforts to lessen the amount of early voting time from three weeks to one week. We've also seen proposals requiring mail-in ballots be received by five o'clock on election day instead of up to six days after election day.
What is gerrymandering?
Rep. Amos L. Quick: The simplest explanation is: gerrymandering is the drawing of voting districts and manipulating boundaries to give an unfair advantage to one party over another.
Photo by Element5 Digital/Unsplash
What is independent redistricting?
Rep. Amos L. Quick: Right now, we have a process where politicians pick their voters—redistricting power belongs to the dominant party in the legislature.
Independent redistricting is a process that would take power out of the hands of politicians—who are most directly advantaged by drawing their own districts. An independent commission would draw fairer districts that more accurately represent the populace that will be voting.
This is my third term, and I think there's been a bill filed every term since I've been here for some type of independent redistricting commission. It gets tremendous bipartisan support, but it doesn't get a hearing in committee, nor does it get a vote on the floor since I've been in office.
I'll close with this: right now, we have a congressional delegation that does not reflect the population of North Carolina. And that's because politicians drew the lines. An independent redistricting commission would take that power out of the hands of politicians.
We have seen a lot of threats to voting rights in Georgia. Is anything like that coming to North Carolina?
State Rep. Pricey Harrison: We are not seeing bills like what has been proposed or passed in Georgia, Florida, and Texas.
The main issue we're going to face this legislative cycle, as Rep. Clemmons mentioned, is not accepting absentee ballots beyond election day.
And there's an effort to increase poll observers as part of a national trend, and poll observers can be very threatening intimidating to voters.
I'm sorry for Georgia and the other states that are having to deal with that, because it's really, really bad for voting and our democracy.
Photo by @g_dezigner/Twenty20
What is going on with redistricting, and when will we know what district we're in?
State Rep. Pricey Harrison: Right now, we do not have any kind of independent redistricting process, despite our efforts. And so it's the redistricting committees in the house in the Senate that will draw them.
We've got commitments from the leadership in the house in the senate that it will be transparent. But those who participated in the most recent redistricting will remember that it was only partially transparent.
So if we can't get the independent redistricting process going, we're committed to fighting for better access for the public to participate in the process. We are committed to protecting communities of interest and keeping counties and municipalities whole. But it doesn't look like we're going to be doing any of that until after we get the census numbers, which I believe is not until the very last day in September.
Pennsylvania Covid-19 Economic Recovery
Right now, we know that people are concerned about their overall financial, social, and economic well-being and that of their families. We want to hear your questions and concerns about what protecting working families during the coronavirus quarantine looks like!
Join us on Thursday, June 10th, from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. EST and Friday, June 18th, from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. EST for a town hall with Pennsylvania state representatives.
By joining the town hall (on your phone!), you will be able to connect directly with legislators and learn about how they are fighting for families during the coronavirus crisis in all 67 PA counties. You will be able to ask questions live during the telephone town hall and get valuable information about the state government.
Special Guests
• June 10th: Representative. Ryan Bizzarro and Representative Tim Briggs. • June 18th: Representative Jordan A. Harris, Representative Bridget M. Kosierowski, and Andrea Custis, President and CEO of Urban League of Philadelphia
Ryan Bizzarro
State Representative
Tim Briggs
State Representative
Jordan A. Harris
State Representative
Bridget M. Kosierowski
State Representative
Andrea Custis
President & CEO, Urban League of Philadelphia
Register
Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.
How do I attend the telephone town hall? We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.
Will I get to ask a question? Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.
What if I miss the call? If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.
Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators? Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.
Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online? Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.
What if I can't be on for the whole time? We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.
State Roundup: Cannabis Equity, Workers' Rights, & More
We know not all news coming out of state legislatures is positive right now, so this week we're celebrating the hard work progressive state legislators are doing every day to fight for their communities.
Cannabis Equity Bill Clears Illinois House
Recreational marijuana was more than a $1 billion dollar industry in Illinois last year. This week the House passed a bill to make owning dispensaries more accessible to people of color, women, people living in low-income communities, and those with previous marijuana charges. By tweaking the lottery system, the new approach gives a much more diverse group of people the opportunity to participate in the lucrative industry that has otherwise benefited primarily privileged groups, like white, and already wealthy, men.
Incarcerated Women Gain Basic Protections in New Mississippi Law
Photo by Solen Feyissa/Unsplash
A new bipartisan Mississippi law grants basic rights and health care to pregnant incarcerated women. The law prevents the shackling of women during childbirth, ensures the newborn can stay with its mother for 72 hours after birth, requires staff training, prevents invasive searches not provided by health care professionals, and allows for visitation with young children, among other provisions. These are small but needed steps to improve a prison system that too often neglects the health and well-being of pregnant women.
Workers Win in Washington State Session
Photo by Tim Mossholder/Unsplash
The Washington state legislature adjourned late last month. Among several groundbreaking progressive bills were major gains for workers. Employees can now put a temporary hold on the assets of an employer who engages in wage theft. All workers, regardless of immigration status, now have access to free legal assistance; farmworkers were awarded overtime pay; and the budget allocated millions for child care programs.
New York Provides Stimulus for Undocumented Immigrants
Photo by Maria Oswalt/Unsplash
Immigrants are one of several groups hit hardest by the pandemic. Not only did they have a higher rate of contracting the virus, but immigrants were on the front lines of the pandemic—many work in jobs considered essential and kept our communities afloat while others were able to safely quarantine. Yet almost every federal program to keep people employed or safe, or to stimulate the economy, excluded aid to immigrants. But New York’s $2.1 billion stimulus to undocumented immigrants, part of the Excluded Worker Fund, will help 290,000 people directly get the benefits they have earned and deserve.
Nebraska Unemployment Extended to Caregivers
The pandemic proved that most employment opportunities do not allow for the flexibility to both keep one’s job and care for a seriously ill relative. Many were forced to quit in order to help loved ones battle COVID. But now, Nebraskans forced to quit their jobs to care for sick relatives are eligible to apply for unemployment.
States Celebrate World Bee Day by Adding Protection
Photo by Damien TUPINIER/Unsplash
World Bee Day was earlier this week and bees in several states can celebrate their legislatures’ passage of bills that limit or ban neonicotinoids, a pesticide that researchers have linked to a sharp decline in bees and pollinators around the world. States that have passed or are considering this legislation are Maine, New York, and Washington. Bees are critical to the pollination of many of our staple food crops. Protecting bees and pollinators contributes to the health and resiliency of our entire food system.
Need Volunteer Poll Workers? Wisconsin is All Set
Photo by Trevor Bexon / Shutterstock
A new bill in the Wisconsin legislature would require elected officials to volunteer as poll workers. The goal is to increase transparency and understanding of the election process and provides a much-needed solution to a volunteer and staffing shortage. Judges and those on the ballot would be excluded from having to serve.
Vermont Addresses Past, Present, and Future Reproductive Freedom
Vermont State House in Montpelier, Vermont
We know that there’s a deep and continued history of racism and sexism in our medical institutions—from non-consensual medical experimentation, to forced birth, to inequitable access to health care services, to forced sterilization, to inequitable infant and maternal health outcomes. Vermont took steps this session to repair these injustices by addressing the past and future: legislators passed a resolution apologizing for past state-sanctioned eugenics policies that led to sterilizations and passed a measure that would enshrine reproductive liberty in the state's constitution.
Childcare is Key: Michigan Economic Recovery Townhall
Increasing access to more affordable, quality child care is essential to Michigan’s economic recovery and helping get people back to work. Learn more about what can be done to support and improve child care on a Telephone Town Hall meeting with state lawmakers and officials on Thursday, June 3rd, 6 pm to 7 pm EST.
By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with Michigan’s elected leaders and local experts, learn about recent updates concerning child care in Michigan, ask questions, and discuss what action can be taken to support increased access to affordable, quality child care.
Special Guests: Michigan Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist, Sen. Mallory McMorrow (Oakland County) and Eboni Taylor, Michigan Executive Director of Mothering Justice.
Special Guests
Garlin Gilchrist
Lieutenant Governor
Mallory McMorrow
State Senator
Eboni Taylor
Executive Director, Mothering Justice
Register
Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.
How do I attend the telephone town hall? We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.
Will I get to ask a question? Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.
What if I miss the call? If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.
Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators? Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.
Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online? Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.
What if I can't be on for the whole time? We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.
Q&A: The Native Tuition Waiver Bill & Voting Rights in Nevada
This Q&A is excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone townhall featuring Nevada Assemblymember Natha Anderson, Marla McDade Williams (TeMoak Shoshone), and Rani Williams (Agai Dicutta Numu - Walker River Paiute.)
Answers have been edited for length and clarity.
How will the tuition waiver bill (AB262) help Native communities?
Assemblymember Natha Anderson:AB262 would do two things:
(1) grant in-state tuition to students from federally recognized Native American tribes who do not reside in Nevada
(2) grant a full waiver for costs from the Nevada System of Higher Education to students who are members or descendants of federally recognized tribes in Nevada
So this is an opportunity for us to invest in our students.
It's also an opportunity to promote more professional diversity. For example, when I'm not serving in the Assembly, I'm a teacher. When I look around, I do not see many Native American teachers. There are a few, but we need more. Not just in education—we need to see more Native attorneys, doctors, bankers, realtors. It's not about the title; it's about that different point of view.
Lastly, the Native American community has given so much to Nevada. One thing that they gave, without their permission, was the land that the Nevada System of Higher Education started on. That was both in Elko, where our first university was opened, and also at the University of Nevada, Reno, where it currently sits. We need to recognize the mistakes of the past and do something different.
Assemblymember Natha Anderson
Marla McDade Williams (TeMoak Shoshone)
Rani Williams (Agai Dicutta Numu - Walker River Paiute)
Can you tell us more about the "sundown siren" in Minden and efforts to limit it?
Marla McDade Williams: An amendment to AB88, the bill that would ban discriminatory mascot names, proposed limiting the sundown siren in Minden. Like racially discriminatory mascots, the siren is a symbol that continues to inflict trauma on Native people. When the dominant society holds on to offensive symbols, it's almost as if it's a way to continually remind Native people that they aren't worthy of respect. So legislation goes a long way to help heal some of the traumas that Native people have lived with for a very long time.
How would AB321 help voting access for Native Americans in Nevada?
Rainey Williams:AB321 formalizes several changes made during the coronavirus pandemic during the last election.
One such change is that the bill extends the deadline for tribes to request a polling place. And once that request is made, and the location is established, it cannot be moved or removed unless a tribe requests it itself.
Another thing this voting bill does is make the mail-in ballot system used during the 2020 election permanent. Offering a mail-in ballot system really breaks down a major barrier to voting for on-reservation tribal voters. It's not news to anyone in Indian country that there's difficulty accessing the polls because of how rural some locations are.
Voters in Washoe County, Nevada go to the polls on Election Day
What is the significance of Swamp Cedars to Native people?
Marla McDade Williams: Swamp Cedars is of cultural importance to tribes that historically used the area for gatherings and spiritual ceremonies. It was also the site of massacres.
And the bodies and spirits of Native people killed there deserve respect, just like at the site of Little Bighorn. It's a huge step forward to recognize these historical areas and work with local tribes to protect them for their cultural value, and not just for their economic value.
I'm a student at the University of Nevada, Reno and I'm really interested in what other states are doing to build political power for Native communities.
Rainey Williams: I worked in Arizona, specifically for the last few election cycles for tribal communities. Tribes communicate with the elections departments constantly, even during off-cycle years when there's no voting happening. They discuss accessible polling locations, poll worker training, and how to get tribal members to become poll workers on the reservation.
And it was completely homegrown. It was tribal members informing others and making sure the word got out: "Hey, this drop off location is happening at this time. Please be there if you can."
It was really something to see. And if you followed the news during the election, you saw historic voter turnout on all Arizona reservations because of this grassroots effort.
Nevadans can submit their opinion on a bill on the Nevada Legislature website.
How can Nevadans participate in the legislative process?
Marla McDade Williams: One way is to register to testify on a bill. And the other way is to submit an opinion on a bill. You do that by finding the bill on the legislature's website under the 2021 legislative session. Select the meetings link associated with the bill and then select, "Submit Opinion."
Is SiX the ALEC of the Left?
We get called the “ALEC of the left” a lot.
While it is easy shorthand for people to understand what we do, we resist that label because ALEC’s model is inherently flawed and harmful for our nation. SiX, like ALEC, focuses on state legislators because we know they are incredible agents of change. But that’s where the similarities end.
SiX exists to fill a gap in the progressive movement: helping legislators succeed after they are elected. We work side-by-side with state legislators to advance progressive policy and build people power. ALEC is a corporate-backed organization that creates model legislation to benefit conservative special interests.
ALEC takes advantage of under-resourced state legislatures with a top-down approach, pushing legislation from out-of-state corporations devoid of local need or context.
Collaborating with state legislators and their communities means we don’t create model legislation. We know that legislators don’t need national organizations to parachute in and offer copycat legislation just to pick up and leave the next day. SiX offers ongoing and personalized support; creates innovative ways to connect legislators across chambers, state lines, and with grassroots movements; and provides rapid response resources to help legislators bravely face new issues.
There are over 7,300 state legislators in the United States, and many are part-time, paid very little (if at all), and given few resources. ALEC takes advantage of under-resourced state legislatures with a top-down approach, pushing legislation from out-of-state corporations devoid of local need or context; sometimes, bill sponsors aren’t even aware the legislation they’re voting on is an ALEC bill. For example, ALEC members drafted a model voter ID bill in 2009. By 2012, 62 different voter ID bills had been introduced—and more than half the bill sponsors were ALEC members or conference attendees.
Voters cast their ballots during the New Hampshire presidential primary in Bedford, N.H. (Andrew Cline / Shutterstock)
We don’t aspire to mimic ALEC’s playbook. Instead, we use a ground-up approach to center legislators who are navigating complex situations and competing needs within their communities.
Here’s what that looks like in practice: just recently, when a state legislator approached us for help with a bill to reduce traffic stops, our team provided research on similar laws that generated cost savings and reduced disproportionate law enforcement contact for Black motorists, and connected the legislator to government officials and academic experts.
Early in 2021, we conducted a legislator training with a staffer who worked on Sen. Booker’s Justice for Black Farmers Act. The training has already sparked cross-state partnerships and the introduction of bills to create land restoration programs and impact studies.
Demonstrator with hands raised at Black Lives Matter rally near Colorado State Capitol (Photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash)
Our staff of thirty—and growing—former and current elected officials, legislative specialists, communications professionals, and organizers are doing similar work with legislators all over the country. Real progress doesn’t come from a bill mill. It comes from showing up day after day, to resource decision-makers with what they need to solve their communities’ problems.
At SiX, we do our work because we know that to improve people’s lives, we have to break the cycle of disinformation, distrust, and disenfranchisement that has made so many Americans question the results of one of the most secure elections in our nation’s history. It’s why we work side-by-side with state legislators to advance a vision of America where all people—Black, white, and brown alike—can thrive. State legislatures not only make decisions that affect the well-being of everyday Americans; they are also innovation hubs where people can come together to create solutions that ripple out and determine the future of our nation.
No Democracy Without Black Women
Join State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and National Organization of Black Elected Legislative Women (NOBEL Women) for two panel discussions with Black women legislators focused on the No Democracy Without Black Women report that highlights the transformative impact and underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.
A panel conversation featuring Black millennial women state legislators discussing the immediate transition once becoming an elected official and the future of policymaking in an ever-growing political landscape. Panelists include:
A panel conversation featuring Black women legislators in leadership in the legislature and how to build a pipeline to more Black women leaders. Panelists include:
Register and join our Telephone Town Hall Meeting on Monday, May 24th from 6:00 to 7:00 pm EST.
By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with your representatives and learn about legislation passed in the 2021 Florida legislative session. You will be able to ask questions and give valuable feedback by answering live polling questions during our discussion about democracy reforms in Florida.
Our speaking guests will be Senator Shevrin Jones, Rep. Tracie Davis, and Rep. Geraldine Thompson.
Once you've signed up, just answer your telephone at 6:00pm on Monday, May 24th!
Shevrin Jones
State Senator
Geraldine Thompson
State Representative
Tracie Davis
State Representative
Register
Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.
How do I attend the telephone town hall? We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.
Will I get to ask a question? Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.
What if I miss the call? If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.
Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators? Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.
Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online? Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.
What if I can't be on for the whole time? We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.
North Carolina Voting Rights
Learn more about what your state legislators are doing to protect our voting rights by joining a Telephone Town Hall meeting sponsored by the State Innovation Exchange with local officials on Monday May 17th, at 5:30 pm EDT.
By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with your representatives and local experts, learn about how they are fighting for your voting rights in North Carolina, ask questions, and discuss what we can do to take care of each other during this difficult time.
Special Guests: North Carolina Reps. Clemmons, Quick, and Harrison.
Featured Speakers
North Carolina State Rep. Ashton Clemmons
North Carolina State Rep. Amos L. Quick
North Carolina State Rep. Pricey Harrison
Register
Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event.
How do I attend the telephone town hall? We'll call the number you provided at the start of the town hall; remain on the line to join the call.
Will I get to ask a question? Yes, you will have the opportunity to submit a question. If there is not enough time to answer your question on the call, someone can follow up with you afterward.
What if I miss the call? If you miss the call, you should receive a voicemail message that allows you to call in directly.
Will I receive information on other ways to connect with my legislators? Yes, lawmakers and other panelists will share office contact information and other resources.
Can I listen to this at a later time or watch it online? Most of these events do not have an online option unless noted otherwise. You may be able to contact your legislator afterward to see if they can provide a recording of the entire event.
What if I can't be on for the whole time? We recommend you stay on the call as long as possible since there are various topics covered. But, if you can only attend a portion of the call, that is fine too.
The American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act gives us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a stronger, more equitable economy and to shrink long-standing disparities. Hardship due to the pandemic and economic crisis is still widespread and is particularly difficult among Black, Latino, Indigenous people, immigrants, and households with children. State legislators will play a critical role in ensuring that the American Rescue Plan reaches those in need.
Benefits from ARP can dramatically improve lives and set the stage for a stronger and more equitable recovery—but only if we all do our part to make sure each and every Americans has access.
Here are some ideas to spread the word:
Host a virtual or telephone town hall about the ARP
Post about the ARP’s benefits on social media. Use our toolkit below.
Include links to ARP benefits in your newsletter
Partner with local nonprofits and service providers
Connect with hard-to-reach communities using text and robocalls
Reach out to local reporters to make sure they’re covering the benefits available
The American Rescue Plan is one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in history, with more than two thirds of its tax cuts and direct payments going to families making less than $90,000 per year. See below for a quick breakdown of some of the key benefits available to your constituents. Learn more at WhiteHouse.gov.
$1400 Checks
Encourage constituents to access their stimulus checks by filing their taxes and check on their payment using the IRS.gov Payment Tool.
The American Rescue Plan includes an additional $1,400 in direct cash relief for millions of Americans.
Eligibility Criteria
If you are single and make less than $75k/year
If you are the head of a household and make less than $112,500
If you are married and together make less than $150,000
Encourage constituents to access the CTC by filing their taxes. Anyone with income less than $72,000 can file taxes for free at their local VITA provider.
The American Rescue Plan increases the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 per child to $3,000 per child ($3,600 for a child under age 6) and makes 17-year-olds qualifying children for the year.
This means a typical family of four with two young children will receive an additional $3,200 in assistance to help cover costs associated with raising children. The families of more than 66 million kids will benefit.
Eligibility Criteria:
Get up to $3,000 tax credit per child for children 6 and over
Get up to $3,600 tax credit per child for children under 6 years old
Encourage constituents to access the EITC by filing their taxes. Anyone with income less than $72,000 can file taxes for free at their local VITA provider.
The American Rescue Plan increases the EITC for 17 million workers by as much as $1,000. The top occupations that will benefit are cashiers, food preparers and servers, and home health aides—frontline workers who have helped their communities get through the crisis.
Key points:
Makes EITC available to far more low-paid workers not raising children in the home
Raises the maximum EITC for workers without children from roughly $540 to roughly $1,500, and raises the income cap for these adults to qualify from about $16,000 to at least $21,000.
Other Resources:
See state-by-state estimates of the number of people who will benefit from the EITC.
Health Insurance
Encourage constituents to lower health care costs by signing up for health care at Healthcare.gov.
The American Rescue Plan reduces healthcare premiums by offering additional premium tax credits (PTCs), expands eligibility for PTCs to more people, and gives many people receiving unemployment benefits access to plans with $0 premiums. These changes are reflected at HealthCare.gov and all state-based marketplaces.
Direct constituents to their state SNAP program or the toll-free SNAP information line: (800) 221-5689
The American Rescue Plan dedicates $12 billion to food assistance programs, allowing states to extend SNAP increases, continue the P-EBT program, and invest in WIC improvements.
The CDC national eviction moratorium will be in effect until June 30, 2021. The order does not replace or override stronger state or local eviction protections in place and tenants and advocates should continue to work for strong local, state and federal protections.
The American Rescue Plan continues the $300-per-week federal supplement to weekly benefits through September 6, 2021, and continues the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program that expands eligibility to a broader group of people.
A timeline showing how long the various ARP funding provisions will last
CBPP blog about the availability of COVID-related testing, vaccinations, and services for immigrants
National Low Income Housing Coalition Tracker on city and state emergency rental assistance programs
Alliance for Early Success Resource Center on how states can use funds to make new investments and significant changes to state early childhood policy
Messaging guidance on state implementation and demonstrating the continued need for state investments
How To Access Free COBRA Coverage Through September
COBRA Continuation Coverage allows you to keep health insurance through your job after experiencing job loss or a reduction in hours. Under the American Rescue Plan, most workers who lose their employer-provided health insurance are entitled to freeCOBRA coverage, called "COBRA premium assistance," until September 30, 2021.
Eligibility
You are eligible for COBRA premium assistance if you meet ALL of the following criteria:
You lost your employer-provided insurance due to involuntary job termination or reduction in hours*
You elect to receive COBRA premium assistance**
You DO NOT have another employer health insurance available to you
You DO NOT qualify for Medicare
*If you voluntarily left a job or reduced your hours, you are not eligible for COBRA premium assistance.
**If your job was terminated (or hours reduced) before April 1, 2021, you may still qualify for COBRA premium assistance. The Georgetown University Health Policy Institute provides this example: "If someone was laid off from their job in August of 2020 but found the premiums too high to enroll at the time, he or she could come back and enroll for up to 60 days after being notified of the availability of the subsidies under the American Rescue Plan."
Accessing The Benefit
If you qualify for COBRA premium assistance, you should receive enrollment forms from your insurance provider or employer.
If you believe you are eligible but have not received a notice, you may notify your employer by filling out a request for treatment as an "Assistance Eligible Individual". Once you receive the enrollment forms, you have 60 days to elect to receive COBRA premium assistance.
This page provides an overview of the COBRA premium assistance benefit under the American Rescue Plan. We compiled this information to help clarify the benefits; however we are not COBRA experts. For more information about accessing the COBRA continuation payment, visit the Department of Labor's FAQ page; contact a benefits advisor in the Employee Benefits Security Administration by visiting askebsa.dol.gov or calling 1-866-444-3272; or visit the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.
Share
Help spread the word about this benefit by sharing the tweet below:
Under the American Rescue Plan, most workers who lose their job-based health insurance are entitled to free COBRA coverage.
Digital Tips: We ❤️ Legislator Tweets
This resource is adapted from our Digital Tips e-mail series. To sign up to receive these resources in your inbox regularly, join our network.
In this issue of Digital Tips, we'll help inspire your social strategy by analyzing three tweets from legislators in our network.
Tutorial: Tweets from Legislators
A check-in tweet from Sen. Julie Gonzales
Check in, comunidad: what’s an accomplishment you’re proud of? What’s bringing you anxiety? What challenge are you working through? What’s bringing you joy?
Colorado State Sen. Julie Gonzales' tweet illustrates how informal but genuine posts can enrichen your social media strategy. Asking your audience a question—and then engaging with their answers— is a great way to build community and connect directly with constituents.
Tips
It takes time to build a space where people feel comfortable sharing publicly. Don't be discouraged if, at first, you don't get responses. Try enlisting a colleague or friend to answer the question (using their account) so that you can reduce the barrier to participation for other followers.
You can also tailor your question to a particular issue you're championing. For example, if you're advocating for expanded child care access, you can ask, "Parents and caretakers: what's been your experience finding child care for your kids?"
An accessible explainer thread from Rep. Rayner-Goolsby
Florida has one of earliest voter registration deadlines of any state - requiring people to register at least 29 days before an upcoming election. And there is no possibility to register the day of an election. Do you remember what happened in November 2020? The system crashed.
— Michele Rayner (She/They/Tired) (@micheleforfl) April 28, 2021
Why We Love It
This tweet from Florida Rep. Michele Rayner-Goolsby is the first in a four-part thread about the ongoing battle over voter restrictions in Florida. Sometimes, it's precisely when an issue is front-page news that an accessible explainer is needed.
Tips
In addition to drawing upon facts, use personal anecdotes (or constituent experiences) to present a complete picture and leave readers with a memorable mental image.
Whenever possible, avoid legislative jargon if there's a more straightforward way to get across the same point.
— Senator Dayna Polehanki (@SenPolehanki) May 4, 2021
Why We Love It
Michigan State Sen. Dayna Polehanki's video for Teacher Awareness Week is an excellent example of how a thoughtful message—whether written or on video—can set your content apart and make your followers feel seen.
Tips
Captioning your videos is essential, and there are lots of low-cost and free ways to do it. Here are a few tools I like: MixCaptions (free or paid; for desktop and mobile), Kapwing (free or paid; best for desktop), and Rev.com (paid; for desktop.)
Finally, note that the length of Sen. Polehanki's video is just 37 seconds. Though Twitter videos can be up to 140 seconds long, it's best to keep them short.
Quick Links: Digital Resources From Around The Web
Black women are severely underrepresented in state legislatures. It is time Black women received the recognition they deserve. Join us in this week of virtual events to shine a spotlight on Black women in state legislatures! Read the No Democracy Without Black Women report.
Monday, May 24: Sister Solidarity Day and Twitter Storm
Sister Solidarity Day: Everything looks better with a united front. We challenge Black women state legislators to join with one another and wear BLACK all day. Take a selfie, tell your story, and share it with us using #NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen!
Twitter Storm @ 2:00 PM ET/ 1:00 PM CT / 12:00 pm MT / 11:00 PT: Let’s take it to the tweets! Help us highlight the work of Black women by storming Twitter with likes, retweets, and posts about the Black women in your state legislature using #NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen! Add it to your calendar!
Tuesday, May 25: Instagram Live Interviews with Black Women Legislators
Join NOBEL Women, SiX, and our partners for our Black Women Legislator Instagram takeover! Black women legislators will go live with partner organizations to talk about the findings of the No Democracy Without Black Women Report and share their experiences as elected officials. Tune in to understand why it's important to have Black women in legislatures, the role that representation has on policy, and what we can all do to be in solidarity with the legislators.
Join State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and National Organization of Black Elected Legislative Women (NOBEL Women) for two panel discussions with Black women legislators focused on the No Democracy Without Black Women report that highlights the transformative impact and underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.
Elected, Now What? @ 12:00 pm ET / 11:00 am CT/ 10:00 am MT/ 9:00 am PT
A panel conversation featuring Black millennial women state legislators discussing the immediate transition once becoming an elected official and the future of policymaking in an ever-growing political landscape. Panelists include:
Tennessee State Rep. London Lamar
Tennessee State Sen. Raumesh Akbari
Georgia State Rep. Erica Thomas
Leading in the Legislature @ 1:00 pm ET/ 12:00 pm CT / 11:00 am MT / 10:00 am PT
A panel conversation featuring Black women legislators in leadership in the legislature and how to build a pipeline to more Black women leaders. Panelists include:
Speaker Adrienne Jones, Maryland House of Delegates
House Democratic Leader Karen Camper, Tennessee General Assembly
House Democratic Leader Joanna McClinton, Pennsylvania House of Representatives
We're joining the @stateinnovation & @NOBELWomen #NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen Week of Action because Black women legislators deserve better representation in state legislatures
We need more Black women in the statehouse and in leadership. #NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen
Nobody is better suited to dismantle racism and sexism than the people who experience it daily—Black women.
Yet, too few Black women serve in state legislatures.
Learn more in @stateinnovation and @NOBELWomen1's report. #NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen https://link.stateinnovation.org/NDWBW
Retweet SiX
Thread:
Nobody is better suited to dismantle structural racism and sexism than the people who experience it daily—Black women.
In Mississippi, Black women make up 19% of the state population but only 8% of the state legislature.
Explore the data in your state. #NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen https://link.stateinnovation.org/NDWBW
The percentage of Black women in [STATE] is XX% The percentage of Black women in the [STATE] legislature is XX%
A fair and equitable society will only be possible once Black women have seats at 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 table. #NoDemocracyWithoutBlackWomen https://link.stateinnovation.org/NDWBW
"As one of two Black women in our legislature, I face threats from people filled with racial hatred, I face erasure from my colleagues, and I face institutional racism." — @atticascott4ky https://link.stateinnovation.org/NDWBW
"Black women helped fuel change up and down the ballot during the 2020 Election; just imagine the transformational power ‘Black Girl Magic’ can have in city councils and state legislatures." —@RepBeatty
In the midst of a pandemic and economic recession that are having devastating consequences on Black women, the need for Black women to have decision-making power in the solutions to these crises has never been more apparent.
There remain 8 states without a single Black woman in their legislature, despite the Black population in each state ranging from 2-6%: Vermont, South Dakota, Hawaii, Arizona, Idaho, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota.
This is not what democracy looks like. Black women representation matters if we want real change.
Executive Summary
