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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What role do you see Black women playing in state legislatures? And what makes Black women so well suited at this moment to lead?
When we look at the future of our country and how to make things better, one of the most important challenges we must tackle is to make sure that every stakeholder has a seat at the table. It doesn’t matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat. We all need to be able to talk to each other about what is really important—community, family, opportunity, fairness, justice.
I think Black women are well-positioned to lead because we have our roots in community, we know how to build bridges, and we know how to lead in the face of adversity. I know how important it is to spend time meeting with people in my community to make sure they all have a voice in crafting our policy priorities.
There are techniques and strategies that you can use as a leader, and part of it is recognizing your strengths and using them to advocate for your constituents. You also have to remember people come from various walks of life, they all come here out of their love and commitment to the mission. Everyone can contribute. I've walked in that mindset here in the Tennessee General Assembly.
I have had strong mentors and I think that is incredibly important as you navigate this world. Keep following your path, reach out for help and guidance when you need it and the rest will come along.
Looking back over the last few years, could you share a victory that was particularly meaningful?
It is always important to show up and fight every day for your values. I advocate for justice and equality for all human beings. Just three years ago, I collaborated with my colleagues in the Tennessee General Assembly to officially recognize Rosa Parks Day in Tennessee. This acknowledgment was as much a reminder to future generations of Tennesseans as it was a tribute to the past. Three of the four Minority Leadership members in the House and Senate are African American, and two of us are women.. As the two highest-ranked women of color in Tennessee’s legislative history, we recognize that our work would not have been possible without the sacrifices of people who were persecuted for exercising their civil rights and the millions who continue to march in the spirit of equality. The ideals Rosa Parks embodied are those that I continue to fight for today.
Legislator Spotlight: Maryland Speaker Adrienne A. Jones
Adrienne Jones is the first woman and first African-American Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates. In 2021, she introduced and passed an ambitious set of bills to address health and financial disparities in Black communities. This interview is part of a series for No Democracy Without Black Women, a report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.
You have successfully reached the heights of leadership in the Maryland legislature. What propelled your trajectory to becoming Maryland Speaker of the House?
Throughout my career, I worked hard to take advantage of the opportunities that have been presented to me – from my transition from the central committee to delegate and Speaker Pro-Tempore to Speaker of the House.
After graduating from UMBC, I was unsure about my career goals but knew I wanted to make a difference. I applied and was accepted into a federal government program that helped recent college graduates find their first job. Just six months after I graduated from college, I began working for Baltimore County government. My first position was a Clerk III serving as an Assistant to the Assistant Director of Central Service. A few years later, I joined the Baltimore County Executive’s Office as an aide where I discovered my love for public service.
While I continued to work for Baltimore County, I volunteered on several political campaigns, served on numerous community service boards and commissions, and was appointed as a Member Baltimore County Democratic Central Committee.
In 1997, following the death of one of the Delegates in the 10th district, I was encouraged by my Senator Delores Kelley and then County Executive Dutch Ruppersberger to apply for her vacant Delegate seat. But finally agreed to compete for the seat in a crowded field of 16 other candidates and I was appointed in October of 1997 by Speaker Casper Taylor. I subsequently ran for re-election in 1998, won and have won every reelection since then.
On November 20, 2002 at 8:30pm, I received a call from then Chairman Michael Busch that changed everything. He told me that he was going to run for the Speaker position and asked if I would run with him as his Speaker Pro Tem. I told him yes right away, and he and I were Speaker and Speaker Pro Tem for 16 years until his death in April of 2019.
Following Speaker Busch’s death, I was unanimously elected by the full House of Delegates to become Speaker of the House. My story serves as a lesson that you never know who is watching, and you never know when opportunities will become available to you.
What challenges did you face in your rise to leadership?
Initially, I was reluctant to compete for the delegate seat because I was caring for my sick mother, but finally agreed. After being a Delegate for a few years, I would ask myself, “Did I make a mistake?” There weren’t enough women or people of color serving with me. In this country there have been only two other Black women as Speakers in their states—current Congresswoman Karen Bass and New Jersey Lieutenant Governor Sheila Oliver. I spent late nights in my office reading bills only to get on the House floor and hear some men talk loudly and say nothing in their floor remarks. It’s important that women – particularly women of color – have a voice in government. I’m reminded of the old expression “If not you, who? If not now, when?”
You introduced the Black Agenda this legislative session. Can you elaborate on the impact the policies will have on Black communities post COVID-19, especially how they will address the wealth gap?
Absolutely. The Black Agenda is a comprehensive approach to providing more economic opportunity and upward mobility for more Black Marylanders. It targets five key areas including health, housing, corporate management, business, and government. It will have a lasting impact, not just as we recover from COVID.
The most common large investment of any American family is a home, but redlining mortgage rates and banking investments since the New Deal have left Black families in Maryland without this valuable wealth creation tool. As a result, we passed a bill that creates tax-free savings accounts for all first-time homebuyers. We passed a bill preventing housing loan and credit applicants from being denied if they can provide alternate forms of creditworthiness, like a history of rent payments or utility payments. We also passed a bill requiring Maryland companies to report on the racial diversity of their boards to demonstrate diversity in their membership, leadership, or mission in order to qualify for state capital funding tax credit contracts over $1 million. Another part of the agenda is declaring racism a public health crisis and requiring health workers to undergo healthy equity and bias training.
I'm seeing a difference after this legislation was passed. I'm looking forward to doing more to ensure that no communities will be left out. Everyone should have the opportunity to build wealth in Maryland and across the country.
Legislator Spotlight: TN State Senator Raumesh Akbari
Senator Raumesh Akbari is the first African American chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus in the Tennessee Legislature. She serves on the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee and the Senate Education Committee. Akbari has represented the 29th District since 2018 and previously represented the 91st District as a state representative from 2014 to 2018.
This interview is part of a series for No Democracy Without Black Women, a report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.
What compelled you to run for office as a millennial?
I was one of those weirdos that knew early on that I wanted to run for elected office. As far back as middle school, I knew I wanted to run because I thought, “If you don't like the way the law is, you have to change it.” I was inspired by the National Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King, and all of the folks protesting for the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. That really motivated me.
Over the years, I saw a lot of problems in my community and people shared their concerns with me. I knew that actually having a seat at the table where legislation is being made would give me an opportunity to make a direct impact. You can raise awareness of an issue, get people’s attention, and then really make change with legislation. When I first got elected, I was the youngest member in the legislature and I knew that was an important role to fill.
How did you become acclimated to the transition to working in the legislature as an elected official?
I ran for the Senate in 2018 and now serve as the Senate Democratic Caucus Chairwoman, and I'm the first Black woman to be in that role. I understand that I'm not just there for myself and the things that are important to me, but I am also there to represent other Black women and encourage other Black women. Now for the first time ever, we have three Black women in the State Senate.
I'm here, I have a seat at the table and I represent the people who elected me. I did not over promise and I knew there were some good things that I could pass. I also recognized that even while I'm in the super minority, it's about building relationships. Building relationships is the key to actually passing legislation.
As far as my priorities go, I've tried to lean into three main areas: criminal justice reform, education reform, and economic development. I think those issues really translate across the aisle and will also make a big difference for people in my district.
Every day is a different day. This work is not for the faint of heart. It's difficult, it's heavy. Look, you can do this, but you have to know there’s a lot of work that comes along with it.
You have been an advocate for criminal justice reform. Where do you see the political landscape shifting around rights restoration and prison gerrymandering?
We've been talking about prison gerrymandering and restoration of rights for a long time. Our situation in Tennessee is particularly unfair. We are the only state in the entire union that if you exit the justice system and have child support payments still, you have to pay them before you can have your voting rights restored. You also have to pay your fines and fees before you can register to vote.
What happened in the Florida legislature after the victory for rights restoration on the ballot in 2018 was modeled off of Tennessee’s laws. Republicans in the Florida legislature rolled back that victory and the vote of the people with fines and fees and other language meant to dissuade eligible voters from voting. Other southern states also target Black and brown voters with requirements to pay all your fines and fees before you can vote.
Unfortunately, I feel that many legislators are taking steps backwards in Tennessee when it comes to criminal justice reform, but that doesn’t mean we will stop the fight. With the organizing that happened within the Black Lives Matter movement and the national recognition and investment to change these laws, I am hopeful. There are activists and advocates who will not give up this fight.
Legislator Spotlight: TN State Rep. London Lamar
Representative London Lamar is the youngest female legislator in the 112th Tennessee General Assembly. She serves as Secretary of the House Democratic Caucus and sits on the Finance, Ways and Means, and Criminal Justice committees. Lamar has represented the 91st District since 2018.
This interview is part of a series for No Democracy Without Black Women, a report about the underrepresentation of Black women in state legislatures.
What compelled you to run for office?
I've always wanted to run for office. I spent most of my twenties building up an apparatus for young people to take part in the political process and build up their leadership skills. I always felt like we can make change no matter where we are, no matter what community we live in. If we truly want to change society, we have to put ourselves in positions of leadership.
I am now the youngest woman in the Tennessee General Assembly, and I've been able to show young people what happens when you put yourself in a position to make substantial change. Those who came up under my leadership are now serving in elected offices themselves. As millennials, we have to hold each other accountable for taking part in the political process because it works. And we can make change. We are getting things done.
How do you feel about the current state of millennial engagement in politics especially for Black women?
The world is finally taking notice of the beauty of our intelligence, of our voices, of what we have, and how we bring that to the table. We are able to use technology like social media to get our stories out there and make sure people are listening to us and hearing our stories. For example, I'm bringing moms and women into my brand and my social media, because I'm in the legislature fighting for policies for moms. I have a track record of being a leader and fighting for these issues, and you see it all in front of your face on social media, so I’m able to connect with more people than ever before.
What do you feel is your greatest asset as a Black, millennial, woman legislator?
My voice. The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman. And if anybody understands that and can articulate the inequities in this system, it is us. And so for me, my voice is so powerful, my experiences are so powerful, the stories of my community are so powerful. And when I’m able to bring those stories and those real-life experiences to the work that I do, especially in my role as an elected official to truly impact policy—to me, that's my greatest asset. Black women are in this fight for justice, in this fight for equity in this country, so we must be at the forefront. Who better to fix it than us?
What ways do you think Black women need to be supported as it relates to public health overall?
We must take Black maternal health seriously. I fight for reproductive justice in my community, my city, and my state. This is a real public health crisis that we must bring to light. Insurance companies must cover the full range of reproductive health options and women must have full autonomy over their decision-making, which includes their ability to have a child or not have a child. Women must be able to live free from judgment and any other government restrictions that deny you the right to make your own choice about your body.
We also must focus on ensuring access to mental health services. This pandemic has exposed the need for more mental health counselors and enhanced insurance coverage for a breadth and depth of services. We need to take care of ourselves physically and emotionally.
Black Women Legislators Leading in Agriculture Policy
Historically, agricultural policy has been made in spaces dominated by rural land-owning, white, male, and conservative voices. That includes state legislatures, where fewer than five percent of legislators are Black women. Far too often, there are limited opportunities for Black women legislators to be at the forefront of policy conversations in agriculture or related legislative committees. That has to change.
SiX hosted this panel with four Black women state legislators who are leading the conversation to address the vast injustices that have been endured by Black and brown communities in the field of agriculture. Hear about their work to make agriculture more inclusive and change who gets to pass agriculture policy.
Panelists:
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
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.
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.
State Legislators Take Bold Steps on Paid Leave
Recently enacted legislation in Delaware (2022 DE SB 1) establishes a family and medical leave insurance program that provides workers with up to 6 weeks of paid leave in any 24-month period to address a worker's own serious health condition or that of a family member or to address the impact of a family member's military deployment. The new law also provides up to 12 weeks of paid leave during a single year to bond and care for a new child. Legislation in Maryland (2022 MD SB 275), which was vetoed by the governor but overridden by the state legislature, establishes a family and medical leave insurance fund to provide up to 12 weeks of paid benefits to workers for the purpose of caring for a newborn or newly fostered or adopted child, caring for the covered individual or a family member with a serious health condition, or caring for a U.S. service member or dealing with issues arising from their deployment. An additional 12 weeks of paid benefits in a year if the worker needs to address another serious health condition or to care for another new child.
A bill enacted in South Carolina (2022 SC SB 11) provides six weeks of paid family leave for state employees after the birth of a “newborn biological child” or after the initial placement of a foster child with them.
In Arizona, lawmakers introduced but failed to advance legislation (2021 AZ HB 2858) that would have provided up to 26 weeks of medical leave and up to 24 weeks for parental, caregiving, exigency (family leave related to active duty deployment), and safe leave. The new insurance program, funded by employee and employer contributions, would have adopted a progressive wage replacement structure, which ensures that lower-wage workers receive a larger portion of their wages. The bill would have established enforcement protections, including the right to bring a lawsuit for aggrieved workers. A similar package (2022 AZ SB 1644/HB 2767) was reintroduced by Arizona legislators in 2022.
In Illinois, lawmakers introduced a bill (2022 IL HB 5029) that would provide up to 26 weeks of paid family and medical leave, including leave related to a public health emergency or other disaster, and an additional 26 weeks for individuals for leave taken in connection with pregnancy, recovery from childbirth, or related conditions. Importantly, the bill includes certain domestic workers and contractors in its definition of covered workers, and includes a three-part test, or ABC test, for independent contractors.
Under a bill proposed in Pennsylvania (2021 PA SB 580), workers would be able to access up to 20 weeks to welcome a new child into their family or to recover from a serious health condition, while workers who need to care for a family member with a serious health condition would be able to take up to 12 weeks. Workers would receive a portion of their wages replaced through a new employee-funded insurance pool.
North Carolina legislators are considering a bill (2021 NC SB 564/HB 597) that would allow workers to take up to 18 weeks to recover from a serious health condition; 12 weeks to welcome a new child, to care for a family member with a serious health condition, or for exigency leave; and 26 weeks to provide care for a servicemember with a serious injury or illness.
Lawmakers 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
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?
— Senadora Julie Gonzales (@SenadoraJulie) March 25, 2021
Why We Love It
Colorado State Sen. Julie Gonzales' tweet illustrates how informal but genuine posts can enrichen your social media strategy. Asking your audience a question—and then engaging with their answers— is a great way to build community and connect directly with constituents.
Tips
It takes time to build a space where people feel comfortable sharing publicly. Don't be discouraged if, at first, you don't get responses. Try enlisting a colleague or friend to answer the question (using their account) so that you can reduce the barrier to participation for other followers.
You can also tailor your question to a particular issue you're championing. For example, if you're advocating for expanded child care access, you can ask, "Parents and caretakers: what's been your experience finding child care for your kids?"
An accessible explainer thread from Rep. Rayner-Goolsby
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-Goolsby (she/they) (@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.
This interview is based on responses from a tweet chat that took place on April 28, 2021. Answers have been lightly edited for clarity.
What experiences shaped your understanding of the importance of agriculture?
Sen. Kim Jackson (GA): As a sixth-generation Black farmer, I think about agriculture every day when I do farm chores! I raise goats, bees, ducks, and chickens and all kinds of vegetables. And, I eat food every day!
Rep. Brian Turner (NC): My grandma grew up in the mountain border of North Carolina & Tennessee. Raising livestock & planting row crops were a way of life for her. I’m grateful she passed those skills to me, and now I get to pass it on to my daughter growing our own veggies in the backyard.
Rep. Rebecca Mitchell (GA): At first: a square baler without a kicker. Loading 50- and 100-pound feed sacks at the mill. Outdoor water spigots in the winter in New York. Fiberglass fence posts (never. ever. again).
Later: working at the dairy farm next door. Fitting sheep at shows.
Professionally: ambulatory rotations in veterinary school and analyzing milk quality and pathogens from dairy farms.
Rep. Julie von Haefen (NC): Growing up in Iowa, I saw firsthand how agriculture can be an integral part of the economy, our community and our environment. My house was on the edge of a cornfield and detasseling corn was the premier summer job for teenagers!
Agriculture issues range from food insecurity to soil health—what are some of the agriculture issues in your district?
Sen. Natalie Murdock (NC): Food insecurity is an issue in my senate district. 16.5% of people in my county are food insecure, that’s over 45,000 people. Over 12,000 children are food insecure.
Rep. Julie von Haefen (NC): We don’t have a lot of farms, but urban agriculture is becoming more important! Urban farming is the practice of cultivating, processing, and distributing food in or around urban areas—an important tool to ensure our communities have access to fresher and healthier foods!
Sen. Rosemary Bayer (MI): My district spans a wide array of urban, suburban and rural areas. While we don’t have much farming in the district anymore, soil as a vital living system is important to all of us. From large rural farms to urban gardens, we all need healthy soil! Constituents all over the state & my district suffer from food insecurity and Covid has only made this worse. In addition to sustainable farming across the state, local sustainable urban and suburban gardens can help with food insecurity.
Sen. Kim Jackson (GA): In District 41, like many places in Georgia, people struggle with food insecurity. And for folks growing food in the city—often to address this very issue!—there can be many roadblocks.
I'm encouraged by efforts to bring fresh food to more people and support new growers. We need collaboration across sectors—and at all levels of government!—to decrease barriers to healthy food and urban agriculture.
Agriculture and the environment go hand in hand.
Tell us about an agriculture, food, or rural issue you are working on in your state.
Sen. Kim Jackson (GA): I serve on the Senate Agriculture & Consumer Affairs Committee. I'm working to support Black farmers across the state of Georgia and bring fresh, healthy food to those who need it most.
Rep. Brian Turner (NC): As a member of the Ag appropriations committee I’m working to make sure the preservation programs are funded and also fighting for improved broadband penetration so farmers can modernize, be more efficient, and so kids know they can farm and be connected.
Sen. Kirk deViere (NC): I’ve been fortunate enough to connect with veterans who have turned to farming as a career and therapy for post-military life. We have a responsibility to help and encourage small family farms that have been the cornerstone of North Carolina’s agricultural economy for generations. I’d like to see veteran farmers as a substantial part of those small farms.
A farmer's market in Clayton, North Carolina
How can agriculture be part of the solution to climate change?
Sen. Kirk deViere (NC): Incentivizing sustainable farming and regenerative agriculture is not only a smart long-term policy decision for farmers, but it’s much better for our environment as well. To be successful, agriculture must be a significant focus of climate justice.
Sen. Natalie Murdock (NC): As a previous soil and water supervisor, I know how soil health is key to combating climate change. Here in North Carolina we continue to work on robust soil health plans and need to fund regenerative agriculture programs.
Rep. Brian Turner (NC): Farmers love the land they work and want to keep it healthy so they can grow our food. Creating incentives to reduce fertilizers, stormwater runoff, and adopt more efficient irrigation tech helps. For more about local food growers visit the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Remember, what you put into the air and ground travels. It’s never just about our own gardens or backyards. We are a world community.
What do you wish more people knew about agriculture?
Rep. Julie von Haefen (NC): Agriculture and the environment go hand in hand. We must pay attention to how our North Carolina hog and poultry farms are operating and affecting the communities around them, and how they may be harmful to water and air.
Creating policy that benefits and protects both agriculture and the environment is important.
Sen. Kirk deViere (NC): One common misconception about agriculture is that all farmers are white. This couldn’t be further from the truth. As of 2017, North Carolina had nearly 2,100 black producers. We rely on minority farmers, namely Black farmers.
Rep. Brian Turner (NC): Agriculture is the #1 driver of North Carolina’s economy. We are #1 in the U.S. in sweet potatoes and soybeans, #2 in hogs.
Agriculture is bipartisan with rural and urban support. Most North Carolina farms are small family operations hoping the next generation will take over. We have a duty to help. No farms, no food.
How can people engage with agriculture issues beyond Earth Month?
Rep. Julie von Haefen: Contact your state legislators and sign up for our legislative updates! Sharing your priorities with your elected officials goes a long way towards advancing sound environmental and agricultural policies.
Sen. Kirk deViere (NC): If you live in North Carolina, you likely interact with agriculture much more than you realize. After all, agriculture is our #1 industry! It’s up to us to make sure that we continue to support the agricultural industry while fighting climate change.
Sen. Rosemary Bayer (MI): We all need to be conscious of good environmental practices – in pest management, water management, air and soil health and more. Remember, what you put into the air and ground travels. It’s never just about our own gardens or backyards. We are a world community. We have one planet and we need to work together to protect not only our own land, state and country, but our entire planet.
Tribal Impact Legislation
Please join us on Tuesday, May 11th at 6pm for a teletown hall with Assemblymember Natha Anderson, Assemblymember Howard Watts III, Marla McDade Williams, and local tribal leaders.
Our representatives will be discussing bills from the current 2021 Nevada Legislature that impact Native American communities, such as the Indian tuition waiver, swamp cedar protections, expanding voting access, and banning racist mascots.
Learn about bills from the current 2021 Nevada Legislature that impact Native American communities, such as the Indian tuition waiver, swamp cedar protections, expanding voting access, and banning racist mascots.
Featured Speakers
Assemblymember Natha Anderson
Marla McDade Williams, State Director for Strategies 360
Assemblymember Howard Watts III
Rani Williams, Agai Dicutta Numu (Walker River Paiute)
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.
Reimagining Public Safety: Resources for State Action
Introduction
When a jury found Derek Chauvin guilty on all charges in the murder of George Floyd, accountability was, at last, applied to a police officer. But we must not let this single trial lessen the urgency of demands for changes to the violent system of policing in this country. Accountability does not equate to justice. Justice would be George Floyd alive today, living in a world that knows the Black lives matter. Justice would be an end to the constant, unrelenting police violence that takes the lives of nearly 1,000 Americans each year and terrorizes the lives of thousands more.
Accountability does not equate to justice. Justice would be George Floyd alive today, living in a world that knows the Black lives matter.
Incremental policy changes haven’t stopped the killings and one guilty verdict will not, either. We need to reimagine public safety in America. Each murder of yet another Black person by the police shows we need to transform our approach to public safety. In the words of the Movement for Black Lives, “There is no ‘reforming’ this system—the time is now to divest from deadly policing and invest in a vision of public safety that protects us all.”
SiX compiled the resources below following the guilty verdict in the trial of Officer Derek Chauvin, who killed George Floyd in May 2020. Read our full statement here.
The police don’t keep everyone safe. We need a new approach to public safety that truly protects everyone from harm. Since the murder of George Floyd, 30 states have passed more than 140 new laws related to public safety, but we know from the continued murders and violence inflicted on Black and brown people that this is not enough.
As you consider the introduction of public safety legislation, we encourage you to reach out to your legislative peers in these states who have sponsored this legislation. These leaders carry a depth of knowledge about the policy, and can also talk to you about their strategies, the obstacles, what didn’t make it into the legislation (and why), and what they’re working on next (SiX can help connect you). We need to learn lessons from state to state, rather than copying and pasting a one-size-fits all approach, so we can collectively accelerate our work toward justice where all people feel safe in their communities.
“The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police.” — Mariame Kamba
Changes to oversight, accountability, training, and police policies are essential for harm reduction, but to truly transform public safety into a system that works for all, alternatives to policing must be pursued. For starters, mental health, traffic, gender-based violence, and crime investigation services could be better fulfilled by other trained, unarmed, and nonviolent professionals. The list of legislation below is not comprehensive.
Structural Reforms
Activists and communities have been calling for fundamental changes to policing for many years. The more recent “Defund the Police” campaigns envision a new system that goes beyond incremental police reforms. As The Opportunity Agenda puts it in Beyond Policing:
What would it look like to have first responders who were unarmed mental health specialists work with those experiencing a crisis in public? How would it be different for those experiencing homelessness if they had an ongoing relationship with a trained social worker instead of periodic encounters with police?
While we are unaware of any state to make fundamental changes to the notion of policing in America, the Beyond Policing report highlights local examples of restorative justice, peacemaking circles, mobile crisis centers, youth and community courts, stipends and other supports for individuals at-risk of perpetrating violence.
The following legislative examples are small steps that states have taken to move away from a model of policing and punishment to one that provides true safety for all members of the community, including alternatives to policing, a halt on automatic police department funding supports, and de-militarization of police departments.
Alternatives to Policing
Enacted legislation in Connecticut (2020 CT HB 6004) requires the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection and local police departments to evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of using social workers to respond to calls for assistance or accompany a police officer on certain calls for assistance.
Colorado enacted legislation (2020 CO HB 1393) expanding the state’s Mental Health Diversion Pilot Programs from four to five or more in selected judicial districts that identifies individuals with mental health conditions who have been charged with a low-level criminal offense and divert such individuals out of the criminal justice system and into community treatment programs.
Police Department Budgets
Colorado legislation (2020 CO HB 1375) repealed the State Division of Criminal Justice's authority to spend unused appropriations for the Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program in the following year. Local law enforcement agencies, which include county and municipal agencies and district attorneys, therefore have access to less grant funding in FY 2020-21, and potentially in future years.
De-Militarization of Police
California (2020 CA SB 480) enacted legislation prohibiting a law enforcement agency from authorizing or allowing its employees to wear a uniform that is made from a camouflage printed or patterned material or a uniform that is substantially similar to a uniform of the United States Armed Forces or state active militia.
Comprehensive policing reform legislation in Connecticut (2020 CT HB 6004) prohibits law enforcement agencies from acquiring certain “1033 program” military equipment; requires police departments to submit an inventory report to the legislature; and it allows the executive branch to require law enforcement agencies to sell, transfer, or dispose of equipment found to be unnecessary for public protection.
The D.C. Council enacted a bill (2020 DC B23-0825) to prohibit District law enforcement agencies from acquiring “ammunition of .50 caliber or higher; armed or armored craft or vehicles; bayonets; explosives or pyrotechnics, including grenades; firearm mufflers or silences; firearms of .50 caliber or higher; firearms, firearm accessories, or other objects, designed or capable of launching explosives or pyrotechnics, including grenade launchers; and remotely piloted, powered aircraft without a crew aboard, including drones” from any federal government program. Under the new law, District agencies are also required to relinquish any such property within 180 days after the effective date of the law.
A bill (2021 IL HB 3653) passed by Illinois lawmakers prohibits the State Police from requesting or receiving tracked armored vehicles; weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles; firearms of .50 caliber or higher; ammunition of .50 caliber or higher; grenade launchers; or bayonets. Virginia lawmakers enacted legislation (2020 VA SB 5030) to prohibit the acquisition of certain weapons and equipment from the Department of Defense, including weaponized unmanned aerial vehicles, combat aircraft, surplus grenades and grenade launchers, surplus armored vehicles, bayonets, firearms of .50 caliber or higher, ammunition of .50 caliber or higher, and weaponized tracked armored vehicles.
Limiting Police Engagement
A demonstrator and celebrant of Juneteenth holds a sign that reads "I am my ancestors wildest dream" at Black Lives Matter Plaza.
Police involved violence disproportionately impacts Black and brown communities. Mapping Police Violence provides powerful data showing that:
Black people were 28% of those killed by police in 2020 despite being only 13% of the population.
Black people are 3 times more likely to be killed by the police than white people, and 1.3 times more likely to be unarmed when killed by the police.
Most killings by police begin with traffic stops, mental health checks, domestic disturbances, or reported low level offenses.
To reduce violence during police interactions, states have enacted legislation to reduce over policing, regulate the use of “no-knock” search warrants, limit the use of deadly force, ban chokeholds, require police officers to intervene to stop excessive use of force or to render medical aid, and train police officers in topics from de-escalation to implicit bias.
Use of Force and Chokehold Bans
Legislation enacted in California (2019 CA AB 392) specifies that a police officer is only justified in using deadly force to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person or to apprehend a fleeing person who the officer reasonably believes will cause death or serious bodily injury to another person unless immediately apprehended. The law prohibits a police officer from using deadly force against someone who only poses a danger to themselves.
California legislation (2019 CA AB 1196) prohibits a law enforcement agency from authorizing the use of a carotid restraint hold or a choke hold. The California law defines “carotid restraint” as a vascular neck restraint or any similar restraint, hold, or other defensive tactic in which pressure is applied to the sides of a person's neck that involves a substantial risk of restricting blood flow and may render the person unconscious in order to subdue or control the person. And “choke hold” is defined as any defensive tactic or force option in which direct pressure is applied to a person's trachea or windpipe.
A comprehensive police reform bill enacted in Colorado (2020 CO SB 217) creates a new use of force standard by limiting the use of physical force and limiting the use of deadly force when force is authorized. The act prohibits a peace officer from using a chokehold.
Enacted legislation in Connecticut (2020 CT HB 6004) limits the circumstances under which a law enforcement officer’s use of deadly physical force is justified and establishes factors to consider when evaluating whether the actions were reasonable. The law also limits an officer’s use of a chokehold or similar restraints.
Delaware state legislators enacted 2020 DE HB 350 which creates a new felony charge called “aggravated strangulation.” This charge is reserved for acting law enforcement officers who knowingly or intentionally use a chokehold on a person. This law creates an exception for officers who deem the use of force necessary to save the life of another law enforcement officer. The law does not limit the state from pursuing further charges to the officer beyond the aggravated strangulation charge.
The D.C. Council enacted a comprehensive package of policing reforms (2020 DC B23-0825) that included a ban on the use of neck restraints by law enforcement officers as a form of lethal and excessive force. The legislation also established new requirements for the “reasonable” use of force, which includes a consideration of the use of de-escalation measures and “whether any conduct by the officer prior to the use of deadly force increased the risk of a confrontation resulting in deadly force being used.”
Illinois recently enacted criminal justice reform legislation (2021 IL HB 3653) that includes statewide standards on use of force, crowd control responses, de-escalation, and arrest techniques. It also broadens the prohibition on using a chokehold to also include any restraint above the shoulders with risk of asphyxiation, unless the use of deadly force is justified.
Police reform legislation in Indiana (2021 IN HB 1006) defines “chokehold” as a use of deadly force and prohibits the use of a chokehold under certain circumstances.
Legislation enacted in Iowa (2020 IA HF 2647) states that the use of a chokehold is only justified when the person being arrested has used or threatened to use deadly force in committing a felony, or when the police officer reasonably believes the person would use deadly force against any person unless immediately apprehended. The new law defines “chokehold” as the intentional and prolonged application of force to the throat or windpipe that prevents or hinders breathing or reduces the intake of air.
Recently enacted legislation in Maryland (2021 MD SB 71) that requires a police officer to take steps to de-escalate conflict without using physical force, and prohibits a police officer from using force that is not necessary and proportional to prevent imminent physical injury or to effectuate a legitimate law enforcement objective. The law specifies that this use of force must cease after the suspect is under the police officer’s control, no longer poses an imminent threat, or after it is determined that force will no longer accomplish a legitimate law enforcement objective.
Legislation in Massachusetts (2020 MA SB 2963) identifies the general circumstances under which police officers can use physical force, and specifically bans the use of chokeholds and prohibits firing into a fleeing vehicle unless doing so is both necessary to prevent imminent harm and proportionate to that risk of harm. The bill also generally precludes officers from using rubber pellets, chemical weapons, or canine units against a crowd. Violations of any of these provisions may provide grounds for an officer to have their certification suspended or revoked.
Legislation enacted in Minnesota (2020 MN HF 1) makes changes to the state’s use of force laws, including limiting the authority of police officers to use deadly force unless based on a specific threat likely to occur absent action by the officer, and one that requires the officer to address it through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay. This law also provides that an officer must be able to articulate the threat with specificity and restricts the use of deadly force in cases where the person only presents a danger to themself.
Nevada lawmakers enacted legislation (2020 NV AB 3) to prohibit the use of chokeholds by law enforcement officers on another person or placing a person who is in custody of a law enforcement officer in any position that restricts their ability to breathe. The bill also amends existing statute to clarify that “only the amount of reasonable force necessary to effect the arrest” may be used if a defendant flees or forcibly resists, whereas previous law provided for the use of “all necessary means.”
New Hampshire lawmakers (2020 NH HB 1645) enacted legislation to prohibit the use of chokeholds by law enforcement officers, except to defend themself or a third person from imminent deadly force.
Lawmakers in New York approved the “Eric Garner Anti-Chokehold Act” (2019 NY S 6670/A 6144), which creates a new class C felony offense for “aggravated strangulation.” Under the new law, law enforcement officers who obstruct breathing or blood circulation or use a chokehold, as is prohibited under existing law, and cause serious physical injury or death to another person is guilty of aggravated strangulation.
Oregon legislators enacted a bill (2020 OR HB 4203) to ban the use of chokeholds unless deadly physical force is otherwise allowed under the law. The bill also directs the state Board on Public Safety Standards and Training to adopt new rules for police and reserve officer training requirements that reflect the new prohibition of the use of chokeholds.
Later in the year, Oregon lawmakers passed another bill (2020 OR HB 4301) updating the recently-enacted chokehold ban to include corrections officers and removing the exception on the use of chokeholds in circumstances where use of deadly force is allowable. Under the new law, officers must give a verbal warning, allow time for compliance, and use of de-escalation tactics before physical and deadly uses of force.
Legislators in Utah passed a bill (2020 UT HB 5007) to prohibit the use of chokeholds, defined as “the application of a knee applying pressure to the neck or throat of a person” by peace officers. The bill provides for a referral to the county or district attorney for review and to the state’s Peace Officer Standards and Training Council for investigation and classifies the prohibited restraint as a third-degree felony, a second-degree felony if it results in serious bodily injury or loss of consciousness, or a first-degree felony if it results in death. The bill further prohibits the inclusion of chokeholds in peace officer training curriculum approved by the state.
Utah lawmakers also enacted a bill (2021 UT SB 106) to require the state’s Peace Officer Standards and Training Council to establish minimum use of force standards. The new law also requires compliance with the use of force standards by peace officers and enforcement of the standards by law enforcement agencies.
Another bill (2021 UT HB 237) passed by the Utah legislature limits the proper use of deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or an individual other than the suspect. Prior law authorized the use of deadly force in instances where someone posed a threat of death or serious bodily injury to themselves, in addition to the officer or others.
In Vermont, lawmakers passed a bill (2020 VT S 119) to set new standards for use of force by law enforcement. Under the new law, use of force must be “objectively reasonable, necessary, and proportionate” and “based on the totality of circumstances.” Another bill (2020 VT S 219) passed by legislators banned the use of chokeholds and amended the state’s existing code of unprofessional conduct of law enforcement officers to include the use of chokeholds and failing to intervene and report when observing another officer using a prohibited restraint or using excessive force.
Virginia legislators enacted a bill (2020 HB 5069) to define and prohibit the use of neck restraint by law enforcement officers, unless its use is “immediately necessary to protect the law-enforcement officer or another person.” The bill creates a new disciplinary penalty, in addition to existing penalties under the law, for the use of neck restraints, including dismissal, demotion, suspension, transfer, or decertification.
Legislators in Washington enacted a bill (2019 WA HB 1064) to narrow the state’s criminal statutes on the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers to an objective standard of good faith that “a similarly situated reasonable officer would have believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious physical harm to the officer or another individual.” Previously, state statute also provided for use of deadly force under a subjective good faith test that the officer “intended to use deadly force for a lawful purpose and sincerely and in good faith believed that the use of deadly force was warranted in the circumstance,” in addition to an objective good faith test.
Duty to Intervene and Report Misconduct
Police reform legislation enacted in Colorado (2020 CO SB 217) requires a police officer to intervene when another officer is using unlawful physical force and requires the intervening officer to file a report regarding the incident. If a police officer fails to intervene when required, the police standards board is required to decertify the police officer.
Comprehensive policing reform legislation in Connecticut (2020 CT HB 6004) requires police and correction officers to intervene when fellow officers use unreasonable, excessive, or illegal force and to report on those incidents. This law also prohibits law enforcement units and the department of corrections from retaliating against an intervening and reporting officer.
Criminal justice reform legislation enacted in Illinois (2021 IL HB 3653) provides both a duty to intervene for police officers to prevent or stop another police officer from using unauthorized or excessive force, and also a duty to render medical aid and assistance, including performing CPR and getting an injured suspect to a hospital.
Kentucky enacted legislation (2021 KY SB 80) to include failure to intervene when it is clear that a fellow police officer is using unlawful and unjustified excessive or deadly force as a form of professional nonfeasance that can lead to termination and decertification as a police officer.
Maryland legislation (2021 MD SB 71) requires a police officer to intervene to prevent or terminate the use of force by another police officer that goes beyond what is authorized by law, and it requires an officer to render basic first aid to a person injured as a result of police action and promptly request appropriate medical assistance.
Massachusetts police reform legislation (2020 MA SB 2963) requires a police officer to intervene to prevent the use of unreasonable force and report the incident to an appropriate supervisor. The law also requires each law enforcement agency to develop procedures to report abuse by fellow police officers without fear of retaliation.
Legislation enacted in Minnesota (2020 MN HF 1) establishes a duty for police officers to intercede when another officer is using excessive force and report incidents of excessive force to supervisors. Failure of a police officer to intercede or report excessive force subjects the officer to police standards and training board discipline.
Nevada legislators enacted a bill (2020 NV AB 3) requiring any peace officer to monitor any person in their custody for signs of distress and to take actions to place them in a recovery position if necessary. The bill also requires any peace officer who uses physical force on another person to ensure that medical aid is rendered as soon as practicable. Finally, peace officers are required to prevent or stop another officer from using physical force that is not justified, and to report the incident to their immediate supervisor in writing within 10 days.
In New Hampshire, legislators enacted a bill (2020 NH HB 1645) to require law enforcement officers to report misconduct by other officers. Under the new law, officers must report the misconduct to the chief law enforcement officer in their department, or the Police Standards and Training Council if the chief officer is the subject of the report, in writing immediately, or as soon as practicable. The chief law enforcement officer must notify the Police Standards and Training Council of the misconduct in writing within 7 days. The bill further requires law enforcement departments to conduct an investigation of reports of misconduct in a timely manner.
In New York, lawmakers passed legislation (2019 NY S 6601/A 8226) to affirm the duty of law enforcement officers to provide medical and mental health attention to a person under arrest or otherwise in their custody. The bill further creates a civil cause of action for any person who has not received such medical attention and as a result, suffers serious physical injury or significant exacerbation of an injury or condition.
Oregon lawmakers enacted a bill (2020 OR HB 4205) to require police and reserve officers to intervene to prevent or stop another officer engaged in an act of misconduct, and to report such an act to a supervisor as soon as practicable, but no later than 72 hours after witnessing the misconduct. Under the new law, failure to intervene or report constitutes grounds for disciplinary action by the agency or grounds for suspension or revocation of the officer’s certification by the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training. Finally, the bill provides anti-retaliation protections to officers who intervene or report misconduct of another officer.
A bill (2020 VA HB 5029) passed in Virginia requires law enforcement officers to intervene when witnessing another officer engaging in or attempting to engage in the use of excessive force. Officers are also required to end the use of force or prevent its further use where feasible, to render aid to any person injured as a result of the use of excessive force, and to report the misconduct. Law enforcement officers who fail to comply with the new law are also subject to disciplinary action.
No-Knock Search Warrants
Legislation in Illinois (2021 IL HB 3653) was enacted to, among other things, require police departments to develop plans to protect children or other vulnerable people present during search warrant raids.
Recently enacted Kentucky legislation (2021 KY SB 4) prohibits the issuance of a no-knock arrest warrant unless for specific suspected violent offenders and, based on established facts, giving notice prior to entry will endanger the life or safety of an individual, or result in the loss or destruction of evidence. Another bill, “Breonna’s Law” (2021 KY HB 21), which was developed in response to the murder of Breonna Taylor during the execution of a no-knock warrant with input from community members failed to advance
In Maryland, lawmakers enacted a bill (2021 MD SB 178) over a gubernatorial veto that amends the process for the execution of search warrants and narrows the use of no-knock search warrants. Under the new law, unless exigent circumstances are determined to exist, no-knock search warrants shall only be executed between 8 am and 7 pm.
Comprehensive police reform legislation in Massachusetts (2020 MA SB 2963) places strict limits on the use of so-called “no-knock” warrants, requiring such warrants to be issued by a judge and only in situations where an officer’s safety would be at risk if they announced their presence and only where there are no children or adults over the age of 65 in the home. The legislation provides for an exception when those children or older adults are themselves at risk of harm. Virginia lawmakers passed a bill (2020 VA HB 5099) banning no-knock search warrants. The bill also requires that warrants be executed in the daytime unless law enforcement can provide good cause for nighttime execution of warrants. Another bill (2021 VA SB 1475) passed by legislators clarifies that the ban applies to “any place of abode,” and that daytime hours are considered between 8 am to 5 pm.
Overpolicing
California enacted legislation (2020 CA AB 1215) prohibiting a law enforcement agency or officer from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with or data collected by an officer camera. The law authorizes a person to bring an action for equitable or declaratory relief against an agency or officer who violates that prohibition. California also enacted legislation (2020 CA AB 1775) that increases the penalty for a violation if a person knowingly allows the use of or uses the 911 emergency system for the purpose of harassing another. The penalty increases if the act is defined to be a hate crime.
Comprehensive policing reform legislation in Connecticut (2020 CT HB 6004) makes a number of changes to limit the frequency or extent of police interactions with the public. The Connecticut law limits the circumstances under which law enforcement officials may conduct consent searches on (1) an individual’s body and (2) motor vehicles stopped solely for motor vehicle violations. This law also generally prohibits law enforcement from asking for non-driving identification or documentation for stops solely for motor vehicle violations. And the new law raises the penalties for false reporting crimes or misusing the emergency 9-1-1 system when committed with the specific intent to do so based on certain characteristics of the reported person or group (e.g. race, sex, or sexual orientation). Finally, it prohibits municipal police departments and the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection from imposing pedestrian citation quotas on their police officers.
A recently enacted bill in Illinois (2021 IL HB 3653) may reduce police traffic stops by eliminating license suspensions for unpaid fines and fees due to red light cameras and traffic offenses.
Legislation recently enacted in Maryland (2021 MD HB 670) requires that absent exigent circumstances, at the commencement of a traffic stop or other stop, a police officer must (1) display proper identification to the stopped individual and (2) provide specified identifying information regarding the officer and the reason for the traffic stop or other stop. A police officer may not prohibit or prevent a citizen from recording the police officer’s actions if the citizen is otherwise acting lawfully.
Enacted legislation in Massachusetts (2020 MA SB 2963) requires law enforcement to seek a court order when conducting a facial recognition search, except in emergency situations.
In June 2020, New York enacted legislation (2020 NY A 1531) which amended civil rights laws in the state to include reporting a non-emergency incident to police and emergency services involving a member of a protected class. This law charges civil penalties for frivolously calling the police in order to target a member of a protected class, if no imminent threat or danger is detected by the officer.
Police Training and Screening
California enacted legislation (2019 CA SB 230) that requires the commission on police officer standards and training to implement courses of instruction for the regular and periodic training of law enforcement officers on de-escalation, implicit and explicit bias and cultural competency, use of force scenario training, alternatives to use of deadly force and physical force, and using public service, including the rendering of first aid, to provide a positive point of contact with the community. Legislators also enacted 2020 CA AB 846 which required the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to study and update regulations and screening materials to identify explicitly and implicit biases against protected classes related to emotional and mental evaluations of officers. It also requires evaluations of peace officers to include evaluations of biases against protected classes. Lastly, it requires law enforcement to change job descriptions to deemphasize paramilitary aspects of the job and to place more emphasis on community interaction and collaboration.
Another bill passed in California (2020 CA AB 3099) would require the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance related to tribal issues to local law enforcement agencies and tribal governments with Indian lands. Such assistance includes guidance for law enforcement education and training on policing and criminal investigations on Indian lands. The bill also requires the department to conduct a study to determine how to increase state criminal justice protective and investigative resources for reporting and identifying missing Native Americans in California, particularly women and girls.
Police reform legislation enacted in Colorado (2020 CO SB 217) gives the police standards and training board the authority to revoke a police officer’s certification if the officer fails to complete a required training after being given 30 days notice to satisfactorily complete the missed training.
Enacted legislation in Connecticut (2020 CT HB 6004) adds implicit bias training to required police training components.
The D.C. Council passed legislation to change existing continuing education requirements for law enforcement officers to include “biased-based policing, racism, and white supremacy,” “obtaining voluntary, knowing, and intelligent consent from the subject of a search,” and the duty of an officer to report misconduct or excessive force by another officer.
Illinois recently enacted legislation (2021 IL HB 3653) to require police officer training on topics such as proper use of force techniques, de-escalation, implicit bias and racial and ethnic sensitivity.
Recently enacted legislation in Indiana (2021 IN HB 1006) requires the Indiana law enforcement training board to establish mandatory training in de-escalation as part of the use-of-force curriculum, and requires de-escalation training to be provided as a part of: (1) pre-basic training; (2) mandatory inservice training; and (3) the executive training program.
Legislation enacted in Iowa (2020 IA HF 2647) requires the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) Council in consultation with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, advocacy organizations, and various interest groups and stakeholders, to develop, provide, and disseminate mandatory annual training to every law enforcement officer employed by a law enforcement agency on matters related to de-escalation techniques and the prevention of bias.
Recent Maryland legislation (2021 MD SB 71) requires police officers to undergo training on when an officer may or may not draw a firearm, point a firearm at a person, and the enforcement options that are less likely to cause death or serious physical injury, including de-escalation tactics. Related legislation (2021 MD HB 670) requires all law enforcement agencies to use implicit bias testing in the hiring process and requires all police officers to complete implicit bias testing and training annually.
Comprehensive legislation in Massachusetts (2020 MA SB 2963) provides for police training on de-escalation and disengagement, alternatives to use of force for children, community trust building, and cultural competency.
Minnesota legislation (2020 MN HF 1) prohibits the police officer standards and training board from approving “warrior-style” training and prohibits police chiefs from providing that training to their officers.
Nebraska state legislators recently enacted a law (2020 NE LB 924) which required law enforcement agencies to adopt racial profiling prevention policies. This law adds anti-bias and implicit bias training and testing to minimize racial profiling, and also requires law enforcement officers to record the race and ethnicity of people they stop. Lastly, the bill requires two hours of anti-bias and implicit bias training to the continual education requirements for law enforcement officers and sheriffs.
In Nevada, legislators enacted a bill (2019 NV AB 478) that updates existing continuing education requirements for peace officers to include no less than 12 hours in courses that address racial profiling, mental health, the well-being of officers, implicit bias recognition, de-escalation, human trafficking, and firearms.
Lawmakers in New Hampshire enacted a bill (2020 NH HB 1645) that redirects existing funds from the Drug Forfeiture Fund to reimburse local governments or the state for psychological stability screenings for law enforcement officer candidates.
Pennsylvania legislators unanimously approved a bill (2020 PA HB 1910) that updates mandatory training requirements for police officers to include training on trauma-informed care, use of deadly force, de-escalation and harm reduction techniques, community and cultural awareness, implicit bias, procedural justice, and reconciliation techniques. The bill also creates a new requirement for mental health evaluations and related treatment upon the request of an officer, the recommendation of their chief or supervising officer, or within 30 days of an incident of the use of lethal force.
State legislators in Utah enacted a bill (2021 UT HB 0162) to create new required training for law enforcement officers in mental health and crisis intervention responses, arrest control, and de-escalation tactics. This bill also requires annual reporting of training hours by department.
Incident Response
A father and son participate in a Black Lives Matter protest in Orlando, Florida. Sign reads, "Enough is Enough! #BlackLivesMatter"
Investigations of police interactions that result in death or other serious incidents that are shrouded in secrecy, influenced by the offending police officer, and/or conducted by a biased entity degrade public trust in law enforcement agencies. Adequate levels of independence in any response to a critical incident caused by a law enforcement officer ensure that future measures of accountability honor the truth of what occurred.
State lawmakers can ensure that responses to serious incidents are independent and faithfully carry out justice under the law by increasing reporting requirements, protecting the right of witnesses to record incidents, preserving the integrity of available recordings, and requiring an independent investigation of incidents.
Reporting In-Custody Deaths or Incidents
Illinois legislators enacted sweeping criminal justice and police reforms with the passage of 2019 IL HB 3653, including new requirements for law enforcement agencies to increase transparency and accountability. The bill requires agencies to investigate and report incidents in which a person dies while in custody or as a result of an officer’s use of force to the state Criminal Justice Information Authority within 30 days of the death. Such reports shall be open to public inspection, and an annual report on in-custody deaths, disaggregated by race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity shall be published annually.
Legislation (2019 NY S 2575/A 10608) passed in New York creates a new reporting requirement for any law enforcement officer who discharges their weapon where a person could be struck by a bullet from the weapon. The officer is required to make a verbal report within 6 hours to their supervisor and file a written report within 48 hours of the incident.
A bill (2021 UT HB 264) passed in Utah creates new reporting requirements when law enforcement officers point a firearm at an individual or aim a “conductive energy device at an individual and displays the electrical current.” The officer is required to file a report with information about the incident within 48 hours to their agency.
Right to Record
In Nevada, lawmakers enacted a bill (2020 NV AB 3) that protects the right of any person not under arrest or in the custody of a peace officer to record law enforcement activity and to maintain custody and control of the recording and any instruments used to make the recording. The bill prohibits peace officers from interfering with such recordings or seizing the recording or instruments used to record.
New York legislators passed the “New Yorker’s Right to Monitor Act” (2019 NY S 3253/A 1360), which affirms the right of any person not under arrest or in the custody of law enforcement officials to record law enforcement activity and to maintain custody and control of the recording and any instrument used to make the recording. The legislation also creates a private right of action for any unlawful interference with recording a law enforcement activity.
Police Body Cameras and Dashboard Cameras
Beginning in July 2023, a comprehensive police reform bill enacted in Colorado (2020 CO SB 217) requires all police officers, with some exceptions, to wear and activate a body-worn camera when responding to a call for service or during any interaction with the public initiated by the peace officer when enforcing the law or investigating possible violations of the law.
Enacted legislation in Connecticut (2020 CT HB 6004) expands the requirement to use body cameras to police officers in all state, municipal, and tribal law enforcement units, and it requires these officers to use dashboard cameras in police patrol vehicles.
The D.C. Council enacted legislation (2020 DC B23-0825) to require the release of unredacted body-worn camera footage within 5 business days to the Council upon request. The Mayor is also required to publicly release the names and body-worn camera recordings of all officers involved in incidents of death or serious use of force, with input on a public release from the victim or decedent’s next of kin. Under the new law, officers are prohibited from viewing recordings to assist in initial report writing.
Recent legislation in Illinois (2021 IL HB 3653) requires the use of body-worn cameras by police departments statewide, with a phase-in from 2022 to 2025 depending on the size of the municipality and county.
A recently enacted bill in Indiana (2021 IN HB 1006) specifies that a law enforcement officer who turns off a body-worn camera with the intent to conceal a criminal act commits a Class A misdemeanor.
Legislation enacted in Maryland (2021 MD SB 71) provides that all law enforcement agencies must require the use of body-worn cameras by July 1, 2025, with the state police and a few selected counties starting two years earlier.
In New Mexico, the state legislature passed and enacted a bill (2020 NM SB 8) to require municipal, county, and state law enforcement officers to wear a body-worn camera while on duty. It also requires law enforcement agencies to establish policies and regulations around their use, such as requiring them to be on during public interactions or requiring videos to be retained by the agency for at least 120 days.
New York lawmakers passed a bill (2019 NY A 8674/S 8493) to require all state police officers to wear body-worn cameras at all times while on patrol. Under the new law, the cameras are required to record certain actions and interactions with the public. The bill also authorizes the attorney general to investigate instances where body cameras fail to record an event that is required to be recorded by the new law.
Independent Investigation of Deaths or Other Incidents
In California, legislators enacted a bill (2020 CA AB 1506) that requires an investigation by a state prosecutor for any officer-involved shooting that results in the death of an unarmed civilian. The bill also establishes a Police Practices Division within the CA DOJ and directs the Attorney General to review deadly use of force policies for law enforcement agencies upon request.
California lawmakers also enacted legislation (2020 CA AB 1185) to authorize a county to create a sheriff oversight board and an inspector general's office and further authorizes those entities to issue a subpoena when conducting an investigation of police officers or the sheriff’s department.
Enacted legislation in Connecticut (2020 CT HB 6004) allows towns to enact municipal ordinances to establish civilian police review boards. The Connecticut law also estables a state office of the inspector general to investigate police officer use of force and to prosecute any case in which the inspector general determines the use of force was unjustified or when a police officer fails to intervene or report such incident. The office of the inspector general can also make recommendations to the police standards and training board concerning censure and suspension, renewal, cancellation, or revocation of a police officer’s certification. Finally, the new law generally requires the chief medical examiner to investigate deaths of people in police or department of corrections custody.
Councilmembers in D.C. enacted legislation (2020 DC B23-0825) to amend the process for investigating complaints filed by the public against law enforcement officers through the Police Complaints Board. The new law expands the 5-member board to 9 and prohibits any member from having a current affiliation with any law enforcement agency, where previously one member of the board could be law enforcement-affiliated. The bill also expands the District’s existing Use of Force Review Board by adding new civilian voting members, including one civilian member with personal experience with the use of force by a law enforcement officer.
Legislation in Iowa (2020 IA HF 2647) authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to prosecute a criminal offense committed by a law enforcement officer, which arises from the actions of the officer resulting in the death of another person, regardless of whether the county attorney requests the assistance of the AG or decides to independently prosecute the criminal offense committed by the officer. Should the AG determine that criminal charges are not appropriate, but that an officer has violated conduct standards, the AG may refer the matter to the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) Council to make a recommendation to suspend or revoke the officer’s certification.
Enacted legislation in Massachusetts (2020 MA SB 2963) creates a division of police standards to investigate officer misconduct and make disciplinary recommendations to the police standards and training commission. The division of police standards shall initiate a preliminary inquiry into the conduct of a law enforcement officer if the commission receives a complaint, report, or other credible evidence that is deemed sufficient by the commission that the law enforcement officer was involved in an officer-involved injury or death; committed a felony or misdemeanor, whether or not the officer has been arrested, indicted, charged or convicted; or violated use of force standards or the duty to intervene.
Minnesota enacted legislation (2020 MN HF 1) establishes an independent Use of Force Investigations Unit in the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). The unit is responsible for investigating all officer-involved deaths in the state as well as criminal sexual assault allegations made against peace officers. The unit expires after four years.
Legislators in Nevada enacted a bill (2020 NV SB 2) that rolls back some provisions of the state’s “Peace Officer Bill of Rights,” including repealing a statute that prohibits the inclusion of a law enforcement officer’s statements from an internal investigation in a civil case. The bill also expands the authority of an agency to conduct investigations of a police officer, including increasing the statutory limit to launch investigations from 1 year to 5 years after the incident and allowing officers to be reassigned during an investigation without their consent. Finally, the bill amends the process for investigating a police officer by only allowing for the inspection and copying of evidence after the conclusion of an investigation, instead of during the investigation.
Lawmakers in New Jersey enacted legislation (2019 NJ S 1036) that permits the Attorney General to supersede the county prosecutor of the county where the incident occurred “whenever a person’s death occurs during an encounter with a police officer or other law enforcement officer acting in the officer’s official capacity or while the decedent was in custody,” to conduct any investigation, criminal action or proceeding concerning the incident. This bill also requires that “the identity of each investigating and arresting officer shall remain subject to public disclosure.”
New York legislators also enacted a bill (2019 NY S 2574/A 1601) to establish the Office of Special Investigation within the office of the state’s Attorney General to investigate and prosecute any alleged criminal offense or offenses committed by a police or peace officer. The office is required to publish a public report in cases where it declines to present evidence to a grand jury and in cases where a grand jury declines to return an indictment.
Lawmakers in New York also passed legislation (2019 NY S 3595/A 10002) to create the Law Enforcement Misconduct Investigative Office within the office of the state’s Attorney General with broad independent oversight over police misconduct. The new office has jurisdiction to receive and investigate allegations of misconduct in any law enforcement agency within the state and is also charged with making recommendations to agencies regarding policy and practice. Additionally, any officer or employee of a law enforcement agency is required to report information concerning corruption, fraud, use of excessive force, criminal activity, conflicts of interest, or abuse of power to the office.
The Utah legislature also enacted a bill (2021 UT HB 22) to require that the state’s chief medical examiner investigate and certify the cause of death in the cases of deaths resulting directly from the actions of a law enforcement officer. The bill also creates new criminal penalties for improper certification of the cause of death under the new law and for knowingly providing false information to mislead the medical examiner.
Virginia legislators authorized (2020 VA HB 5055/SB 5035) new citizen oversight powers over local law enforcement agencies. The new law authorizes localities to establish a civilian oversight body with broad authority to receive and investigate civilian complaints regarding law enforcement conduct, investigate and issue findings on incidents regarding the conduct of officers, make binding disciplinary determinations, investigate the policies of agencies and make recommended changes, review internal investigations and issue findings on the sufficiency of such investigations, make budgetary recommendations for agencies, and issue public reports on the activities of the body. The oversight body may issue subpoenas in the performance of its duties, and current law enforcement officers are not eligible to serve on the oversight body, except that retired officers who have not previously served in the law enforcement agency within the boundaries of the locality may serve as a non-voting ex officio member.
Accountability
Demonstrator holding "Black Trans Lives Matter" sign in New York City
For as long as publicly-funded police forces have existed in the country, officers who commit brutal violence against Black people have habitually eluded any measure of accountability. Officers have been insulated from professional and judicial repercussions through layers of legal protections and collective bargaining agreements, allowing them to continue a pattern of misconduct and abuse of power against the communities they are charged to protect.
State lawmakers can strengthen accountability measures against law enforcement officers who violate standards of conduct and constitutional and civil rights by reinforcing disciplinary actions against officers, ensuring that collective bargaining agreements do not interfere with disciplinary actions, requiring public and agency access to the personnel records of officers with a history of misconduct to prevent their re-hiring, and banning qualified immunity.
Disciplinary Actions
A comprehensive police reform bill enacted in Colorado (2020 CO SB 217) requires the Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Board to permanently revoke the certification of a police officer who is found criminally guilty or civilly liable of unlawful use or threatened use of physical force or the failure to intervene in another officer's use of unlawful force. This law also requires POST to create and maintain a database containing information related to a police officer’s untruthfulness, repeated failure to follow POST board requirements, decertification, and termination for cause.
Enacted legislation in Connecticut (2020 CT HB 6004) expands the reasons that the police standards and training board could use to revoke a police officer’s certification to include conduct undermining public confidence in law enforcement or excessive or unjustified force. It also prohibits a decertified police officer from acquiring a security service license or performing security officer work.
The Illinois legislature passed a police criminal justice reform bill (2021 IL HB 3653) that creates a more robust certification system and lays out standards and processes for decertification of police officers, including the option to do so for exercising excessive use of force or failing to intervene to stop another officer from excessive use of force. The new law also expands accountability across police departments by requiring the permanent retention of police misconduct records and removes the sworn affidavit requirement when filing police misconduct complaints.
Indiana enacted legislation (2021 IN HB 1006) to establish a procedure to allow the Indiana law enforcement training board to decertify an officer who has committed misconduct. It also provides that decertification proceedings may continue for a police officer who resigns or retires before a finding and order have been issued concerning a violation. Another section of the law requires an agency hiring a law enforcement officer to request the officer's employment record and certain other information from previous employing agencies, requires the previous employing agency to provide certain employment information upon request, and provides immunity for disclosure of the employment records.
Legislation enacted in Iowa (2020 IA HF 2647) established circumstances under which the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) Council is required to revoke, or may suspend or revoke, a certification of a law enforcement or reserve police officer, and when the ILEA may deny an application of a law enforcement officer from another state seeking employment at a law enforcement agency in the state.
Kentucky enacted legislation (2021 KY SB 80) to include unjustified excessive or deadly force as a form of professional malfeasance that can lead to termination and decertification as a police officer.
Maryland legislation (2021 MD HB 670) allows for the suspension or revocation of a police certification for violating use of force laws and requires the revocation for a police officer who was previously fired or resigned while being investigated for serious misconduct or use of excessive force.
Legislation in Massachusetts (2020 MA SB 2963) creates a mandatory certification process for police officers through the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST). The Commission, through a majority civilian board, will certify officers and create processes for decertification, suspension of certification, or reprimand in the event of certain misconduct, including excessive use of force or use of a chokehold.
In New Mexico, the state legislature passed and enacted a bill (2020 NM SB 8) that would require a police officer’s certification to be permanently revoked if they are convicted or if they plead guilty to a crime of unlawful use of force, threatened unlawful use of force, or failing to intervene when unlawful use of force occurs. It also establishes that police officers who do not comply with body camera requirements are presumed to be acting in bad faith.
Lawmakers in Utah enacted legislation (2021 UT HB 62) to expand the authority of the state’s Peace Officer Standards and Training Council to take disciplinary action, including decertification, against a peace officer for “conduct that involves dishonesty or deception” in violation of agency policy or state or federal law, and for engaging in “biased or prejudicial conduct” based on “race, color, sex, pregnancy, age, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
Legislation (2020 VA HB 5051) enacted in Virginia expands the existing statutory process for the decertification of officers to require that agencies notify the state Criminal Justice Services Board when a law enforcement officer is terminated or resigns for engaging in serious misconduct, while under investigation for serious misconduct, or for an act that constitutes exculpatory or impeachment evidence in a criminal case. The bill also requires notice when an officer is terminated or resigns for violating a state or federal law or in advance of being convicted of a felony offense. Existing law only required notification to occur when officers resign in advance of a decertification offense or a pending drug screening. Finally, the bill authorizes the Criminal Justice Services Board to initiate decertification proceedings against current law enforcement or jail officers for such activities, where the Board was previously only authorized to initiate proceedings against former officers for failing to comply with training requirements.
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Enacted legislation in Connecticut (2020 CT HB 6004) explicitly prohibits police union collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) from barring disclosure of certain disciplinary actions, and it specifies that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) prevails over contrary CBA provisions.
The D.C. Council passed legislation (2020 DC B23-0825) that amends existing law to require that “all matters pertaining to the discipline of law enforcement personnel shall be retained by management and not be negotiable,” which explicitly applies to “any collective bargaining agreements entered into with the Fraternal Order of Police/Metropolitan Police Department Labor Committee after September 30, 2020.”
Legislation in Maryland (2021 MD HB 670) repeals the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights in its entirety and establishes new provisions relating to police accountability and discipline. A law enforcement agency may not negate or alter any of the requirements relating to specified police officer accountability and discipline through collective bargaining.
Oregon lawmakers passed a bill (2020 OR SB 1604) that would limit the likelihood that disciplinary actions taken against a law enforcement officer by the agency are later reversed or reduced through binding arbitration. Under the new law, if an arbitrator makes a finding on officer misconduct that is consistent with the agency’s findings, the arbitration award may not order action that differs from the disciplinary action imposed by the agency. The bill also establishes a “discipline guide” or “discipline matrix,” which outlines the parameters of discipline for acts of misconduct, to be adopted into the agency’s disciplinary policy as the result of a collective bargaining agreement.
Personnel Records and Hiring
Recent legislation in Arkansas (2021 AR HB 1197) requires any notice of separation sent to the Law Enforcement Commission on Standards and Training to include, if applicable: (1) the law enforcement officer retired while the subject of a pending internal investigation; (2) the law enforcement officer was separated due to excessive use of force, and/or (3) the law enforcement officer was separated for dishonesty or untruthfulness.
In D.C., councilmembers enacted legislation (2020 DC B23-0825) that renders any applicant ineligible for appointment as a sworn member of the Metropolitan Police Department if they were previously determined to have committed serious misconduct, terminated or forced to resign for disciplinary reasons, or resigned to avoid disciplinary action or termination.
Hawaii passed a law (2019 HI HB 285) that requires county police departments to disclose to the Legislature the identity of an officer upon an officer's suspension or discharge, and it allows for public access to information about suspended officers. The law also authorizes the law enforcement standards board to revoke certifications and requires the board to review and recommend statewide policies and procedures relating to law enforcement, including the use of force.
Lawmakers in Maryland enacted a bill (2021 MD HB 670) to require an individual who applies for a position as a police officer to disclose to the hiring law enforcement agency all prior instances of employment as a police officer and to authorize the hiring law enforcement agency to obtain the police officer’s full personnel and disciplinary record from each law enforcement agency that previously employed the police officer.
Massachusetts lawmakers passed a bill (2020 MA SB 2963) to create a publicly available, online database of decertification, suspension, and retraining orders that includes the names of all decertified or suspended officers, the date of decertification, or beginning and end dates of the suspension, the officer’s last appointing agency, and the reason for decertification or suspension. Additionally, the police standards and training commission shall cooperate with the national decertification index and other states and territories to ensure officers who are decertified by the commonwealth are not hired as law enforcement officers in other jurisdictions, including by providing the information requested by those entities.
A bill enacted in New Jersey (2020 NJ AB 744) requires that if law enforcement agencies consider appointing new officers with prior law enforcement experience, the hiring agency must request the applicant’s files from their previous law enforcement employers, including internal affairs and personnel files. The law also requires the other agencies to provide the information about the applicant to the hiring agency.
A bill passed in New York (2020 NY S 8496/A 10611) repealed a section of existing law that previously allowed law enforcement agencies to refuse to disclose personnel records. Under the new law, the disciplinary records of law enforcement officers can be requested through the state’s Freedom of Information Law, with redactions for personal or sensitive information.
Oregon legislators approved a bill (2020 OR HB 4207) to establish an online public database of records on officers whose certifications have been revoked or suspended. The bill also requires law enforcement agencies to request and review personnel records from all prior law enforcement agency employers of prospective applicants before extending an offer of employment.
In Pennsylvania, lawmakers unanimously passed a bill (2020 PA HB 1841) to create a statewide database with the separation records of law enforcement officers and requires agencies to complete a hiring report if prospective hires have a separation record including certain incidents, including the use of excessive force and discrimination. The bill also establishes new requirements for law enforcement agencies to conduct background investigations on applicants, including past separation records. Under the new law, agencies are required to provide employment information on applicants who are the subject of a background investigation upon request by a prospective employing law enforcement agency.
The Utah legislature enacted a bill (2021 UT SB 13) to increase reporting requirements to the state’s Peace Officer Standards and Training Council in cases where a law enforcement officer’s employment terminates during certain internal investigations. The bill also creates new requirements of law enforcement agencies and training academies to provide information about an applicant upon request.
Qualified Immunity
A comprehensive police reform bill enacted in Colorado (2020 CO SB 217) allows a person who has had their constitutional rights infringed upon by a police officer to bring civil action for the violation and provides that qualified immunity is not a defense to the civil action. Additionally, if the police officer’s employer determines the officer did not act in good faith and with a reasonable belief that the action was lawful, the police officer is personally liable for 5% of the judgment up to $25,000.
Comprehensive policing reform legislation in Connecticut (2020 CT HB 6004) establishes a civil cause of action against police officers who deprive an individual or class of individuals of the equal protection or privileges and immunities of state law, and it eliminates governmental immunity as a defense in certain lawsuits.
In New Mexico, state legislators enacted the “New Mexico Civil Rights Act” which allowed people to claim deprivation of any “rights, privileges, and immunities” guaranteed by the New Mexico Bill of Rights and to sue for damages in state district courts. This law requires these people to file suit against the public body itself and not the individual employed by the public body. This law also explicitly prohibits public bodies and those acting on the public body’s behalf from using qualified immunity as a defense.
System Oversight
Demonstrators march in Washington, D.C.
The violent realities of over-policing in Black communities and other communities of color are well-known by their residents, who are also best-positioned to develop the policy solutions necessary for lasting transformational change. But too often, state legislatures and institutional actors responsible for enacting policy change are not equitably representative of their communities, and therefore lack the lived experience and information necessary to make structural changes to policing systems.
At the state level, lawmakers can pave the way for broader changes by ensuring that communities have adequate access to data and oversight entities with decision-making power. State legislators can ensure that future reform efforts are informed by publicly available and disaggregated information on police interactions. Comprehensive data collection drives continuous oversight by identifying and investigating patterns of policing conduct that disproportionately harm communities of color. Legislators can also establish independent oversight bodies charged with reenvisioning policing and making policy recommendations with strong requirements for meaningful community participation.
Data Collection
A comprehensive police reform bill enacted in Colorado (2020 CO SB 217) requires the division of criminal justice in the department of public safety to collect and maintain a searchable, online database of aggregated data by state or local law enforcement agency on contacts conducted, unannounced entry, or use of force by police officers, as well as instances of police officers resigning while under investigation for violating department policies.
New York legislators passed a bill (2019 NY S 1830/A 10609) to create new data reporting requirements on misdemeanors and arrest-related deaths. Under the bill, law enforcement agencies are required to report arrest-related deaths to the Division of Criminal Justice Services, and the collected data must be made available online and updated monthly. The bill also requires the chief administrator of the courts to maintain an online database of the outcomes of misdemeanor offenses and violations, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, sex, and county. A bill (2020 VA HB 1250) enacted by legislators in Virginia prohibits “biased-based profiling” by law enforcement officers. The bill also creates new race and ethnicity data collection requirements for traffic stops by Virginia State Police officers, and creates a uniform statewide database for traffic stops, excessive force complaints, and other information collected by law enforcement agencies. The data analysis shall be used to determine the existence and prevalence of the practice of bias-based profiling and the prevalence of complaints alleging the use of excessive force.
Pattern or Practice Investigations
Comprehensive reform legislation enacted in Colorado (2020 CO SB 217) makes it unlawful for any governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by police officers that deprives individuals of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the constitution or laws of the United States or the state of Colorado. Whenever the state attorney general has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this provision has occurred, the state attorney general may in a civil action obtain any and all appropriate relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
Massachusetts police reform legislation (2020 MA SB 2963) refer patterns of racial profiling or the mishandling of complaints of unprofessional police conduct by a law enforcement agency for investigation and possible prosecution to the attorney general or the appropriate federal, state or local authorities. If the attorney general has reasonable cause to believe that such a pattern exists based on information received from any other source, the attorney general may bring a civil action for injunctive or other appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
Under a bill (2020 VA SB 5024/HB 5072) passed by Virginia lawmakers, the state Attorney General is authorized to investigate law enforcement agencies for unlawful patterns or practice of conduct, such as racially biased policing patterns or excessive force, and to seek remedy through civil action or by entering into a court-enforceable conciliation agreement with the agency. Agencies that are found to be out of compliance with conciliation agreements are also subject to a loss of state funding.
Independent System Oversight
The D.C. Council enacted legislation (2020 DC B23-0825) to establish the Police Reform Commission to examine policing practices and provide recommendations for reforming and revisioning policing. Required members of the 20-member Commission includes criminal and juvenile justice reform organizations, Black Lives Matter DC, student- or youth-led advocacy organizations, returning services organizations, and returning citizen organizations. The new law does not include District law enforcement agencies on the Commission, but does not prohibit past affiliation with law enforcement agencies for eligibility as a member.
A bill (2020 OR HB 4201) passed by Oregon lawmakers establishes the Joint Committee on Transparent Policing and Use of Police Reform to examine and make recommendations to the legislature regarding policies to reduce the use of force by police officers and improve transparency in the investigation of its use.
Local and National Organizations
Mural artists collectively create street art in front of City Hall in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Many Black-led and centered organizations have been leading on policing, police reform, and abolition for years. We encourage you to seek information and support from this list below. Note this is not a comprehensive list and will be updated.
A Measure of Accountability in the Killing of George Floyd
While one verdict cannot begin to heal the years of trauma that Black people in this country face, this verdict is an important measure of accountability. But justice has not been served. Justice would be George Floyd alive today, living in a world that knows Black lives matter. Justice would be an end to the constant, unrelenting police violence that takes the lives of nearly 1,000 Americans each year and terrorizes the lives of thousands more.
“We will have to do this for life. I am going to put up a fight every day. Because I am not just fighting for George anymore,” said Philonise Floyd, George Floyd’s brother.
Even as the trial was underway, the police murdered another young Black man just miles from the courthouse. The family of Daunte Wright lost a father, a son, a boyfriend, a friend. Just weeks ago, police killed Adam Toledo, a 13-year-old boy, with his empty hands in the air. Ma'Khia Bryant, a 16-year-old girl, was shot and killed just before the verdict was announced. These murders add to the constant trauma of living in this unjust, racist system and add to the urgency of demands for reimagining public safety.
We write today relieved that a small amount of accountability has, at last, been applied to a police officer. But we will not let this verdict lessen the urgency of demands for changes to the violent system of policing in this country.
This trial cannot be seen as vindication that the system can work—it must be seen as proof that it is broken.
Our work to transform systems through liberatory public policy and end systemic anti-Black racism requires our community to lean on one another in these moments. “Painfully earned justice has arrived for George Floyd’s family and the community here in Minneapolis, but today’s verdict goes far beyond this city and has significant implications for the country and even the world. This case is a turning point in American history for accountability of law enforcement and sends a clear message we hope is heard clearly in every city and every state,” said the Floyd family’s attorney Ben Crump in a statement.
Incremental policy changes haven’t stopped the killings and one guilty verdict will not, either. We need to reimagine public safety in America.
Communities are in deep pain right now. Each murder of yet another Black person by the police shows we need to transform our approach to public safety. Lives should always matter more than property.
In the words of the Movement for Black Lives, “There is no ‘reforming’ this system—the time is now to divest from deadly policing and invest in a vision of public safety that protects us all.”
Mississippi State Rep. Zakiya Summers is dedicated to expanding voter access, pushing for ambitious equity agendas, and upholding educational opportunities. Prior to joining the legislature, Rep. Summers served as the director of communications and advocacy at the ACLU of Mississippi and as the Hinds County District 3 election commissioner.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What experiences led you to commit to fighting for voting rights?
When I turned 18, my mom told me that if I don't vote, I can no longer live in the house. So voting was extremely critical for our household. My great grandmother was unable to vote until the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and even then she had to walk from her home in rural Mississippi, five miles to town just to be able to cast her vote.
Mississippi State Rep. Zakiya Summers
And then, in my work as an Election Commissioner, I would go out to high schools and hold voter registrations. Having students contact me and say “I got my voter registration card” and “I can't wait to be able to vote this year” really showed me how impactful our work was with young people.
How does Mississippi limit access to voting?
First, we don't even have online voter registration; we still have to use the old school paper way.
Mississippi also has more ways a person can become disenfranchised than almost any other state; 23 different felonies can disenfranchise a person. And there's no way to change that status for yourself, the legislature would have to pass a suffrage bill in your name or the governor would have to pardon you.
During my first year as a legislator, one of my colleagues was trying to get his brother's right to vote restored. But the committee chairman just refused to bring it up for debate; as a result, the process had to start all over again in January–after the elections.
Finally, I tried to introduce an amendment to allow for no-excuse absentee voting and it failed. Every time we try to bring legislation to expand access to the ballot, the ruling party doesn’t allow it to go anywhere.
My great grandmother was unable to vote until the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and even then she had to walk from her home in rural Mississippi, five miles to town just to be able to cast her vote.
How is voter suppression tied to social and economic problems in Mississippi?
Who is responsible for policy change? Policymakers. How do policymakers get into position? The electorate. Something that the NAACP president always says, “voting is where our social and our economic power lies.” So if you're not at the policy table, then you're on the menu; if you're not on the menu, then you might be in the lobby. But that all starts with voting.
Do you feel hopeful about changing voting in the South?
I certainly feel hopeful. Legislators can't do it alone inside the Capitol, and we saw that last year when Mississippi voters finally changed our state flag. We never would have thought that in 2020, we'd be taking down the Mississippi state flag after decades of people fighting— some having died fighting.
But we got it done, so we just have to continue to fight. We need that same passion, that same advocacy, and that same activism when it comes to voting rights. When we elevate voter access, everybody wins.
Digital Tips: Text Spacing in Graphics
This resource is adapted from our Digital Tips e-mail series. To sign up to receive these resources in your inbox regularly, join our network.
Tutorial: Line Height
Look at the paragraphs below. Which one is easiest for you to read?
If you chose option 2, you, like most people, find proper spacing essential to readability.
One of the most important elements to consider when adding text to graphics is line spacing, also known as leading.
Here's a handy rule: Line spacing should be 125% to 150% of your font size. Different programs measure line spacing differently; since many legislators use Canva for graphic design, I'll use it in this example.
In Canva, the line spacing value (called "line height") is relative to the font size. So you should set your line spacing to a value between 1.2 and 1.5.
Bonus Tip: Don't squash too many details in one graphic! Remove unessential information and include extra details in the post or tweet's caption.
Quick Links: Digital Resources From Around The Web
Rep. Lamar hopes the bill will help lead TN to designate doulas as health professionals and require private insurance and Medicaid to cover their services.
First bill of the year passed sub committee! Doula support in Tennessee is moving! 🙌🏾
Massachusetts Goes All In On Environmental Protection
Massachusetts enacted a sweeping climate change law that will require the state to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, codify environmental justice protections, prioritize solar power for low-income housing, and more.
State Rep. Rachel Talbot Ross, the first Black person to serve a leadership role in the Maine legislature, sponsored the law.
Colorado Moves To Expand Multilingual Ballots
A new Colorado bill sponsored by State Rep. Yadira Caraveo will require more counties to provide multilingual voter ballots and establish a hotline with translators by the 2022 election.
Just now: the House passed my bill to expand multilingual ballot access on a *bipartisan* vote. I've worked on this bill since my first campaign in 2018, when I heard about the challenges that my constituents faced as they tried to participate in our democracy. #coleg#copoliticspic.twitter.com/Pqq20on8QN
Great news! Our bill to clarify that mental health days count as an excused absence in our K-12 schools passed the House today with strong bipartisan support! It's now headed to the governor's desk. Thank you to my colleagues for their support! #SB1097https://t.co/1ubGLliGsY
New Jersey enacted an LGBTQI+ Senior Bill of Rights, which will bar long-term care facilities from discriminating based on sexuality, gender, or HIV status.
A Voting Rights Act for Virginia
Virginia is poised to become the first state to enact its own version of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013.
The bill was drafted by two Black women lawmakers—Delegate Cia Price and Delegate Jennifer McClellan.
Historic Session in New Mexico
New Mexico's legislature closed out its session by passing progressive bills that will protect abortion rights, guarantee paid sick leave for employees at private companies, and end qualified immunity for police.
Bold Public Investment Is Popular and Key to Ending This Crisis
By: Azza Altiraifi, Senior Program Manager at the Groundwork Collaborative
In the year since the COVID-19 pandemic first gripped the United States, over 525,000 people have perished and millions more - disproportionately people of color, disabled people, women, and those at the intersection of these identities—are still struggling to get by. The historic scale of the economic and public health crises we’ve faced was not inevitable. It was the result of decades of austerity policies and systematic disinvestment in the public sector at local, state, and federal levels. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Over a decade of research shows that the economics of austerity are flawed, broadly unpopular, and racist. And while accelerating vaccine distribution and imminent federal fiscal aid are promising, it will take robust, sustained, and equitable public investment at state and local levels to get out of these crises and build a resilient economy that works for everyone, instead of the wealthy few.
Austerity is Racist and Economically Destabilizing
Even before the coronavirus emerged in the US, state and local budgets and tax systems were in bad shape. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the federal government cut aid short prematurely, leading many state and local governments to pursue austerity measures to address budget shortfalls and mitigate the economic shock. States and localities eliminated public jobs, deferred necessary maintenance on critical infrastructure like roads and bridges, and shrunk social programs and services.
A racially diverse group of elementary school students in classroom
Not only did limited federal stimulus prolong the recovery from the Great Recession, but it exacerbated race and gender inequities. Consider that while the Great Recession technically ended in June 2009, it took until 2018 for Black women’s employment to fully recover. Now, with the economy plunged into crisis again, the very austerity measures implemented in the past have left states more economically vulnerable and exacerbated the financial harms faced by low-income workers and people of color.
Since February 2020, states and localities have lost 1.3 million jobs. But safety-net programs such as the unemployment insurance system struggled to scale up and distribute life-sustaining benefits in the face of such precipitous job loss and economic upheaval. This is largely because federal austerity over the past decades has shifted more responsibilities to state and local governments. Further still, austerity politics at all levels of government fuel scarcity myths and racist ideas of “deservedness,” which are then used to justify shrinking benefits and imposing cumbersome administrative barriers throughout the benefits application process.
Austerity politics at all levels of government fuel scarcity myths and racist ideas of “deservedness” which are then used to justify shrinking benefits.
The cumulative effects of these austerity measures and mindsets are seen in the millions of workers and families who waited months in a pandemic to access aid that was insufficient to meet their needs. And since Black and brown people are most likely to work in the hardest-hit sectors, they face the brunt of these cascading economic harms.
People-Centered Spending Will Help End This Crisis
As states face plummeting revenues and soaring investment needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the case for implementing progressive tax systems to raise revenue is incontrovertible. The majority of pandemic job losses are concentrated among low-income workers, but largely white upper-income households continue to see their assets grow during the pandemic. If states had more progressive tax systems, they could tax those income gains at the top to shore up revenue, reverse concentrations of wealth and power, and promote greater racial and gender equity.
A drive-up food pantry in Sherman, Texas
Instead, many state budgets are more vulnerable, income inequality is worsened, and consequently, Black and brown workers are bearing an even heavier economic burden. On average, state tax systems take a 50% greater share of income from the poorest quintile of taxpayers than they take from the top one percent. Replacing these upside-down tax structures with progressive taxes on the highest earners can shore up budgets and create space for legislators to make meaningful investments in infrastructure, public health, green jobs, and more. And years of research have proven that in a depressed economy, increased public investment more than pays for itself in economic growth — more than $1 in growth for each $1 spent.
Replacing upside-down tax structures with progressive taxes on the highest earners can shore up budgets and create space for legislators to make meaningful investments in infrastructure, public health, green jobs, and more.
Recently, New Jersey passed a millionaires tax, which is a crucial step in addressing enduring racial and socioeconomic inequities within the state’s tax code. Heeding the call of advocates and economists, New Jersey’s state leadership rejected harmful and counterproductive budget cuts that would have exacerbated inequality and further eroded health and social infrastructure. Instead, they prioritized smart investments such as expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and restoring funding for an array of environmental programs.
States facing unprecedented spikes in spending due to COVID-19 and tumbling revenues can also pursue progressive taxes to balance their budgets and redistribute power and resources. And such investments are broadly popular. Polling confirms that the public opposes state budget and service cuts by wide and bipartisan margins.
Ultimately, an abundance approach to policy recognizes that people-centered spending—to restore and expand social services, revitalize key infrastructure, and build public power— is a matter of strategic investment to build a more just and equitable future. Robust public investment is broadly popular, economically sound, and necessary to advance racial justice. It’s time for state and local policies to reflect that.
Groundwork Collaborative is a research and policy advocacy organization working to advance a coherent and persuasive progressive economic worldview capable of delivering meaningful opportunity and prosperity for everyone.
2020 Session Highlights: How States Support Workers During COVID-19
Background
Over a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, communities across the country, particularly communities of color and low-income communities, continue to experience countless losses of life and economic devastation. In 2020, state leaders took immediate action to provide relief to families and to empower workers through the economic crisis.
Women of color are also more likely to hold jobs in “essential services,” such as grocery clerks and health care workers, where they are most in need of job-protected and paid time off from work, but least likely to have access to it. One in five essential workers are Latinx, and one in six are Black. These frontline jobs, which are often low-paid and without health and safety protections, put Black and Latinx people at greater risk of contracting COVID-19. As a direct result of these increased workplace risks and a long legacy of structural racism in health care and the social determinants of health, Black, Indigenous, and Latinx Americans are dying from COVID-19 at a rate almost 3 times as high as the rate for white Americans.
What are states doing to protect workers’ rights during COVID-19?
The 2020 legislation outlined below aims to protect workers who are recently unemployed as a result of COVID-19 and “essential” workers who are often risking their health to go to work. The policy areas discussed in this publication are:
Emergency Paid Sick Leave
Hazard Pay for Essential Workers
Expansion of Unemployment Insurance Benefits
Workers’ Compensation
Workplace Health and Safety Protections
Whistleblower Protections
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.
Emergency Paid Sick Leave
Paid sick leave is essential so that workers can stay home when they are sick, and it is absolutely critical to stopping the spread of a virus during a pandemic. Nearly one in four American workers do not have access to a single paid sick day at their job. Low-wage workers, service workers, and Latinx workers are the least likely to have access to paid sick leave. Congress authorized the first national paid sick leave policy with the passage of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), giving workers up to two weeks of emergency paid sick days for coronavirus-related health and caregiving needs. The new policy was historic and lifesaving—one study estimated that the FFCRA paid sick leave provisions resulted in 400 fewer confirmed cases of COVID-19 per state per day.
Still, carve-outs in the new federal protections left out up to 106 million workers, many of them women of color in the health care industry. With the expiration of the FFCRA leave protections, states must act to protect workers by enacting emergency or permanent paid sick leave legislation. Only 13 states and Washington, D.C. have passed legislation to provide permanent paid sick leave to workers who would otherwise not have access to it, allowing employees to put personal or family health needs first, including when ill or experiencing symptoms of COVID-19.
Colorado enacted CO SB 20-205, which is now one of the country’s strongest paid sick time laws. Through December 31, 2020, the legislation extended access to emergency paid sick leave for more workers who were left out of the FFCRA protections. Beginning January 1, 2021, the law entitled employees to earn paid sick time for general personal and family health needs.
New Jersey’s legislature passed NJ S 2304/A 3900, a bill that expands the state’s existing paid sick leave laws to include leave for caregiving or quarantine needs during a declared state of emergency.
The California legislature passed CA AB 3216, which was vetoed by the governor. As introduced, the bill would have amended the state’s laws to allow paid sick leave for high-risk individuals, caregivers, and other public health workers. By executive order, the California governor provided emergency paid leave for food sector workers for purposes related to COVID-19. California also enacted CA SB 1383, which expands existing unpaid medical leave protections to workers at businesses with five or more employees (lowered from 50 or more employees) and protects an employee’s health benefits during the leave. This means that more workers will be able to take job-protected leave (paid or unpaid) to care for a family member with a serious illness.
The Massachusetts legislature introduced MA H 4700 and MA H 4928, which would have entitled all workers in Massachusetts to emergency paid sick leave during current and future public health emergencies. Massachusetts also introduced MA H 4627, which would have ensured state government employees have paid sick leave time to address health impacts due to COVID-19 infection, quarantine, or isolation.
The Michigan legislature introduced MI SB 0961, which would have expanded the state’s existing paid sick time law to be more comprehensive and provide additional coverage for public health emergencies. By executive order, Michigan’s governor protected workers from retaliation for staying home from work to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Legislators in Louisiana introduced LA HB 832, which would have created permanent paid sick leave protections for workers, including leave for business or school closures due to a public health emergency.
The Ohio legislature introduced OH HB 593 to provide quarantine or isolation pay and sick leave benefits to workers during a declared emergency. This bill would also have created an unemployment insurance-like grant program for contract workers who are unable to work due to quarantine or public health orders.
Hazard Pay for Essential Workers
Some states introduced legislation in 2020 to provide additional compensation in the form of “hazard pay” to essential workers, since they are at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19. Nearly half of all frontline essential workers, who are disproportionately Black and Latinx, are paid less than a living wage. Not only are essential workers woefully underpaid and risking their lives to keep the rest of the economy running—they are also more likely to have an underlying health condition that puts them at increased risk of serious illness if infected with COVID-19.
In the early months of the pandemic, many large corporations announced modest hazard pay for essential workers. A poll conducted in May found that 30 percent of people working outside their home were receiving hazard pay. By late summer, despite reporting skyrocketing profits, nearly all of the nation’s largest companies had ended their hazard pay policies. As the hazard of working in frontline industries continues, hazard pay policies at the state level can extend a lifeline to essential workers.
The Massachusetts legislature introduced MA H 4740, which would have provided emergency health hazard benefits to each essential employee. The legislature also introduced MA H 4745, which would have required that any employer that provides COVID-19 essential services to also provide hazard pay if they employ at least six individuals.
The New York legislature introduced NY A 10359/S 8955 to provide hazard payments of up to $25,000 annually to essential workers during a state disaster emergency. Another New York bill, NY S 8839, would provide frontline state workers with a $2,500 pay differential and 35 hours of additional accrued vacation time.
Legislators in Vermont enacted VT H 965, which appropriated $28 million in federal Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF) to establish the Frontline Employees Hazard Pay Grant Program. The program makes grant funds available to health care, human services, and public safety employers to provide a one-time hazard payment of up to $2,000 to eligible employees. The Vermont legislature also passed VT S 352, which appropriated an additional $2.5 million and expanded the hazard pay grant program to other industries, including janitorial services, food service providers, nurse contracting agencies, and homeless shelters.
The Louisiana legislature enacted LA HB 70, which provided a one-time hazard pay rebate of $250 to workers in “essential critical infrastructure” industries earning less than $50,000 in annual income. The rebate program was funded by a $25 million appropriation in federal CRF funds and administered by the state’s Department of Revenue.
The passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March of 2020 and the short-term relief bill that passed in December provided a much-needed boost to struggling state unemployment programs by providing a temporary supplement to benefit amounts, extending the duration of benefits, and extending benefits to more workers who are typically ineligible for UI, including self-employed workers and independent contractors. States can build upon the new federal enhancements by strengthening their UI programs to better protect the economic security and health of all workers.
Colorado enacted CO SB 20-207, which ensures that workers can return to work safely by clarifying that an allowable reason for UI recipients quitting or not returning to work includes caregiving needs, school closures, or underlying health conditions during a public health emergency.
Kansas enacted KS HB 2016, which introduces temporary flexibilities in the UI program by waiving the work search requirement for applicants during the disaster emergency and waiving the one-week waiting period before new claimants can receive benefits.
Minnesota enacted MN HF 4531, which temporarily amends the definition of “suitable employment” for the purposes of UI eligibility to exclude jobs that put the health and safety of the applicant, other workers, or the public at risk for potential exposure to COVID-19. The bill also temporarily suspends the one-week waiting period for receiving benefits and provides that involuntary leaves of absence related to COVID-19, such as a public health order or school closure, do not make an applicant ineligible for UI.
New York enacted NY S 8275, which allows recipients to receive benefits even if they have previously received an overpayment in benefits. The bill suspends existing penalties against such UI applicants for the duration of the current state of emergency.
The Massachusetts legislature introduced MA H 4747, which would have appropriated $75 million in state rainy day funds to establish the COVID-19 Food Service and Hospitality Worker Relief Emergency Fund. The fund would have provided financial assistance to individuals employed in the food service and hospitality industry who have been laid off or are otherwise experiencing financial distress as a result of COVID-19.
Legislators on the Joint Emergency Board in Oregon, which has spending authority when the legislature is not in session, appropriated $10 million in April of 2020 to fund the Oregon Worker Relief Fund, which provides financial support to Oregon workers who are excluded from UI benefits and other forms of federal or state relief, such as undocumented workers. The board appropriated an additional $10 million from the state’s federal Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) in June.
The Illinois legislature introduced IL HB 5861/SB 4026, which would permanently waive state efforts to recover benefit overpayments made to UI recipients during the COVID-19 emergency if the overpayments were made through no fault of the recipient
Workers’ Compensation
As more states reopen and workplace transmission of COVID-19 increases, state workers’ compensation insurance programs can protect the health and financial well-being of workers who contract the virus. While workers’ compensation does not cover common community-spread illnesses that may be difficult to identify as workplace-related, there are existing exceptions for chronic illnesses that are prevalent in certain industries, like lung conditions for first responders.
Black, Latinx, and immigrant workers, who are overrepresented among essential industries and less likely to be able to work from home, have been exceptionally vulnerable to workplace exposure to COVID-19. At the same time, low wages and low access to health benefits mean that many essential workers who contract COVID-19 will be faced with catastrophic financial and health consequences without adequate protections. More than a third of essential workers live in low-income households, and essential workers in some industries are more likely to be uninsured. States can take additional steps to ensure that those who contract COVID-19 in the workplace are eligible for health and financial benefits through workers’ compensation.
Vermont enacted VT S 342, which creates a temporary presumption that frontline workers are entitled to workers’ compensation coverage for illness or death resulting from COVID-19. Other workers not included in the definition of “frontline worker” are presumed eligible if they test positive for or are diagnosed with COVID-19 and can document workplace exposure. Employers can rebut the presumption if they can provide a preponderance of evidence that exposure to the disease was not employment-related, or that at the time of exposure, the employer was in compliance with federal, state, and local public health guidance.
California passed a bill, CA SB 1159, which provides for a rebuttable presumption of workers’ compensation eligibility for frontline workers who contract COVID-19. The bill also creates a general presumption of compensability for any worker who tests positive for COVID-19 when an outbreak of COVID-19 has occurred at their work location.
Colorado introduced CO SB 20-2016, which failed to pass but would have established a rebuttable presumption that if an essential worker who works outside of the home and contracts COVID-19, the illness is presumed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, and is an occupational disease for the purpose of workers’ compensation. The bill would also have treated COVID-19 as a compensable accident, injury, or occupational disease under the state’s workers’ compensation laws.
Michigan introduced MI HB 5758/SB 928, which would have created a presumption of workers’ compensation eligibility for essential workers by amending the existing definition of “personal injury” to include exposure to an infectious disease during an emergency declared by the governor.
As more states reopen in spite of rising COVID-19 cases, more workers, even in nonessential industries, are facing increased risk of exposure at work. More than half of all Black, Indigenous, and Latinx workers in essential and nonessential industries have jobs that require them to work in person and closely with others, compared to 41 percent of white workers. In most cases, workers have no choice but to risk their health and their family’s health in order to pay the bills: the median income for in-person, close-proximity workers is just $27,700. More than 80 percent of Black, Indigenous, and Latinx workers with such high-risk jobs earned even less than their average counterparts. In the absence of federal health and safety protections for workers, states can establish stronger measures to prevent and reduce transmission of COVID-19 in the workplace by setting standards for social distancing, provision of personal protective equipment (PPE), disinfection and deep cleaning, ventilation rates, and disclosure requirements for potential exposure.
The California legislature enacted CA AB 2537, which requires employers of workers who provide direct patient care in a hospital setting to supply employees with PPE. The bill also requires that such employers maintain a three-months supply of unexpired protective equipment and provide reports of PPE consumption and inventory to the state Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Another bill passed in California, CA SB 275, requires the Department of Public Health to establish a state stockpile of PPE to ensure an adequate supply for health care workers and essential workers.
The New Jersey legislature introduced NJ S 2602/A 4404, the Farm Worker Epidemic Health and Safety Act, which directs the state commissioner of health to establish a system for the timely reporting of public health violations in the agricultural and food processing industries. The bill would also establish new administrative penalties for employer violations of the act and new anti-retaliation protections for farm workers.
The New York legislature introduced NY A 10512/NY S 8385, the Nursing Home Protection Act, which would have required the commissioner of health to provide twice-weekly COVID-19 testing to nursing home staff and weekly testing to all nursing home residents. The bill would also have required the Department of Health to provide sufficient PPE to all nursing home staff and residents.
The North Carolina legislature introduced NC HB 1196, which would have required all staff employed at a congregate or residential care facility, except for correctional facilities, to be tested for COVID-19 weekly. Under the bill, the state Division of Health Service Regulation would have been responsible for the costs of distributing the tests and any necessary PPE to conduct the weekly tests.
The Pennsylvania legislature introduced PA HB 2694, the COVID-19 Pandemic Frontline Employee Health and Safety Protection Act, which failed to advance but would have created new protections for health care and emergency responder workers, including requiring precautions to reduce transmission, provision of appropriate levels of PPE, provision of mental health benefit coverage, and regular COVID-19 testing. The bill would have required all other employers to make public health accommodations for workers, including limiting in-person services, social distancing, provision of PPE, and notification of possible exposure to COVID-19 when an employee has been infected.
Whistleblower Protections
Workers should not have to decide between risking their health and risking their jobs. Still, in the first six months of the pandemic, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) received nearly 1,800 COVID-19-related complaints about employer retaliation from workers who reported unsafe working conditions. Of those complaints, more than half were dismissed without investigation, 20 percent were docketed for investigation, and just 2 percent were investigated and resolved. Robust whistleblower protections are essential to preventing continued COVID-19 workplace outbreaks, especially as retaliation complaints have increased during the pandemic, while the number of staff in the OSHA whistleblower program has decreased.
Structural racism in the economy leaves workers of color particularly vulnerable to employer backlash for whistleblower complaints. A recent survey of workers found that Black workers are more than twice as likely as white workers to report being punished or fired for raising concerns about COVID-19 transmission at work. The consequences of employer retaliation against whistleblowers are clear: many workers continue to endure hazardous work for fear of losing their job. Nearly three-quarters of Black workers and nearly two-thirds of Latinx workers reported going to work even though they believed they were risking their health, compared to 49 percent of white workers. States can establish stronger whistleblower protections by instituting new enforceable standards, protecting informal complaints to fellow workers or the public, and providing for the right to refuse work under dangerous conditions.
Colorado enacted CO HB 20-1415, which prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against any worker who raises concerns about workplace health and safety practices related to a public health emergency or who voluntarily wears their own PPE to the workplace. Under the new law, workers can seek relief through a private right of action or by suing in the name of the state after they have exhausted administrative remedies. The law also protects informal disclosure of workplace hazards, such as on social media or to fellow workers, by prohibiting employers from requiring nondisclosure agreements regarding public health emergency-related health and safety practices.
The New Jersey legislature introduced NJ S 2509/A 4156, which would protect health care professionals from retaliatory action for speaking out about employer practices that they believe to be in violation of the law, for participating in any investigations of the employer, or for refusing to participate in an activity that they believe to be in violation of the law or incompatible with safe public health practices. The bill further protects the right to refuse to work on-site under conditions that would jeopardize their health or the health of their family.
The North Dakota legislature introduced ND HB 1262, which would have amended existing anti-retaliation protections for whistleblowers to include employees who report a public health-related workplace violation to an employer, governmental body, or law enforcement official, and employees who voluntarily wear their own PPE beyond what is provided by the employer.
Wage Theft Protections
Every year, workers lose billions of dollars when employers fail to pay their employees for overtime work, off-the-clock work, meal or rest breaks, and other wage theft violations. Under normal economic circumstances, workers of color, women, immigrants, and low-wage workers are more likely to have wages stolen from their paychecks. During economic downturns, minimum wage violations soar alongside unemployment levels as workers are unable to find other jobs when their employers shortchange them, nor are they able to find adequate resolution through labor officials at public agencies with slashed budgets.
Workers lost 20 percent of their hourly wage to minimum wage violations from 2007 to 2009, and the patterns of wage theft continue to mirror policy decisions of the past to exclude Black and Latinx workers from labor protections. Non-citizens were twice as likely to experience minimum wage violations than citizen workers during the Great Recession. Latinx workers were 84 percent more likely, and Black workers 50 percent more likely, to experience such violations than white workers. The compounding effects of discrimination based on race, gender, and citizenship are even more staggering: non-citizen Latina workers were four times more likely, and non-citizen Black women were 3.7 times more likely, to have lost wages when compared to white male citizens. States can take steps to protect their workers from wage theft in the ongoing pandemic recession by strengthening enforcement mechanisms and enhancing options for workers to seek relief from wage theft violations.
The Virginia legislature enacted VA HB 123 and VA SB 838, which provide an employee with a private cause of action (individually, jointly, or with or on behalf of similarly situated employees as a collective action) against an employer who fails to pay wages. These new laws also provide that employers are required to pay triple the amount of wages due and attorney fees and costs if it is found that the employer knowingly violated these wage laws. VA SB 838 also includes language requiring general contractors and their subcontractors to be jointly liable to pay wages due to the subcontractor’s employees.
The Virginia legislature also enacted VA HB 337 and VA SB 48, which prohibit an employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because the employee filed any complaint, caused any proceeding related to the failure to pay wages to be instituted, or testified (or is about to testify) in any such proceeding. An employer who is found to have retaliated against an employee under this section may be required to reinstate the employee and pay any lost wages, plus punitive damages.
The Illinois legislature introduced IL SB 3295 and IL HB 4293, which would have entitled an employee to recover damages of 5 percent (rather than 2 percent) of the amount of any underpayments in wages for each month the underpayments remain unpaid.
The Kentucky legislature introduced KY HB 40 and KY HB 606, which would have created a new crime of “theft of wages” classified as a Class A misdemeanor for wages less than $500, Class D felony for wages greater than $500 and less than $10,000, and Class C felony for wages of $10,000 or more. These bills would have also implemented employer recordkeeping and disclosure requirements, such as requiring certain employers to include rate of pay, the number of hours worked, and the total amount of gross pay earned on wage statements; keep records for three years of the name, address, and occupation of each employee, the rate of pay and amount paid to each employee, and a list of personnel policies and a copy of the wage statement provided to each employee; and provide to an employee a written notice at the time of hire that details the method of pay, the employee’s employment status, accruals of time, deductions that may be made from pay, and the name and address of the employer. KY HB 606 would also create a wage payment bond requirement for employers in the minerals industry.
The Massachusetts legislature introduced MA S 2939 and MA H 5086, which would have provided employees with treble (triple) damages when the state attorney general wins a civil suit against their employer for wage theft violations. These bills would have provided the power to issue a stop work order by the attorney general if an employer was found to have engaged in wage theft and by the director of the Department of Unemployment Assistance if the employer failed to make unemployment contributions. These bills would also have implemented protections for workers hired by subcontractors.
Maryland Voters Want Investment In Communities, Higher Taxes On Corporations
A recent TargetSmart poll on behalf of the State Innovation Exchange and Strong Future Maryland found broad support among Maryland voters for public investment and raising taxes on the wealthy.
Do you think each of the following groups of people in Maryland pay to little in state taxes, about the right amount in state taxes, or too much in state taxes?
Three out of four Maryland voters support increased investment in families, small businesses, healthcare systems, and schools over a proposal for Maryland to "live within its means."
Support for progressive revenue proposals was underscored by a belief that middle and low-income residents pay too much in state taxes, while corporations and the wealthy pay too little.
Last night, a white man shot and killed eight people in Atlanta, Georgia, most of whom were Asian and immigrant women. The horrific violence in Georgia is not just the latest in a trend of intensifying attacks on Asian communities. It builds on a centuries-old history of anti-Asian racial terrorism, white supremacy, and misogyny—little of which make the pages of American school history textbooks.
As journalist Kat Chow poignantly reminds us, each victim of this attack was a person with hopes and dreams and a family "waiting for them at home." We cannot lose sight of this. Even as we move to urgently respond and enact policies to prevent this from ever happening again, we cannot forget the lives lost. We join our Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) colleagues, friends, family, and neighbors who are grappling with fear, heartache, and outrage from these attacks.
As an organization, SiX re-commits to amplifying AAPI legislators, especially Asian women; addressing anti-Asian and anti-immigrant rhetoric; and challenging the progressive movement's frequent silence on issues that impact AAPI communities, issues that also impact many other communities of color. To that end, we implore you to use your powerful platform to speak out and take legislative action to increase protections for your AAPI families, friends, constituents, and communities.
AAPI folks are vastly underrepresented in state legislatures and we need all legislators—Black, white, brown alike—to step into deeper solidarity and partnership with Asian communities to confront this violence.
AAPI legislators in our network: we see you and are here for you. And we acknowledge that AAPI folks are vastly underrepresented in state legislatures and we need all legislators—Black, white, brown alike—to step into deeper solidarity and partnership with Asian communities to confront this violence.
The violent attacks yesterday, the ongoing attacks of AAPI folks across the country, the 1-year anniversary of Breonna Taylor’s murder at the hands of police, the trial for justice for George Floyd in MN, and countless other events over the last several weeks continue to show the ways that white supremacy and white supremacist violence shape every aspect of our daily lives, our communities, our movements, and our organization.
We know and live that white supremacy is weaponized to divide our communities. As each of us experiences the pain, the grief, and the fear of racialized violence, white supremacy works to try and convince us that this is a time to isolate and remove ourselves from one another. Racism relies on division and fear. It is up to each of us to actively engage in anti-racism work as individuals, organizations and movements. The shared enemy of white supremacy and white supremacist violence must be combatted with a deep commitment to solidarity rooted in our shared humanity.
Our democracy survived the November elections and January transition of power by a thread, in large part thanks to the long-term work and advocacy of Black women—leaders like Stacey Abrams (a former state legislator herself) and the Fair Fight Action team; organizers and political strategists like Adrianne Shropshire, Tamieka Atkins, Nsé Ufot, and LaTosha Brown; state legislators like Maryland Speaker Adrienne A. Jones, Kentucky Rep. Attica Scott, Tennessee Rep. Karen D. Camper, and Georgia Rep. Sandra Scott; and Black women voters across the country who consistently turnout out in high numbers. Yet there remain too few Black women in elected office, and especially in state legislatures.
Today, just 4.82% of state legislators are Black women (356 out of 7,383 legislators).See the data below for a state-by-state comparison.
It is crucial for Black women to be represented in state legislatures, which consider over 100,000 bills nationwide each year. The people who most intimately know the true impact of structural racism and sexism—Black women—know best how to dismantle those systems and move to a just and equitable democracy and society.
There remain too few Black women in elected office, and especially in state legislatures. Today, just 4.82 percent of state legislators are Black women.
State legislatures are the critical front lines of the policy battles to build the world we want to live in. Every day, decisions on issues ranging from reproductive justice, education, workers’ rights, health care, food and agriculture, criminal justice, democracy and voting rights, and everything in between are made in state legislatures. In the midst of a pandemic and economic recession that are having devastating consequences on Black women, the need for Black women to have decision-making power in the solutions to these crises has never been more apparent.
Demonstrators carry signs thanking Stacey Abrams at a Manhattan rally in support of the Equal Rights Amendment.
There remain 8 states without a single Black woman in their legislature, despite the Black population in each state ranging from 2-6%: Vermont, South Dakota, Hawaii, Arizona, Idaho, Nebraska, Montana, and North Dakota.
States with large Black populations are not immune from under-representation either. In fact, Mississippi, the state with the highest Black population in the country, has a staggering disparity in representation—Black women make up approximately 19.36% of the population but just 7.47% of the legislature.
In Louisiana, the state with the third highest Black population in the country, Black women make up approximately 16.82% of the population but just 5.55% of the legislature—a disparity of over 3 to1.
Lasting progressive change must begin with removing the barriers of entry for Black women.
Underrepresentation creates barriers where there should be a steady flow of ideas and policy from communities to the capitol. Conversely, when Black women do serve in office, they create much-needed change. Look to Kentucky State Rep. Attica Scott, one of just two Black women in her state’s legislature, who introduced and is fighting for Breonna’s Law-—both in the streets and in the capitol. Look to Georgia State Rep. Sandra Scott who introduced a resolution to declare racism a public health crisis. Look to Maryland Speaker Adrienne Jones, the first Black and first female speaker of the Maryland House, who has rolled out the state’s first “Black Agenda,” aimed at eliminating racial gaps in health, wealth, and housing.
Kentucky StateRep. Attica Scott participating in a march in downtown Louisville, Kentucky (July 2020)
Lasting progressive change must begin with removing the barriers of entry for Black women. It is also necessary for the accomplishments of Black women legislators to be recognized, for their leadership to be supported, and their policy priorities to be given the attention they deserve. Our challenge is two-fold: we must push for reform and representation.
Only with Black women in significant seats of power and at every table where decisions are being made can our nation truly recover from the racist and sexist structures that hold all our society back and build toward a more prosperous future for all, not just the wealthy few.
Data
Look up the data in your state
Use the dropdown tab to select a state and view the percentage of Black women in the state population and legislature.
Representation Matters: Quotes from Lawmakers
We spoke with Black women state legislators and Congresswomen about why representation in public office is so important.
"As one of two Black women in our legislature, I face threats from people filled with racial hatred, I face erasure from my colleagues, and I face institutional racism. Despite all of this, I serve because my community deserves a racial justice champion."
"All politics are local, so it is imperative more Black women run for public office. Black women helped fuel change up and down the ballot during the 2020 Election; just imagine the transformational power ‘Black Girl Magic’ can have in city councils and state legislatures."
"I stand when I need to stand, I speak up when I need to speak, and I protest when I need to protest. But most of all, I create meaningful legislation that has a positive impact on my community. Being an outspoken Black female legislator in Georgia is not an easy job but, I love it."
“Having worked at every level of government—community, county, state, and federal—I can unequivocally say that the work of local and state governments present the greatest opportunity to have a direct impact on the lives of our constituents. And now, with the relentless assault on voting rights in state legislatures across America, more Black women are needed in state elective offices to preserve our most precious Constitutional right.”
“When Black women and girls see Black women rising up and being put in these positions of power, it gives them hope. We have the power to bring change to our communities and I don't take that for granted.”
“Black women continue to broaden the reach and impact of our state, local and federal policies that improve our communities. As Maryland’s first Black and first woman to serve as Speaker, I am also the only one to introduce a statewide plan for racial & economic justice. Diverse leadership – at every level of government – is the vehicle that drives us closer towards progress.”
Legislator Database
Use the database below to search for Black women legislators in all 50 states. (Data is from March 2021.)
Asian American communities have experienced an alarming rise in racially-motivated attacks since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and experts fear many incidents are going unreported.
No one should have to live in fear of being attacked for who they are. The resources below can help you and your constituencies report, respond, and join in collective action against anti-Asian attacks.
The New Jersey legislature introduced a resolution denouncing hate crimes and calling for the governor and AG to provide victims' assistance and enhance security at targeted institutions. Legislators introduced similar resolutions condemning anti-Asian violence in California and Hawaii.
California lawmakers approved $1.4 million in funds to support research on anti-Asian violence and the development of multilingual COVID-19 resources for API communities.
Lawmakers in New York introducedlegislation to require the collection of demographic information on the sexual orientation, gender identity, and race and ethnicity of both alleged perpetrators and victims of hate crimes.
Use your platform to speak out. One horrible aspect of this crisis is the lack of media coverage—we cannot afford to be silent.
By sharing what you experienced or witnessed, you can educate the public, empower others, show service providers where help is needed, and strengthen advocacy efforts for hate crimes response and prevention.
Maryland Voters Concerned About Learning Loss During the Pandemic
Members of the Maryland General Assembly will use this legislative session to address the impact of COVID-19 on public schools and Maryland’s children. New polling commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and Strong Future Maryland finds voters across the state and from across the political spectrum are very concerned that Maryland students are losing educational opportunities during the pandemic and support ways to address the learning loss.
Roughly 8-in-10 voters think once Maryland students are back learning in the classroom they will need either some additional support or a significant amount of additional support such as tutoring or targeted instruction.
Maryland voters support resourcing K-12 education to meet the needs of students. The poll found 7-in-10 voters agree with spending more on K-12 education to close opportunity gaps, and roughly 8-in-10 voters agree with spending more on K-12 education to provide more opportunities to prepare for careers and with spending more to make teacher salaries more competitive.
This Q&A is excerpted from a State Innovation Exchange telephone townhall featuring Michigan state legislators. Questions came from various Michigan residents and answers have been edited for length and clarity.
What legislative efforts are being made to provide essential worker bonuses and benefits like hazard pay?
State Senator Stephanie Chang: My colleagues and I have advocated for more hazard pay for essential workers and grants or bonuses for our teachers.
Last year, we started the Futures for Frontliners program, which allows essential workers to get free tuition for community college or high school completion programs. I cannot understate how important it is to honor our frontline workers not just with words but also with action.
State Senator Camilleri: We are also talking about increasing the minimum wage because, as we saw during this pandemic, so many people on the front lines are not even making a living wage of $15 an hour.
State Representative Aiyash: I'm introducing legislation with Rep. Camilleri to give people a tax credit on any PPE that they purchase. Essential workers would qualify to get a tax credit for all of the PPE they purchase to keep working. That's one way that we're looking at trying to be creative and making sure that those on the frontlines are getting appreciation. Every worker is valuable, and it's time that we start showing that, not just in our words.
Michigan State Senator Stephanie Chang with COVID-19 test kit in the Michigan State Capitol
Michigan State Rep. Darrin Camilleri at the Michigan State Capitol
Michigan State Rep. Abraham Aiyash at Michigan State Capitol
What kind of legislative unemployment reforms is the legislature working on right now?
Senator Stephanie Chang: Senate Democrats have introduced a number of unemployment proposals over the past few years.
We know that we need to permanently extend how many weeks an individual can get unemployment benefits to 26 weeks, not 20 weeks. We need to permanently increase the dollar amount given per week and permanently ensure that all types of workers can file for unemployment— including gig workers, seasonal employees, or other workers who don't normally qualify for unemployment.
There is no reason under the sun not to extend unemployment back to 26 weeks. To quote #BigGretch: let’s get it done. #MISOTS2021
What is the timeline for the unemployment process, and what can I do if I have been waiting a long time for my application to go through?
Senator Stephanie Chang: Typically, for somebody who is filing for unemployment and doesn't have any issues with their claim, their applications are processed within 21 days. However, there are thousands of folks right now who have been waiting a long time for papers or initial payments.
If you are like them and have been waiting for a long time, there are a couple of things you can do.
First, be sure you have read all letters and correspondence in your MiWAM account.
Then, reach out to see if there are any next steps you may need to take, such as providing missing documents or identity verification photos.
I'd also recommend saving the unemployment office's phone number, 866-500-0017, so you do not miss any calls from the office.
We are working hard to get everybody paid right now; the historic volume has certainly slowed down and created some backlogs. But, we expect to get through most of our backlogs in the next couple of weeks.
Representative Aiyash: Please feel free to reach out to your representative's office if you have any questions or need any assistance.
We don't have any authority to necessarily move a case or pull the money and make sure that it gets sent over, but we can make sure that the cases you are submitting are being looked at by the UIA.
Maryland Voters Concerned About Climate Change, Support Bold Action
As the Maryland state legislature debates critical issues that will define a cleaner, greener future for Maryland, a newly released poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and Strong Future Maryland offers an important perspective.
Two-thirds of Maryland voters agree that the General Assembly and other policy makers should take climate change into account when deciding how to vote on energy and economic development policy. Maryland voters continue to place a high premium on state-level action when it comes to carbon emissions and climate change.Three in five Maryland voters (60 percent) support the General Assembly passing major legislation to achieve significant reductions in carbon emissions, with a plurality of voters (39 percent) strongly supporting such legislation.
Additionally, 64 percent of Maryland voters support the creation of a carbon tax paid by companies based on how much carbon they emit, while just 25 percent oppose such a tax.
Learn more about what your state legislators are doing to assist thousands of constituents during the COVID-19 crisis by joining a Telephone Town Hall meeting sponsored by the State Innovation Exchange with state lawmakers and officials on Wednesday, February 24th at 6 pm to 7 pm EST.
By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with your representatives and local experts, learn about Michigan Works and recent updates concerning unemployment, ask questions, and discuss what action can be taken to get assistance and information.
Featured Speakers
State Senator Stephanie Chang
State Rep. Darrin Camilleri
State Rep. Abraham Aiyash
Special Guests: State Senator Stephanie Chang (Detroit), Representatives Darrin Camilleri (Brownstown), and Abraham Aiyash (Detroit), and local experts from the Unemployment Insurance Agency and Detroit Employment Solutions Corporation (DESC).
Register
Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event, 4 pm on February 24th.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Will I be able to ask questions?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Who will moderate the town hall?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Recap: Black History Month Tweet Chat
The #SIXBHM tweet chat took place on February 18, 2021. The following answers have been lightly edited for clarity. You can view all of the tweets here.
Which person, past or present, has helped shape how you approach your work?
Assemblyman Cameron "CH" Miller (NV) with his late cousin, Assemblyman Tyrone Thompson.
Delegate Pam Queen (MD): Mary McLeod Bethune, as a former slave who became on outstanding leader, educator, civil servant who left us a legacy to achieve racial equity and justice. Her quote, “The true worth of a race must be measured by the character of its womanhood” continues to inspire me.
Rep. Attica Scott (KY): My daughter @Ashantilynn01 (+ my son who doesn’t like social media). Ashanti often reminds me that we don’t move in fear, whether as we are pursuing justice for Breonna Taylor or standing up for reproductive freedom.
Delegate Gabriel Acevero (MD): My mother, she was the first organizer and movement leader I knew.
Assemb. Cameron "CH" Miller (NV): My cousin, the late Assemblyman Tyrone Thompson, inspired me to run and shaped my approach to the work. To honor his legacy, I always consider how policy will help or hurt the most vulnerable in our communities first, our youth.
This moment calls for bold and audacious leadership. I answered the call to serve because representation is not a cliché, it's a must.
Why did you run for office? What does it mean to represent your community?
State Sen. James Coleman (CO): I ran for office to serve my communities, simple as that. And it is beyond humbling that my constituents continue to believe in me to represent their interests.
State Sen. Erika Geiss (MI): In the #mileg, we have term limits, so running wasn’t something on my long-term radar initially. When my Rep was termed out in 2014, I decided to run because of an education issue adjacent to our community but that impacted our community.
As an educator and then PTO mom, and as one of the few folks from the district likely to be able to have a shred of institutional knowledge about it, I decided to run.
As the 1st woman of color to represent my district in the #mileg, it means a lot. And it has never been far from my mind as I worked for the roughly 100,000 people of my former House district or as I work for the nearly 260,000 people of my current state Senate district.
Del. Shaneka Henson (MD): After moving from public housing I ran for office to be a voice for my city and tenants who struggle with mold.
Rep. Michele K. Rayner-Goolsby: This moment calls for bold and audacious leadership. I answered the call to serve because representation is not a cliché, it's a must.
My top priority this legislative session is Breonna’s Law for Kentucky to restrict the use of no-knock search warrants across our Commonwealth. No family should carry the weight of what her family has endured.
Tell us about an issue you're advocating for this legislative session.
State Rep. Park Cannon (GA): To hold police accountable and protect reproductive rights. By sharing the term #reproductivejustice with my legislative colleagues, thanks to the words of @sistersong, I have been able to continue fighting against injustice in my community.
Assemb. Cameron "CH" Miller (NV): We must stop the school to prison pipeline and policies that criminalize youth before they ever get a chance to thrive. My highest priority is ending the direct filing of minors into the adult judicial system. 60% of direct filed youth in NV are Black!
Rep. Attica Scott (KY): My top priority this legislative session is Breonna’s Law for Kentucky to restrict the use of no-knock search warrants across our Commonwealth.
No family should carry the weight of what her family has endured.
Michigan State Sen. Erika Geiss
State Sen. Erika Geiss (MI): This session, I'm advocating for several things to address #BlackMaternalHealth. First, a package on #DoulaCare to improve recognition of community-based & traditional doulas & Medicaid & commercial insurance for both.
State Sen. James Coleman (CO): I am currently focused on three main legislative priorities: eliminating prison recidivism, eliminating youth violence, and eliminating the Black wealth gap. This session, I am excited to lead an attack against CO's 50% recidivism rate.
Delegate Pam Queen (MD): I champion legislation which seeks to increase homeownership for Black families. These bills are part of the Maryland Speaker of the House's “Black Agenda.”
Our communities need strong economic investments and infrastructures that overcome historical injustices. When our Black communities are given first consideration, rather than everything after, we will do more than just survive.
In what ways have you seen state legislatures perpetuate anti-Black racism in your lifetime? How can state legislatures disrupt anti-Black racism?
Rep. Stephanie Howse (OH): Let me the count ways the Ohio General Assembly perpetuates anti-Black racism:
The response to COVID-19
Educational system
Lack of investment in Black owned businesses
Lack of accountability for financing of Black home owners
The way we can begin to address anti-Black racism in the Ohio legislature is to first start to call a thing a thing. Racism is Racism.
Delegate Gabriel Acevero (MD): Where do I begin??
Voter suppression laws.
Police/SROs in schools.
Mandatory minimums.
Legalizing medical &/or recreational marijuana w/o equity or reparations.
“Stand your ground” laws.
Underfunding of our HBCUs.
State Sen. James Coleman (CO): My colleagues and I reconvened last Dec. for a special session and passed SB20B-1, which set aside $4 million for the CO Minority Business Office. Almost immediately a lawsuit was filed against this legislation for violating the 14th Amendment.
Rep. Attica Scott (KY): My goodness! Where to begin? In Kentucky, the legislature has refused to hear any bills by members of our Legislative Black Caucus in at least three years, but have spent this session playing performative politics on race, including stealing one of my bills!
State Sen. Erika Geiss (MI): From situations such as the Senate Majority Leader asking me “why not all mothers” when I asked him to co-sponsor my resolution to recognize #BlackMaternalHealthWeek, to a colleague wearing a Confederate flag mask to session last April with no recourse...
...to members including the Senate Majority Leader cozying up to white supremacists, to racist statements said aloud by GOP members. I’ve seen a lot when it comes to anti-Black racism at work in the Michigan legislature.
There’s also a lack of attention to cultivating Black staff at all levels so that there are voices here beyond those of us who are elected.
We must continue to speak up and advocate for our communities and not worry about being “polite” or notions of “civility” because the repeated trauma of racist comments and actions is anything but polite or civil.
We must continue to speak up and advocate for our communities and not worry about being “polite” or notions of “civility” because the repeated trauma of racist comments and actions is anything but polite or civil.
What does it look like for Black communities to not just survive—but thrive?
State Rep. Park Cannon (GA): The five pillars of #ReproJustice, self-determination; access to comprehensive reproductive health services; affordability of care; parenting with respect and dignity; and workplace and caregiving supports, are key to a thriving life for black families and families to be.
Delegate Gabriel Acevero (MD): It looks a lot like Black Wall Street. It also looks like clean air, water, and REPARATIONS.
The St. Luke Penny Savings Bank, one of the first black-owned banks in the United States. (Source: National Park Service)
Rep. Stephanie Howse (OH): To have thriving Black communities, governments in particular must acknowledge the harm and destruction they have caused to Black people and commit to policies and practices that restore and renew.
Rep. Attica Scott (KY): When we thrive we are freely our whole, authentic selves. We have access to quality affordable housing, education, healthcare and jobs. We’re paid a fair wage, our businesses are supported, and our neighborhoods are safe from environmental hazards and toxins.
State Sen. James Coleman (CO): Our communities need strong economic investments and infrastructures that overcome historical injustices. When our Black communities are given first consideration, rather than everything after, we will do more than just survive.
Last question: let's talk about Black futures. What's your message to Black youth this Black History Month?
Delegate Gabriel Acevero (MD): My message to Black youth this Black History Month and everyday is: You are enough. Life will not be easy but as philosopher and poet, Kendrick Lamar put it... “We gon’ be alright.”
State Sen. Erika Geiss (MI): My message to Black youth this Black History Month is to pay attention to what is going on in your local community, state, country, world & get involved no matter how small or large the issue is. Your voices are important, necessary, and powerful. And when you’re able to, register to vote and vote in every election...local, state, federal. There no such thing as an off-year election.
Rep. Attica Scott (KY): You're are loved. You are needed. You are valued. Continue to raise your voice in protest of corrupt, unjust systems. Show up for racial justice. Speak out. Stand up. Continue to support good public policy. Continue to run for office and change the face of government.
Winning the Narrative on Voting Rights
SiX Main Takeaways
1. The best defense is a good offense. There is off-the-charts support for pro-voter proposals and making COVID changes permanent. You have the backing to be bold and to define reforms on our terms. Check out our slide deck for poll numbers to use in your arguments.
2. Even though Americans oppose anti-voter policies, there is a huge uptick in anti-voter bills— in 33 states, 165 bills have been introduced so far this year, focused in these areas: limiting who can vote by mail, adding barriers to casting your absentee ballot, new voter ID restrictions, reducing voter registration opportunities, and aggressive voter purging.
3. Talk about what you're for, not what you're against. When messaging publicly on voting rights, lead with shared values (like freedom to vote, moving forward), center impacted folks, and highlight your positive vision for the future of our democracy. Avoid reacting defensively to the opposition’s narrative and refuting their false claims in public–it only strengthens their position and lies. Check out our slides for wording recommendations.
4. Coordination and coalitions are key. Winning good policy and defeating bad bills requires constant coordination. Work closely with your caucus, across chambers, and with the advocacy organizations taking the lead on the different bills, and echo and amplify each other’s work. Rep. Salman offered some examples of how she’s done this in Arizona. Follow her on Twitter, too.
5. Consider how to leverage internal divisions and in-fighting among legislators advancing voter suppression to kill, weaken, or stall bad bills.
6. Help communities recover from the pandemic. Right now, our legislatures should be focusing on recovering from this pandemic and strengthening our democracy–and this message can build public opposition to anti-voter bills. Reach out to SiX and Future Now if you need support.
Webinar Recording
Slide Deck
COVID-19 Unemployment Town Hall
Learn more about what your state legislators are doing to assist thousands of constituents during the COVID-19 crisis by joining a Telephone Town Hall meeting sponsored by the State Innovation Exchange with state lawmakers and officials on Wednesday, February 24th at 6 pm to 7 pm EST.
By joining the call, you will be able to connect directly with your representatives and local experts, learn about Michigan Works and recent updates concerning unemployment, ask questions, and discuss what action can be taken to get assistance and information.
Special Guests: State Senator Stephanie Chang (Detroit), Representatives Darrin Camilleri (Brownstown), and Abraham Aiyash (Detroit), and local experts from the Unemployment Insurance Agency and Detroit Employment Solutions Corporation (DESC).
Registration will close 3 hours prior to the event, 4 pm on February 24th.
2020 Highlights: Racial Data Transparency and Addressing Disparities in COVID-19 Treatment
Key Trends
Increasing racial data transparency through improved data collection and analysis.
Improving access to health care through telehealth expansion.
Expanding Medicaid and insurance coverage to address health disparities.
Introduction
Racial disparities in health coverage, chronic health conditions, mental health, and mortality persist across the United States. Racism has led to the deeply entrenched inequality within our country’s healthcare, economic, and social systems that perpetuate these health disparities and inequities. Such inequity becomes magnified in times of national hardship, such as the unprecedented global pandemic and economic recession we are currently experiencing.
The CDC COVID Data Tracker indicates that there have been around thirty million known COVID-19 cases in the United States, and the virus has killed around 500,000 people as of the end of February 2021. Although COVID-19 does not discriminate along racial or ethnic lines, racial, ethnic, and Indigenous communities are more vulnerable to the pandemic. The compounding effect of existing inequities put Black and Brown people, communities of color, Indigenous people, and other marginalized groups at greater risk of infection and death.
For example, these communities:
Experience higher risks of developing chronic health conditions, like obesity and asthma;
Are disproportionately concentrated in employment sectors and occupations that are highly vulnerable (e.g. farmworkers, grocery workers, transit operators);
Are more likely to rely on public transit as their main form of transportation and face the risk of contracting COVID-19 in a crowded bus;
Often face challenges with accessing nutritious and healthy food;
Have limited safe, affordable housing choices and often live in overcrowded housing;
Make up a disproportionate percentage of the population in prisons, which account for many of the hot spots of COVID-19 infections;
Are more likely to experience discriminatory behavior by healthcare professionals and receive lower quality care than their white counterparts; and
Have less access to health insurance, quality medical care, or paid sick leave.
Furthermore, undocumented workers--many of whom are working in vulnerable sectors, such as food supply and retailing--are at a greater risk because they have no access to employment benefits or paid sick leave. In addition, undocumented communities have minimal access to federal support because federal COVID-19 aid was only made available to those with a social security number and those who had paid federal income taxes.
As more states release demographic data on COVID-19 cases and mortalities, it has become clear that the virus is impacting the most marginalized and vulnerable populations the hardest.
When adjusting the data for age differences in race and ethnicity groups, Black, Indigenous, Pacific Islander, and Latinx Americans all have COVID-19 death rates of triple or more the rate of white Americans. Specifically, compared to white people, the 2020 U.S. age-adjusted COVID-19 mortality rate for:
Black people is 3.6 times as high
Indigenous people is 3.4 times as high
Latinx people is 3.2 times as high
Pacific Islanders is 3.0 times as high, and
Asians is 1.3 times as high.
As APM Research Lab has reported, this indicates that many younger Americans in these racial and ethnic groups are dying of COVID-19--driving their mortality rates far above white Americans. However, in every age category, “Black people are dying from COVID at roughly the same rate as white people more than a decade older.” This data reveals the inequitable impacts of COVID-19 and highlights the racial disparities policymakers must address.
It is also important to note that not every state has published comprehensive demographic data on the racial, ethnic, and language characteristics for those affected by COVID-19. There are still many states where race and/or ethnicity is unknown for a significant share of not only confirmed cases and deaths, but also general testing results. Expanded testing has provided more insight into the spread of COVID-19 and its impacts on marginalized communities. However, there has been many barriers to equitable testing that prevent proper data collection. For example, drive-in testing sites often require a vehicle to be tested. But Black households and people of color are least likely to have access to a vehicle. Targeting testing resources, such as accessible sites, supplies, and tailored messaging, could alleviate ongoing and future health disparities due to the pandemic.
In addition, a lack of uniform reporting guidelines across the U.S, has made it difficult to estimate the pandemic’s true toll on different communities. For example, many states lump Hispanic and Latinx identities together in the racial breakdown, whereas other states do not. In addition, some lump Indigenous people into the “Other” category, preventing states from being able to identify the complete effects of the virus on the Indigenous community. Without extensive and accurate demographic data, policymakers and researchers have no way to address ongoing inequities and identify which populations need additional access to resources.
It is critical that state legislators account for existing racial disparities in health care access and take steps to promote health equity. Some state legislatures across the country are addressing racial and ethnic disparities by adopting policies that expand health coverage and promote racial data transparency. This report summarizes some of the most important state-level developments from 2020 legislative sessions.
Racial Data Transparency
State legislators are taking action to increase racial and health data transparency by:
Advocating for better data collection and reporting of comprehensive racial data;
Investing in contact tracing programs;
Putting in place a racial impact component within legislation that may affect racial and ethnic groups;
Better Data Collection And Reporting Of Racial Data
Without comprehensive race and ethnicity data, the communities most impacted by the pandemic cannot be identified. As a result, some lawmakers are pushing for a more comprehensive collection of frequently updated data not only related to COVID-19, but also for any future public health emergencies.
A. Comprehensive COVID-19-related Data Collection
Massachusetts passed a bill (MA HB 4672/Chapter 93), which requires the state’s department of public health to collect data from all boards of health and publicly report the daily total and complete aggregate numbers of those who have tested positive for COVID-19, have been hospitalized, and have died as a result of a confirmed or probable case. It also requires the department to publish a daily report on such data from each state and county correctional facility, and elder care facilities. Each daily report must allow for the identification of trends, testing, infection, hospitalization, and mortality based on demographic factors, including race and ethnicity.
New Jersey enacted legislation (NJ S 2357/Chapter 28), which requires hospitals to report to the state’s department of health demographic data, including race and ethnicity, on not only confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths, but also the number of those who are admitted for treatment, those who attempt to get treated, and those who are turned away after attempting to get tested. The data will be posted publicly, updated on a daily basis, and compiled by county and municipality. Michigan also introduced a similar bill (MI HB 5753), but it failed to pass.
New York legislators introduced a bill (NY SB 8360) that did not include as many components as Michigan’s or New Jersey’s, but would have uniquely required data related to all COVID-19 testing regardless of the result, including the number of individuals tested. In addition, the bill would have required reporting of not only general demographic information, like race and ethnicity, but also primary language, socioeconomic status or occupation, disability status, and county or city of residence. Massachusetts enacted legislation (MA HB 4672/Chapter 93) with a similar component.
In Michigan, a bill (MI HB 5753) introduced in the House would have required hospitals to collect and report to the state’s department of health comprehensive demographic data on those affected by COVID-19 or any other communicable disease and infection during a future state of emergency. Louisiana enacted a resolution (LA SR 76) with similar language.
New York legislators introduced legislation (NY SB 8360), which included a component that would have required the Department of Health to submit to specific legislative committees a preliminary report on the following: (1) description of COVID-19-associated race and ethnicity data, and (2) evidence-based response strategies for future pandemics.
Investment In Contact Tracing Programs
Contact tracing sheds light on how a disease, such as COVID-19, is spread by locating, talking, and working with people who have tested positive for the virus to identify and track people with whom they have been in close contact. Because the United States did not have a national contact tracing strategy, there has been insufficient data about how different populations are being affected by the virus. Thus, states are investing in contact tracing programs to collect more comprehensive data that accurately reflects the impacts of COVID-19 on different communities.
A. Allocation of Funds for Contact Tracing Programs
State lawmakers have worked to appropriate funds from either the CARES Act’s Coronavirus Relief Fund or their general fund for the purpose of expanding public and private initiatives for COVID-19 testing, contact tracing, and trends tracking and analysis. These funds could be used to hire contact tracers, purchase necessary equipment, and expand the contact tracing infrastructure to take appropriate public health actions. Hawaii’s legislature enacted this legislation (HI SB 75), while similar bills were introduced but failed in Minnesota (MN HF 4579) and North Carolina (NC HB 1038).
South Carolina passed a bill (SC HB 3411) that requires the Medical University of South Carolina, in consultation with other health departments and associations, to develop and deploy a statewide COVID-19 testing plan. To implement the plan, the Department of Health and Environmental Control will collaborate with hospitals and other medical stakeholders, and provide access to information on hotspots and contact tracing. The plan also emphasizes testing in rural communities and communities with a high prevalence of COVID-19 and/or with demographic characteristics consistent with risk factors for COVID-19.
B. Contact Tracing Representation
New York enacted legislation (NY AB 10447), which requires city contract tracers to be representative of the cultural and linguistic diversity of the communities they will serve. In addition, it mandates New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the city’s health and hospitals corporations to submit an annual report on contact tracer worker diversity.
Similarly, South Carolina passed a bill (SC HB 3411), which mandates the Department of Health to identify no fewer than 1,000 contact tracers who are best suited to interact in a culturally appropriate manner and in the required languages of those disproportionately affected by COVID-19.
C. Privacy Protections
While contact tracing programs are crucial for collecting COVID-19 data and increasing racial data transparency, these programs have privacy implications that can harm immigrant communities and other marginalized groups. There have been concerns about whether or not confidential information would be misused or shared to other government agencies, such as immigration authorities and law enforcement, for reasons unrelated to the goal of tracking the spread of the virus. For example, police in Minnesota have reportedly used contact tracing data to track protestors from racial justice demonstrations. Allowing law and immigration enforcement to access and weaponize contact tracing data would disproportionately harm communities of color who are already being hit the hardest by the pandemic.
To protect these communities and encourage participation in contact tracing programs, legislators must prohibit immigration authorities and law enforcement from accessing contact tracing data. New York legislators enacted legislation (NY AB 10500/Chapter 377) that protects the data compiled by contact tracers from legal processes. In addition, it specifies that no contact tracer or contact tracing entity may provide contact tracing information to a law enforcement entity or immigration authority.
Kansas passed a similar bill (KS HB 2016/Section 16), which requires contact tracing data to be used only for the purposes of contact tracing. The data must be confidential and not disclosed, and safely and securely destroyed when no longer necessary for contact tracing. The bill also prohibits the state or any municipality, or any officer or official or agent thereof, from conducting or authorizing contact tracing, except under certain circumstances.
Racial Impact Statements Within Legislation
State lawmakers are trying to address racial disparities through the inclusion of racial impact statements in legislation. Similar to the fiscal notes often attached to legislation, a racial impact statement would analyze and address how different racial and ethnic groups will be negatively or positively impacted by proposed legislation. The analysis is used to not only inform legislators’ decisions, but also reduce, eliminate, and prevent racial discrimination and inequities. Illinois legislators introduced a bill (IL HB 4428), which would have required a racial impact statement for any legislation that has or could have a disparate impact on racial and ethnic groups.
Massachusetts and Ohio introduced a more specific set of legislation (MA HD 2789/SD 936 and OH HB 620) that would have required a racial impact and health disparities analysis for health-related initiatives and policies. Ohio’s legislation took a more progressive lead by also requiring the statements to determine whether introduced bills have a positive, negative, or neutral impact on the accomplishment of health equity in the state, health or health equity of specific populations in geographic areas, and the social determinants of health for the most vulnerable populations.
Addressing Disparities In COVID-19 Treatment And Testing
Lawmakers are seeking to address disparities by making healthcare more accessible to vulnerable communities through the expansion of telehealth, Medicaid, and insurance coverage.
Telehealth
In order to prevent the spread of COVID-19, many health care systems have begun utilizing telehealth and telemedicine technology for medical appointments. Such reliance on technology creates barriers for those who lack access to quality broadband and telephone services.
State legislators are expanding access to healthcare by:
Ensuring telehealth payment parity;
Expanding telehealth coverage for audio-only appointments; and
Waiving or lowering cost-sharing for telehealth and telemedicine.
A. Ensuring telehealth payment parity
In order to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, healthcare systems have had to adopt methods, such as telehealth, that do not rely on delivering health care services in-person. In response, state legislators have introduced payment parity bills that would require insurance plans to provide a reimbursement rate for telehealth services that is equal to, on the same basis as, or no less than the rate provided for in-person services.
Vermont enacted legislation (VT HB 742/Section 24), which includes a component on payment parity. In addition, the following states all introduced variations of this type of bill, but none were enacted:
A similar bill introduced in Washington (WA HB 2770) that would have allowed hospitals, hospital systems, telemedicine companies, and provider groups with 11 or more providers to negotiate their rate.
B. Expanding telehealth coverage for audio-only appointments
For telehealth services, some states require a provider and patient to use real-time, interactive audio and visual communication. However, such a requirement leaves patients who only have landline or audio-only phones without access to telehealth. Many of these patients are often low-income and come from marginalized communities. State lawmakers are working to increase access to healthcare for all by permitting audio-only telehealth appointments. Some have also restricted benefit and insurance plans from placing any restrictions on the electronic or technological platform used to provide these virtual services.
New Jersey legislators also enacted a different bill (NJ AB 3860/SB 2289), which waives certain regulatory requirements in order to facilitate telemedicine health services during COVID-19, including any privacy requirements that would limit the use of technological devices that are not typically used in telehealth services.
C. Waiving or lowering cost sharing for telehealth and telemedicine
State lawmakers are eliminating barriers to telehealth by waiving or lowering cost-sharing for telehealth services related to COVID-19.
New Jersey enacted a bill (NJ AB 3843), which provides coverage for telemedicine and telehealth to the same extent for any other services, except that no cost-sharing shall be imposed on the coverage.
Michigan introduced legislation (MI HB 5633) which would have required examination, diagnosis, and prescribed treatment of COVID-19 by telemedicine to not be subject to any coinsurance, copayment, application to a deductible, or limit.
Medicaid And Insurance Coverage
State legislators are working to address health inequities by proposing legislation that would:
Move more states to adopt the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion;
Expand Medicaid and insurance coverage for uninsured, undocumented, and low-income individuals; and
Waive or lower cost-sharing for COVID-19 testing and treatment.
A. Expanding Medicaid in states without Medicaid expansion
Thirty-eight states, and D.C., have expanded their Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act.
Of the 38 states, Oklahoma and Missouri passed expansion initiatives (OK State Question 802 and MO Amendment 2) that will be implemented in 2021. That leaves nearly two million people in 12 states who are ineligible for Medicaid coverage and left without access to an affordable coverage option. The COVID-19 emergency is putting intense pressure on these states to ensure greater access to quality health care for all, especially those disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. As a result, some lawmakers in these 12 states have sought to expand the eligibility requirements for their Medicaid programs.
North Carolina (NC HB 1040), South Carolina (SC HB 5476), Alabama (AL HB 447), Kansas (KS SB 252), and Florida (FL SJR 224/HJR 247) introduced bills to adopt the ACA’s Medicaid Expansion, which provides Medicaid coverage to non-elderly adults with incomes below 138 percent of the poverty line (though none of these bills passed).
North Carolina also introduced a different bill (NC HB 1038/Section 3A) that would have provided temporary, targeted Medicaid coverage to individuals with incomes up to 200%, rather than 133%, of the poverty line for COVID-related services. In addition, it would have provided Medicaid coverage for COVID-19 testing to the uninsured.
B. Expanding Medicaid and insurance coverage for uninsured individuals, low-income groups, and undocumented communities during the pandemic.
State legislators are working to address COVID-19-related health disparities by expanding insurance coverage for uninsured, low-income, and undocumented communities.
Ohio introduced legislation (OH HB 583) that would have temporarily waived certain Medicaid requirements during the pandemic and expand financial eligibility to 300% of the poverty line for children and 200% for adults. In addition, the state introduced a resolution (OH HCR 27) which demanded the Trump Administration to create a special enrollment period in the ACA marketplaces for uninsured Ohioans who may be unable to access COVID-19 testing and treatment.
Minnesota enacted an exhaustive COVID-19-related legislation (MN HF 4556/Section 11), which included a provision for Medicaid to cover the COVID-19 testing of uninsured individuals. Similarly, New York also introduced a bill (NY SB 8123/AB10494) that would have allowed any uninsured individual, regardless of immigration status, be eligible for COVID-19 testing at no cost.
Legislation in New York (NY SB 8366) would have amended the state’s social services law and increase COVID-19 health services eligibility for those who are residents of the state, have a confirmed case of COVID-19, have a household income below 200% of the FPL, and are ineligible for federal financial participation in the basic health program on the basis of immigration status.
C. Waiving or lowering cost-sharing for COVID-19 testing and treatment
Increased access to the COVID-19 testing and treatment will enable local and state public health departments to accurately track the course of the pandemic. It is also critical that people receive affordable and equitable access to health care services, especially during this time. State lawmakers are focusing on ensuring health care affordability and accessibility for those impacted by the virus by waiving or lowering cost-sharing for COVID-19-related services. These services may include, but are not limited to, diagnostic and antibody testing, physician office visits, telemedicine services, hospitalizations, antiviral drugs, and vaccines.
Louisiana and New Jersey enacted similar laws (LA SB 426 and NJ AB 3843), while variations on this type of legislation were introduced but failed to pass in Minnesota (MN HF 4416), Michigan (MI HB 5633), and Ohio (OH HB 579).
Complementary Policies
Create a Commission to study COVID-19 racial disparities and recommend actions to policymakers, community leaders, and healthcare systems that promote health equity and address the factors that leave racial, ethnic, and indigenous communities vulnerable during public health emergencies.
Increase broadband access and close the digital divide to ensure communities have access to the communication tools necessary for accessing medical care through telehealth and telemedicine appointments.
Increase pay and protections for frontline workers, and ensure these workers have access to paid sick leave. Paid sick leave allows employees to take care of themselves and/or their loved ones during the pandemic without having to sacrifice their financial and job security.
Allocate resources to communities most impacted by COVID-19 by setting up testing centers in low-income areas and within existing community networks, such as community health centers and organizations. These sites will help expand access to COVID-19 testing for those who have had limited access before.
Top photo by Swiger Photography. This interview was conducted via Zoom and has been edited for length and clarity.
How would you define what it means to be a successful state legislator?
I think first and foremost, you have to do the homework. When I come into a committee hearing, it is very rare that I've not read every line of a bill or the analysis of the legislation. Even if it's seemingly benign legislation, there may be things in it that are bad for my constituents.
Even more, there might be opportunities to make the legislation better. For example, a colleague who is not my favorite person on the Republican side—introduced a bill to have outside health experts oversee the Department of Health. So I introduced multiple amendments to include a deep dive into the racial disparities of COVID.
How did you figure out that you should try to introduce amendments?
Being in the minority, I seek opportunities to introduce priorities into broader pieces of legislation. If I can make amendments, then we can make life a little bit better for the community members who are not often centered in our policy conversations. Politics is a math problem. If the minority doesn't have 102 votes in the [Pennsylvania] House, 26 votes in the Senate, and a governor who's willing to sign the legislation, then it is not going to become law. It's very rare that I get 102 votes on something, but there are ways for me to use the amendment process.
What surprised you about being a state legislator?
It should not have surprised me that it takes a really long time to get anything done. It is incredibly disappointing because there are chronic issues that are impacting people I love and care about. Those lived experiences are what drove me to run in the first place.
As a member of the minority, we don't control the calendar or when a bill comes up, so a lot of time is spent sitting around waiting for things to happen. The reason being, people see the meal based on where they're sitting at the table, so if you're sitting in front of the turkey that's the most important thing.
In Pennsylvania, we are a large, diverse state, so, for some, doing something about Volunteer Fire companies is the most important. For others, it's charter schools, bus contracts, etc. So the question is, how do we find synergy around the time in which we approach those priorities?
Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta conducting a telephone town hall with thousands of constituents. (Photo: Facebook)
What's your proudest moment or accomplishment?
I'm deeply proud of protecting the right to vote in our democracy, especially while the [former] president tried to dispute the election. Until the very last hours of the session, GOP legislators were introducing legislation to try to overturn the electors. With Pennsylvania being the tipping-point state, it was an important feat just to come to work and speak up. I was also a party to a number of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party lawsuits against the president, and I'm deeply proud of that.
How do you stay true to your values in a political system that's designed to uphold the status quo?
We shouldn't be trying to build compromise, we should try to build consensus. Building consensus is about ensuring that your values are in the room and talking openly and honestly about what makes people's lives better.
Even more, it is about figuring out how we build coalitions to make lasting, substantive change. We have to get buy-in from a bunch of different people, which takes real skill and real commitment. It is not about taking any deal just to get a deal. It's about getting a deal that doesn't just bandaid the problems we face and instead is a real surgical approach to the things that are deeply broken.
What advice would you give newly elected state legislators as they enter their first session?
Remember why you ran. When you get into the hustle and bustle of it all, sometimes we forget some of the conversations that inspired us or forget the people who encouraged us. They saw something in us, and they still want to see that in action.
I say to my constituents all the time, yes, I want you to vote for me and I appreciate your vote, but I also need you to write letters about the legislation I introduced. Secondly, when it's safe to, I need you to come up to Harrisburg and share your stories about why I introduced this legislation and what it can mean to your family. And finally, I need you to talk to the press and write op-eds.
Also, remember you are not in this alone, because there is literally nothing you can do by yourself. Everybody must recognize the stewardship required for our democracy to work, and elected leaders do not have the only role.
To my fellow legislators: don't take on the pressure that you have to change the world alone. That is a reductionist mentality because you cannot do it all by yourself. Above all else, don't give up your personal life because it is very easy to do that. You can always be doing legislative work, but your family and the people who love you deserve to have you too.
2020 Highlights: States’ Housing Response to COVID-19
Key Trends
States have:
Prevented short-term displacement through eviction and foreclosure moratoriums
Replaced lost income for those affected by COVID-19 with rental and mortgage assistance
Stopped long-term evictions through rent freezes, cancellation, and suspensions
Provided funding for shelters and homelessness services
Continued the fight for comprehensive tenant protections, such as rent control and just-cause eviction
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the existing racial and economic inequalities in the United States and created a deadly situation in which working-class families, already struggling to pay for the necessities of life, have been forced to stay at home while experiencing major losses in income and employment. In under six months, over 60 million workers in the United States filed for unemployment, and unemployment rates have skyrocketed to as high as 14.7 percent—almost five points higher than the peak of the Great Recession. This has led to immense housing insecurity for working-class renters and homeowners across the country.
In the wake of the Great Recession, millions of Americans became housing insecure, and many, particularly renters, never recovered. In 2019, 31.5 percent of all households were housing cost-burdened—meaning they pay more than 30 percent of their income toward housing and utilities. Almost half of renter households are cost-burdened. Additionally, the housing crisis has overwhelmingly impacted low-income families. Eighty-three percent of renters with incomes below $15,000 per year are cost-burdened, and 72 percent are extremely cost-burdened (paying over 50 percent of their income).
Meanwhile, the federal government has massively reduced its commitment to providing affordable housing for decades. Because of demolition and conversion, the public housing stock has been reduced by almost 500,000 units since 1996, and federal capital funding for public housing fell by over $2 billion per year from 2000 to 2013.
Two people inside empty apartment
The Terner Center for Housing Innovation estimated that almost 16.5 million renter households have at least one worker who was employed in an industry affected by COVID-19-related job loss. With millions of Americans struggling to pay housing costs each month, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the housing crisis. Research suggests that about 31 percent of renters were unable to pay their rent on time in April, compared to 18 percent for the same time period in 2019.
Further, the housing crisis and pandemic have disproportionately affected Black, brown, and Indigenous communities. According to data released by New York City, COVID is killing Black and Latinx people at twice the rate it is killing white people. The economic impacts are also disproportionately felt by communities of color—the unemployment rate for Black workers peaked at almost 17 percent, while the unemployment rate for Hispanic women has reached over 20 percent. Black and brown families are disproportionately renters and employed in industries impacted by shutdowns and stay-at-home orders—the threat of COVID-19 to housing stability is an issue of racial justice. Further, homelessness disproportionately impacts communities of color. While Black people make up 13 percent of the United States population, they account for 40 percent of people experiencing homelessness, and Indigenous people similarly experience homelessness disproportionately.
16.5 million renter households have at least one worker who was employed in an industry affected by COVID-19-related job loss.
creates funds for tenant, landlord, and homeowner assistance;
allocates funding for shelters and services for people experiencing homelessness; and
cancels or suspends rental and mortgage payments.
This report summarizes some of the most important state-level developments from the 2020 legislative session. Please note that this is neither a comprehensive policy list nor necessarily a list of the most progressive solutions on this subject. When moving forward with legislation, we recommend working with state and national advocates to craft the best solution for your state. If you would like additional assistance or to be connected to your state or national advocacy groups, please email us at helpdesk@stateinnovation.org.
Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention
Many states have taken executive, legislative, and judicial action to prevent evictions and foreclosures during the pandemic. Governors have issued executive orders either limiting or fully prohibiting evictions and foreclosures during the pandemic (more info can be found on the details of the executive orders in the Other Resources section). State legislatures have taken further action to establish moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures past what has been outlined in executive actions.
Suspending Evictions and Foreclosures
The Massachusetts legislature passed MA H 4647, a 120-day eviction moratorium that allows the governor to extend the moratorium in increments of 90 days. Legislators failed to pass additional legislation (MA H 4878) that would have:
Banned evictions for rent due for up to a year after the end of the COVID-19 emergency declaration.
Implemented a just-cause eviction standard so tenants and foreclosed homeowners cannot be evicted for no-cause or non-renewal of lease for 12 months following the end of the emergency declaration.
Frozen rents at the level they were at on March 10, 2020.
The Oregon legislature passed a bill (OR HB 4213) that extended the governor’s eviction moratorium until September 30. During the moratorium, landlords were prohibited from delivering notices of termination, taking possession of property or anything that would interfere with a tenant’s use of the dwelling, assessing late fees, or reporting a tenant’s nonpayment of rent to credit reporting agencies. The legislation also provides a six-month grace period following the end of the moratorium to pay the balance of unpaid rent.
New York legislators failed to pass a bill (NY S 8667/A 10827) that would have prohibited courts from executing an eviction warrant or order a monetary judgment for unpaid rent for all tenants for the duration of the state of emergency in New York, plus one full year past the emergency’s termination.
Skateboarder rides past house in Portland, Oregon
Alaska enacted legislation (AK SB 241) that suspended evictions for people experiencing financial hardship related to COVID-19 through June 30, 2020.
The California Assembly passed legislation (CA AB 828) that died in the Senate. It would have prevented any party from submitting a residential unlawful detainer complaint except to address issues of damage to the property, nuisance, or health and safety. It additionally would have prohibited a court from issuing a summons on a complaint for a residential unlawful detainer unless the court finds it is necessary for the reasons listed above. Finally, if a tenant provides documentation of economic hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the bill would have allowed tenants up to 12 months, starting 90 days after the end of the state of emergency, to pay back unpaid rent from the COVID-19 emergency period.
The California Assembly has also passed a piece of legislation that failed in the Senate (CA AB 1436) that would have permanently protected tenants from being evicted for unpaid rent during the COVID-19 emergency and for 90 days after, or April 21, 2021—whichever date is earlier—and would have allowed tenants to pay back any unpaid rental debt accrued.
Another piece of California legislation (CA SB 915) that passed in the Senate and Assembly (but in different versions) would have provided eviction protections for manufactured housing and mobile home owners and tenants. The bill would have also prohibited mobile home park management from evicting or terminating the lease of an owner or tenant who is affected by COVID-19 for failure to pay rent.
Placing a Stay on Evictions and Foreclosures
Lawmakers have introduced legislation that would still allow landlords to file eviction notices with the courts, but would temporarily prohibit courts from carrying out the eviction order and removing a tenant from the property.
The New Jersey Senate passed a bill that is now in the Assembly (SB 2485) to prohibit evictions for nonpayment of rent during certain months surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.
New York enacted legislation (NY S 8192B) to prohibit any court from issuing a warrant or judgment of possession against a residential tenant during the period of the COVID-19 declared state of emergency, specifically for nonpayment due to the pandemic, and to extend the state’s executive order on the evictions moratorium until the end of the declared state of emergency.
An eviction notice taped onto the front door of a home
Vermont enacted legislation (VT S 333) that allows landlords and lenders to file new eviction and foreclosure actions, but requires the courts to stay the actions through 30 days past the end of the emergency period.
The Ohio legislature introduced legislation (OH HB 562/SB 297) that if passed would have prevented foreclosures and evictions during the COVID-19 state of emergency. Landlords would have still been able to file evictions in court, but the courts would have been prohibited from executing a writ of possession or removing the tenant from a residential property during the state of emergency. Notably, the legislation would have made it so a landlord would not be entitled to rental amounts that were unpaid during the state of emergency if the landlord filed a complaint during the state of emergency and received a writ of execution after the emergency terminated.
Enabling Local Government to Adopt Eviction Moratoriums
New Jersey legislators introduced a bill (NJ A 4228) that, as introduced, would allow local municipalities to adopt their own eviction prohibitions during the COVID-19 pandemic. If the legislation is enacted, it will retroactively cover missed payments for the covered period. (Note: companion bill NJ SB 2485 was amended by the Senate to place a stay on evictions—see above for more.)
Guaranteeing Forbearance
Introduced legislation (CA AB 2501) in California that did not pass would have allowed any borrower experiencing financial hardship during the state of emergency to request forbearance for any mortgage obligation. Mortgage servicers would have been required to grant forbearance for up to 180 days initially, after which the borrower could request up to another 180 days for up to 12 months in total.
Rent Freeze, Suspension, and Cancellation
Housing advocates in several states have been pushing for more aggressive policy solutions than moratoriums to avoid a cascade of eviction filings and foreclosures once the moratoriums end. Instead, they are pushing for a rent freeze and the suspension or cancellation of rent and mortgage payments.
States can see examples from the efforts at both the federal level and local level. For example, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar introduced federal legislation (H.R.6515) to cancel rent and mortgage payments, in addition to any housing debt accrued during the pandemic, and New York City froze rents for one year for over 2 million rent-stabilized units.
A rent freeze means that tenants still pay rent each month, but landlords are not able to increase rent at the end of a lease for the duration of the declared period.
Rent suspension or cancellation means that tenants do not owe rent at all for the duration of the declared period.
Legislators in Massachusetts introduced a bill (MA H 4718) that would have implemented a rent freeze across the state for the duration, and 30 days following the end, of the declared state emergency. The bill would have suspended the statewide prohibition on rent control and the state's preemption of local rent control. It would have allowed the Department of Housing and Community Development and local governments to issue, maintain, and enforce a rent freeze and/or rent control for the declared period.
Terms
Rent Freeze: Tenants still pay rent each month, but landlords are not able to increase rent at the end of a lease for the duration of the declared period.
Rent suspension or cancellation: Tenants do not owe rent at all for the duration of the declared period.
New York lawmakers introduced a bill that failed (NY A 10247/S 8139) that would have partially suspended rent for tenants who had experienced a significant loss of income due to the government-imposed restrictions related to COVID. The legislation would have required those tenants to pay up to either 30 percent of their income or their contractual rent—whichever is less—per month for 90 days following enactment. Landlords also would have been able to apply for relief if they lost rental income.
Another New York bill (NY A 10224/S 8125) would have fully suspended rent payments for any residential tenant or small-business commercial tenant that had experienced a loss of income or forced closure of business due to the pandemic. The bill would have waived rental payments for covered tenants and small businesses for 90 days, and provided the automatic renewal of leases that expired during the covered period. A complementary bill (NY A 10255) was introduced that would have established an assistance fund for “small landlords.”
A stronger rent cancellation bill that was introduced, but failed, in New York (NY S 8802/A 10826) would have fully canceled rent for all tenants and canceled mortgages for small homeowners for the duration of the declared state disaster emergency and 90 days following it. The bill would have additionally provided funding to assist and reimburse housing cooperatives, affordable housing providers, public housing authorities, and landlords.
Illinois legislators introduced an amendment that did not pass (COVID-19 Emergency and Economic Recovery Renter and Homeowner Protection Act) that would have cancelled rent and suspended mortgage payments for those who contracted COVID-19 or experienced a loss of income. The legislation would also have provided protection from retaliation for nonpayment of rent or mortgage, set up a relief fund for landlords and mortgagees negatively impacted by missed payments, and implemented restrictions on evictions for the period following the end of the emergency period.
Lawmakers in New Jersey introduced legislation (NJ A 3948) that would have required a landlord to suspend rent for 90 days upon request from a residential tenant. After 90 days, the tenant would have been able to request another 90 days of rent suspension. Tenants would not be required to pay the balance of their unpaid rent during the period of the suspension.
Rent and Mortgage Assistance
Household items from a recent eviction
While at the federal level, advocates have pushed for $100 billion in emergency rental relief, and many states have set up their own rental and mortgage assistance programs. As eviction moratoriums end, millions of renters across the country will require assistance in order to pay not only their current rent, but unpaid rent accrued during the moratorium periods.
Several state legislatures have appropriated CARES Act funds toward rental and mortgage relief, while governors in multiple states, such as Minnesota, Michigan, and Washington, have also taken action to distribute funding toward assistance programs. While still impactful, advocates have raised concerns that current rental relief efforts will fail to meet the level of support necessary, especially without further federal support. For example, the city of Houston exhausted a $15 million rental fund in 90 minutes, and the city of Los Angeles’s $100 million fund only covered 14% of renters at risk of eviction.
Direct Assistance to Tenants or Landlords
Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Colorado enacted legislation (PA HB 2510, IL SB 264 sections 20 and 21, and CO SB 20-1410) establishing rental and mortgage assistance funds. Colorado appropriated $19.65 million to the program, while Pennsylvania allocated $150 million, and Illinois allocated $396 million. The Pennsylvania legislation provides assistance to renters and homeowners who either became unemployed or whose annual household income is reduced by 30 percent or more. The fund provides grants to homeowners and renters and covers 100 percent of their rent or mortgage—up to $750/month for renters and $1,000 for homeowners for a maximum of six months. The Illinois legislation reserves $100 million for areas disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. Utah enacted similar legislation (UT SB 3006), which established a fund of $20 million for residential housing assistance and $40 million for commercial rental assistance.
While the New Jersey legislature originally passed legislation (NJ S 2332) to establish a rental relief program, the bill was vetoed by Governor Phil Murphy. Instead, he created a program through executive action, and appropriated at least $100 million to rental assistance. Twenty percent of the program's funding is devoted to people with very low income who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and provides them with up to 12 months of rental assistance. The rest of the funding will be distributed on a lottery basis to households that earn below 80% of the area median income (AMI), were current on rental payments before March 1, 2020, and are able to prove they have been significantly impacted by COVID-19 through either layoffs, reduced work hours, or forced unpaid leave for childcare.
Legislators in New York (NY S 8419) enacted a bill that establishes a rental assistance fund of $100 million to provide aid to households that earn up to 80% of the area median income, had a rent burden both on March 1, 2020, and at the time of their application for assistance, and have experienced a loss of income during the coverage period. The program would cover the difference between a household rent burden (the amount of rent owed that is more than 30% of a tenant’s income) on March 1, 2020, and their rent burden at the time of their application for assistance.
Deferment of Rent
A bill backed by the landlord lobby in California (CA SB 1410), which passed the Senate but died in the Assembly, would have allowed landlords and tenants to enter into a “COVID eviction relief agreement.” In an agreement, the tenant could defer his or her rent for the entirety of the state of emergency and for an unspecified number of additional days following the state of emergency’s conclusion. The state would assume the debt burden, and provide the tenant until 2034 to repay the unpaid rent, or apply for loan forgiveness. In exchange, the landlord would receive ten years of tax credits equal to the unpaid amount and would have the opportunity to sell tax credits to investors. Landlords who enter into an agreement would be prohibited from taking an eviction action against the tenant during the state of emergency period.
Utility Assistance
Another bill in Colorado was enacted (CO HB 20-1412) that appropriated $4.8 million of funding from the CARES Act to provide direct utility bill payment assistance to low-income households facing economic hardship due to the pandemic.
Homelessness
Individuals and families experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness have a disproportionate risk of getting COVID-19. Without shelter, it is immensely difficult to self-isolate and take proper preventative measures like handwashing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, people who are experiencing homelessness and contract COVID-19 are twice as likely to be hospitalized and two to three times more likely to die from the virus than the general public.
An encampment of unhoused people in San Francisco, CA
States have allocated money, often from CARES Act funds, to homeless shelters and assistance, and the legislative examples below are from states that allocated money in their budgets to homelessness directly in response to the pandemic. Please note that this is not inclusive of all legislation related to homelessness outside of the pandemic. Additionally, some of the above legislation establishing rental and mortgage assistance programs contains language that prioritizes distribution of funds to families at risk of homelessness.
Legislators in Alaska enacted legislation (AK SB 241) to provide financial assistance on a statewide, regional, or community basis as necessary to address or prevent homelessness caused by the pandemic.
The Pennsylvania legislature enacted a bill (PA HB 2510) that allocated $10 million for services for homeless residents. Similarly, lawmakers in Utah appropriated (UT HB 4001) $4.67 million from the CARES Act to the state’s Homelessness committee. Minnesota lawmakers passed legislation (MN HF 4531) that provides $15.2 million for additional shelter space and purchasing vouchers for motel and hotel rooms in order to allow homeless individuals to effectively shelter in place.
Broader Tenant Protections
2019 saw monumental movement for comprehensive tenant protections. Oregon became the first state in the nation to pass a statewide rent control bill, with California and New York adopting their own statewide legislation soon after. While the pandemic sidelined efforts to pass similar legislation in other states, several rent control and eviction protections bills were introduced across the country. Lawmakers in California and New York also introduced several pieces of legislation to strengthen their existing laws.
Repeal of Rent Control Preemption Laws
Legislators in at least four states introduced legislation that would repeal state bans on rent control legislation.
The Massachusetts legislature considered a bill (MA H 3924) that would have removed the state’s preemption of municipal rent control policies. The bill would have affirmatively allowed for the regulation of rents for multi-family housing and manufactured housing, condominium conversions, and no-cause evictions.
An apartment complex in Massachsetts
Lawmakers in Illinois introduced legislation (IL HB 255) that would have repealed the state’s 1997 Rent Control Preemption Act, which bans local units of government from controlling residential and commercial rents.
While several municipalities in New Jersey have implemented rent control, lawmakers introduced a statewide rent cap bill that did not pass (NJ A 1923). The bill would have established a cap on annual rent increases of 5 percent plus the percentage change in cost of living, or 10 percent—whichever was lower.
Legislators in Illinois (IL SB 3771) also introduced a bill that would have established statewide rent control and implemented a just-cause eviction protection for renters. The bill would have limited rent increases each year to 5 percent plus the change in cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever was lower, and limited legal evictions to nonpayment of rent and material breaches of a lease.
Strengthening Existing Legislation
New York legislators introduced several pieces of legislation to enhance tenant protections passed in 2019, in one of the boldest legislative efforts to protect renters in the nation. These bills included a just-cause eviction law (NY S 2892/A 5030), an expansion of the 2019 rent stabilization law (NY S 5040/A 7046), an end to landlord-friendly loopholes such as vacancy decontrol (NY S 2591/A 1198) and vacancy bonuses (NY S 185/A 2351), an end to permanent rent increases for capital improvements (NY S 3693/A 6322), and making preferential rents permanent (NY S 2845A/A 4349).
A recently enacted bill (CA SB 1190) in California would have strengthened enforcement mechanisms for the Tenants Protection Act of 2019. The bill would have directed city attorneys, district attorneys, or county counsel to prosecute violations of the legislation’s rent cap and just-cause eviction provisions, including awarding restitution and levying fines up to $20,000. However, this provision was stripped via amendment, and the bill as enacted focuses on the right of tenants to terminate tenancy based on a family member being a victim of a crime.
California activists rally for the #CancelRent movement in May 2020
A ballot measure that failed in California (Rental Affordability Act) would have expanded the state’s rent control laws. If passed, the measure would have reformed major sections of the Costa-Hawkins Act. The ballot measure would have extended the state’s rent regulations to all buildings over 15 years old, allowed for rent control on single-family homes when an owner owns more than two homes, and enacted limitations on rent increases after a tenant vacates a unit.
Rent Control for Manufactured Housing
Michigan lawmakers introduced a bill (MI HB 5569) that would have exempted manufactured housing parks from the state’s rent control ban. It would also created a rent cap only applicable to manufactured housing parks equivalent to the most recent annual change in the Consumer Price Index.
Three pieces of legislation were introduced in California (CA SB 999, AB 2895, AB 2690) that would have expanded rent regulations to manufactured housing. SB 999, which passed out of the Senate but died in the Assembly, would have required new manufactured housing leases to be covered by local rent control ordinances. AB 2690, which passed out of the Assembly but died in the Senate, would have repealed exemptions for manufactured housing from local rent regulation. AB 2895, which also passed out of the Assembly and died in the Senate, would have applied the same rent cap and eviction protections under the Tenants Protection Act to manufactured housing starting in 2021.
Looking Forward
Over the past few years, housing justice advocates have increasingly pushed for reinvestment and construction of publicly owned housing in the United States. In 2019, Homes Guarantee launched an effort to guarantee the right to safe and affordable housing with a plan to build 12 million social housing units across the country, reinvesting in existing public housing, protecting renters and bank tenants, paying reparations for centuries of racist housing policies, and ending land and real estate speculation.
On the federal level, Rep. Ilhan Omar has introduced the Homes for All Act (H.R.5244) to repeal the Faircloth Amendment, which prohibits the construction of new public housing units, and invest $1 trillion to construct 8.5 million publicly owned units and 3.5 million units of privately owned, local, permanently affordable housing.
This year, lawmakers in Maryland introduced groundbreaking legislation (MD HB 1149) that would have funded the creation of a new state social housing program in order to construct an estimated 2,000 units of permanently affordable, government-owned, mixed-income housing. While the legislation failed, it presented one of the first pieces of legislation to construct social housing at the state level.
This interview was conducted via e-mail and has been edited for length and clarity.
How would you define what it means to be a successful state legislator?
Success looks different for everyone because we all have limits on what we are able to do. In the short time I have as a State Senator, I will feel successful if I can use the circumstances that are handed to me to bend as much power as I can in service of our most vulnerable Nebraskans.
If you could go back in time, what’s one thing you’d do differently in your first term?
Looking back, I see that I made some beginners errors that probably could not have been avoided—types of things I just had to learn the hard way. For example, introducing a few bills without first gauging the support of key colleagues, or being unprepared for a few obvious questions in committee hearings. But on the whole, I am proud of myself. Overall, I can say with confidence and pride that I didn't leave anything on the table, that I picked my battles well, and that I did as much as I could. I balanced the firmness of my own convictions and principles with doing what's best for my district and for Nebraska. And I did this as part of a team of 49 senators plus all of our indispensable staff.
Sen. Megan Hunt in the Nebraska State Capitol; (Photo: Sen. Megan Hunt's Facebook)
What surprised you about being a state legislator?
In Nebraska, we have the nation’s only nonpartisan unicameral legislature, which means that we have no official party identification, we have no caucuses, no majority/minority leaders, etc. I am on the far left side of the spectrum represented in the Nebraska Legislature, and I broke barriers as the first out LGBTQ+ state senator ever, as a single working parent, and as an atheist. I was really afraid that my colleagues would stereotype me or be hostile toward me because of who I am, but I was wrong. I have found every one of my colleagues amenable, willing to work with me, and I have made several close friends with colleagues who are ideologically very different from me. I think that Nebraska legislators are able to benefit from these positive relationships because of our officially nonpartisan structure. We fight, we disagree, we argue, but we do cooperate, and that’s a good thing for Nebraskans.
I think that Nebraska legislators are able to benefit from positive relationships because of our officially nonpartisan structure. We fight, we disagree, we argue, but we do cooperate, and that’s a good thing for Nebraskans.
What was one challenge you faced as a legislator that you didn’t anticipate?
The pandemic, absolutely. When the pandemic began to reach Nebraska in March, the Legislature suspended its session, and my office started working remotely. We made the decision to pivot from our legislative work to a focus on the immediate, urgent safety needs of Nebraskans facing hunger, unemployment, and eviction. Our agenda for 2020 changed completely, from the slate of policy goals we brought into the new year, to the simple but critical objective of ensuring that Nebraskans would survive.
It was very important that our office was able to pivot from our original policy goals to the day-to-day crisis work that COVID has demanded of our elected leaders. But I certainly never expected to be in this position.
Every day when I come home, my daughter looks up (either from a book or a YouTube video, usually about rhinos), and says “Did you pass a bill today?”
I’m very proud of how my staff has handled the COVID-19 pandemic. We are still helping Nebraskans receive unemployment and SNAP benefits they are entitled to from the early part of the pandemic. Many of these Nebraskans have never been system-involved, and many are slipping through the cracks when trying to work with agencies to get their benefits.
Of course, I’m also taking care of my daughter, managing her virtual learning, and running a business of my own. My hat is off to all parents and educators who are dealing with balancing work, education, schooling, and all the challenges of this pandemic. It feels hard every day, but we have to be proud of everything we’ve been able to do amidst all this adversity.
How do you stay true to your values in a political system that’s designed to uphold the status quo?
For me, it’s the easiest thing in the world. Our entire political institution—the rules, the norms, everything—was created by people who are invested in the status quo to ensure that people marginalized by the status quo will still work to maintain it. I have endeavored to not be a part of that by questioning my assumptions about what’s going on, and by having the courage or playfulness to question others’ assumptions. Why should I worry what others think of my values? I am the one who has to live with myself and sleep at night! And this is why representation in government is so important. I want different elected leaders, I want diverse elected leaders, and I want us to work together to render the status quo obsolete.
You can’t want this job because you think you have the answers. You have to want this job because you know we have the answers, and you want to help implement those solutions.
What advice would you give newly-elected state legislators as they enter their first session?
I have the approach that there is nothing sacramental about a seat in the legislature, and there is nothing intrinsically special about me that entitles me to hold one. We are just people who are holding a job. The power we have is awesome, but we make mistakes, we have motives that are good and bad, we build our little legacies if we’re lucky, and then we are term-limited or we retire or we lose reelection. I know that I am just passing through, and I have to use my time here and the power I have to make life better for other people. You can’t want this job because you think you have the answers. You have to want this job because you know we have the answers, and you want to help implement those solutions. You can’t tie all of your identity up in elective office. It’s just a channel for you to do good work. And there are many ways to do that besides holding office.
What Should I Post? Building a Social Media Strategy for Legislators
Legislators and staffers often wear many hats, including the role of social media manager. Is it possible to build an engaged social media following while juggling other priorities? Yes! And having a solid strategy can help.
A successful social media strategy requires more than tweeting regularly—it involves identifying realistic goals and concrete steps to reach those goals. Use the prompts and resources below to start developing a social strategy today.
Strategy Prompts
Big Picture
Who is my audience? What content can I uniquely offer them?
What should my social media profile convey at first glance?
What should my followers know or feel when they see my content?
Style & Tone
What visuals should be most prominent? (GIFs from popular culture, personal photos, community events, etc.)
Should my tone be conversational? Formal?
How often do I respond to constituents? (This may change depending on the platform.)
Where is my voice needed? Where can I elevate someone else’s voice?
What holidays and commemorative dates do I want to post about?
Content
What parts of my personal life am I comfortable sharing? How often do I want my face to appear on my feed?
What information can I provide that my constituents may not be seeing elsewhere?
What issues should be reflected on my account?
Who am I aligning myself with? What organizations, thought leaders, other electeds should I be retweeting or engaging with?
Cheatsheet: Help! What Should I Post?
Got time?
Write a thread: Explain your priorities for the session or some of the barriers to the work you're doing.
Tip: Use simple language and link to articles that have more information.
Cite a statistic: Use an engaging stat to start a discussion about an issue area.
Tip: Find a reliable source (e.g. Guttmacher for repro, Brennan Center for voting rights) and find a stat that captures the importance of the issue. The more localized the stat, the better. (If you have space in the post, credit the source by tagging them—you may get an RT!)
On This Day: Use Google Photos or Twitter advanced search to find a photo you took on this day (or thereabouts) in a previous year. Or use OnThisDay.com, Equal Justice Initiative's calendar, and similar sources to find a societal date or holiday to recognize.
Tip: Set a reminder in advance of the date.
Tell a constituent story: Share an anonymized (unless you have permission) story about a constituent’s experience or an anecdote about a recurring theme you're hearing from constituents.
Ask a question: Ask your constituents a question—but be prepared for the responses!
Don't have time?
Repost a Tweet: Use Twinsta or TweetPik to repost a recent tweet to Facebook and/or Instagram. In the caption, re-emphasize the messaging in your original tweet or add more insight.
Quote an Article: What’s the last great article you read? Pull your favorite quote from it and post. Even better: add a little insight after the quote.
Tip: Paste the article's URL in the Twitter search box, and see who else has posted the article.
Respond: Instead of publishing an original tweet, reply to someone else’s tweet.
Tools & Resources
(All of these websites are free to use, but some have premium options for more features.)
Following the January 6 attacks, we have compiled important information with recommendations on how legislators can protect their personal and digital safety, demand accountability, and commit to a generation of cultural transformation.
Govern Safely
Protect your personal/family safety. Take any threats of violence seriously, and report all threats to the appropriate law enforcement agency in your state, and the FBI.
Transition to full remote governance. Due to the heightened security risk at state capitols–both due to threats of violence and the raging global pandemic–work with your legislative and constitutional officers to move to full remote governance. Many states have already moved their legislative work online in accessible, democratic ways. For more information on how to make this transition, please reference these materials we produced earlier last summer with our partners, Demand Progress, and U.S. Representative Katie Porter.
Minimize the risk of violence at your state capitol. If remote governance is not a possibility, focus on understanding your safety risks at your place of work. Demand clear and sufficient information about how your security team is prepared for attacks. Do not force a public written response, as that may compromise everyone's safety if details of the security plan are publicly known. Advocate for swift gun-safety changes at the capitol, including banning the open or concealed carry of weapons, even for legislators (some who may have had a hand in the recent violent insurrection in the U.S. Capitol). Michigan was recently able to ban open carry in their capitol with bipartisan support. For direct support on gun safety policies, contact stategovaffairs@everytown.org.
Demand accountability. Impeach. Expel. Investigate. Demand that Trump and his co-conspirators, from Senators and House Members to state legislators, who fed, fueled, and fomented these attacks on our democracy must also be removed or resign.
Expose and document extremist behaviors in your institutions.Join this public call for individuals, elected officials (local & state), and law enforcement to publicly condemn white supremacist groups and violence. Join together with your neighbors and proclaim that this type of violence will not be permitted in our backyards. Commit to exposing it, pushing back on it, protecting against it, and punishing it when you see it. Consider the tools you have available to you to expose extremist behaviors in your state government, including open records requests and other tools to expose those who conspired to commit violent insurrection and sedition against our nation.
Commit to transformation
Acknowledge that violent white extremism is an ongoing threat to democracy. Do not attempt to minimize these attacks or assign blame to fringe elements of our society. The current violence is the result of centuries of white supremacy combined with a political system that more often than not rewards anti-democratic measures and racist and anti-Semitic means. The rise of authoritarianism, violent white supremacy, and populism is front-and-center in our global political discourse. The work ahead to find truth, reconciliation, and healing will require deep, ongoing transformative work. It is unfair and unwise to place this vast social challenge at the feet of police and armed guards whose only known response mechanism is more violence, or who may have been involved in the attacks.
Use your position to change the definition of public leadership. Take a bold public stand against white supremacy in your official capacity. You can amend existing state loyalty oaths for legislators, legislative candidates, and/or state employees to include the denunciation of white supremacy groups. See an example from Illinois here.
Deeply invest in multi-racial organizing rooted in race equity. It is not a coincidence that the attack on the Capitol was on the same day that the transformational organizing work of Black and Brown communities flipped two U.S. Senate seats, changing partisan control of the chamber. Violent white backlash is a hallmark of American history and this type of terrorism demonstrates that extremists are afraid of the ascending power of BIPOC communities across this country.
As we allow ourselves the space to grieve and rage, let us also be emboldened by the knowledge that our strategy is working. We must continue to fight tirelessly to build a robust, multi-racial democracy and dream of the country we want to live in.
Downloads & Other Resources
E-mail helpdesk@stateinnovation.org to request access to the recording of a training withClick to watch training with the Digital Defense Fund, SiX, and Local Progress or view slides below to learn how to take proactive measures to prioritize your physical and digital safety.
Additional resources shared during the presentation:
A Warning on the Gig Workers Legislation Coming to Your State
By: Terri Gerstein, Director, State and Local Enforcement Project, Harvard Labor and Worklife Program & Senior Fellow, Economic Policy Institute and Rebecca Smith; Director, Work Structures Portfolio at National Employment Law Project (NELP)
Proposition 22 was a California ballot initiative that passed in November. Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other gig companies spent over $200 million to deprive their workers of important employment rights in exchange for a paltry package of benefits. The companies are now pushing this model in other states and legislators should be prepared to counter an aggressive and well-funded campaign.
What’s at stake?
Gig companies want to exempt themselves from laws that every other employer has to follow—minimum wage, overtime, discrimination, unemployment insurance, paid sick time, paid family leave, workers’ compensation, and workplace safety and health—and they want to give very little in return. We are expecting legislation or ballot initiatives in at least CO, IL, MA, NJ, NY, and WA in 2021.
What are the actual facts about these drivers?
These companies have disclosed little data about who their drivers are, how many are full-time, how many hours they work, and how much money they make. One rare exception, a 2018 study from New York City, revealed:
Driving was the primary job for two-thirds of workers;
They earned low wages (the median amounted to less than state minimum wage); and
Many qualified for public benefits including Medicaid and federal supplemental nutrition assistance.
We also know that Black and Latino workers comprise almost 42 percent of app-based workers. Relegating them to a second tier of labor protections recreates historical racist exclusions of Black and Latino workers from basic protections.
Gig companies want to exempt themselves from laws that every other employer has to follow—and they want to give very little in return.
What have courts said?
Courts have repeatedly held that these workers are entitled to their rights as employees (five courts in three states in 2020).
What does Proposition 22 do?
As this New York Times op-ed explains, Prop 22 is a bad deal. It denies California’s gig workers paid sick leave, unemployment benefits, and overtime pay, allows many weekly work hours to be unpaid, offers exceedingly limited benefits, and requires a whopping 7/8 vote for any amendment.
What can you do?
You can fight efforts to pass similar measures in your state:
Learn about Proposition 22, including its terms, and short/longer-term consequences;
Meet with unions, worker groups, and other stakeholders in your state;
Be wary of “astroturf” groups & others funded by gig companies to show support;
Require companies to disclose extensive data about worker conditions in your state;
Urge others tempted by the companies’ pitch to wait and see what happens in California before taking action; and
Find ways to expand gig workers’ and other workers’ rights within your jurisdiction.
Want more information? We will be offering a webinar in 2021, but if you’d like more information sooner, let SiX know!
Confronting the Assaults on Our Democracy
Dear Legislators,
As we struggle to put into words our anger and grief at the attempted insurrection at both the U.S. Capitol and the attacks at many of your workplaces, we wanted to write a note of solidarity and concern. We are joining with other national organizations to demand accountability for all those involved–from the president to the state legislators in attendance—and for bold, transformative democracy reform that builds power for the people.
Let us be clear: yesterday’s attack on our country, on our people, and the very foundation of our democracy was brought on by a president who refuses to uphold our democratic institutions and accept that millions of us turned out to stand with and for each other. This direct assault is what treason looks like: an angry mob of armed white home-grown extremists who have heard loud and clear the direct and implicit invitations from the president to attack the U.S. Capitol and threaten our government, including the very Republican leaders complicit in the undermining of our democracy.
As legislative sessions begin this month and you step back into your own workplaces, we acknowledge that the attack on the U.S. Capitol was unfortunately not an aberration. Over this last year, we have all witnessed the increasing level of violence targeted at our state elected officials–from Michigan to Georgia to Kansas–emboldened and incited by the president himself.
This is an important time for each of you to familiarize yourself with the safety protocols of your capitol and to think about ways to protect your personal safety. This is especially true for Black, Brown, and women legislators who face additional threats on and offline. If you are unfamiliar with the safety protocols in your capitol (or if a rigorous safety protocol doesn’t yet exist), work with your legislative leadership to determine a plan.
These attacks happened because of the encouragement of some Republicans, and the silence of others, who spread lies about this election in order to undermine the will of the people and desperately attempt to hold onto power they clearly do not deserve. And these kinds of attacks, in your capitals and in Washington, will continue to happen unless and until they are forcefully stopped. Our republic is in danger. Every politician responsible, from the president to senators and house members to state legislators and state officials, who fed, fueled, and fomented these attacks must be removed or resign.
The work you do on the frontlines of governance is more critical than ever. True democracy requires integrity, resilience, and moral courage. We see you. We hear you. We stand with you. We may not be able to predict what will happen in the days, weeks, and months ahead, but we do know that the long arc of this work is rooted in building community–and we know you are doing that every day.
Take the space you need to grieve, to rage, to hold your loved ones close. The power of your leadership is rooted in your love for your communities and this country. What we all experienced yesterday is abhorrent. We cannot accept this as a new normal.
Let us know how you are, if you feel safe, and what you need–whether it be in the form of messaging, a conversation, or support for the particular situation in our state.
Thank you, Jessie and Neha
State Innovation Exchange (SiX) Co-Executive Directors
Farmer Equity Act: A Policy to Improve Access for Farmers of Color
Historically, farmers and ranchers who are Black, Indigenous or people of color have faced systemic discrimination from state and federal agriculture institutions.
Racist policies have resulted in farmers of color being denied access to capital and ultimately losing land while historically being underserved by government agencies. These policies have created a ripple impact over the decades and have resulted in farmers of color not receiving the same resources as their white counterparts. In the 1990s, the United States Department of Agriculture recognized socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers as an officially distinct category. While this effort was a step in the right direction, for many farmers of color state agency resources remain unobtainable. In an effort to better serve their farmers of color, advocates and legislators partnered in California to pass the Farmer Equity Act, which created policies at the State Department of Food and Agriculture to ensure that their state agricultural agencies are accounting for farmer equity throughout the agency.
Now, three years after the bill was enacted into law a new department has been developed to ensure its implementation. Along the way there have been some challenges, some successes and a lot of lessons learned that may be of interest to other states considering similar action.
Participants:
Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, California State Assembly Representative Sonya Harper, Illinois General Assembly Thea Rittenhouse, Farm Equity Adviser, California Department of Food and Agriculture Chanowk Yisrael, Chief Seed Starter, The Yisrael Urban Family Farm
What Just Happened in the States
Partisan Control of State Legislatures Remains Largely Unchanged
In November 2020, nearly 6,000 of the nation’s 7,383 state legislative seats were up for election. Come January 2021, the partisan control of state legislatures will look almost identical to how they looked two years prior: of the 98 chambers that have partisan control, 59 are held by Republicans, 37 by Democrats (as of this writing, the Arizona Senate and House remain in flux; Nebraska is a unicameral, nonpartisan chamber).
Though communities of color in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan beat back Donald Trump’s fascism and division federally, gerrymandering and other structural barriers kept their state legislatures relatively unchanged. For example, in Wisconsin, Joe Biden won 49.4% of the vote (as of November 5th), but Republicans retained 61% of all state legislative seats.
Progressive Policy Victories Were Achieved via Ballot Measure
In California, voters restored voting rights to individuals serving parole for felony convictions.
In Colorado, voters rejected a ban on later abortion—in even higher numbers than they voted for Joe Biden—again affirming broad bipartisan support for abortion access.
Five newly elected state legislators will become the first Muslim legislators in their states: Mauree Turner in Oklahoma, Madinah Wilson-Anton in Delaware, Iman Jodeh in Colorado, Samba Baldeh in Wisconsin, and Christopher Benjamin in Florida.
Several LGBTQIA “firsts” were celebrated throughout the country: In Delaware, Sarah McBride became the first transgender person elected to a state Senate. Two other Democrats became the first openly transgender people to win seats in their states’ Houses: Taylor Small in Vermont and Stephanie Byers in Kansas. Tenessee elected its first openly gay and openly bisexual legislators, Eddie Mannis and Torrey Harris, respectively.
The pipeline of public leadership is starting to look more like America— but we still have far to go. We can never achieve justice if our decision-makers are older, whiter, and more affluent than the people they represent; only 29% of state legislators who hold office are women and 78% are white.
In many states, legislators are part-time, paid very little (if at all,) and required to drop everything to be fully available for their legislative sessions. This has led to state legislatures being disproportionately composed of retirees, independently wealthy people, and those whose educational and career privileges allow them to hit pause on their careers for up to several months per year without repercussions.
What Comes Next
The most immediate challenge facing all state legislatures next year will be swelling budget deficits due to the pandemic and the recession. At the same time, state legislators face an extreme risk across the progressive movement—that all hopes are laid at the feet of the new President without an acknowledgment that state legislatures have significant power to shape the political terrain for generations to come.
We know that bold champions can make a difference in every legislative context — majorities, minorities, and split governance states — and our champions need resources and support to create transformative change. SiX is designed precisely for this work.
The road ahead isn’t easy, but the work to transform this country is a long arc. We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors and are so grateful to be in this generational struggle.
Farm and Food Chain Workers: Equity and Justice in the Food System
SiX Main Takeaways
Farmworkers make up just one link of the food supply chain—there's also processing, distribution, retail, and restaurant and service workers. In total, 21.5 million people are food chain workers in this country. Policies should take into account all types of food chain workers.
Food and farmworkers are some of the lowest-paid and exploited workers in the country because they are not covered by many federal labor laws. State legislators can fill in the gaps where the federal system has failed.
Protecting food workers means more than just raising wages because workers are also endangered by heat, toxic chemical exposure, substandard housing, COVID-19, smoke from wildfires, and more. Some states have already passed bills to address these problems.
Even in states with progressive legislatures, large growers and other agricultural interests have a lot of influence at the state house. Changing the system requires buy-in from a variety of stakeholders.
The best policies will come from including farm and food workers at the table. These are skilled laborers and they know what policies are necessary.
National grassroots coalitions can help connect legislators to farm and food worker organizations in every state. SiX can help connect you!
Medication Abortion: A 20-year Anniversary and an Opportunity
Medication abortion care is a safe and effective method of abortion care that has been studied extensively since it was approved by the FDA 20 years ago this month.
Still, many Americans are unfamiliar with medication abortion care -- what it is, how it can increase access to care during a pandemic and beyond, and the state and federal level policy barriers that stand in the way.
To assist state legislators' work in this area SiX Reproductive Rights teamed up with Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, an expert in medication abortion care from the University of California San Francisco, and Innovating Education in Reproductive Health to make this short instructive video.
Medication abortion care is an FDA-approved option for ending an early pregnancy.
Medication abortion care has been shown to be safe and effective over the last 20 years with a more than 99% safety rate.
Despite its 20-year safety record, FDA restrictions (called REMS) still limit the number of providers that can stock and dispense the medication used in medication abortion care, reducing the options for patients to access it.
Unnecessary state level restrictions on the use of telemedicine for medication abortion care — which have been passed in 18 states — add to the burden by requiring people to travel for an in-person visit, even though it is just as safe and effective to consult with a provider over video or phone.
In July a Federal Court blocked the enforcement of the FDA restriction that requires people to pick up the medication in-person from their provider for the duration of the COVID public health emergency.
The Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to re-instate that requirement.
Restrictions on medication abortion care, and abortion care in general, fall hardest on those who have low incomes, live in rural areas, are women of color, undocumented, or are young.
It doesn’t have to be this hard to get medication abortion care. Pregnant people should be able to have medication abortion prescribed by their health care provider and receive their medications in the way that makes the most sense for them, whether that is having it delivered to their home or picking up at a local pharmacy or at a health center.
Medication abortion care has been researched extensively.
This list contains a selection of issue briefs and fact sheets summarizing the research and the state-level policy implications:
Abortion is Safe in All Forms (fact sheet highlighting the findings of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report on quality of abortion care in the United States)
For additional resources, messaging guidance, or to be connected with a research expert on reproductive health topics, please reach out to fran@stateinnovation.org.
SiX Repro Book Club: Michele Goodwin's Policing the Womb
Policing the Womb brings to life the chilling ways in which women have become the targets of secretive state surveillance of their pregnancies. Dr. Michele Goodwin expands the reproductive health and rights debate beyond abortion to include how legislators increasingly turn to criminalizing women for miscarriages, stillbirths, and threatening the health of their pregnancies.
Legislators can protect workers’ rights by partnering with AGs
The fight for worker’s rights rages on through the pandemic. Everyone deserves a safe workplace, yet the average American worker currently finds themselves in a troubling situation: risk their health or go to work. Millions of Americans are relying on elected officials to enact policies that will protect their rights and ensure their safety. Fortunately, workers are not the only ones calling for strong reforms such as paid sick leave, recovering stolen wages, and fighting misclassification of workers, amongst many others.
A new EPI report documents the dramatic increase in the involvement of state attorneys general (AGs) in protecting workers’ rights in the past two years. The report recommends that state legislatures grant attorney general offices jurisdiction to enforce workplace rights laws. It also urges state AGs to expand their involvement in this area using a range of their existing powers and authority.
“Many workers held precarious jobs and experienced high rates of wage theft and retaliation... In response to the dire challenges facing workers today, a number of state AGs have emerged as leaders in enforcing and protecting workers’ rights,” said Terri Gerstein, director of the State and Local Enforcement Project at the Harvard Labor and Worklife Program, and a senior fellow at EPI.
Unfortunately, several states have already taken steps to grant business liability protections from workers’ lawsuits during the COVID-19 crisis. These liability laws have dire consequences such as unsafe conditions for both workers and daily consumers.
The State Innovation Exchange commissioned a recent poll surveying Americans in ten states and it revealed that voters strongly support policies that would provide immediate pocketbook relief for families and workers. Even more, results show that a majority of voters side with workplace safety requirements over liability protections for corporations (55% to 26%).
There are a number of common sense measures state and local officials should be considering to put worker and public health front and center. To see what else you can do to help keep workers safe, visit SiX’s Coronavirus Response Resources page.
For more on the Economic Policy Institute, see their report and press release.
Defending Against Harmful Policies
State legislatures are on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic, trying to do their best to protect and provide vital social services to their constituents. While some states are passing inclusive policies to stabilize our local economies, others are using the pandemic as an opportunity to pass harmful policies that will have devastating impacts on our communities. Additionally, some policies are intended to support struggling families but are having unintended consequences.
Resources:
Stay at home orders are putting sexual assault survivors at risk.
A Double Pandemic: Domestic Violence in the Age of COVID-19: Around the globe, governments have implored residents to stay home to protect themselves and others from the new coronavirus disease, COVID-19. But for domestic violence victims—the vast majority of whom are women, children, and LGBTQ+ individuals—home is a dangerous place.
COVID-19 Resources for Communities: A brief summary of what the American Bar Association has learned from victims’ attorneys across the country during the ongoing,
A growing group of anti-maskers are trying to avoid it by misusing disability laws.
With the spread of the coronavirus, many states and localities require wearing masks to protect communities from the virus, as a result, some are attempting to misuse the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).
Flyers urging anti-maskers to specifically rely on the right to not disclose a disability as the response for denial of access to public spaces have gained traction across the U.S.
The ADA has a clause that says disabilities must be accommodated except when there is "a significant risk to the health or safety of others." The refusal to wear a mask endangers the very communities protected by the ADA.
Actions that aim to contort the purpose of the ADA actively harm people living with disabilities. Messaging and proactive measures from state legislators about the importance of social distancing and the importance of wearing a mask is critical to stopping the abuse of the ADA.
Americans Want Community Investment, Not Cuts
A recent poll surveying Americans in Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and conducted by TargetSmart, shows voters’ strong support for: state investment in ensuring residents are safe, healthy, and economically secure; progressive solutions to revenue shortfalls; and policies that benefit workers like paid sick days, enhanced unemployment benefits, and child care. A majority also believe the state government should address economic barriers that impact Black people. The survey was conducted online and by phone in late June/early July and included results from more than 5,000 respondents.
Voters are against budget cuts
By a three-to-one margin, voters want their state government to invest in residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (60%) rather than lowering taxes and cutting funds to services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (19%). Voters see a major or some role for state government in:
Safely and fairly administering elections (91%)
Ensuring equal access to high-quality K-12 public education (86%)
Stopping the spread of coronavirus (85%)
Ensuring struggling families and children have access to food (83%)
Ensuring access to affordable health care (77%)
Ensure workers have access to paid sick days and paid family leave (71%)
Ensure access to affordable housing (70%)
Acknowledge and address systemic racism (68%)
Ensure access to affordable child care (67%)
Reducing income inequality by raising the minimum wage and increasing taxes on the wealthy (63%)
Voters support progressive solutions to revenue shortfalls
Voters support a wide range of proposals to raise revenue to prevent large budget cuts to things like education, health care, infrastructure, and human services, including:
Close corporate tax loopholes (87%);
Increase taxes and financial penalties on companies that pollute our air and water (85%)’
Increase taxes on the wealthiest individuals (73%);
Increase taxes on those making over $250,000 a year (71%);
Create a carbon tax paid by companies based on how much carbon they emit (69%);
Increase taxes on profitable corporations (64%).
Voters are with workers
Voters strongly support policies that would provide immediate pocketbook relief for families and workers, including:
Provide low-interest loans to small businesses to help them make it through the crisis (93%);
Ban the practice of surprise medical billing (89%);
Extend the grace period for people to pay health insurance bills before their coverage can be canceled (88%);
Limit what drug companies can charge for prescription drugs (87%);
Offer people the option to buy into the same public health insurance plans that are available to state employees if they want to (87%);
Create an insurance plan to provide paid family and medical leave for employees (80%); and
Require workplaces to provide paid sick days to their employees (79%)
Eliminate tax breaks for corporations and large businesses that don’t offer paid sick and family leave and health care to their employees (74%)
Extending the length of time workers can receive unemployment benefits (58%)
A majority of voters side with workplace safety requirements (55%) over liability protections for corporations (26%).
Voters want state government to remove racial barriers in the economy
Nearly 7-in-10 voters across the target states believe state government should play an active role in acknowledging and addressing systemic racism (68%). Voters also believe the state government should address economic barriers faced by Black Americans (57%).
Multi-State Poll: Opinions on Economic Response to COVID-19
During the briefing, you’ll hear:
SiX and TargetSmart fielded a poll in ten states to assess voter concerns and preferences on a variety of revenue and economic policies. The poll was fielded in late June/early July while economic and budget implications of the pandemic intensified and with racial justice protests sweeping the country.
results from 10 states (AZ, GA, FL, MI, MN, MS, NV, TN, TX, WI), including consolidated and cross-state trends
data on what economic pressures are top of mind for voters, their preferences about protections for families and workers—such as paid sick leave and unemployment benefits, and how they feel about ways to secure additional revenue for budget shortfalls
data on voter concerns about pandemic economic impacts and barriers for Black voters
COVID Response: Resources for State Legislators
As the coronavirus situation continues to unfold, we’re compiling resources here to help you navigate the many challenges this presents to your community. We know that crises like these have disproportionate impacts on vulnerable and low-income communities and want to make sure we stand up for those most at risk. As legislators, you are uniquely positioned to find solutions that mitigate the harm for at-risk medical populations (people with chronic health conditions, people with disabilities, the elderly), hourly workers, the millions of Americans without access to health care or paid sick days, and everyone who is one health emergency away from financial ruin.
The resources we've linked to below can help you use your platform to provide clear, scientifically-based information to the public and advocate for better policies.
If you have actions or new policies that are happening in your states, please share them so we can provide them to other legislators across the country. Please email helpdesk@stateinnovation.org.
Race and the Virus: Bias, Data, Testing, and Impact
The spread of COVID-19 took longer to reach rural America, however, once it did, it highlighted some basic infrastructure needs that are lacking for rural residents. During COVID-19, rural people have faced many of the same challenges as urban residents, yet have struggled to access adequate information, medical services, food and medicine due to an erosion of public investment in rural infrastructure.
In addition to the risks to individuals’ physical health, the COVID-19 pandemic affects every health care system in the United States (medical, public health, insurance) and each of their corresponding workforces. State legislatures have a responsibility and opportunity to ensure that these systems are operating effectively and equitably for the health of all people.
The Covid pandemic has had devastating impacts on every single worker and every aspect of our economy, particularly women and Black, Brown, and Indigenous workers. Too many are grappling with how to pay for the basic necessities they need to survive and many are being forced to decide between going back to a job that may be unsafe or protecting their health. Fortunately, legislators and partners can implement innovative solutions that will make our workforce and our local economies safer and stronger.
Our nation is in the midst of a housing crisis, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Under our nation’s system of racial capitalism, housing serves more as a financial asset or investment than a basic human right. The current system disproportionately harms working-class, Black, Indigenous, and communities of color (BIPOC)—leaving them out of both asset building opportunities and housing protections. Evictions already place a disproportionate harm on Black women and their families, who are almost four times as likely to be evicted as households led by white men. Housing stability has always been a civil rights issue that directly descends from our nation’s history of segregation and racist housing practices.
The 2020 Census is still on and it is more important than ever to get out the count and encourage communities to self-respond. SiX’s Census Get Out the Count Toolkit for State Legislators has everything you need to promote the census digitally with your constituents during the pandemic and is being updated regularly. Here’s the most important message the all legislators should be lifting up:
“Responding to the census has never been easier. You can fill out the form from the comfort of your home—online, over the phone, or by mail—all without having to meet a census taker in person.”
On April 13, the Bureau announced major operational changes for the 2020 count. All field data collection activities have been suspended until June 1, and the enumeration period has been extended until October 31, 2020. That means households will now have until the end of October to self-respond to the census, though legislators should still encourage communities to participate as soon as possible.
Voting & Elections
COVID-19 poses an incredible threat to voter access and participation in our elections and requires a multi-pronged, well-funded solution. To meet this challenge, states must rapidly ensure that voting systems are safe, resilient, and flexible. Democracy advocates across the country are uniting behind the below areas of reform to protect our democracy during the pandemic:
Expanded voter registration, including online registration, same-day registration, and automatic registration;
Expanded mail voting, including pre-paid postage and fair and consistent ballot verification and cure processes;
Expanded early voting and in-person voting opportunities;
Reforms to polling station locations, setups, and sanitation protocols (following CDC guidelines); and
Robust public education.
For a detailed overview of these policy recommendations see the following resources from SiX’s national partners:
COVID-19 poses specific threats to reproductive health care access and needs; further, some states have taken advantage of the crisis to play politics and restrict abortion care access. But research shows that even in the midst of COVID—and despite disinformation spread by the anti-choice opposition—people continue to oppose restricting access to reproductive freedom.
The Department of Education and the White House are pressuring schools to open in the fall but are providing little to no guidance for doing so safely, threatening to withhold funding for states or districts who do not comply. While the pressure to reopen schools in the fall grows, so does the number of coronavirus cases, leaving school districts and states scrambling to keep up with a quickly changing situation. States will have to consider how to keep all students, teachers, faculty and support staff safe—not just those in wealthy communities—through budget considerations, remote learning options, financial aid, school meals, testing and tracing, and more.
Covid-19 demonstrated that the corporate food supply chain is one crisis away from failing, which puts communities at risk of being food insecure and could cause barriers for local farmers working to address the food needs of their community. In order to ensure that communities are resilient in their ability to access food during a crisis, legislators should work to ensure that there is a sound regional and/or local alternative food supply chain with a plan to get food to those who need it while also ensuring that food and farm workers are adequately protected in their workplaces.
Undocumented Immigrants make up a disproportionate share of frontline workers and are especially concentrated in high-risk industries such as food production, health care, and transportation. However, these same immigrant workers have been excluded from any economic relief included in the CARES Act and are unable to access unemployment insurance. To compound this devastating situation, Trump’s immigration enforcement machine continues to target undocumented residents and separate families at astounding rates, which has led to extreme health risks within immigration detention centers across the United States.
The spread of COVID-19 took longer to reach rural America, however, once it did, it highlighted some basic infrastructure needs that are lacking for rural residents. During COVID-19, rural people have faced many of the same challenges as urban residents, yet have struggled to access adequate information, medical services, food and medicine due to an erosion of public investment in rural infrastructure.
State legislatures are on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic, trying to do their best to protect and provide vital social services to their constituents. While some states are passing inclusive policies to stabilize our local economies, others are using the pandemic as an opportunity to pass harmful policies that will have devastating impacts on our communities. Additionally, some policies are intended to support struggling families but are having unintended consequences.
What the Pandemic Primaries Can Teach us for November
SiX and the National Task Force on Election Crises discuss lessons learned from the 2020 primary elections in the midst of a pandemic and what this means for ensuring the November election is safe and accessible.
The National Taskforce on Election Crises shares lessons learned and state-level implications from their new report, "Lessons from the Primary Elections: Recommendations for a Free and Fair Election in November."
New Poll Shows Minnesotans Want Action to Address Systemic Racism & COVID-19
Overwhelming support for bold policy solutions to address systemic racism surfaces as a top priority. Coronavirus is a close second.
In the wake of the murder of George Floyd and the ensuing protest movement, a recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and conducted by TargetSmart shows Minnesota voters hold deep concerns over systemic racism, COVID impacts on elections, and economic barriers.
Voters See Expanded Role for Government in Addressing Crisis
In an open ended question Minnesotans cited racism, injustice and police brutality as a top concern (26%), followed closely by the COVID pandemic (19%). Voters see the state government playing a major role during this crisis in the following areas:
Safely and fairly administering elections (89%);
Ensuring equal access to high-quality K-12 education (86%);
Ensuring struggling families and children have access to food (82%);
Stopping the spread of the coronavirus (79%);
Ensuring access to affordable health care (77%);
Equal pay for equal work (76%);
State government should have a role in addressing systemic racism (67%); and
Reducing barriers that stop Black people from voting (65%).
Voters Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections
Although voting in-person on Election Day remains the most popular option (56%), a sizable portion of Minnesota voters report that they will vote by mail (32%), and just a few indicate they plan on voting early in-person (11%).
Whether or not they are choosing to vote in person or by mail, voters supported policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible for all eligible voters:
Open additional polling locations to reduce crowds and lines (85%);
Allow voters to cast their ballot at any polling location in their county (60%);
Count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day, but received after (63%); and
Immediately notify voters if there is a problem with their mail-in ballot (86%).
Voters Concerned about COVID Impact on Unemployment and Strongly Support Bold Economic Policies
By a nearly three-to-one margin, Minnesota voters want state governments to invest in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (56%) rather than the state keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (20%).
Nearly 4-in-10 Minnesota respondents reported they have been laid-off or had their hour cut (39%). Voters express grave concerns about small business closures (85%) and losing work and income (84%). Minnesotans also believe businesses should be required to provide safe working conditions or be penalized for negligence if workers get sick (50%).
Given the current crisis, Minnesotans support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many:
Providing low-interest loans to small businesses to help them make it through the crisis (95%);
Banning the practice of surprise medical billing (92%);
Limiting what drug companies can charge for prescription drugs (90%);
Offering people in Minnesota the option to buy into the same public health insurance plans that are available to state employees if they want to (88%);
Extending the grace period for people to pay health insurance bills before their coverage can be canceled (88%);
Creating an insurance plan to provide paid family and medical leave for employees (79%); and
Requiring workplaces to provide paid sick days to their employees (78%).
After Voting Debacle, New Poll Shows Wisconsinites Want Election Security
Overwhelming support for state investment to ensure health and economic security while also bolstering a fair election
In the wake of Wisconsin’s much-criticized spring elections, a recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and conducted by TargetSmart shows Wisconsin voters broadly support reforms to safely administer elections, increase the role of the state government, and address health & safety.
Voters Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections
Wisconsin voters strongly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (86%). Voters are split between planning to vote by mail (45%) and vote in-person on Election Day (39%).
Whether or not they are choosing to vote in person or by mail, voters supported policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible for all eligible voters:
Lengthen the window for early voting and allow voters to cast ballots in person up through the day before Election Day (87%);
Open additional polling locations to reduce crowds and lines (86%);
Mail all registered voters applications to vote-by-mail (62%);
Count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day, but received after (76%); and
Immediately notify voters if there is a problem with their mail-in ballot (85%).
The Role of Government in Issues Facing Wisconsin
When asked if the state government should play a role in investing in the health, economic, and overall security of the people, voters overwhelmingly supported government engagement in:
Safely and fairly administering elections (86%);
Ensuring equal access to high-quality K-12 education (83%);
Ensuring struggling families and children have access to food (79%);
Stopping the spread of the coronavirus (79%);
Equal pay for equal work (78%); and
Ensuring access to affordable health care (77%).
Voters Concerned about Pandemic’s Impact on Health & Safety and Support Bold Economic Policies
Almost 6-in-10 Wisconsin voters want the state government to invest in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (57%) rather than the state keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (21%).
Over 1-in-3 Wisconsin respondents reported they have been laid-off or had their hour cut (33%). Voters express grave concerns about small business closures (83%), losing work and income (81%), and being unable to afford rent or mortgage (69%). Wisconsinites also believe businesses should be required to provide safe working conditions or be penalized for negligence if workers get sick (52%).
Given the current crisis, Wisconsinites support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many:
Providing low-interest loans to small businesses to help them make it through the crisis (93%);
Limiting what drug companies can charge for prescription drugs (89%);
Offering people in Wisconsin the option to buy into the same public health insurance plans that are available to state employees if they want to (86%);
Extending the grace period for people to pay health insurance bills before their coverage can be canceled (83%);
Creating an insurance plan to provide paid family and medical leave for employees (74%); and
Requiring workplaces to provide paid sick days to their employees (74%).
New Poll Shows Mississippians Want Bold Policy Action
In a recent poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and conducted by TargetSmart, Missippians expressed a strong desire for bold policy action by the state government to address the impact of COVID on the economy and election safety and accessibility.
Voters Concerned about COVID Impact on Health and Strongly Support Bold Economic Policies
Mississippi voters want state governments to invest in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (55%) rather than the state keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (19%).
Nearly 2-in-5 Mississippi respondents reported they have been laid-off or had their hour cut (39%). Voters express grave concerns about small business closures (87%) and losing work and income (90%). Mississippians also believe businesses should be required to provide safe working conditions or be penalized for negligence if workers get sick (52%).
Given the current crisis, Mississippians support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many:
Providing low-interest loans to small businesses to help them make it through the crisis (97%);
Extending the grace period for people to pay health insurance bills before their coverage can be canceled (93%);
Offering people in Mississippi the option to buy into the same public health insurance plans that are available to state employees if they want to (91%);
Limiting what drug companies can charge for prescription drugs (90%);
Creating an insurance plan to provide paid family and medical leave for employees (88%); and
Requiring workplaces to provide paid sick days to their employees (83%).
Voters Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections
Mississippi voters overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (92%). An overwhelming majority of Mississippians plan to vote in-person on Election Day (80%) because alternatives are limited, even during the pandemic..
Missippians support policies to ensure the election is accessible for all eligible voters and want voters have a range of safe options when registering and casting their ballots:
Allow eligible voters to register to online (63%);
Allow eligible voters to register to vote on Election Day (61%);
Open additional polling locations to reduce crowds and lines (86%);
Lengthen the window for early voting and allow voters to cast ballots in person up through the day before Election Day (78%);
Allow any registered Mississippi voter to vote by mail (63%); and
Mail all registered voters applications to vote-by-mail (54%).
The Role of Government in Issues Facing Mississippi
When asked if the state government should play a role in investing in the health, economic, and overall security of the people, voters overwhelmingly supported government engagement in:
Safely and fairly administering elections (92%);
Ensuring equal access to high-quality K-12 education (88%);
Ensuring struggling families and children have access to food (88%);
New Poll Shows Georgia Voters’ Deep Concern About Pandemic
Strong support for bold policy solutions to help working families, businesses, and ensure the safety and accessibility of elections
The coronavirus surfaces as the top issue priority for Georgia voters and this concern cuts across partisan lines. A recent poll conducted by TargetSmart and commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) shows Georgians have deep concerns about the pandemic’s impact on the 2020 elections and the economy.
Georgians Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections and Reduce Barriers for Black Voters
Georgia voters overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (92%). Georgians are split on how they plan to vote in November, with fairly even shares of voters reporting intentions to vote early in person (30%), by mail (30%), and in-person on Election Day (37%).
Whether or not they are choosing to vote in person or by mail, voters supported policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible for all eligible voters:
Open additional polling locations to reduce crowds and lines (90%);
Lengthen the window for early voting and allow voters to cast ballots in person up through the day before Election Day (85%);
Mail all registered voters applications to vote-by-mail (67%);
Offer mail-in ballot tracking (87%);
Count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day, but received after (67%); and
Immediately notify voters if there is a problem with their mail-in ballot (90%).
Notably, Georgians agree that the state should reduce barriers that stop Black people from voting (68%) and a majority of voters (56%) agree that systemic racism has prevented Black people and other people of color from being able to participate fully in our democracy.
The Role of Government in Issues Facing Georgia
When asked if the state government should play a role in investing in the health, economic, and overall security of the people, voters overwhelmingly supported government engagement in:
Safely and fairly administering elections (92%);
Ensuring equal access to high-quality K-12 education (87%);
Stopping the spread of the coronavirus (86%);
Ensuring struggling families and children have access to food (83%);
Equal pay for equal work (80%); and
Ensuring access to affordable health care (77%).
Voters Concerned about COVID Impact on Health and Strongly Support Bold Economic Policies
By a nearly three-to-one margin, Georgia voters want state governments to invest in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (61%) rather than the state keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (20%).
Over 2-in-5 Georgia respondents reported they have been laid-off or had their hour cut (41%). Voters express grave concerns about small business closures (85%) and losing work and income (87%). Georgians also believe businesses should be required to provide safe working conditions or be penalized for negligence if workers get sick (62%).
Given the current crisis, Georgians support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many:
Providing low-interest loans to small businesses to help them make it through the crisis (92%);
Extending the grace period for people to pay health insurance bills before their coverage can be canceled (88%);
Limiting what drug companies can charge for prescription drugs (85%);
Requiring workplaces to provide paid sick days to their employees (85%);
Offering people in Georgia the option to buy into the same public health insurance plans that are available to state employees if they want to (84%); and
Creating an insurance plan to provide paid family and medical leave for employees (81%).
New Poll Shows Coronavirus Pandemic is the Main Issue on Texans’ Minds
Strong support for bold policy solutions to help working families and ensure safe and accessible elections
A recent pollcommissioned by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) and conducted by TargetSmart shows that Texans hold deep concerns about the risk COVID-19 poses to their health, the impact on the economy and the election and they support bold policy action.
Voters Support Steps to Ensure Safe and Accessible Elections
Texas voters overwhelmingly believe that the state government has a role to play in safely and fairly administering elections (89%). Given the limited options for voters even during a pandemic, voters report they will still plan to vote early in-person (53%) or on Election Day (29%). Even though the state has taken steps to make vote by mail more difficult, 15% of Texans still prefer that option.
Texans strongly support policies to ensure the election is safe and accessible for all eligible voters:
Lengthen the window for early voting and allow voters to cast ballots in person up through the day before Election Day (89%);
Open additional polling locations to reduce crowds and lines (88%);
Allow any registered Texas voter to vote by mail (63%); and
Mail all registered voters applications to vote-by-mail (57%).
The Role of Government in Issues Facing Texas
When asked if the state government should play a role in some of the issues facing working families, voters overwhelmingly supported government engagement in:
Stopping the spread of the coronavirus (87%);
Ensuring equal access to high-quality K-12 education (83%);
Ensuring struggling families and children have access to food (83%);
Equal pay for equal work (77%); and
Ensuring access to affordable health care (73%).
Voters Concerned about COVID Impact on Health and Strongly Support Bold Economic Policies
By a nearly three-to-one margin, Texas voters want the state government to invest in its residents to ensure they are safe, healthy, and economically secure (62%) rather than the state keeping taxes low and cutting funds to key services like education, infrastructure, and unemployment insurance (18%).
Over 1-in-3 Texas respondents reported they have been laid-off or had their hour cut (35%). Voters express grave concerns about small business closures (79%) and losing work and income (83%). Texans also believe businesses should be required to provide safe working conditions or be penalized for negligence if workers get sick (57%).
Given the current crisis, Texans support policies that will address the economic hardships being faced by many:
Providing low-interest loans to small businesses to help them make it through the crisis (94%);
Extending the grace period for people to pay health insurance bills before their coverage can be canceled (88%);
Limiting what drug companies can charge for prescription drugs (87%);
Offering people in Texas the option to buy into the same public health insurance plans that are available to state employees if they want to (86%);
Creating an insurance plan to provide paid family and medical leave for employees (79%); and
Requiring workplaces to provide paid sick days to their employees (78%);
COVID Resources: Unemployment and Worker Protections
The Covid pandemic has had devastating impacts on every single worker and every aspect of our economy, particularly women and Black, Brown, and Indigenous workers. Too many are grappling with how to pay for the basic necessities they need to survive and many are being forced to decide between going back to a job that may be unsafe or protecting their health. Fortunately, legislators and partners can implement innovative solutions that will make our workforce and our local economies safer and stronger.
Resources:
Unemployment benefits and preventing wage theft of stimulus checks
The National Employment Law Project highlights six key priorities for strengthening unemployment systems
The EARN network hosted a webinar about unemployment solutions
The National Consumer Law Center lists a number of states who are working to protect stimulus checks from garnishment
Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard University in partnership with NELP collected a number of measures that state and local officials can take to protect workers as economies reopen, as well as tools to help encourage the use of communication to keep workers safe
Workers compensation - Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed into law a bill that provides temporary workers compensation
Hazard pay - Any employer that provides COVID-19 essential services shall provide hazard pay if it employs at least six individuals. See this bill from Massachusetts .
The Colorado Legislature passed CO HB 20-1415 (enacted on July 11, 2020) which prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against any worker who raises concerns about workplace health and safety practices related to a public health emergency.
Many states are fighting back against corporate immunity that lets businesses off the hook if they don’t protect workers. A state level toolkit to push back is here.
Farm & Food Worker Safety
Appropriate funds for farmers to purchase PPE for farm and food workers. See this bill from New Jersey.
Ensure that state information related to farm worker safety is communicated in both Spanish and English. Here is what Vermont did and this is the bill being considered in California.
COVID-19 poses specific threats to reproductive health care access and needs; further, some states have taken advantage of the crisis to play politics and restrict abortion care access. But research shows that even in the midst of COVID—and despite disinformation spread by the anti-choice opposition—people continue to oppose restricting access to reproductive freedom.
Always work with your state’s reproductive rights, health, and justice coalition - contact us for support if needed!
Resources:
Communicating about Reproductive Freedom During COVID Attacks on reproductive freedom have not disappeared during the coronavirus pandemic. In fact, politicians in some states are using the pandemic to try to ban or restrict access to abortion in new ways. But research shows that even in the midst of COVID—and despite disinformation spread by the opposition—people continue to support reproductive freedom. Click here for messaging guidance.
Actions State Legislators Can Consider to Protect Reproductive Health Care From removing existing barriers to abortion care to expanding tele-health services, state lawmakers can facilitate easier access to reproductive health care that reflects our current realities. And any COVID-19 response should be viewed through the lenses of racial and gender justice.
COVID-19’s Impact on Accessing Reproductive Health Care and Maternal Health To help make the case, consult the most recent data and research on how reproductive and maternal health care are being impacted by COVID-19.
Abortion as Essential Care during COVID-19 Abortion was under attack as Governors around the U.S. saw an opportunity to capitalize on a crisis to ban abortion care. These resources make it clear that abortion is critical, timely care, and that a global health pandemic and economic crisis are the exact wrong reasons to limit access to abortion care.
Communications and messaging guides for abortion care and COVID-19
State-specific research and support
To convene or facilitate a briefing or strategy session with your legislative colleagues and state coalition partners
COVID Resources: Race, the Virus: Bias, Data, Testing and Impact
Existing demographic data has revealed the disproportionate health effects of the coronavirus on Black and Brown people, communities of color, and Indigenous people. However, comprehensive racial and ethnic data does not exist in every state nor are there uniform reporting guidelines across the country. In order to better address racial disparities, legislators are pushing for improved data collection, an investment in contact tracing programs, and greater transparency on racial impact.
Resources:
General Information on Racial Disparities and Equity
APM Research Lab demonstrates key findings on COVID-19 deaths based on race and ethnicity in the U.S.
Data for Black Lives issued a report with research on and policy demands for racial data transparency
SiX led a webinar on “Principles for an Anti-Racist State Equitable Response to COVID-19” that discussed a paper from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Improved Data Collection and Analysis
PolicyLink developed policy recommendations for disaggregating data on race and ethnicity to advance a culture of health
This comprehensive racial equity checklist from Community Catalyst includes policy options for addressing racial inequities in response to COVID-19
Ohio and Massachusetts introduced bills that would require a racial impact and health disparities analysis for health-related initiatives and policies
South Carolina developed a testing plan that emphasizes testing in rural and under-resourced minority communities, urban areas, and congregate living areas
COVID Resources: Preventing Evictions
Our nation is in the midst of a housing crisis, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Under our nation’s system of racial capitalism, housing serves more as a financial asset or investment than a basic human right. The current system disproportionately harms working-class, Black, Indigenous, and communities of color (BIPOC)—leaving them out of both asset building opportunities and housing protections. Evictions already place a disproportionate harm on Black women and their families, who are almost four times as likely to be evicted as households led by white men. Housing stability has always been a civil rights issue that directly descends from our nation’s history of segregation and racist housing practices.
Now, with the pandemic and economic crisis already harming Black Americans and people of color at astonishing rates, inaction by policymakers will drastically intensify the housing crisis, destroy the lives of millions of people, and destabilize our entire nation.
First, see how your state ranks on Eviction Lab’s COVID-19 Housing Policy Scorecard. Then consider what immediate emergency measures your state needs to prevent mass evictions and what longer-term solutions should come next.
IMMEDIATE MEASURES
Whether by bringing legislation (if in session) or by pressuring the governor, these are key policies to consider to immediately put in place:
Rent and Mortgage Cancellation
Rent cancellation has been pushed at both the state and federal level
At the federal level, H.R. 6515 would cancel all rent and mortgage payments
Several states have also introduced legislation which would cancel rent for tenants financially harmed by COVID-19. Illinois, New York, and New Jersey all introduced legislation to cancel rent, and Massachusetts introduced legislation which would have placed a freeze on rent increases.
Eviction freezes and moratoriums
States across the country took action to place a moratorium on evictions either for the duration of the crisis or a shorter time period through executive, legislative, and judicial action. While the moratoriums prevented the immediate evictions of renters, they have been criticized by tenants and housing justice groups as simply differing an inevitable “avalanche of evictions”, without broader relief.
State legislatures across the country passed legislation either extending, expanding, or establishing their own eviction moratoriums. Two of the stronger bills were passed in Massachusetts and Oregon.
Rental grace period/ Reasonable repayment plans: Once eviction moratoria lift, tenants who miss their rent payment will still be liable for unpaid rent, but few will be able to pay that rent all at once. Legislators should mandate that landlords provide reasonable rent repayment plans.
Oregon HB 4213 gives tenants a six-month grace period following the end of the moratorium to pay the balance of unpaid rent
Emergency rental assistance and cash directly to Americans:
States like Pennsylvania, Illinois, Colorado, New Jersey, and New York have established rental and mortgage assistance funds to assist renters and homeowners struggling to make their housing payment
Extend access to rental assistance funds to all people, regardless of immigration status.
8 USC 1621(b) creates an exception for emergency disaster relief and certain assistance programs
LONGER TERM
The national housing crisis will exist past the end of the pandemic, and we need systemic solutions to provide affordable housing and protect renters. These are key policies that states can pursue:
Rent control and rent stabilization
New York, California, and Oregon became the first states to pass statewide rent control legislation in 2019, limiting the amount landlords can increase rents year-to-year.
Legislators Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey each introduced rent control bills in 2020, while New York and California attempted to strengthen and expand their existing laws
Just Cause eviction laws
Just cause eviction extends protections to renters by limiting the reasons landlords can evict a tenant to failure to pay rent and material breach of a lease
Cities like Seattle, Oakland, Berkeley all have just-cause protections, while New Jersey, California, and Oregon have enacted legislation at the state level.
Homes for All
Homes for All has emerged as a demand for renewed investment in publicly-owned, permanently affordable housing, also known as social housing.
At the federal level, Homes for All legislation has been introduced that would construct 9.5 million units of public housing, and 2.5 million units of affordable, privately-owned housing.
At the the state level, legislators in Maryland introduced legislation which would construct 2,000 units of permanently affordable, publicly-owned, mixed-income housing.
Take housing out of the rent court system
Establish housing as a human right
Local governments, like Dane County, WI, have passed resolutions to acknowledge housing as a human right, and other states like Hawaii, Connecticut, and California have attempted to pass legislation at the state level.
Affordable housing trust funds; protect existing stock of affordable housing
Change zoning laws
The city of Minneapolis ended single-family zoning and increased the minimum zoning density in its 2020 comprehensive plan
Oregon enacted legislation in 2019 to require cities over 10,000 people to allow duplexes on single-family zoned lots, and requires the city of Portland to allow quadplexes and “cottage clusters” on single-family zoned lots.
Source of income as protected category
Multiple states and local jurisdiction have banned landlords from discriminating against working-class tenants by making source of income a protected category. These protections often include social security, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, housing vouchers, alimony, child-payments, and other public assistance programs
Automatic moratorium on eviction filings, execution of writs, and utility shutoff during an emergency like a public health epidemic.
Suppress court records to prevent the permanent “Scarlet E:” Evictions and eviction filings result in an adverse housing record for tenants. A statewide eviction moratorium should include a provision to suppress court records related to a tenant’s eviction and rental debt accrued due to pandemic-related hardship.
Minneapolis and Portland have both limited the ability for landlords to screen tenants. Among the protections, landlords can not consider evictions which occurred over three years prior.
Colorado passed legislation that suppresses eviction records while cases are proceeding, and removes them if a case is dismissed. Unfortunately, the eviction is not suppressed if the landlord wins and an eviction is ordered.
Boost enforcement and penalties: Eviction law should prevent unlawful evictions and increase penalties for landlords who cut power, threaten their tenants, or otherwise attempt to push tenants out of their homes while eviction moratoria are in place.
Develop rental relief funds
Extend tenant cure periods
Right to counsel for eviction cases and advice services
Model State Moratorium: This is NHLP’s model moratorium to stop all five phases of the eviction process, with provisions on late charges, landlord access to premises, and payment plans.
Emergency Rental Assistance Recommendations This NHLP resource highlights principles for emergency rental assistance administration at the federal, state, and local levels.
Undocumented Immigrants make up a disproportionate share of frontline workers and are especially concentrated in high-risk industries such as food production, health care, and transportation. However, these same immigrant workers have been excluded from any economic relief included in the CARES Act and are unable to access unemployment insurance. To compound this devastating situation, Trump’s immigration enforcement machine continues to target undocumented residents and separate families at astounding rates, which has led to extreme health risks within immigration detention centers across the United States.
Resources:
Economic relief for immigrant families: According to the Migration Policy Institute, the citizen restrictions in the CARES Act has excluded 15.4 million people from the $1,200 stimulus payments: 9.9 million undocumented immigrants, along with 3.7 million children and 1.7 million spouses who are either U.S. citizens or green-card holders.
California’s Governor allotted $75 million in state disaster relief funds to provide undocumented state residents with one-time cash transfers of $500 per adult. Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, April 2020.
Colorado’s legislature expanded the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit during the 2020 session to increase cash payments to low-income families and became the first state in the nation to include undocumented workers in the tax credit. Colorado General Assembly, July 2020.
Municipalities such as Austin and Minneapolis have created funds to help low-income families who have been economically impacted by COVID-19 to pay rent or other expenses and specifically prioritize families who have been left out of federal relief efforts. Migration Policy Institute, April 2020.
Healthcare for frontline workers: The Families First Coronavirus Relief Act passed by Congress in March authorized COVID-19 testing to be covered by Medicaid, leaving 3.7 million low-income, uninsured non-citizens without coverage for testing and treatment under Medicaid.
California’s legislature expanded Medicaid access to undocumented immigrants under the age of 26. DHCS, January 2020.
Worker Health Protections: Six million immigrant workers are at the frontlines of keeping U.S. residents healthy and fed during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the immigrants represent 17 percent of the 156 million civilians working in 2018, they account for larger shares in coronavirus-response frontline occupations: 29 percent of all physicians and 38 percent of home health aides, for example. They also represent significant shares of workers cleaning hospital rooms, staffing grocery stores, and producing food.
Paid Sick Leave: Twelve states, as well as Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, have paid sick leave laws, which largely cover immigrant workers.
Paid Family and Medical Leave: Eight states, and Washington D.C., have paid family and medical leave programs, which largely include immigrant workers and their families.
COVID Resources: Health Care
In addition to the risks to individuals’ physical health, the COVID-19 pandemic affects every health care system in the United States (medical, public health, insurance) and each of their corresponding workforces. State legislatures have a responsibility and opportunity to ensure that these systems are operating effectively and equitably for the health of all people.
Resources:
Health Data
CDC guidance on COVID-19 symptoms and protection are updated regularly (Spanish version)
Kaiser Family Foundation keeps an up-to-date tracker of state data (cases, deaths, and tests)
The American Public Health Association hosts a series of evidence-based webinars on the science behind COVID-19 for the benefit of policymakers, public health/health care officials, and the general public
Select from several health care policy categories in NCSL’s state actions database for summaries of state legislation on COVID-19 (both bill content and legislative progress)
Testing and Tracing
Guidance for state governors on COVID-19 testing capacity and strategies for consideration from the National Governors Association
State examples: South Carolina developed a testing plan that emphasizes testing in rural and under-resourced minority communities, urban areas, and congregate living areas
Minnesota passed a comprehensive health care bill to support front-line workers and their work environments
The Federation of State Medical Boards keeps up-to-date lists of the states that have waived in-state licensure requirements, modified CME requirements, and expedited licenses for retired physicians and medical schools in several states have expedited graduation to get new providers out into the workforce
This comprehensive COVID-19 resource page from Community Catalyst includes policy options and messaging tools, including general and state-specific social media graphics