The Thicket at State Legislatures

Right-to-Work: Michigan the Latest, but Likely not the Last

By Michael Reed

Last week, Michigan became the 24^th state plus Guam to enact laws banning the ability for employers to collect union security dues as a condition of employment—commonly known as “right-to-work” laws.

Michigan’s decision is the latest chapter in a history of right-to-work laws which spans several decades. By the end of 1947, 12 states had enacted right-to-work statutes, and by 2001, 22 states had enacted right-to-work laws. In February 2012, Indiana became the 23^rd state to pass right-to-work legislation in more than a decade. In the 2012 state legislative sessions, 21 states considered right-to-work and other union membership legislation. For more information on these and other state legislative labor and collective bargaining bills, visit the NCSL Collective Bargaining Legislation Database.

NCSL state labor policy expert Jeanne Mejeur has commented that opponents and proponents disagree almost entirely on the impact of right-to-work laws on jobs, wages and the economy. “About the only area of agreement is that right-to-work states tend to have much lower rates of union membership,” wrote Mejeur in a May 2012 report on state right-to-work laws. “The 17 states with the lowest levels of union membership are all right-to-work states.”

Union security agreements are collective bargaining provisions that require employees to either join a union or contribute dues to the union to cover the union’s collective bargaining activities.  Under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), employers and unions are permitted to include union security dues in collective bargaining agreements. However, in 1947, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, which amended NLRA to grant states the authority to supersede federal statutes with their own laws on union security agreements, paving the way for state-based right to work laws.

While the framework for labor law has been established by the federal government, states do maintain great authority over the laws that regulate collective bargaining within their own borders. However, federal lawmakers have made several attempts to limit state authority over labor matters such as right-to-work. For example, in the current  112^th Congress several provisions have been introduced to abolish union security agreements nationally, such as the National Right to Work Act (S.2173/H.R. 2040) or to remove the language in the Taft-Hartley Act that permits states to implement their own right-to-work statutes (H.R. 2775).

Although it is unlikely that any of these bills will see significant action before the end of the year, it is likely that there will be increased congressional attention to right-to-work and or union security agreement legislation in the 113^th Congress, particularly as state legislatures continue to consider such issues in their own bodies.

New Report Shows Little Testing of Civic Education

By Karen Shanton

Coke or Pepsi. Red Sox or Yankees. Dunkin' Donuts or Starbucks. Americans may not all agree about much. According to a 2004 study conducted by NCSL's Trust for Representative Democracy, the Center for Civic Education, the Center on Congress at Indiana University and the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools, however, there's at least one area of near-consensus: the importance of civic education. From Classroom to Citizen: American Attitudes on Civic Education found that a whopping 91% of Americans consider civic education programs in public schools important for maintaining a healthy democracy.

To that end, a recent report from the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) has both good and bad news. The good news is that all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) require some civics education. Less promising is the finding that just eight states have a standardized, state-designed civics/American history test and only two of them – Ohio and Virginia – require students to pass the test to graduate from high school.

Classroom hours and student study time are limited resources and, as CIRCLE Director Peter Levine points out, "both students and teachers know that they must focus on what is tested." Without 'high-stakes' tests (tests that are required for graduation), subjects drop to the bottom of the priority list.

Of course, testing alone is not enough to create an educated citizenry. The Trust for Representative Democracy, CIRCLE and the U.S. Department of Education all argue for hands-on training in civic skills – as promoted by programs like We the People, Project Citizen and Legislative Youth Advisory Councils and resources like the American Democracy Game and iCivics – alongside instruction in the factual nuts and bolts of government. Still, ensuring that civics is viewed as a priority is an important first step toward a more civics-savvy, politically-engaged citizenry.

Karen Shanton is a public fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies on assignment to NCSL for two years.

Industry Leaders Shed Light on the Business of Job Creation

By Alex Fitzsimmons

If the question is job creation, the answer is education. That’s the major takeaway from a wide-ranging discussion on jobs and the economy at a general session of the National Conference of State Legislatures’ 2012 Legislative Summit on Thursday.

The CEOs of two of America’s most recognizable companies repeatedly cited an inadequate workforce as the most important factor driving long-term job creation in America.

“We are failing really big,” said Douglas Oberhelman, CEO of Caterpillar Inc., which employs about 50,000 people across the United States. Oberhelman said his company rejects six out of 10 job applicants for lacking basic education skills.

State Farm Mutual CEO Edward Rusk Jr. echoed Oberhelman’s sentiment, saying, “Our students lack the skill sets required by business.” Rusk also waded into the ongoing debate over common core standards, expressing his support for national baseline standards in critical areas such as reading and arithmetic.

To address the shortage of qualified labor, the business leaders suggested a partnership between business and government that emphasizes vocational education and community colleges.

“Business plays a key role with you,” said Rusk.

While the CEOs stressed education, they also touched on debt, competition between states, and business friendliness, each of which contributes to the business of job creation.

“Revenues have to be raised, expenses have to be cut,” said Oberhelman, referring to state and federal budgets. Rusk agreed, noting that government debt “is a growing concern.”
The moderator of the session, John Engler, called on states to increase fiscal transparency: “I think there is a need for states to step up and mandate transparency.” Engler draws on experience from both the private and public sectors as a former Michigan governor and current head of the Business Roundtable.

Agreeing with the moderator’s assessment, Rusk cautioned that time is not on our side. Nevertheless, all three agreed lawmakers must engage in the difficult conversations about debt.

“Let’s get it on the table and deal with it,” said Oberhelman.

The panelists stressed that while serious debt reduction is a “painful” process for lawmakers, the business community stands ready to support them.  Oberhelman in particular spoke of “impactful partnerships to address these issues.”

Even though the speakers said workforce development is the most important issue related to job creation, the CEOs also mentioned competition between states and business friendliness as contributing factors.

While many states “roll out the red carpet” for businesses, as Oberhelman put it, the panelists lamented what they referred to as a hostile relationship between business and government.

“We are welcomed in many other places around the globe,” said Engler, but not as much in America.

It’s a “competitive advantage issue,” noted Oberhelman.

Despite this sometimes icy relationship, the panelists encouraged the state legislators and legislative staff in attendance to partner with the business community to forge a better future.

“We must be all in” it together, said Rusk. 

 

Balancing Food Safety With Entrepreneurs

by Meagan Dorsch

Summertime unofficially marks the beginning of the farmer’s market season in states across the country.

Over the past few years, state lawmakers have been increasingly supportive of the “cottage food” movement, which offers exemptions from state health and food safety rules to local producers.

Cottage food laws have also made farmer’s markets, church suppers or school concession stands exempt from some food safety laws. Policymakers see this as a way to encourage entrepreneurs and promote economic development. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Arkansas, Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming have adopted cottage food laws.

In this edition of The Buzz (3:00), we sit down with Doug Farquhar, who tracks food safety issues for NCSL. Farquhar explains that while state lawmakers are well aware of the dangers of foodborne illnesses, they are interested in introducing more flexible rules to allow for the growth of local food producers. Farquhar also discusses the role of state legislatures in managing food safety.

 

Listen to this edition of The Buzz and read Doug Farquhar’s article in the May edition of State Legislatures Magazine.

Immigration Bills Down, But Expected To Climb After Supreme Court Ruling

by Alex Fitzsimmons

Over the last few years, immigration has been one of the hottest topics in state legislatures across the country. But a new report from NCSL’s Immigrant Policy Project reveals a 44 percent decrease in the number of immigration related bills introduced from this time last year.

There are several explanations for the drop-off. First, five states that had legislative sessions in 2011 did not go into session this year, accounting for approximately one-third of the decrease.  Other reasons for the decrease include states’ focus on closing budget gaps and redistricting, and the fact that some states had sufficiently dealt with immigration issues in 2011. States are also anxiously awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States for guidance on how to proceed.

“There has been a drop-off from the peak we’ve seen over the last four years, but there is still significant interest in the states” said Ann Morse, Program Director of NCSL’s Immigrant Policy Project. “I anticipate states will re-enter the field and respond after the Supreme Court ruling.”

According to the report, 865 bills and resolutions relating to immigrants and refugees were introduced in 45 state legislatures and the District of Columbia in the first quarter of 2012. This number represents a 44 percent decrease from this point last year, when 1,538 bills were introduced. Bill enactments also dropped 30 percent, with 98 total bills and resolutions being adopted in the first quarter of 2012.

Although the report found that law enforcement (125) and employment (119) were the top areas of interest for the first quarter of 2012, states had proposed 267 of the former and 279 of the latter by this time last year. That’s a drop of 55 and 57 percent, respectively.

Examples of enacted legislation include a bill in Indiana (SB 262) that makes it illegal to knowingly transport or harbor an illegal alien, making it a Class D felony if more than nine people are involved. In Utah, HB 97 adds human trafficking, human smuggling and aggravated human trafficking to the list of offenses that can constitute racketeering, provided the offenses are conducted as a pattern of unlawful activity.

This report examines state legislation introduced in 2012 and provides examples of enacted laws and adopted resolutions. In August, NCSL will release another report summarizing in detail all enacted legislation from January through June. The December year-end report summarizes all laws and resolutions enacted, and highlights examples of new laws and trends.

Can Children Conceived After A Parent’s Death Collect Social Security? States May Decide

By Lisa Soronen

As summer approaches, U.S. Supreme Court decisions trickle out. One of the latest cases concerned the rights of children to inherit Social Security benefits after the death of a parent. The decision could spur statehouses across the country to respond.

In Astrue v. Capato, the court unanimously held that children conceived after their parent’s death may only receive Social Security survivor benefits if they qualify to inherit from their deceased parent under state law.

Karen Capato’s twins were born 18 months after her husband died of cancer with the help of in vitro fertilization using her husband’s frozen sperm.

Capato argued the Social Security Act’s initial definition of “child,” “child of an [insured] individual,” applies to her children. She said a later section of the Social Security Act entitled “determination of family status,” which allows biological children to receive benefits only if they qualify for inheritance from their deceased parent under state law, does not apply to “the biological child of a married couple” because such a child’s family status does not need to be determined.

The court rejected this argument, noting that Capato’s children might not be “the biological child[ren] of a married couple” because in Florida a marriage ends with a death of a spouse. The court also noted the aim of the Social Security Act is to provide benefits to those dependent on a wage earner’s support. If a child is eligible to inherit from a parent under state law, he or she is likely dependent on that parent.

The court pointed out that some states--California, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana and North Dakota--grant inheritance rights to children conceived posthumously while a number of states-- New York, Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, South Carolina, and South Dakota—along with Florida, do not.  Proposed state legislation responding to this case is possible.

Lisa Soronen is the executive director of the State & Local Legal Center.

State Hard Pressed to Address Drugged Driving

by Alex Fitzsimmons

Everyone knows the dangers of drunk driving and every state in the country sets blood alcohol level limits. But state lawmakers have recently turned their attention to another deadly behavior:  drugged driving.

Colorado became the latest state to debate drugged driving, as the House voted last week on whether to set a limit of 5 nanograms of THC (the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana) per millimeter of blood. The bill fell one vote short of advancing in the Senate, failing on a 17-17 tie.

More than 30 million people drove drunk and more than 10 million drove drugged in 2009, according to government data. While there is a nationwide standard of .08 g/ml blood alcohol concentration, states like Colorado are finding that regulating drugged driving is a much trickier endeavor.

Determining the point at which a driver is sufficiently impaired so as to pose a risk to society is no easy task not only for states, but also for the scientific community. States have taken a variety of approaches to address impairment levels. More than 30 bills related to drugged driving have been introduced in state legislatures this year, according to NCSL’s Drugged Driving LegisBrief. At NCSL’s 2011 Legislative Summit, state lawmakers explored the challenges of crafting drugged driving legislation.

Seventeen states have passed “per se” laws that make it illegal for drivers to have any prohibited drug in their systems while driving. In these states, the mere presence of drugs in the body is illegal. But not all of these blanket bans are created equal:  Minnesota, for example, exempts marijuana.

Other states address impairment levels with laws that set a blood content threshold. Ohio and Nevada established a threshold of 2 nanograms of illegal substances, while Pennsylvania’s administrative rule sets the level at 5 nanograms.

At the federal level, Congress is considering legislation to fund research on new driving technologies and training for police officers to identify drugged drivers.

It’s the Message that Matters Most

Telling your state legislator how you feel about a bill might be more effective than filling out a form. 

by Meagan Dorsch

Growing up, my mother used to say, “Just tell me how you feel.” This usually allowed us to explain why we were frustrated, angry, concerned or excited. She might have been onto something.

A recent story in the Florida Current shows that lawmakers and staff respond more to personal stories about how a law will affect constituents, rather than form letters or blanket emails.

Kevin Cate, a governmental public relations and campaign adviser in Florida, surveyed 52 House and Senate aides at the Florida Legislature and asked what “influences their bosses the most.” Cate noted face-to-face visits were cited by more than 99 percent of the staffers, followed by personal letters and personalized emails. It is also interesting to note that phone calls and visits by interest groups both ranked higher in Cate’s study than “visits by lobbyists.”

Four out of five staffers indicated that a personal story about how a bill would affect constituents was the most effective, followed by stories regarding the effect of legislation on a legislator's district.

NCSL has found more than 575 state legislators on Twitter, and Cate noted the power of social and new media. About two-thirds of the legislative staff surveyed in Florida noted that “comments on social media sites” were important, and that lawmakers used Facebook to gauge the public’s opinion online. They also use these sites to gather information. More than half of Florida's legislative staff rated Facebook and Twitter as either "effective" or "very effective."

Cate makes an important note in his study: The message you send is more important than the medium. But does this apply only to Florida's Legislature? The poll below contains some of the top advocacy strategies from Cate's study. Let us know what works best in your state.

What is the best way to communicate with state legislators?

In person

Individual Letter

Comment on Social Media

Email

or View Results

Create your own poll at Flisti.com

If Energy Inefficiency is the Problem, States Have the Solution

By Alex Fitzsimmons

As the peak energy season approaches, people bring up words like “energy efficiency” and “renewable energy” as partial solutions for rising energy prices. But in many statehouses, energy efficiency isn’t just a buzzword – it’s public policy.

Ever the laboratories of innovation, 27 states enacted more than 55 bills last year related to energy efficiency. According to NCSL, much of the legislation focused on financing energy efficiency upgrades.

A number of states – including California, Oklahoma and Texas – enacted bills related to revolving loan programs. As loans and interest are paid back, the revolving fund is replenished, creating the opportunity to issue more loans for new projects. Initial funding for these programs often comes from a combination of federal stimulus funds and state tax revenue.

Other states passed bills concerning grant programs. In Colorado, for example, homebuyers can now receive a grant to upgrade their existing home, as long as the new home they purchase is energy efficient. Virginia offers financial incentives to businesses that produce equipment used for energy conservation.

These are just a small sample of bills passed over the last year related to energy efficiency. NCSL’s “State Energy Efficiency Action Update” provides a comprehensive analysis of energy efficiency legislation.

Good News About Civic Education in Tennessee

Peter Levine, director of CIRCLE, a professor at Tufts University and a passionate advocate for civic learning, posted news from the Tennessee Legislature on his blog:

On April 27, the Tennessee legislature passed a bill that will require school districts to assess their students’ knowledge of civics by giving them assignments that are “student-influenced” and that involve an “inquiry process structured around complex, authentic questions and carefully designed products and tasks.” These assignments will be used (once in grades 4-8 and a second time in grades 9-12) in lieu of written tests to find out whether Tennessee’s students can “demonstrate understanding and relevance of public policy, the structure of federal, state and local governments and both the Tennessee and the Untied States constitutions.”...

Testing and accountability generally pose a dilemma for civic education. If we don’t test civic knowledge and skills, they become afterthoughts in education, especially in schools where lots of kids are at risk of failing the subjects that are tested. But if we impose a new test, then (1) it becomes yet another way for students to fail, and (2) it encourages teachers to focus on the basic facts of government that are likely to be tested, even though there’s little evidence that learning these facts is motivating or that kids retain them later.

Project-based assessments are much more promising. Kids will have to do something with their civic knowledge, something that seems important to them. At a minimum, Tennessee’s bill is a very worthy experiment. The questions will be: What do kids learn? What kinds of instruction become common? And how reliable is the assessment?...

Credit apparently belongs to the indefatigable Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who met with two leading state legislators (Sen. Mark Norris and Rep. Kevin Brooks) earlier this year to encourage them to do something for civics. With the help of Janis Keyser, Executive Director of the Tennessee Center for Civic Learning & Engagement, the legislators wrote a really foresighted bill that passed in less than three months.