Government

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to get rid of numerous federal regulations adopted by the Obama Administration. Impossible many say. If there is one man who may be able to make this happen it is Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Three of the most important regulations to state and local government were the subject of litigation likely headed to the Supreme Court before Trump was elected:  the Clean Power Plan (CPP) (President Obama’s signature climate change measure), the regulations defining “waters of the...

President-elect Donald Trump has stated repeatedly that one of the goals of his new administration is to get rid of federal regulations. Despite the fact that the new administration has a menu of options to kill final federal regulations the most effective options are likely the most difficult to achieve.

This blog posting uses as examples three of the most important regulations to state and local government—all of which are on the chopping block:  the Clean Power Plan (CPP) (President Obama’s signature climate change measure), the regulations defining “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) (a significant term in the Clean Water Act defining the federal government’s jurisdiction to regulate water), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations (extending overtime pay to 4 million workers).

After more than four decades in public office, New York state Sen. Hugh T. Farley announced earlier this year that he would not run for re-election and would retire at the end of 2016 to spend more time with family. Farley, also Senate vice president pro tempore, was first elected to the New York Senate in 1976, making him its second longest-serving member.

By Pennsylvania state Rep. Pamela A. DeLissio
With a strong professional background in long-term care and working with older adults for more than 20 years before entering public service, I learned not to make assumptions about how people age. We all age differently. We live different lifestyles and make different choices at all points along life’s timeline, including through our 70s, 80s, 90s and beyond. It is imperative to recognize the individuality of our older constituents and not generalize or assume—you know the adage about when we assume—that their needs are the same or even similar. We can best serve our older constituents by recognizing that many are still working well into their 70s and 80s.

The question the Supreme Court will decide in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman is whether state “no-surcharge” laws that prohibit vendors from charging more to credit-card customers but allows them to charge less to cash customers violate the First Amendment. The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) amicus brief argues these laws don’t violate the First Amendment because they regulate conduct rather than speech.

Per a “no-surcharge” law if the regular price of an item is $100 credit-card customers may not be charged $103 and cash customers $100. But if the regular price is $103 credit-card customers may be charged $103 and cash customers $100.   

The process for placing an adult under guardianship varies by state, but each branch of government plays a role in ensuring guardianship is a safe and effective mechanism for protecting individuals who can no longer make or communicate sound decisions about themselves and their property, or have become vulnerable to abuse, fraud or undue influence. Texas’ Guardianship Compliance Project was born out of this cooperative approach. The pilot project, which is funded by the Legislature and implemented by the Office of Court Administration, was launched in November 2015 to provide additional resources to courts handling guardianship cases. The goal of the project is to help courts make sound decisions in guardianship cases by reviewing current guardianships to identify reporting deficiencies, auditing annual accountings and reporting findings back to the court, and working with courts to develop best practices in managing guardianship cases.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving the question of whether a Colorado law requiring remote sellers to inform Colorado purchasers annually of their purchases and send the same information to the Colorado Department of Revenue is unconstitutional. As is always the case, the Supreme Court gave no reason for denying the petition.   

In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, decided in 1992, the Supreme Court held that states cannot require retailers with no in-state physical presence to collect sales tax. In 2010 the Colorado legislature passed the law described above to improve sales tax collection. The Direct Marketing Association sued Colorado claiming the law unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce and is unconstitutional under Quill.   

WHEREAS, state governments collect vast sums of data—from disease outbreaks and marriage records to public school enrollments and crime statistics—as they manage a wide range of public programs; and

WHEREAS, the amount of data state governments collect will continue to increase; and

WHEREAS, the peaceful transition of knowledge and power from one president to another is a hallmark of American democracy; and

WHEREAS, the administration, Congress, and others should work actively with the states to ensure that the Presidential transition is efficient and worthy of the American people; and

WHEREAS, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128) was signed on July 22, 2014, and WIOA is the first legislative reform of the public workforce system in more than 15 years; and

WHEREAS, WIOA creates a new vision for how America prepares an educated and skilled workforce that expands opportunity for all workers, provides a customer-focused one-stop delivery system, and enhances and increases coordination among key employment, education, and training programs; and

Pages