Government

Chapter 5 of The Book of the States 2019 contains the following tables:

Chapter 4 of The Book of the States 2019 contains the following tables:

Chapter 3 of The Book of the States 2019 contains the following tables:

Chapter 2 of The Book of the States 2019 contains the following tables:

Chapter 1 of The Book of the States 2019 contains the following article and tables:

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue raises an issue the Supreme Court has long wrestled with:  if a state-aid program violates a state constitutional prohibition against mixing church and state because religious institutions may participate, does discontinuing that program violate the federal constitution’s Free Exercise or Equal Protection Clauses.

Montana statutes allow taxpayers to receive tax credits for contribution to Student Scholarship Organizations (SSO) that give students scholarships to attend private schools, including religious schools. The Montana Department of Revenue adopted Rule 1 disallowing religious schools to participate in the program because it concluded their participation would violate Montana’s constitution. Parents of students attending religiously-affiliated private schools challenged Rule 1.

CSG Midwest
North Dakota is the first U.S. state to authorize a central, shared-service approach to cybersecurity across all parts of state government, says Gov. Doug Burgum, who signed SB 2110 into law in April. Legislators also invested more than $15 million in the new biennial budget to add more cybersecurity personnel and enhance protective software.
CSG Midwest
A legislative change in Iowa's process for selecting Supreme Court judges will put more power in the hands of the governor. SF 638, signed into law in May, alters how the 17-member State Judicial Nominating Commission will be appointed.
The governor now has the authority to choose a majority of commission members, nine of the 17. The remaining eight appointments will come from elections held among the state's lawyers.

Auer deference, courts deferring to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of their ambiguous regulations, is alive following the Supreme Court’s decision in Kisor v. Wilkie. But, in the opinion of a few Justices, it is only on life support.

The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) filed an amicus brief in this case asking the Supreme Court to overturn Auer v. Robbins (1997). In that case the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. (1945), that courts must defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations.

As discussed in the SLLC amicus brief, states and local governments object to Auer deference because it gives agencies a lot of power. They both write regulations and may interpret them as they like without significant court scrutiny. Agencies aren’t required to receive notice-and-comment related to their interpretations of regulations. New administrations may change the interpretations at their whim. And agencies may purposely write ambiguous regulations knowing courts will defer to their interpretations of them. If Auer deference wasn’t available, courts would interpret regulations without deferring to agency interpretations of them.     

Rarely does a Supreme Court case implicate the work of state legislatures like Georgia v. Public.Resource.org. In this case the Court will decide whether a state may copyright statutory annotations.

Georgia, through a Code Revision Commission, made up of the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House, members of the Senate and House, and others, contracts with Lexis to draft the statutory annotations published in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA).

Annotations include “history lines, repeal lines, cross references, commentaries, case notations, editor’s notes, excerpts from law review articles, summaries of opinions of the Attorney General of Georgia, summaries of advisory opinions of the State Bar, and other research references.”

Pages