POLICY
P R E V I E W R e s o u r c e s
f o r
y o u r
y e a r
by Kaitlyn Bison, Dalton Goble, Casandra Hockenberry, Andrew Johnson, Dina Klimkina, Sarah Needler, Bill Swinford and Dakota Thomas
Entering the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, states, localities and regions will continue to face new and ongoing challenges that impact the stability of state economies, viability of communities and well-being of residents. As policymakers look ahead to mitigate issues and capitalize on opportunities, CSG is providing evidence-based, nonpartisan resources across fiscal, civic, workforce and health policy areas. These are the top issues we expect to be prominent in state leaders’ decision-making in 2022, along with insights from the CSG public policy research team.
PANDEMIC
ISSUE 1 2022 | CSG CAPITOL IDEAS
During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, state budgets experienced substantial shock caused by dramatically reduced revenues and increased costs, particularly in health and social services. This escalated to caring for those who test positive and those whose livelihoods were devastated. Recovering economies and a significant influx of federal dollars have returned most states to a stable position.
6
In response to the health crisis, governors and state legislatures have been defining their respective spheres of authority and the relationships between the branches, aided by rulings from federal and state courts. Flashpoints are occurring with greater regularity as legislatures are in session and questioning the authority of governors to impose mask mandates and lockdowns. With the pandemic seeming to be a condition of existence, the branches of state government will continue to negotiate the changes in state action, mindful that responses to current conditions set precedents for future exercises of authority. CSG researchers have written several policy briefs related to the impact of the pandemic and efforts toward increased resilience in state government programs and policy. Learn more at web.csg.org/recovery.
REDISTRICTING The U.S. Supreme Court has granted considerable deference to the states in determining the shape of legislative districts, with the primary proviso that they must be approximately equal in terms of the number of people within them. This is true at the state (Reynolds v. Sims, 1964) and federal (Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964) levels. Despite numerous appeals over the years for the Court to prohibit the political drawing of legislative maps, the Court had long been reluctant. Much of the challenge has been an inability to craft a legal test for "overly political" that lower courts could utilize effectively in reviewing maps. The final word came in 2019, when the Court ruled that how districts are drawn is a “political question” that courts are ill-equipped to consider (Rucho v. Common Cause). Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Partisan gerrymandering is nothing new. Nor is frustration with it. The practice was known in the Colonies prior to Independence, and the Framers were familiar with it at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution.” Federal courts still insert themselves into legal disputes as to whether districts are drawn to disadvantage individuals on the basis of race in violation of the Voting Rights Act. For example, on Jan, 24 a federal court ordered Alabama policymakers to redraw the recently approved congressional map (Milligan v. Merrill). The Supreme Court reversed the decision Feb. 7. Thirteen states gained or lost seats in the U.S. House of Representatives due to population shifts reflected in the 2020 Census. Seven states (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) lost one seat, five states (Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon) gained one seat and Texas gained two seats. Though state legislatures are generally positioned by statute to do the work of drawing boundaries, 14 states have formed commissions (four of which have their decisions reviewed by the legislature, governor or both).
