Ranked Choice Voting: What, Where, Why & Why Not

By Jennifer Horton and Dr. Dakota Thomas

In 2022, Nevada voters approved a ballot measure to change its elections to ranked choice voting. Since this ballot measure is a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, the measure will again require approval in 2024 to take effect. If the state votes to reapprove ranked voting, it joins a growing number of U.S. cities, counties and states in using a ranked choice voting system for elections.

What is Ranked Choice Voting?
Ranked choice voting is any system for counting votes that gives voters the option to rank their choices in order of preference. If a voter likes candidate A, but would prefer candidate B over candidate C if their favorite (candidate A) did not win, they could rank the three candidates accordingly on their ballot (A > B > C).

How do votes get counted in such a system? There are multiple methods, but the most common one is the alternative vote. During the alternative voting process, the candidate receiving a majority of first choice votes wins and the election is over. If no one wins a majority of votes, the ranked choices come into play. In the most common form of ranked voting, the last-place candidate gets eliminated (i.e., the candidate with the fewest first choice votes), and the voters who chose that candidate as their first choice have their votes reallocated to their second choice. For example, if candidate A came in last place, the vote would go to candidate B. This process continues until a candidate achieves a majority of votes.

Ranked choice voting can play out in different ways depending on the exact version of ranked voting a locality adopts. Most places utilizing ranked voting elect a single winner in a given election, while other locations use a multi-winner format of ranked voting where multiple officials are elected in a single contest, such as for a city council. Most forms of ranked voting are considered majoritarian (i.e., they try to ensure majority rule), while others are considered proportional (they focus instead on maximizing representation for different parties). Some common forms of ranked voting are explained in the table below.

Comparison of Ranked Choice Voting Systems

Ballot Counting SystemOutcomeSeats Elected at OnceCounting MethodNotable Examples
Alternative Vote (AV)Majoritarian1Candidates with fewest first preference votes are eliminated successively and their voters go to their next choices until one candidate has a majority.Alaska and Maine, Australia and Fiji, the Oscar for “Best Picture” and the Hugo Awards for Science Fiction
Two Round – Majority RunoffMajoritarian1Candidates who are not in first or second place in total votes are eliminated in the first round. The second round includes only the top two candidates.Georgia and Louisiana, France presidential elections
Two Round – Majority Plurality
Majoritarian2+Candidates who do not reach a certain threshold of votes are eliminated in the first round. The second round includes all candidates that met the threshold.France legislative elections
Preferential Block Vote or Multiple Transferable Vote (MTV)Majoritarian2+Candidates with the fewest first preference votes are eliminated successively and their voters go to their next choices until one candidate has a majority. The count is then repeated with the elected candidates removed until all seats are filled.Some local elections in Utah
Single Transferable Vote (STV)Proportional2+Candidates with fewest first preference votes are eliminated successively and their voters go to their next choices until all seats are filled.Some local elections in Massachusetts, Michigan, and California, Ireland and Malta legislative elections
Borda CountVaries with number of seats awarded at once1+Candidates with the highest rankings are elected successively until all seats are filled.Kiribati presidential nominations and Nauru legislative elections, the Major League Baseball’s Most Valuable Player (MVP), the Heisman Trophy for college football
Source: Table adapted from “Principles of Comparative Politics” by
William Roberts Clark, Matt Golder and Sona Nadenichek Golder.

What States Use Ranked Choice Voting?
As of January 2023, ranked choice voting is used in Alaska and Maine, in addition to 53 cities and counties representing roughly 11 million voters. Military and overseas voters cast ranked voting ballots during federal runoff elections in Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. The map below shows states where ranked voting is used for at least some elections.

Note: This map only includes uses of ranked voting that result in a candidate being elected to office. Party primaries, conventions and other nominating processes are not included in this data, but some states do use ranked voting for those processes.

When and how jurisdictions utilize ranked voting varies widely. Some areas use it only for primary elections but not general elections, while others use it in general elections but not primaries. There are also other areas that use it for both. Jurisdictions can also elect to use ranked voting for electing some offices but not others. Alaska, for example, uses ranked voting only for its general elections, while its primaries use a top four system in which voters choose their top candidate. The top four candidates then go to the general election. Other locations continue to use ranked voting as a way to replace primaries entirely, consolidating primaries and general elections into a single contest. Many cities in the U.S., including Salt Lake City and other Utah cities, have implemented ranked voting as a way to consolidate nonpartisan primaries and general elections into one election.

States with ranked choice voting
Maine first adopted ranked voting in 2016 for state and federal primary elections. It was then adopted in 2018 for all general congressional elections. The state later expanded its use to presidential general elections beginning in 2020. Use of ranked voting will begin in 2024 for presidential primaries.

Alaska enacted ranked choice voting by ballot measure in 2020. Its first use came during a special election in August 2022 that resulted in Rep. Mary Peltola defeating former Alaska Gov. Sara Palin for an open U.S. congressional seat. The state uses ranked voting for all state and general elections.

In Nevada, voters recently approved a ballot measure changing the state’s elections to a system with nonpartisan primaries that allow voters to choose candidates from any party. After the primary, ranked voting occurs for general election, at which time voters can rank their top five candidates in order of preference. Implementation requires a vote of approval again in November 2024. The state will use ranked voting for state and federal elections but not presidential.

Cities with ranked choice voting
The same story is also present in the 53-plus cities utilizing ranked voting. For example, since 2009 Minneapolis has used it for 22 city offices and some park board and board of taxation seats. New York City employs its use for city primary, as well as special elections for mayor and other citywide offices. Since 2021, ranked voting has also been used in New York City to elect borough presidents and city council. In Santa Fe, New Mexico, it has been used to determine mayor, city council, and municipal judge elections since 2018.

More to come
Nine cities and the state of Nevada had ballot measures concerning ranked voting in 2022. Of these, all but two passed:

  • Nevada – approved in 2022; reapproval required in 2024 to go into effect.
  • Portland, Oregon – adopted; will begin in 2024.
  • Seattle – adopted for primary elections.
  • Evanston, Illinois – adopted; will begin in 2025.
  • Fort Collins, Colorado – adopted.
  • Ojai, California – adopted.
  • Multnomah County, Oregon – adopted.
  • Portland, Maine – adopted.
  • Clark County, Washington – failed.
  • San Juan County, Washington – failed.

Why Use Ranked Choice Voting?
Those who advocate for the adoption of ranked choice voting cite a number of possible benefits, including those detailed below:

Ensuring majority rule
Elections with more than two candidates can often result in a candidate winning with less than 50% of the vote, leading to a winner who doesn’t have a majority of support from the public. Maine voters were driven to adopt ranked voting after nine of its 11 gubernatorial elections were won with less than 50% of the vote during a 20-year period, including three governors’ races with winners who had less than 40% of votes. With ranked choice voting, if no candidate receives a majority of voters’ first choices, a process is used to reallocate voters to their next preferences until a winner gets a majority, upholding majority rule.

More choices and more influence for voters
Ranked choice voting can also give voters more choices, allowing them to vote for a viable candidate without having their vote placed used on a preferred candidate who is unlikely to win. If their first choice doesn’t win, they know their vote will count for their next most preferred choice(s). Ranked voting can enable two similar candidates to compete without fear of possibly splitting the vote. This may help reduce the spoiler effect, which is the phenomena of two similar candidates or parties losing to a very different candidate or party because voters couldn’t effectively coordinate on one choice. Currently, some candidates and parties — usually those from underrepresented groups in elected office — are pressured to stay out of races for fear of acting as a spoiler.

Ranked voting also helps ensure that voters’ preferences actually influence the outcome of an election. For example, in 2020, more than 3 million Democratic primary voters voted for a candidate who had already withdrawn from the race. In 2016, more than 5% of votes were cast for Republican candidates that had withdrawn from the primaries. These specific kinds of “wasted votes” often occur with early voting when voters fill out ballots a week or more ahead of election day. Ranked voting enables these voters to have backup candidates if their top choice drops out.

Ranked voting is an especially valuable tool for military and overseas voters who encounter a number of barriers to voting. Federal law requires states to provide these voters with ballots at least 45 days prior to elections, but runoffs require sending a new set of ballots, delaying the runoff and reducing turnout. By the time military and overseas voters receive their ballots, candidates may no longer be in the race, leading to the possibility of more “wasted votes.” Since voters can rank candidates on a single ballot with ranked voting, their vote still counts if a runoff occurs or a candidate drops out. Currently, six states use ranked voting for its overseas voters: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina.

More civility in campaigns
In ranked voting elections, candidates have an incentive to court as many voters as possible in hopes of winning. If they are not the first choice of voters, they can succeed by acquiring enough votes as the second or third choices. This can lessen the tendency to run negative campaigns involving attacks on opponents and instead encourage efforts to positively interact with as many voters as possible, even those who may not view them as a first choice. According to a survey of Republican primary voters in Virginia, the use of ranked voting resulted in a more positive congressional primary in 2022. A 2013-14 survey of voters in ranked voting and non- ranked voting cities revealed that voters in ranked voting cities were more satisfied with the tone of campaigns, and noticed less criticism and negative campaigning, than non-ranked voting city voters.

Lower cost for elections and improved turnout
By replacing primaries and runoffs with ranked voting, jurisdictions can save money and improve voter turnout. In non-ranked voting elections, when no candidate meets a necessary threshold, jurisdictions must hold a second election that costs taxpayer money. New York City saves $20 Million every time ranked voting avoids a runoff. When the two rounds of voting are consolidated into a single election, there also tends to be higher and more representative turnout. Throughout the past twenty years, federal primary runoff elections have seen a median turnout decline of 37% between the first and final rounds, whereas a 2016 study found ranked voting general elections are associated with a 10-point increase in voter turnout compared to the primary and runoff elections they replace.

Broader representation
In elections with multiple winners, proportional ranked voting enables diverse groups of voters to elect their candidates of choice. In single winner races, ranked voting promotes the representation of historically underrepresented groups, including women and people of color. In one study, researchers found that women’s representation increased in cities using proportional ranked voting during the early 1900s. It was also revealed that single-winner ranked voting has increased women’s representation in the 21st century. Another study found that cities utilizing ranked voting also have better electoral outcomes for women and people of color.

Voter support for ranked choice voting
For all the discussion from party leaders and others about whether ranked choice voting is a good idea, voters themselves express broad support for the practice and find it easy to use. After using ranked voting for the first time in 2022, 85% of Alaska voters described it as “simple.” In New York City, 95% of voters across all ethnic groups who participated in the city’s 2021 primary elections described the ranked voting ballot as “simple to complete”; nearly 80% said they understood it extremely or very well; and 77% supported using it for future elections. After using ranked voting for the first time in 2018, 94% of Santa Fe voters reported feeling either very or somewhat satisfied with the format and more than 70% supported its use in future city elections.

Why Not Use Ranked Choice Voting?
Some opponents of ranked choice voting dislike it for one of the same reasons its supporters promote it: it can weaken the far right or left wings of the two main political parties. These critics worry it could weaken the influence of the two main parties and allow more centrist candidates an easier path, thus diluting the power of very progressive or very conservative politicians and policies.

Others worry the changes to filling out a ballot could confuse or deter voters, possibly disenfranchising groups of people who aren’t aware of how to use the ranking mechanism. Another concern is the time it takes to count ranked choice ballots, which could lead to a lack of confidence in the results.

Still others take issue with specific forms of ranked choice voting, arguing that in some cases it can lead to a person winning who doesn’t have majority support. This can happen if a candidate starts off with fewer first-choice votes, and thus gets eliminated, but may perhaps have a greater number of second choice votes.

There’s also the issue of voters not using all of their ranking slots or having all of their ranked picks eliminated, which can lead to “ballot exhaustion” — a drop off in the total number of votes being counted in the later rounds of counting.

The Future of Ranked Choice Voting in the U.S.
As state and local governments continue to reconsider how best to run their elections with an eye toward issues like election security, trust in democracy, and voter access, ranked choice voting is one tool they are considering and often adopting. There are certainly many things to consider when evaluating whether to use ranked voting. Given its popularity with many voters and advantages over other systems of voting, ranked choice voting is worth a closer look.

Foreign investments in U.S. agricultural lands raise alarms in Washington

CSG East provided analysis for this article from fDi Intelligence. You can read the full article on their website.

 

While they are not one of the top-ten holders of US private farmland, the rising interest of Chinese companies in domestic farmland has spooked lawmakers at [the state level].

On February 17, Arizona became the first state to pass legislation that specifically inhibits the CCP from purchasing private or public land in the state.

In 2023 alone, 58 similar bills have been proposed at state level that would restrict foreign ownership of agricultural land in the US, according to figures by the Council of State Governments (CSG), a region-based forum that connects states’ policymakers. However, Arizona remains the only place where such legislation has been enacted into law.

Read the full article from fDi Intelligence, a service of The Financial Times.

[…]

However, new limitations to the foreign ownership of US farmland may be reflected in the 2023 Farm Bill, the most comprehensive US legislation that funds the nation’s food and agricultural system, which is redrafted every five years.

“There is speculation that this issue of foreign ownership of US agricultural land might make its way into the 2023 Farm Bill, and additional federal restrictions might result,” says Tara Sad, agriculture and rural affairs advisor for CSG East.

The post Foreign investments in U.S. agricultural lands raise alarms in Washington appeared first on CSG ERC.

Foreign investments in U.S. agricultural lands raise alarms in Washington

CSG East provided analysis for this article from fDi Intelligence. You can read the full article on their website.

 

While they are not one of the top-ten holders of US private farmland, the rising interest of Chinese companies in domestic farmland has spooked lawmakers at [the state level].

On February 17, Arizona became the first state to pass legislation that specifically inhibits the CCP from purchasing private or public land in the state.

In 2023 alone, 58 similar bills have been proposed at state level that would restrict foreign ownership of agricultural land in the US, according to figures by the Council of State Governments (CSG), a region-based forum that connects states’ policymakers. However, Arizona remains the only place where such legislation has been enacted into law.

Read the full article from fDi Intelligence, a service of The Financial Times.

[…]

However, new limitations to the foreign ownership of US farmland may be reflected in the 2023 Farm Bill, the most comprehensive US legislation that funds the nation’s food and agricultural system, which is redrafted every five years.

“There is speculation that this issue of foreign ownership of US agricultural land might make its way into the 2023 Farm Bill, and additional federal restrictions might result,” says Tara Sad, agriculture and rural affairs advisor for CSG East.

Mental Health Matters: A Series of National Online Dialogues on Workforce Mental Health Policies

By Elise Gurney

The State Exchange on Employment & Disability (SEED), a U.S. Department of Labor Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) initiative, launched a series of four online dialogues to explore and advance workforce mental health policies. Through April 3, you are invited to join these conversations by submitting ideas, as well as commenting and voting on ideas submitted by others, on four priority topic areas:

Benefits policies that meet the needs of those with mental health conditions.

Access to workplace care and supports for those with mental health conditions and reducing associated social stigmas.

Mental health provider and service disparities in underserved communities.

Behavioral health workforce shortages and the establishment of state resource systems.

These online public engagement events will build upon and inform the work of the Mental Health Matters: National Task Force on Workforce Mental Health Policy, convened by SEED, to develop resources and policy frameworks that effectively support workers’ mental health needs and bolster the behavioral health care work force. To learn more about the dialogues and participate in the event, visit https://ePolicyWorks.com/MentalHealthMatters/.

On the Road with CSG West: Idaho

CSG West staff were on the ground in Boise, Idaho, for the annual visit with members January 30-February 2.  Edgar Ruiz, CSG west director; Will Keyse, legislative training manager; and Jackie Tinetti, lead for Idaho state, connected with Senate and House leadership, as well as members at large.  The focus of the state visit was to inform members and staff about CSG regional and national resources, services, and programs that support their legislative service, including the Western Legislative Academy (WLA), the Henry Toll Fellowship Program, the 2023 Annual Meeting, and opportunities to serve on CSG West Policy Committees.

The visit included a hosted lunch for alumni and eligible members of this year’s WLA, as well as a morning with coffee and donuts aimed at connecting with legislators and legislative staff.

Throughout our visit, many positive comments and remembrances from last year’s 75th CSG West Annual Meeting that convened in Boise were shared and reconnecting with all of the people who worked so hard to make that meeting a success. The CSG West staff were grateful and appreciative of the warm welcome and hospitality extended  during our visit to the Gem State.

Idaho Representative Ned Burns, House Minority Caucus Chair, with Jackie Tinetti, CSG West Policy Analyst

The post On the Road with CSG West: Idaho appeared first on CSG West.

Mental Health Among Top Policy Priorities for the States

By Jennifer Horton and Sean Slone

The Council of State Governments works to help state officials solve problems and share information with other policymakers across the U.S. As a nonpartisan association of all state officials, elected and appointed, the work of CSG is research informed in order to help states identify solutions that help their communities. We recognize that no single solution works for everyone, but we can learn from the successes — and failures — of other states. 

Through extensive survey work conducted by the CSG Center of Innovation research team, the CSG national office identified five top priority public policy issues that — in addition to work in other areas — CSG policy staff will expand on and provide resources for during 2023: 

  1. INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION. 
  2. FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY. 
  3. HOUSING. 
  4. MENTAL HEALTH INCLUDING SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER. 
  5. EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE. 

Each issue of CSG Capitol Ideas magazine in 2023 will focus on the work states are doing in each of these policy areas. This issue kicks off with a deeper dive into mental health and the different ways states are working to address this growing issue. 

STATE ACTIONS TO ADDRESS MENTAL HEALTH 
Nine out of 10 adults in the U.S. believe the country is experiencing a mental health crisis. With that consideration, which resulted from a poll conducted by CNN and the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the topic of mental health gaining more attention in the conversations surrounding health care and wellness, many states are directing efforts at some of the most pressing concerns.

Recently, these have included suicide prevention (a leading cause of death in the U.S.), children’s mental health (1 in 6 children between the ages of 2 and 8 has a diagnosed mental, behavioral or developmental disorder), and expanding access to care. Mental Health America’s 2022 report provided a state-by-state look at access to mental health services, ranking states overall and in a number of categories including adult mental health, youth mental health, prevalence of mental illness and access to care.

SUICIDE PREVENTION 
In 2020, there were 45,979 deaths attributed to suicide, or one death every 11 minutes. Even more people thought about or attempted suicide with more than 16 million adults seriously thinking about, planning or attempting suicide.

Suicide is now ranked as the 12th leading cause of death in the U.S. overall and is the second leading cause of death for children between the ages of 15 and 19 years old. As cases of mental health conditions rise and the search for solutions continues, specialists around the nation are calling it a national mental health crisis.

A number of states passed legislation to fund and implement the new National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, 988, in 2021. Experts hope that the inclusion of 988, dubbed by some as the mental health equivalent of 911, will successfully prevent more people from dying due to mental health concerns. Colorado (Senate Bill 21-154; 2021) and Washington (House Bill 1477; 2021) established telecommunications charges and appropriated funds to support the help line’s implementation and working groups to provide recommendations and/or oversee and administer the hotline. 

Individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ experience disproportionate levels of poor mental health and suicidality. According to a survey conducted in 2021 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looking at high school students, 25% of lesbian, gay or bisexual students attempted suicide during the past year compared to 5% of heterosexual students. States have passed legislation to support this population, both by protecting them from practices that have been linked to substantial harm as well as by enacting bills that increase access to LGBTQ+ affirmative care.

In 2021, North Dakota enacted new ethics standards in alignment with the American Psychiatric Association’s Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Sexual Minority Persons and the APA’s Position Statement on Conversion Therapy and LGBTQ Patients that prohibit licensed social workers from subjecting LGBTQ+ youth to conversion therapy and require practitioners to use therapies that affirm individuals’ sexual orientations and gender identities. During the 2021 and 2022 legislative sessions, Illinois (SB 4028) and Vermont (HB 210) enacted bills creating task forces that will provide recommendations for increasing access to LGBTQ+ supportive care.

CHILDHOOD MENTAL HEALTH 
In recognition of the role of schools as a crucial access point to youth mental health care, states have enacted at least 100 laws since early 2020 aimed at supporting schools in the delivery of school-based mental health services. Some examples of this recent legislation include:

  • Connecticut: HB 6621 (Public Act No. 21-95, enacted June 2021) established requirements for the School Emotional Learning and School Climate Advisory Collaborative, which will develop a strategy to initiate collaborations with community-based mental health providers and support school staff in mental health and social-emotional learning. Connecticut SB 2 (Public Act No. 21-46, also enacted in June 2021) requires local boards of education to allow students to take up to four mental health days per school year.
  • Illinois: SB 818 (Public Act 102-0522, enacted August 2021) requires that health education courses for students include information on mental health.
  • Massachusetts: H 4002 (Chapter 24, enacted July 2021) appropriated funding for a pilot program for telebehavioral health services through schools.
  • North Carolina: SB 105 (SL 2021-180, enacted November 2021) allocated funding from the American Rescue Plan Act to establish a grant program for schools to hire psychologists in response to COVID-19.
  • Rhode Island: SB 31/HB 5353 (Chapter 131, enacted April 2021) requires that school staff and students receive education on suicide awareness and prevention.
  • Texas: SB 279 (enacted June 2021) requires schools to include crisis line contact information on all identification cards for students in grades six through twelve.
  • Virginia: SB 1288/HB 2299 (Chapter 452, enacted March 2021) requires that school counselors receive mental health training in order to obtain and renew their license.
  • Wisconsin: Assembly Bill 528 (enacted February 2020) established a competitive grant program to support peer-to-peer suicide prevention programs in high schools.

Mental Health Stigma and Employability

Attitudes and stigma around mental health were one of the topics addressed in a 2021 study on mental health at work published by the organization Mind Share Partners. According to the study, the country may be witnessing a subtle shift in those attitudes in the wake of the impacts of COVID-19. 

58% of respondents were willing to hire or work with someone with a mental health condition, up from 46% in 2019. 

55% of respondents believe that an employee with a mental health condition could be just as productive as one without, up from 52% in 2019. 

55% said they knew someone personally with a mental health condition, up from 50% in 2019. 

READ MORE about states addressing stigma and employability on the State Talk blog.

ACCESS TO CARE
Many states have expanded behavioral health care in Medicaid to address mental health and substance use outcomes. Many of these initiatives extend beyond Medicaid enrollees and funding. Research indicates that Medicaid expansion, and the resulting increase in mental health coverage, is associated with a decrease in suicide mortality.

Montana’s Healing and Ending Addiction through Recovery and Treatment 1115 demonstration waiver expands access to treatment and recovery services, improves transitions of care across treatment levels, and seeks Medicaid coverage for evidence-based substance use disorder treatment models and pre-release care management for individuals involved in the justice system. In another state example, North Dakota’s Medicaid 1915(i) state plan amendment, authorized by SB 2012, allows North Dakota Medicaid to pay for 12 additional home and community based services to support individuals with behavioral health conditions. The program includes policies that address rural challenges.

MENTAL HEALTH PARITY
Disparities in mental health coverage persist despite Congress passing the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in 2008. The bill, requiring equitable coverage of mental health and substance use disorder treatment, was further bolstered by the 2010 Affordable Care Act’s requirement that most health plans cover mental health and substance use disorder care. Some forms of insurance, such as Medicare, the Veterans Administration and short-term limited duration health plans, are able to place limitations on mental health coverage and the laws don’t require parity in reimbursement rates, making it difficult or impossible to find in-network mental health care providers.

Although states must meet the minimum standards established by the MHPAEA, some have taken steps to make their laws more rigorous, to have a broader scope, or to oversee enforcement. During the 2021 and 2022 legislative sessions, at least 14 states passed parity laws: Maryland, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Montana, Oregon, Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada and Washington.

In 2021, both Ohio SB 284 and Missouri HB 604 enacted legislation requiring their state insurance directors to issue regulations and enforce the MHPAEA. And Illinois SB 0471 expanded and clarified requirements for insurers to provide timely access to treatment.

Some state’s bills expand telehealth options while others focus on oversight and reporting requirements. In Maryland, SB 3 amended the state’s telehealth law to promote coverage for mental health and substance use disorder services. Additionally, Nevada AB 181 requires providers and insurers to report suicide attempts to the chief medical officer for parity compliance.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
50-State Medicaid Budget Survey for Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022, Kaiser Family Foundation (VIEW)

National Alliance on Mental Illness State Legislation Report: Trends in State Mental Health Policy (2019), National Alliance on Mental Illness (VIEW)

Mental Health America State Policy Recommendations: Youth Mental Health, Mental Health America (VIEW)

Welcome New Members

Learn how The Council of State Governments works for you

Welcome to The Council of State Governments and our very best wishes to you as you take on this important role in publics service. Here at CSG, we know the monumental tasks that you’ll face and how important the impact of your work will be. Don’t worry, we’re here to help. At CSG, we work for you; our priorities are determined by state officials, and we hope you come to think of CSG as part of your team.

CSG is America’s largest organization of state officials and the nation’s only nonpartisan, nonprofit organization serving all three branches of state government. Founded in 1933, CSG is a region-based forum that fosters the exchange of insights and ideas to help state officials shape public policy.

CSG NATIONAL

The CSG national office, located in Lexington, Kentucky, houses research, public policy, publications and special initiatives through partnerships with the federal government and other community and research organizations that foster collaboration and community between elected and appointed officials from across the country and the six U.S. territories. At the CSG national headquarters, staff work within the Center of Innovation, home to all public policy analysis, research and grant projects, and the National Center for Interstate Compacts as well as on national initiatives including CSG Capitol Ideas magazine, the CSG Henry Toll Fellowship and the CSG 20 Under 40 Leadership Award. Learn more at csg.org.

CSG REGIONS

CSG East | CSG Midwest | CSG South | CSG West
Regional by design, these offices across the U.S. allow state officials to connect on shared issues that are geographically based, including federal lands, water rights, agriculture, border relations and more. CSG regional offices also host conferences, in-state visits and leadership development programs that allow officials to network regionally. The regional offices incorporate the CSG Eastern Regional Conference, CSG Midwestern Legislative Conference, the CSG Southern Legislative Conference, and CSG West.

CSG JUSTICE CENTER

The CSG Justice Center brings together state and local officials along with subject matter experts to discuss challenges and best practices in policy areas directly related to issues of public safety and justice. Learn more at csgjusticecenter.org.

Look Ahead to What CSG Has Planned for 2023!

CSG NATIONAL CONFERENCE
Dec. 6-9 | Raleigh, North Carolina
Each year, CSG hosts its national conference to bring together hundreds of state leaders from across the U.S., the U.S. territories and Canada. The CSG National Conference spotlights national public policy priorities through interactive sessions designed to engage officials from all three branches of government.

HENRY TOLL FELLOWSHIP
Aug. 16-20 | Lexington, Kentucky
Named for CSG Founder Henry Wolcott Toll, this fellowship is the nation’s premier leadership development program for state government officials. The Toll Fellowship brings together 48 of the nation’s top state government officials from all three branches of government for an intensive week-long course. Application deadline is May 1. Apply or nominate here: CSGOVTS.INFO/TOLLS.

NEW LEGISLATIVE LEADERS ACADEMY
June 14-16 | Chicago
Recognizing its strength in establishing peer networks among leaders, CSG will provide a new professional and leadership development experience for legislative leaders. The New Legislative Leaders Academy educates participants on the legislative institution, separation of powers, ethics and civility.

MEDICAID POLICY ACADEMY
Sept. 18-22 | Washington, D.C.
In 2023, the Medicaid Policy Academy will combine the Medicaid 101 Policy Academy and the Medicaid Leadership Academy into a two-part, five-day program to provide leadership development through policy analysis for state legislators. In two separate classes, this program will bring together 30 state administration and legislative officials who are engaged with health care policy for a dive into the policy and conversations surrounding governing Medicaid programs.

CSG 20 UNDER 40 LEADERSHIP AWARD
This annual honor recognizes the work of 20 up-and-coming elected and appointed officials from across the country who demonstrate the ability to work across the aisle in meaningful ways relevant to the CSG mission of helping states advance the common good. Apply or nominate a leader by Aug. 1 here: WEB.CSG.ORG/20-40.

REGIONAL ANNUAL MEETINGS
The CSG regional annual meetings are signature events convened each summer by the CSG regional offices. Each event is unique to its region and brings together state policymakers of all levels and branches, from those just finishing their freshman sessions to Senate presidents and speakers of the House. Each meeting includes programming that features strong host state pride, enriching public policy discussions and leadership development trainings.

CSG EAST/EASTERN REGIONAL CONFERENCE
Aug. 20–23, Toronto, Ontario

CSG MIDWEST/MIDWESTERN LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE
July 9–12, Detroit

CSG SOUTH/SOUTHERN LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE
July 8–12, Charleston, SC

CSG WEST
Aug. 1–4, Universal City, CA

Want to learn more about how CSG works for you and discover ways to get involved in this nonpartisan organization of state officials? Visit csg.org/new-members.

DID YOU KNOW
The CSG National Headquarters office is located in Lexington, Kentucky. CSG has regional offices in New York City, Atlanta, Chicago and Sacramento, California. It also has an office in Washington, D.C., and the CSG Justice Center in New York City.

The Council of State Governments began in October 1933 when a small group of state legislators gathered in a room at the Penn Harris Hotel in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. CSG founder Colorado state Sen. Henry Toll was meeting with the Board of managers of the American Legislators Association, a group he founded in 1925. One of Toll’s first items of business was to compile a list of all 7,500 state legislators in the country, a roll that did not exist until he put one together.

Regional Leadership Programs

BOWHAY INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT (BILLD)
Aug. 18-22 | Madison, Wisconsin
BILLD is a five-day leadership training program designed for lawmakers of the Midwestern Legislative Conference’s 11 member states. The program offers newer legislators an opportunity to improve their leadership skills, explore ongoing issues, and connect with nationally renowned scholars, professional development experts, and legislative leaders and colleagues from across the region. CLICK TO LEARN MORE.

EASTERN LEADERSHIP ACADEMY (ELA)
Aug. 27-31 | Philadelphia
Each year, 30 state and provincial officials from the 18 CSG Eastern Region member jurisdictions gather in Philadelphia for the Robert J. Thompson ELA. This select group of state officials from all three branches of government receives training to enhance their leadership and communication skills from a variety of experts in media, education and government. CLICK TO LEARN MORE.

CENTER FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF LEADERSHIP SKILLS (CALS)
Oct. 15-19 | Nashville, Tennessee
CALS is a five-day workshop bringing together 30 elected or appointed officials from Southern Legislative Conference member states in a strictly nonpartisan environment. Selected CALS scholars participate in activities and instruction focusing on the program’s four central components: communication, conflict resolution, consensus building and critical decision making. CLICK TO LEARN MORE.

STAFF ACADEMY FOR GOVERNMENTAL EXCELLENCE (SAGE)
Nov. 12-16 | Atlanta
SAGE is a professional leadership development program for Southern state legislative, judicial, executive and agency staff. In addition to developing their personal and professional leadership skills, participants can build a network of peers from across the Southern region.

WESTERN LEGISLATIVE ACADEMY (WLA)
Dec. 12-15 | Colorado Springs, Colorado
Western region state legislators are selected to participate in the multi-day WLA training experience focused on sharpening leadership skills needed to excel in a legislative environment. Faculty from academic, military and legislative backgrounds engage class members in interactive sessions designed to provide a learning experience that expands understanding and fosters relationships. CLICK TO LEARN MORE.