Ballot Measures on Election Administration and the Initiative Process

By Cassandra Hockenberry

Please note that this article is based on projected results and may change with certified election results. 

This year, six states voted on ballot measures to change election administration processes in their states. The measures included topics like voter ID laws and early voting, among other topics. Of note, many city and county jurisdictions had similar ballot measures for local election administration. For example, Multnomah County Oregon approved a measure to utilize ranked-choice voting for county elections.

Connecticut

The Allow for Early Voting Amendment in Connecticut was approved by voters. This amends the Connecticut Constitution to allow the Connecticut General Assembly to pass laws allowing early in-person voting to be conducted in the state. Previously, the General Assembly was barred by the Constitution from passing any law which would allow early voting. We will be monitoring Connecticut’s General Assembly Legislative Session beginning April 10, 2023, to learn more about how the state will be implementing this.

Michigan

Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, which amended the Michigan Constitution to add several election and voting-related policies. Some of these policies already existed in state statute but others are new to the state. Below is a non-inclusive list of policies that Proposal 2 adds to the constitution:

  • Creates a nine-day early voting period.
  • Requires voters to present photo identification or sign an affidavit when voting in person or applying for an absentee ballot.
  • Requires that military and overseas citizen ballots postmarked by election day are counted.
  • Provides voters with a right to request an absentee ballot.
  • Requires the state to fund prepaid stamps and a tracking system for absentee ballots.
  • Requires the state to fund a number of absentee ballot drop boxes.
  • Provides that local governments can accept charitable and in-kind donations to assist with running elections so long as the donations are disclosed and are not from foreign entities.
  • Provides that election officiations are responsible for election audits, requires election audits be conducted in public, and requires that election results be certified based on votes cast.
  • Added constitutional language that “harassing, threatening or intimidating conduct” as well as laws, regulations, and practices that have “the intent or effect of denying, abridging, interfering with, or unreasonably burdening the fundamental right to vote” are prohibited.

To learn more about how Proposal 2 will change Michigan elections see the comparison table created by Ballotpedia here.

Nebraska

Voters in Nebraska approved Initiative 432. This initiative amended Article I of the Constitution of Nebraska to require a voter provide photo identification before they are allowed to vote. The state Senate must now pass legislation implementing this change while ensuring the “preservation of an individual’s rights under the United States Constitution.”

Ohio

Voters in Ohio approved Issue 2, referred to as the Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment. Issue 2 bars local governments from allowing persons who lack the below qualifications from voting in local elections:

  • Being 18 years or older.
  • Being a resident of the state, county, township or ward.
  • Having been registered to vote for thirty days.

This amendment changes Article V, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution from “Every citizen of the United States… is entitled to vote at all elections” to “Only a citizen of the United States…”

Arizona and Nevada

Ballot measures related to voting policies were also included on ballots in Arizona and Nevada. The results of these ballot measures have not yet been projected. Arizona voted on Proposition 309 which would require date of birth and voter identification number for mail-in ballots and eliminate a two-document alternative to photo ID for in-person voting. Nevada voted on Question 3 which would provide for open top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting for general elections.

Slavery and Involuntary Servitude as a Punishment in the United States

By Blair Lozier

Please note that this article is based on projected results and may change with certified election results. 

The 13th amendment to the United States Constitution states reads,“…that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime, where the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. As of October 2022, 20 state constitutions still included language permitting enslavement or servitude (typically as criminal punishment or for debt payments). During the 2022 midterm elections, five states – Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont voted on whether to remove constitutional language that allows the use of slavery and involuntary servitude. Four of these states voted to approve these ballot measures, while Louisiana did not. This article analyzes the ballot measures and results in each of these states.

Alabama approved the Recompiled Constitution Ratification Question on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. The updated and recompiled state constitution was drafted to:

  • Arrange it in proper articles, parts and sections.
  • Remove all racist language.
  • Delete duplicative and repealed provisions.
  • Consolidate provisions regarding economic development.
  • Arrange all local amendments by county of application.

Section 32 of Article I, which stated: “That no form of slavery shall exist in this state; and there shall not be any involuntary servitude, otherwise than for the punishment of crime, of which the party shall have been duly convicted.” was removed from the constitution by the adoption of this ballot measure. This measure received support from 76.5% of voters (as of noon on Nov. 10).

Oregon passed Measure 112 which repeals language from the state constitution that allows the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishment and adds language that authorizes an Oregon court or a probation or parole agency to order alternatives to incarceration for a convicted individual as part of their sentencing. Voters approved removing slavery as a criminal punishment with a 55.2% majority (as of noon on Nov. 10).

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment 3 amends the state constitution to remove language that allows the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as criminal punishments and replace it with the statement, “slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited.” Tennessee passed Constitutional Amendment 3 with 79.5% of the vote (as of noon on Nov. 10).

Vermont Proposal 2 repeals language stating that persons could be held as servants, slaves or apprentices with the person’s consent for the payments of debts, damages, fines or costs. The amendment adds that “Slavery and indentured servitude in any form are prohibited” to the state constitution. Vermont passed Proposal 2 with an 89% majority (as of noon on Nov. 10).

Louisiana Amendment 7 would have removed language from the state constitution that allows involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime and adds language to the constitution that prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except when used as part of the lawful administration of criminal justice. Louisiana did not pass Amendment 7, with 60.9% of voters voting no to the amendment (as of noon on Nov. 10). This may be due to the legislative sponsor of Amendment 7, State Representative Edmond Jordan (D), urging voters to reject the measure as written due to the unclear and ambiguous wording of the amendment. Representative Jordan hopes to bring the amendment back next year with clearer language.

Additional Resources:

CSG will continue to provide initial results on key topics as well as more in-depth analysis in the days following the election. Find those articles on Twitter (@CSGovts) and at csg.org/state-talk.

A First Glance at Election Results and Trends: State Races and Ballot Measure Results

Please note that this article is based on projected results and may change with certified election results.

Polls are closed on the 2022 general election where voters in 46 states decided on 6,278 state legislative races, 36 governors and 133 statewide ballot measures. The Council of State Governments, the nation’s only nonpartisan organization serving all three branches of state government, will provide coverage and analysis of state elections with attention to state races and the impact of ballot measures. This article provides an overview of the results and trends in state races and ballot measure results based on projections made through midday Nov. 9.

States are seeing increased diversity in elected candidates.

Several races, projected by Ballotpedia, are historical firsts, expanding gender, race and age representation amongst elected officials. Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R), former press secretary for President Donald Trump, made history in Arkansas as the first female governor in Arkansas. Governor Maura Healy (D) of Massachusetts and Governor Kathy Hochul (D) of New York also made history as the first female elected governor in their respective states. Governor Healy is also the first openly lesbian governor in the US and the first openly gay governor in Massachusetts. U.S. Representative Marcy Kaptur (D) became the longest-serving female member of Congress with reelection to Ohio’s 9th District. Governor Wes Moore became the first Black governor of Maryland and his lieutenant governor, Aruna Miller (D), is the first immigrant and first Asian American to be elected to statewide office in Maryland. In Rhode Island, Chinese American Victoria Gu (D) and Japanese American Linda Ujifusa (D) became the first Asian candidates elected to the state legislature, and Shri Thanedar (D) became the first Indian American U.S. Representative for Michigan. Maxwell Frost (D) won Florida’s 10th Congressional District race, making him the first Democratic member of Congress from Gen Z and the first Afro-Cubano to head to Congress.

Partisan legislative and state control remains steady with Democrats consolidating power in some states.

So far, Democrats have consolidated power in several states – Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Minnesota. Previously, these states were under a divided government. No new state government trifectas have been called for Republicans yet, and no state governments that were trifectas controlled by one party have moved to divided government yet. However, these results may change as more state elections are called. Partisan legislative control remains relatively steady as election results are projected. The Democratic Party in Minnesota has consolidated legislative power from previously split control, and Michigan has flipped from Republican legislative control to Democratic control. Results have not yet been projected for six states which may change these results.

Incumbent Governors are being re-elected and the Democratic party has gained some control.

This year there are 36 governor seats up for reelection, currently, 32 of the races have been called. Seven governors did not seek reelection. Democrats have picked up two governor seats in Maryland and Massachusetts. Currently, every incumbent governor that was up for reelection has won. There are currently six newly elected governors; Maura Healy (D) Massachusetts, Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) Arkansas, Jim Pillen (R) Nebraska, Josh Green (D) Hawaii, Josh Shapiro (D) Pennsylvania and Wes Moore (D) Maryland. Governor races that have not been confirmed yet are Alaska, Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. In the US Territories incumbent Lou Leon Guerrero (D) won reelection in Guam. Incumbent Albert Bryan (D) won reelection as governor of the US Virgin Islands while incumbent Ralph Torres (R) is facing a runoff versus Arnold I. Palacios (I).

With his win in Maryland, Wes Moore is a growing figure nationally among Democrats. Governor Ron DeSantis handedly won reelection in Florida by wide margins and continues his growth as a leader in the GOP and potential presidential candidate in 2024.  

States have passed ballot measures addressing state legislative authority, election administration and voting-related policies and state tax changes.

On the ballot this year were several possible changes to some states’ constitutional amendment processes. So far, Arizona’s Proposition 132 is too close to call. If enacted, this measure will require a 60% majority for future constitutional amendments that approve new taxes. In Arkansas, Issue 2 was defeated. This measure would have required a 60% majority for future constitutional amendments.

Some states considered changes to voting policy and election administration. Nebraska voters approved Initiative 434, requiring a photo ID for voting. Ohio passed Issue 2, prohibiting local governments from allowing anyone who does not meet the qualifications for an elector (e.g. a non-citizen) to vote in local elections. Connecticut voters approved Question 1, allowing the legislature to establish early voting. Michigan approved Proposal 2, which made several changes to voting procedures including creating a 9 day early voting period, requiring photo ID, requiring military and overseas ballots postmarked by election day to be counted, prohibiting voter intimidation and several other changes. A proposed photo ID requirement in Arizona and Nevada’s possible adoption of ranked choice voting are still too close to call.

At least six states proposed ballot measures changing state tax laws. In California, voters rejected Proposition 30, which would have raised taxes on those making more than $2 million to subsidize electric vehicle infrastructure and wildfire prevention. Colorado voters passed Proposition 121, lowering the income tax from 4.55% to 4.40%. West Virginia failed to pass Amendment 2, which would have allowed lawmakers to exempt property taxes on motor vehicles and personal property used by businesses. The results of Arizona’s Propositions 130 and 310, allowing lawmakers to pass a personal tax exemption and increasing sales taxes to fund fire districts, are too early to call. Massachusetts voters passed Question 1, imposing an additional 4% tax on those making over $1 million to fund education and transportation. Idaho approved the Advisory Question, which asked voters for their opinion on tax changes including additional rebates to taxpayers, reduction of the corporate tax rate and allocation of tax revenue to education.

States have passed ballot measures addressing the regulation of marijuana, abortion and enslavement.

Several state elections included ballot measures addressing marijuana, abortion and enslavement. According to the Pew Research Center, Millennials are at the forefront of the recent rise in public support for the legalization of marijuana and abortions. It is likely that these ballot measures motivated Millennials and younger generations to vote in the 2022 elections.

Before the elections, marijuana was legal in 19 states and D.C. Of those 19 states, 13 and D.C. had legalized marijuana through the ballot measure process. During the 2022 midterm elections, Maryland and Missouri passed ballot measures legalizing marijuana. Arkansas, North Dakota and South Dakota rejected ballot measures legalizing marijuana.

There were five ballot measures addressing abortion in the midterm elections. California, Michigan and Vermont voted to add “reproductive freedom” to their state constitutions, and Kentucky voted no to a constitutional amendment stating nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion. Montana results are not confirmed, but current results look like abortion rights will remain.

As of October 2022, 20 state constitutions included language permitting enslavement or servitude as criminal punishment or debt payments. During the 2-22 midterm elections, five states had ballot measures repealing such language. Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont have voted to repeal language allowing slavery or involuntary servitude as criminal punishments. Louisiana voted not to repeal language allowing involuntary servitude as criminal punishments which may be due to confusion with the wording of the ballot measure.

CSG will continue to provide initial results on key topics as well as more in-depth analysis in the days following the election. Find those articles on Twitter (@CSGovts) and at csg.org/state-talk.

Daylight Saving Time: State Approaches, History and Impact

By Jennifer Horton

With the biannual changing of the clocks, many Americans often find themselves wondering, “does it have to be this way?”

They’re not alone. In the last several years, state legislatures have considered at least 450 bills and resolutions concerning daylight saving time (DST), with most of them proposing to stop the twice-yearly clock-changing ritual by making DST permanent. While federal law allows states to opt-out of DST, it does not currently allow them to enact DST permanently. Hawaii and Arizona are the only two states that do not observe DST; they are joined by the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As of 2022, 19 states have passed or enacted legislation that allows for the year-round observance of DST if Congress allows it, and in some instances, if other states in the region also make the change. The 19 states are Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Californians voted in favor of a ballot measure making DST permanent, but the legislature has not yet acted.

The passage of the Sunshine Protection Act of 2021 by the U.S. Senate put these states a little closer to such a reality, although the bill has yet to be taken up by the House. The bill would allow states that chose (through legislation or voter approval) to enact year-round DST the ability to do so, and because it repeals the section of the law that mandates changing from standard to daylight time from March through November, would require the remaining states to choose between permanent standard time or permanent daylight time. How this would play out varies considerably from region to region, and it also wouldn’t be the first time the U.S. played around with the time change.

History

The United States has been tinkering with time since the Standard Time Act of 1918 established standard time zones and DST. Current federal policy regarding DST was enacted in 1966 as the Uniform Time Act, with a number of subsequent changes made, primarily to alter the start and end dates of DST. The most recent change was made in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. While DST was initially enacted as a way to conserve energy, the Department of Energy in 2008 found the effects to be minimal. The Department of Transportation reported in 1974 that potential benefits to traffic safety and crime reduction were also minimal.

The most current push to enact permanent DST is not the first. Congress enacted year-round DST for a trial period from January 1974 to April 1975 following the passage of the Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act of 1973 during the 1973 Oil Embargo. However, before the trial period even concluded, Congress amended the Act to include four months of standard time from October 1974 to February 1975. The change was widely unpopular and the country returned to summer DST after the trial period ended.

Potential Impacts

The arguments for and against enacting permanent DST are many and varied. Those in favor of extending DST observance include convenience stores, the business industry, the gardening industry, golf clubs and pro baseball and tennis. These groups benefit from the extra hour of daylight because many people tend to use it to shop and recreate.

Opponents point to potential negative health impacts linked with DST, including increased strokes, heart attacks and sleep deprivation. In 2020, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) published a position statement advocating the adoption of year-round standard time endorsed by more than 20 medical, scientific and civic organizations. The association argues standard time, not DST, aligns best with human circadian biology (the human sleep/wake rhythm that follows a 24-hour light/dark cycle) because it creates conditions where the body’s internal clock, the timing of sunrise and sunset and local clock time all sync. With DST, people are exposed to less light in the morning and more in the evening, leading to later bedtimes and chronic sleep loss. The Association called this disconnect between the sleep/wake pattern and light/dark a form of perpetual “social jet lag.”

Regional Differences

Research demonstrates regional differences in how these impacts are felt, with people who live on the western edge of a time zone, where the sun rises and sets later, feeling them more profoundly. Studies indicate these so-called “western edge” residents got less sleep and had higher rates of a number of diseases including diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers than residents on the eastern edge of the time zone. One study estimated the economic costs of switching to permanent DST by looking at existing estimates of the healthcare costs of relevant diseases and judged it to be at least $2.35 billion. The same study also estimated impacts on productivity related to absenteeism and fatigue attributed to circadian disruption and estimated a loss of 4.4 million days of work per year.

For the same reason, people living in different parts of the country would have a very different experience of permanent DST. With the sun rising and setting an hour later from November to March, people who live in parts of the country where the sun already rises late would experience sunrises after 9 am in some cases. Residents of Traverse City, Michigan wouldn’t see the sun until after 8:30 in the morning from early November to late February, with the sun rising after 9 am for two full months. Indianapolis would experience a similar situation and Bismarck, North Dakota wouldn’t have sunrises until almost 9:30 am in December. Most of the New England states, however, would get a much better deal, with daylight occurring from about 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the winter instead of the current 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.

A perpetual daylight savings time would also impact different populations differently, including school-age children, who would be going to school in the dark for much of the year. Permanent daylight time could also be especially hard on many lower-income workers who work early shifts, thus increasing structural disparities.

Ultimately, enacting permanent DST, enacting permanent standard time, or leaving things as they are is a challenging, and sometimes polarizing, decision with wide-ranging impacts. Perhaps even more challenging than figuring out how to change the clock in your car.

“Pay for Success”

By Daniel Clothier

States must surmount various challenges when seeking to remedy a social issue. The state takes upon itself a significant degree of financial risks whenever engaging in new social/welfare programs. Therefore, financial and political constraints tend to guide policymaker’s actions and control the scope of these programs.

The Pay for Success (PFS) financial model introduces an alternative method for financing social programs. In this model, private investors provide funding to a nonprofit organization charged with tackling a public issue. The private investor is paid back, potentially at a profit, by the government if the project achieves the agreed upon results. The model is promising due to its ability to divert financial risk from taxpayers to private investors, should a project not achieve it’s intended outcome. Ideally, the PFS model can remove many of the constraints limiting the scope of innovative social programs.

Pay for Success is unique in its aim to capture return-seeking capital. By creating a profit incentive, the PFS model strives to use investment dollars to solve public issues. In theory, this will significantly increase the funds available for such projects. However, a report in the Stanford Social Innovation Review is skeptical that the PFS model is actually attracting return-seeking capital but instead is relying on impact-seeking capital. Philanthropy’s prominent role in recent PFS deals suggests this may be true. Furthermore, the report warns that “…the model is appropriate only for a narrow cohort of nonprofits that meet two related criteria: they must be able to effectively deliver and measure their social impact; and they must be able to translate that impact into financial benefits or cost savings that are traceable to the budgets of one or more institutions or government departments.”

Due to the potential and possible limits of PFS, the model may be currently more favorable to some state strategies than others. An evaluation of the costs and benefits of the program is therefore an important first step for states to identify if this model aligns with their capacity and policy priorities. With this in consideration, The CSG Healthy States National Task Force’s Fiscal Subcommittee recommends that states should assess Pay for Success models to fund health and human service programs[CS1] . Some states have already begun utilizing the model with promising results.

Utah’s High Quality Preschool Program seeks to provide a high-impact preschool education for low-income families. The program utilizes the Pay for Success structure for funding and partners with United Way of Salt Lake. Utah lacks a state funded preschool education and views this program as a way to mitigate future remedial or special education costs while reducing the taxpayer’s risk if the program is unsuccessful. Likewise, the Massachusetts Juvenile Justice Pay for Success Initiative brought together the state, Third Sector Capital Partners and Roca in what was one of the first PFS contracts in the country. Collectively, they sought to prevent recidivism in previously incarcerated youth. The PFS contract laid out clear benchmarks for Roca to reach regarding recidivism rates. Should these metrics be met, the state will disburse funding.

The Farm Bill – Title II

By Cassidy White

Title II: Conservation

The Conservation Title (Title II) of the Farm Bill authorizes voluntary programs that help farmers and ranchers implement natural resource conservation efforts on private land. Such programs allow for improved productivity while simultaneously addressing natural resource and environmental concerns.

Over the years, Title II has encompassed various programs, including wetlands conservation, environmental easement (a nonpossessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it), integrated farm management, wildlife habitat incentives, conservation of private grazing land and even provision of technical assistance related to the implementation of such programs. Programs can be grouped into the following categories: working land programs, land retirement programs, easement programs, partnership and grant programs and conservation compliance.[1]

The most recent Farm Bill (2018) reauthorized and amended portions of most conservation programs; however, the focus was on the larger programs, namely the Conservation Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship Program.

What is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)? CRP is the largest land retirement program. Farmers enrolled in the voluntary program receive an annual rental payment and agree to (1) remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and (2) plant species that will improve environmental health. Contracts are typically written to ensure coverage between 10-15 years.[2]

What is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)? Agricultural producers and non-industrial forest managers part of EQIP are provided financial and technical assistance so that they may address natural resource concerns. Benefits include improved water and air quality, conserved ground and surface water, increased soil health and mitigation against weather volatility. The length of an EQIP contract varies, but cannot exceed 10 years.[3]

What is the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)? CSP allows for tailored operation plans to bolster productivity and build on conservation efforts. CSP mainly focuses on provision of financial and technical assistance to producers so that they may maintain and improve existing conservation systems.[4] The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition highlights that, “By providing comprehensive conservation assistance to whole farms, CSP offers farmers the opportunity to earn payments for actively managing, maintaining and expanding conservation activities like cover crops, rotational grazing, ecologically-based pest management, buffer strips and the transition to organic farming – even while they work their lands for production.”[5] Benefits of participating include enhanced resiliency to weather and market volatility, decreased need for agricultural inputs and improved wildlife habitat conditions.

Why should state leaders care about Title II programs?

Title II programs can reap numerous benefits, both locally and nationally. These initiatives support local farmers across various states, which in turn impacts both food and national security. The Conservation Title helps ensure a safe and vast food (as well as fiber and fuel) supply, invigorates rural communities and champions farmers to care for the environment as they engage in their critical work. State leaders must remain cognizant of the various programs and the many benefits they might provide to their constituents while also serving the larger population.  

Moreover, fifty percent of the United States is cropland, pastureland and rangeland owned and managed by farmers and their families.[6] As such, much of our land and water-based solutions to climate change sit in the hands of farmers, ranchers and other private landowners.[7] Importantly, only 2.1 million out of a population of 327 million people are farmers; we rely on a small number of individuals to produce what we eat and how land is managed.[8] State leaders will likely want to remain abreast of these programs directly impacting the communities they represent and serve, as well as – less directly – the entire nation.

Senator Saxby Chambliss, who served on the Senate Agriculture Committee during the crafting of the 2008 farm bill, shared that “Any number of economic policies that we establish in farm bills impact everybody’s daily lives.”[9] Senate hearings for the 2023 farm bill are underway, with the first field hearing taking place on April 29, 2022, in Michigan. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, listed conservation programs as a major concern for the new farm bill.

Each state and its residents are impacted by Title II of the farm Bill in one way or another, and state leaders should take note.

[1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12024

[2] https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/

[3] https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/

[4] https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2019-05-03_IF11199_1abf91e5ef60e8066572ab324e14d521a579e571.pdf

[5] https://sustainableagriculture.net/publications/grassrootsguide/conservation-environment/conservation-stewardship-program/ 

[6] https://www.trcp.org/farm-bill/

[7] https://www.trcp.org/farm-bill/

[8] https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/farm-bill-and-everyday-americans/

[9] https://kansasreflector.com/2022/08/13/farm-bill-season-arrives-whats-the-outlook-for-2023/

[10] https://www.farmers.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FarmBill-2018-Brochure-11×17.pdf

Associates in Action: Visa Inc. on Fighting Poverty and Homelessness

By Sarahi Castillo

Visa Inc., a CSG Associate and a global payment technology company, and Visa Foundation work with charitable organizations to support underserved communities. In May, Visa Inc. and Visa Foundation directed resources to Tipping Point Community, a nonprofit organization in San Francisco Bay Area.

Visa Foundation announced a $12 million grant for Tipping Point Community to address and prevent youth homelessness in six San Francisco Bay Area counties. The grant will support a broader three-year $16 million total combined initiative, which includes $4 million in funding from Tipping Point to local services that support at-risk youth or youth currently experiencing homelessness, while strengthening the service providers and systems designed to meet their unique needs.

The new program announcement builds on a $7.5 million commitment from Visa Foundation supporting Bay Area organizations working to address chronic and youth homelessness since 2019, including an initial $3 million Visa Foundation grant to Tipping Point.

It is estimated that over 3,500 youth are experiencing homelessness in San Francisco’s Bay Area on any given night, making it one of the highest rates of youth homelessness in the nation. In addition, LGBTQIA individuals and minorities experience greater rates of homelessness than their peers. Recent estimates also show that more than 35,000 homeless people live in all nine Bay Area counties — a 24% increase from 2017 — and 1.7 million people in the Bay Area are unable to meet their basic needs. In some communities, only three in 10 students graduate from college and three-in-four homeless youth come from foster care or the juvenile justice system.

 “Homelessness in the Bay Area is the defining issue of our time for our community. It is happening on our watch, and we all need to do our part to solve it, we are committed to working to reduce the tragic number of families and youth experiencing homelessness,” said Oliver Jenkyn, president of North America Visa and member of the Tipping Point board of directors. “As broad and complicated as the issue is, we are committed to working to reduce the tragic number of families and youth experiencing homelessness. Visa and Visa Foundation are ready to roll up our sleeves with Tipping Point to have an impact.” “Visa Foundation and Tipping Point recognize that no single institution acting alone can prevent or address youth homelessness in the Bay Area,” said Graham Macmillan, president of Visa Foundation. “It is through an aligned and coordinated effort across service providers and systems that we can effectively direct resources to address youth homelessness where they have the greatest impact.”

Recap: Improving Mental Health Services Delivery for Youth and Young Adults with Marginalized Racial Identities

By Dai Nguyen

The number of high school students experiencing feelings of sadness or hopelessness increased by 40% between 2009 and 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hispanic students report these persistent feelings at the highest percentage; and more Black students attempted suicide than students of other races. Young adults ages 18-to-25 with serious mental illness increased from 3.8% to 9.7% (or by 3.3 million people) from 2008 to 2020, according to the 2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this already dramatic trend as the number of youth and young adults with mental health conditions continued to increase substantially. Recent research covering 80,000 youth found that depressive and anxiety symptoms doubled during the pandemic, with 25% of youth experiencing depressive symptoms and 20% experiencing anxiety symptoms. Many youth and young adults have treatable mental health disorders, but they face a variety of obstacles to accessing the services and supports they need to improve their mental and emotional wellbeing. In fact, mental illness among youth and young adults can significantly influence employment outcomes.

To better understand the mental health challenges and consequent employment challenges faced by youth and young adults, the Center for Advancing Policy on Employment for Youth (CAPE-Youth) held a virtual roundtable on Improving Mental Health Service Delivery for Youth and Youth Adults with Marginalized Racial Identities with the White House Office of Public Engagement on Sept. 27, 2022. The roundtable examined state opportunities to improve mental health service delivery, including supporting better educational and employment outcomes. 

Participants in the roundtable included youth and young adults with lived experience, policymakers, practitioners and community leaders in mental and public health, education and workforce development.

Below are key themes from a few of the guest speakers:

  • Hannah Bristol, senior advisor of public engagement at the White House, emphasized that rates of suicide are highest among young people of color and indigenous and LGBTQIA+ youth. In response, the White House has prioritized the expansion of mental health services for diverse communities. In addition, the Biden administration has invested in workforce development, including the development of care and public health services.   
  • Justin Tapp, a student in the Master of Science in Social Administration program at Case Western Reserve University, discussed his experience when he seeks mental health services as a young adult who is Black, LGBTQ and living with a disability. He emphasized that financial constraints create a cost barrier for people who are members of marginalized communities, particularly those with disabilities. “Being able to afford $150 biweekly out-of-pocket for therapy because my therapist doesn’t like to bill through insurance, I had to sit back, budget out and see if I could actually afford it.”
  • State Senator Marie Pinkney of Delaware suggested policy solutions that can reduce barriers to access to mental health services for minority children and young adults. She noted that states and the federal government can invest in support systems for marginalized communities in schools and community centers where marginalized youth can be reached. She also emphasized the importance of providing extra funding for schools to hire more mental health providers and expanding Medicaid to increase access to mental health services.
  • Allissa Torres, the director of mental health equity at Mental Health America, discussed how the Western Medical Model prioritizes diagnoses, structured treatments and medical settings but does not fully address the needs of Black, Indigenous and People of Color communities compared with European American peers. She introduced self-directed care as an option to address the needs of people with marginalized racial identities. “Self-directed care is an innovative practice that emphasizes that people with mental health and substance use conditions should have decision-making authority over the services that they receive.”

This event will contribute to an upcoming policy brief on what states can do to support youth and young adults from marginalized populations in accessing the mental health services they need. The brief will examine practices to improve the education and employment success of youth and young adults who experience mental health barriers and belong to marginalized racial groups.  


For more information on advancing employment policies for youth with disabilities please visit www.capeyouth.org or contact [email protected].

Dark Store Theory: How States are Addressing Retail Property Taxes

By Ishara Nanayakkara

Retailers are trying to lower the amount of property taxes they owe through a legal strategy called “dark story theory.” Dark store theory is championed by many “big box” stores like Walmart and Meijer, asserting that for tax assessment open, bustling stores are equivalent to ones that failed and closed. This means that during the assessment process, a commercial property should be compared to a shuttered warehouse rather than an open store. Companies justify this approach by arguing that stores are designed in such a specialized way that the property will lose much of its value as soon as the company leaves. They argue that these properties should be appraised according to how the next occupant may use it. 

The result is drastically reduced commercial property taxes. These tax reductions directly impact state and local governments by reducing revenue. Local governments are most heavily affected as property taxes are one of the largest sources of revenue. This tax revenue is used to finance public services such as schools, roads, parks and police and fire departments. Schools will feel the greatest impact because of their heavy reliance on property tax revenue. 

State and local governments view dark store theory as harmful and are taking steps to counter it. Schools in Texas were at risk of losing close to $900 million in 2016. Texas policymakers are discussing a bill that values properties as fully functioning rather than obsolete. Gov. Tony Evers of Wisconsin hopes to “close the dark store loophole” with his budget proposal. Michigan state and local governments have lost roughly $100 million in revenue and been forced to cut funding for road maintenance and employee benefits. 

There also have been legal disputes in several states. A common dispute is whether properties should be valued at the market rent (the expected rental value compared with similar properties) or the contract rent (what the lessee actually pays) of a leased property. 

Court Decisions 

There is no consistent pattern in state supreme court decisions because decisions are based largely on individual state law. Most legislation passed or proposed involves creating guidelines or standards to assess property values. The examples below detail a few key court decisions made in the past 15 years. 

Indiana  

Meijer contested the valuation of a property in Wayne County, claiming it to be functionally obsolete. Meijer argued there was a limited number of buyers due to the size of the property and the availability of other big box properties. The Indiana Board of Tax Revenue rejected this argument. But the Indiana Tax Court reversed the board’s decision, citing insufficient market-based evidence to dispute Meijer’s appraisal.  

Meijer also disputed the government valuation of another property in Marion County (assessed at between $15 and $20 million) claiming the value was between $7 and $11 million. The assessments differed on the appropriate list of comparable properties. The Indiana Board of Tax Revenue approved Meijer’s proposed reductions in value based on a finding that Meijer provided stronger evidence. 

Kansas 

The state supreme court reviewed a court of appeals decision in Johnson County. The lower court had upheld the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals’ decision to lower the assessed value of certain Walmart and Sam’s Club stores. The supreme court overturned the original decision of the  Board of Tax Appeals. 

Michigan 

Menards was valued by the city of Escanaba at $8 million. The company claimed the store was worth approximately $3.3 million. Menards compared the property to eight others in the area. The city objected that these properties were not comparable. Menards also asserted the building was functionally obsolete.  

The Michigan Tax Tribunal found in favor of Menards. But the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed this judgement on a finding that the property was not functionally obsolete.  

Ohio 

Meijer contested an assessment of a new property, arguing its value was $9.5 million rather than $13 million. The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals found the original tax assessment appropriate and the state supreme court affirmed.  

The supreme court described the issue as a “fundamental dispute” over valuation methodologies. The assessors compared the disputed space to similar, new spaces. Meijer claimed the new store did not add much market value since it was not adaptable to the needs of potential buyers. For this reason, they used several abandoned Kmarts for comparison. The courts found the new store was in a “growing and flourishing” location and could not be accurately compared to vacant buildings.  

Wisconsin  

This dispute involves assessing stores built under contract by third-party developers and then leased by retail stores. Walgreens maintained two locations with 60-year leases which obligated the company—rather than the developer/owner—to pay property taxes. The city of Madison considered Walgreens’ lease payments as a form of income (i.e., “income approach”). Walgreens argued those payments significantly exceeded market value because the lease payments reflected additional expenses associated with the initial sale-lease transaction including construction, land purchase and financing.  

Lower courts decided in the city’s favor, but the Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed. The court referred to Section 70.32(1) of the Wisconsin Statutes which stated properties should be assessed “in the manner specified in the Wisconsin property assessment manual.” This manual states the assessors should use market rent rather than contract rent. The justices concluded that the power to determine the appropriate methodology for valuing property for taxation purposes lies with the legislature. 

State Legislation Addressing Dark Store Theory 

The table below provides examples of legislation addressing dark store theory. Please note that this is not a comprehensive list. 

State Bill Status Summary 
Indiana Senate Bill 436 Passed 2015 Requires tax assessors to use the “cost approach” (what it would cost the property renter to build the store) in valuing big box stores over 50,000 square feet. 
Indiana House Bill 1290 Passed 2016 Reversed Senate Bill 436 
Michigan House Bill 5578 In Progress Proposes the establishment of detailed standards for the Michigan Tax Tribunal including restrictions on the use of vacant properties as comparables.  
New York Senate Bill S5715A Passed 2021 Established standards by which assessments should be made in order to assist court decision making. This legislation requires that comparable properties be similar in size, usage and location, among other characteristics.  
Texas House Bill 27 In Progress Proposes that for a property to be comparable for assessment, the property must have the “same highest and best use as the subject property.” This limits the use of vacant properties as comparables as these stores are not at their full potential. 
Wisconsin   s. 70.32(3)  Property must be valued using the actual or best information that the assessor can obtain at full value which could ordinarily be obtained at private sale.  

See Also: Shedding Light on Dark Stores