Category: State Talk

Voter registration rolls are the official record of all eligible voters in a state and are the foundation of free, fair and accurate elections. However, maintaining and updating voter rolls can be costly and inefficient.

The Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) is a non-profit, member-led organization established in 2012 to assist states in ensuring voter rolls are accurate and voting processes are accessible. Seven states—Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, Utah, Virginia and Washington—started the center with the help of The Pew Charitable Trusts. ERIC allows states to use state-of-the-art data matching technology with robust, widely accepted information security standards to identify inaccurate and outdated voter registration information.

Which states are part of ERIC, and why?

Since 2012, 25 states and Washington, D.C. have joined the seven founding states, bringing the total number of participants to 33.

The current members: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington state, Washington D.C., West Virginia and Wisconsin.

As part of their membership, participants agree to share voter registration and motor vehicle licensee data with one another. By sharing this data, states are able to determine if voters have moved out of state, have duplicate registrations in the state or have died. States can then update their voter rolls accordingly. In the case of a voter moving out of state, the pre-existing system requires that a voter notify the state that they have moved, or alternatively requires the state to follow the process outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Husted v. A Philip Randolph Institute (138 S.Ct. 1833, 2018). In this case, the court confirmed Ohio’s procedure of removing a voter from its rolls after (1) a failure to vote for two years, (2) a failure to return a notice card, and (3) a failure to vote for four additional years was sufficiently rigorous under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and its amended versions The goal is to collaboratively develop more efficient and effective mechanisms for collection and recording voter data.

What are the benefits of ERIC?

ERIC provides reports that can help states identify unregistered voters, save money and help detect and respond to voter fraud. Between 2012-2017, ERIC used the data collected and shared to identify 26 million eligible voters who had not yet registered. Member states were required to mail election information to these potential voters. The response rate was estimated to be 10-20%, according to The New York Times. In that same timeframe, ERIC identified more than 8.4 million inaccurate individual voter registrations.  

As a part of membership in ERIC, states are required to act on all reports in accordance with federal law. ERIC utilizes resources such as the Social Security Death Index and data from the United States Postal Service that non-member states must buy on their own. Moreover, ERIC membership results in less returned mail and a reduction in the number of provisional ballots on election day, which means shorter waits at polling places. Provisional ballots are often issued as a failsafe when a voter arrives at a polling location and is not on the precinct’s voter rolls. After the location closes, the polling location will work to establish the voter’s eligibility to vote at that location. States who are members of ERIC are able to more readily identify instances in which a voter has moved and thus has multiple voter registration records. This also allows states to easily notify voters that their voting precinct has changed, ensuring they are showing up to vote at the correct location.

Finally, member states may request a report identifying voters who appear to have voted twice within the state in the prior federal election, voted in more than one state in the prior federal election or who voted on behalf of a deceased voter in the prior federal election.

ERIC is a state member-led organization that is focused on improving voter list maintenance and helping states conduct free, fair and accurate elections. Their work helps ensure elections are conducted efficiently while also identifying voter fraud.

By Sandi Abdelshehed

The COVID-19 pandemic emphasized the need to close the digital divide and ensure broadband access empowers people to stay connected to services that are offered digitally, such as education and health care.

In an effort to highlight ways states can best plan for and invest in broadband access, the Economic and Workforce Health Subcommittee of The Council of State Governments Healthy States National Task Force issued a recommendation that “States should consider creating multi-stakeholder, multi-agency task forces (with the intent of permanent offices[BS1] [SA2] ) dedicated to broadband coordination that include private sector telecommunication companies and co-ops.”

The connection between broadband access and related public policy goals requires the involvement of public agencies and the private sector; departments of education, economic development and public health; offices of emergency services; and other stakeholders invested in broadband expansion and sustenance. Dedicated state broadband programs can ensure collaboration in the allocation of resources and efforts toward efficiently and effectively expanding broadband access. For example, statewide broadband programs can provide input on the development of a broadband framework, promote public-private sector participation, create broadband maps, administer and assist with funding programs and improve digital literacy. Since each state has its own broadband needs, the benchmark for broadband project success differs based on the state’s needs for speed and coverage and agreed upon timelines.

States can establish broadband programs in the form of offices, agencies or task forces.. Some states, such as California and Minnesota, have established statutory goals, while states such as North Carolina[BS3]  and Virginia, outlined their goals in broadband plans. These state programs are especially critical in the management of federal financial support for broadband in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

There are at least 35 states that established governance structures in statute. Florida established an Office of Broadband within the Department of Economic Opportunity’s Division of Community Development in July 2020. The office works with state and local government agencies, community organizations and private businesses to increase the availability and effectiveness of broadband throughout the state, specifically in small and rural communities. Through these partnerships, the office provides grant funding opportunities. Colorado formed a Broadband Office through the Governor’s Office of Information Technology in 2016. The broadband office oversees and coordinates activities across state agencies to enable the development of a statewide digital communications infrastructure through public-private partnerships. This is designed to fulfill the growing demand for broadband access in the key sectors of public safety, education, health care and transportation.

These state broadband programs are critical to closing the digital divide by ensuring that underserved and unserved areas and communities have affordable access to a high-speed, reliable network.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, Oct. 3.

This dispute began in 2007 when the Sacketts (private citizens) wanted to build a home on their property. The Environmental Protection Agency directed the Sacketts to halt construction because the property contained wetlands. The Clean Water Act gives the agency the authority to regulate “navigable waters”, which is defined in the act only as “waters of the United States.” The agency currently interprets its mandate to include protecting wetlands, such as marshes and swamps.

The Clean Water Act was passed by Congress in 1972 based on its power to “regulate commerce among the several states” under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The act is justified by the need to protect the environmental integrity of waterflows in the U.S., which are essential to commercial activity involving every state.

The question in this case is not whether the Clean Water Act is constitutional. Instead, the question is whether the agency can interpret “navigable waters” to include marshes in the absence of clear direction from Congress. The dispute comes from the fact that the wetlands here do not directly flow into another body of water and are therefore not an active part of interstate commerce.

It is a fundamental principle of American law that states cannot regulate an area of policy where the federal government already regulates. Therefore, if wetlands are under the authority of the federal government, they are not subject to overlapping state regulation. A decision, in this case curtailing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, would open the door for more state government decision making.

However, even though the federal government’s regulation of waterways is tied primarily to economic activity, it also is about refereeing disputes among states. Since the founding of the U.S., there has been concern about a state making decisions regulating a waterway within its borders that have implications for another state “downstream.”

This case, and its potentially dramatic implications, is reflected by the fact that twenty-six states collectively and Alaska individually have filed legal briefs supporting the Sacketts. “By construing the Clean Water Act to reach places with only tenuous connections to navigable, interstate waters,…[the Environmental Protection Agency] would saddle States with implementing a vast scheme of federal water regulation. States’ own efforts at conservation, tailored to local needs, would fall by the wayside.” 

But the division among the states is equally clear, as seventeen states and Washington D.C. collectively and Colorado individually, have filed legal briefs supporting the Environmental Protection Agency. “Each of the forty-eight contiguous States contains waters that are downstream from other States and thus relies on the [Clean Water Act’s] federal standards to protect their waters from pollutants that are discharged into wetlands in upstream States.”

Traditionally, the courts have given executive branch agencies a lot of leeway to interpret the will of Congress when statutory language is vague. This is known as “Chevron deference.” The Supreme Court ruled in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984 that when a statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to executive branch agency interpretation as long as it is reasonable. However, the Supreme Court has grown more skeptical of agency power and become less willing to defer. For example, last June 30 the court ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency in a case involving its exercise of regulatory power under the Clean Air Act.

During oral argument in Sacket v. Environmental Protection Agency on Oct. 3, the Sackett’s attorney told the court that navigable waters should be defined to only include waters that flow into other waters – therefore potentially involved in commercial activity. Several justices seemed concerned that if the agency could regulate a body of water, even if it did not connect to any other body of water, there would be no limit to the agency’s authority. There was extended discussion of whether it matters if two bodies of water are not connected but are adjacent to one another; or if the barrier between them is manufactured or natural. The justices also wondered about the implications for private landowners who might inadvertently violate federal policy as they develop their property.

But some of the justices seemed skeptical of the Sackett’s argument. For example, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that in the 50 years since the act was passed, the agency has consistently said wetlands and other waters are covered, even when they do not flow into other waters. Near the end of the argument, Justice Kavanaugh wondered whether bringing clarity to the language of the act was the responsibility of Congress rather than the courts.

Most of the justices seemed to be struggling with how to best achieve a balance between protecting U.S. waterways and protecting private property ownership. Interestingly, the government attorney noted to the justices that the Environmental Protection Agency was working on a new rule regarding navigable waters and wetlands that would clarify situations like the one at issue in this case. The goal is to issue the new rule by December.

It is impossible to predict what the court will do in any given case, but it may be that a new rule would further clarify the meaning of “navigable waters” thus allowing private citizens like the Sacketts to move forward in developing their property. The new rule could retain substantial portions of the agency’s authority over waterways. Such a rule may allow the Supreme Court to withdraw from the dispute, seeing it as already settled.

Please note The Council of State Governments (CSG) is a nonpartisan organization and therefore takes no position on state legislation or laws mentioned in linked material, nor does CSG endorse any third-party publications; resources are cited for information purposes only. CSG provides unbiased research that is based on evidence-informed and objective analysis.

Executive Summary

A growing number of states are implementing strategies to address unforeseen environmental and economic issues with managing the waste generated by solar panels. End-of-life care for solar panels and related equipment is complicated by the presence of environmental toxins (like cadmium and lead) and valuable resources (like silicon and silver). Due to the 20-30 year expected lifespan of solar panels, states are developing strategies for mitigating the financial loss and public health dangers associated with sending solar panel technology directly to landfills. These strategies include 1) the development of solar panel decommissioning boards that work with environmental protection agencies; and 2) requirements that commercial facilities produce decommissioning security bonds.

Method of Research

CSG conducted a 50-state scan of legislation enacted in current and past sessions using FiscalNote. This scan was conducted by searching for bills referencing “solar panel decommissioning,” “solar panel recycling” and other relevant key words. The bill number and summary have been included in the table below.

Findings and Analysis

At least 11 states have recently passed legislation related to solar panel waste. Common policies range from the formation of review committees that report on best practices for solar panel waste management to requirements that large-scale solar facilities submit securities, deposits or decommissioning plans prior to commercial operation. Most statewide policies focus on regulation of waste at the commercial level and place liability on the owners of facilities using solar panels. States like Maine also place additional taxes on solar panels used for small-scale home operations to account for recycling costs. It is important to note that many states handle specific waste and recycling procedures at the local level, so a survey of enacted legislation cannot entirely capture the diversity in policy initiatives.[1]

Enacted Legislation Regulating End-of-Life Solar Panel Care

Other Resources

• Environmental Protection Agency – End-of-Life Solar Panels: Regulations and Management
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory – Solar Photovoltaic Module Recycling: A Survey of U.S. Policies and Initiatives