Today's Brew highlights those states that are considering legislation in response to the coronavirus outbreak + updates a recall effort of three municipal officials in California
------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------

[link removed]

Welcome to the Tuesday, March 24, Brew. Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

* Coronavirus update: States consider legislation in response to the coronavirus pandemic
* Recall effort rejected in Bell Gardens, California
* Join today’s briefing on the Supreme Court

_Updates on stories related to the coronavirus outbreak are current through Monday afternoon. Click here for the latest news ([link removed]) ._
------------------------------------------------------------


** CORONAVIRUS UPDATE: STATES CONSIDER LEGISLATION IN RESPONSE TO THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC
------------------------------------------------------------

Government reactions to the coronavirus situation are not limited to the federal level. State lawmakers nationwide have taken action on legislation in response to the coronavirus outbreak. With the help of our friends at BillTrack50 ([link removed]) , we are compiling information on all of that legislation.

AS OF MARCH 23, 2020, LEGISLATURES IN 29 STATES AND WASHINGTON, D.C., HAD TAKEN UP 184 BILLS RELATED TO COVID-19. Lawmakers in New Jersey had taken up 30 relevant bills, more than any other state and 16% of the nationwide total.

Of the 184 introduced bills, 27 significant bills—or 15%—had been enacted into law. Significant bills include all legislative actions apart from ceremonial resolutions and procedural changes. New Jersey had enacted seven related bills, more than any other state and 26% of the nationwide total.

The following states and jurisdictions had enacted significant legislation related to the outbreak (the number of enacted bills is listed parenthetically): Alaska (1), Alabama (1), California (2), Massachusetts (3), Maryland (3), Maine (1), Minnesota (2), New Jersey (7), New York (2), South Carolina (1), Washington (3), and Washington, D.C. (1).

One of the ways that governors have been responding is to order shutdowns or shelter-in-place directives.

The states shaded blue in the map below are under statewide orders as of 3:00 pm E.T. on March 23 for residents to shelter-in-place or stay-at-home. Statewide executive orders issued in response to the coronavirus pandemic commonly do at least two things: they close nonessential businesses and call for workers in a critical industry to continue working. The exact definitions of nonessential businesses and critical industries vary from state to state:

Additionally, here are other notable coronavirus-related updates since Monday's Brew:

* President Donald Trump (R) announced that the Federal Emergency Management Agency would fund the activation of U.S. National Guard units in California, New York, and Washington.
* Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves (R) postponed the March 31 Republican primary runoff election for the state's 2nd Congressional District to June 23.
* Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb (R), Secretary of State Connie Lawson (R), Republican Party Chairman Kyle Hupfer, and Democratic Party Chairman John Zody announced the postponement of Indiana's May 5 primary election to June 2.
* The Democratic Party of Hawaii announced that it would not conduct in-person voting in its party-administered presidential preference primary, originally scheduled for April 4, 2020. Instead, all voting would take place by mail.
* California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) issued an executive order providing for all-mail voting for the 25th Congressional District special general election and the 28th State Senate District special general election, both scheduled for May 12.
* The Democratic Party of Puerto Rico announced that its April 26 presidential preference primary was postponed.
* Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo (D) announced that she would sign an executive order postponing Rhode Island's April 28 presidential preference primary to June 2.

Learn more ([link removed])

mailto:?&[email protected]&subject=Check out this info I found from Ballotpedia&body=[link removed] [blank] [link removed]'s%20Daily%20Brew [blank] [blank] [link removed]
------------------------------------------------------------
[blank][link removed]
------------------------------------------------------------


** RECALL EFFORT REJECTED IN BELL GARDENS, CALIFORNIA
------------------------------------------------------------

In regular election news, here’s a small story from California about a local recall attempt.

Recalls of local officials in California start with notices of intent (NOI) to targeted officials. Each notice requires signatures from 10 city residents, the name of the targeted official, and reasoning for the recall that cannot exceed 200 words. A copy of the notice is delivered to the city clerk, who publishes the notice in at least three public places. Targeted officials have seven days following receipt of their notices to issue statements of defense. A recall petition can be circulated against each targeted official once the NOI is published. Recall efforts can be restarted from the beginning of the process if NOIs are rejected.

The Bell Gardens, California city clerk rejected an effort to recall Mayor Alejandra Cortez and city council members Pedro Aceituno and Marco Barcena. The notices were dismissed on the grounds that they did not include Section 11023 of the Elections Code, which covers the handling of statements of defense. Recall organizers submitted notices of intent to recall in late February.

Citizens initiated the recall effort in response to issues surrounding real estate development and cannabis businesses.

Aceituno was elected to the city council in a 1999 recall election that saw the removal of Mayor Joaquin Penilla, Mayor Pro Tem David Torres, and Councilman Salvador Rios. Aceituno received the most votes to replace Torres.

So far this year, BALLOTPEDIA HAS IDENTIFIED 50 RECALL EFFORTS AGAINST 79 ELECTED OFFICIALS. Forty-five of those are county or city officials, 24 are school board members, six are state executives, and four are state legislators. Sixteen of the recall efforts are in California.

In 2019, Ballotpedia covered 151 recall efforts against 230 elected officials. OF THE 66 OFFICIALS WHOSE RECALLS MADE IT TO THE BALLOT, 34 WERE RECALLED FOR A RATE OF 52%. That was lower than the 63% rate and 57% rate for 2018 and 2017 recalls, respectively.


Learn more→ ([link removed]))
------------------------------------------------------------


** JOIN TODAY’S BRIEFING ON THE SUPREME COURT
------------------------------------------------------------

While the Supreme Court postponed oral arguments due to the coronavirus outbreak, it is still holding conferences and issued opinions in four cases yesterday. The court has heard oral arguments in 48 cases this term.

Do you want to take a look at where things stand with the Supreme Court at this point in its term? JOIN STAFF WRITERS KATE CARSELLA, SARA REYNOLDS, AND ME TO DISCUSS WHAT’S HAPPENED SO FAR AND SOME KEY CASES THAT THE COURT WILL ISSUE OPINIONS ON IN THE WEEKS AHEAD.

Are you familiar with the terms per curiam and original jurisdiction as they apply to the Supreme Court? If not, this is the perfect briefing for you! We’ll be discussing all of that and more starting at 11 a.m. CT, and you don’t want to miss it. You can register for the webinar by clicking here ([link removed]) , and if you can’t attend live, that’s ok! We’ll send you a link to the recording after the briefing is over.

And we just published another edition yesterday of _Bold Justice_—our newsletter about the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. It covers all the goings-on at the highest court in the land, as well as info about vacancies, nominations, and confirmations of federal judges nationwide. You can subscribe to this free newsletter here ([link removed]) , which also contains links to read yesterday’s issue.

Learn more→ ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------

BALLOTPEDIA DEPENDS ON THE SUPPORT OF OUR READERS.

The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns.


Click here to support our work ([link removed])

------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
** Follow on Twitter ([link removed])
** Friend on Facebook ([link removed])
_Copyright © 2020, All rights reserved._

OUR MAILING ADDRESS IS:

Ballotpedia
8383 Greenway Blvd
Suite 600
Middleton, WI 53562
Decide which emails you want from Ballotpedia.
** Unsubscribe ( [link removed] )
or ** update subscription preferences ( [link removed] )
.