Today's Brew summarizes the states requiring out-of-state travelers to self-quarantine + previews a California real estate tax initiative
------------------------------------------------------------

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

[link removed]

Welcome to the Friday, May 1, Brew. Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

* 20 states require out-of-state travelers to self-quarantine for 14 days
* California voters to decide real estate property tax initiative
* Federal appellate court rejects attempt to obtain refund of union fees paid before _Janus v. AFSCME_

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


** 20 STATES REQUIRE OUT-OF-STATE TRAVELERS TO SELF-QUARANTINE FOR 14 DAYS
------------------------------------------------------------

April showers bring May flowers. Let’s all hope for a better May.

It’s been 51 days since Alaska became the first state to impose restrictions on out-of-state travelers to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus. Since then, 19 more states have followed. On April 27, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) removed the requirement that travelers from Louisiana self-quarantine for two weeks, becoming the first governor to issue a modified travel restriction order. Abbott’s order continues to apply to travelers from five states and four cities.

Although the precise language in each state’s travel order varies, all require travelers to self-quarantine for 14 days. Some states require all out-of-state travelers to self-quarantine for two weeks, while other states require travelers from particular areas to do so.

* Thirteen states ([link removed]) require all out-of-state travelers to self-quarantine for 14 days.
* Seven states require travelers from particular cities or regions of the country to self-quarantine for 14 days.

All states with travel restrictions exempt essential workers and medically necessary travel. Of the 20 states with travel restrictions in place, eight have Democratic governors:

* Delaware
* Hawaii
* Kansas
* Kentucky
* Maine
* Montana
* New Mexico
* Rhode Island

The remaining 12 have Republican governors:

* Alaska
* Arizona
* Florida
* Idaho
* North Dakota
* Oklahoma
* South Carolina
* Texas
* Utah
* Vermont
* West Virginia
* Wyoming

Here are some other notable coronavirus-related updates since Thursday's _Brew_:

* Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) extended the state's stay-at-home order from April 30 to May 15.
* Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) extended the state’s stay at home order from May 4 to May 18.
* New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed an executive order to allow local initiative and referendum campaigns to collect and file signatures electronically.
* The Washington Supreme Court extended its restrictions on in-person proceedings and suspension of jury trials through July 6.

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]
------------------------------------------------------------


** CALIFORNIA VOTERS TO DECIDE REAL ESTATE PROPERTY TAX INITIATIVE
------------------------------------------------------------

On April 23, the California Secretary of State’s office announced that a real estate property tax initiative qualified for the Nov. 3 ballot after collecting about 1.14 million valid signatures. It’s the sixth measure to qualify for California’s November ballot.

The California Property Tax Transfers and Exemptions Initiative was developed by the California Association of Realtors (CAR). CAR was also behind a similar initiative (Proposition 5 ([link removed])) ) in 2018 that lost 60% to 40%.

THE BALLOT INITIATIVE WOULD INCREASE WAYS FOR ELIGIBLE HOMEOWNERS TO TRANSFER THEIR PROPERTY’S TAX ASSESSMENT TO A NEW HOME. The California Legislative Analyst (CLA) estimates that increased transfers would decrease local government revenue.

In California, properties are taxed at no more than 1% of their market value at the time of their purchase (with an exception for voter-approved taxes), and assessed value can increase each year based on the inflation rate, or 2%, whichever is lower. According to the CLA, a state agency responsible for providing fiscal and policy advice to the legislature, residential market values have increased faster than 2% per year in the state. Those who purchase a new home, then, could have higher tax bills on their new residence than they did on their old home — even if the new home has a similar or lower market value.

Unlike Proposition 5, the new ballot initiative would lead to more reassessments on inherited properties and when the ownership of business properties change. This is something that the legislative analyst expects to increase local government revenue.

OVERALL, CAR’S 2020 BALLOT INITIATIVE IS ESTIMATED TO INCREASE LOCAL REVENUE BY A FEW HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. PROPOSITION 5 WOULD HAVE DECREASED LOCAL REVENUE BY TWO BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.

Through April 17, CAR has raised $12.15 million from CAR and the National Association of Realtors. In 2018, the Proposition 5 campaign received $13.22 million, a majority of which was from those same two groups.

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


** FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT REJECTS ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN REFUND OF UNION FEES PAID BEFORE JANUS V. AFSCME
------------------------------------------------------------

On April 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected an appeal from two Connecticut state employees seeking refunds from their unions for dues they paid before the Supreme Court's 2018 _Janus v. AFSCME_ ruling. In that decision, the Court ruled mandatory union fees violated public employees' First Amendment rights.

Judges Jose Cabranes, Raymond Lohier, and Christina Reiss unanimously upheld a U.S. district court's decision that the union had acted in good faith, and in accordance with existing precedent, in collecting fees before _Janus _and was not bound to issue refunds. Writing for the court, Reiss said, "We hold that a party who complied with directly controlling Supreme Court precedent in collecting fair-share fees cannot be held liable for monetary damages under § 1983."

Subscribers to our _Union Station_ newsletter heard about this story in last week's edition. Click here ([link removed]) to sign up and get the next version in your inbox later this afternoon.

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]
.