Welcome to the Monday, June 22, Brew. Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

1. Louisiana parishes to vote on whether to allow sports betting
2. 42 states place limits on who can challenge agency actions in court
3. Massie, McMurtry face off in Republican primary in Kentucky's 4th District June 23

Louisiana parishes to vote on whether to allow sports betting

Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards (D) signed Senate Bill 130 (SB 130) on June 12 that will enable voters in each of the state’s 64 parishes to decide on November 3 whether or not to authorize sports betting within that parish. If a majority of voters in a parish approve sports betting, it would be allowed in that parish after the state passes laws providing for its regulation. In Louisiana, parishes are comparable to counties in other states.

In 2018, Louisiana’s state legislature approved legislation authorizing each of the state’s parishes to decide on legalizing fantasy sports contests. The state House approved the bill, 67-23, and the state Senate approved it, 21-15. The legislation allowed the Louisiana Gaming Control Board to license and regulate fantasy sports contests. Forty-seven parishes voted to approve fantasy sports contests and 17 parishes voted not to allow them.

The Louisiana legislature can refer a statutory measure to the ballot by a majority vote of both chambers along with the governor's approval. The state Senate passed the bill by a vote of 29-8, with 21 Republicans and 8 Democrats voting in favor and six Republicans and two Democrats voting against. The state House approved the bill 71-23 with 44 Republicans, 26 Democrats, and two independents voting 'yes' and 18 Republicans and 5 Democrats voting 'no.'

In May 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Murphy v. NCAA that the federal government could not require states to prohibit sports betting and overturned the federal ban on sports betting as specified in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. This decision allowed individual states to legalize sports betting.

In November, Maryland voters will decide a measure that would authorize sports and events wagering at certain licensed facilities with state revenue intended to fund public education. South Dakota voters will also vote on a legislatively referred constitutional amendment designed to legalize sports betting within the city limits of Deadwood, South Dakota.

Twenty-two states have passed laws legalizing sports betting, as shown in the map below:

Learn more

       

---

42 states place limits on who can challenge agency actions in court

Ballotpedia's Administrative State Project has been reviewing all 50 state constitutions and administrative procedures acts in an ongoing series analyzing the scope of state-level administrative procedures. This series highlights differences in the administrative state across the country. Today, I’m sharing the results of an analysis looking at whether states place limits on who can challenge the outcome of agency adjudication actions in court.

Forty-two states place at least some limits on access to state courts to challenge agency actions. Most states require that a person be an aggrieved party to an agency decision in order to pursue relief in the courts. An aggrieved party is generally anyone who is injured or suffers damages as a result of an action or decision. This includes those involved in the case and anyone who is adversely affected by the agency's decision.

Agency adjudication is a quasi-judicial process that takes place in the executive branch of the state government instead of the judicial branch. Often, the procedural protections associated with adjudication are different from those found in a traditional courtroom setting. State constitutional provisions declaring state courts open to those who suffer injuries might not apply to all actions by state agencies.

To learn more about certain state-level procedural rights, or to determine whether there are limits on who can challenge agency adjudication actions in court in your state, I invite you to learn more by clicking the link below.

Massie, McMurtry face off in Republican primary in Kentucky's 4th District June 23

We're continuing our previews of some of the battleground elections taking place on June 23 with a look at the Republican primary in Kentucky's 4th Congressional District in the northern part of the state. Incumbent Thomas Massie and Todd McMurtry are facing one another.

This is Massie's first contested primary since he was elected in 2012. Both candidates are focusing on how they would or have supported President Donald Trump (R) and how their opponent would not. Trump received 65% of the vote in the 4th District in the 2016 presidential election.

Media coverage of the race increased at the end of March following Massie's opposition to a voice vote rather than a recorded vote on the CARES Act, a $2 trillion measure in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Massie defended his objection by saying in an interview on Fox News, "if we're going to pass the biggest spending bill in the history of mankind ... people should go on record for this." McMurtry's tweet about the event said, “His [Massie's] top priority is to make himself the purest Libertarian politician in the House while failing to deliver results for Kentuckians."

According to campaign finance reports, Massie had raised $1,144,000 and McMurtry $349,000 through June 3. The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, and Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball all rate the general election as Safe or Solid Republican.

Governor Andy Beshear (D) and Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) postponed Kentucky's primary election from May 19 to June 23 in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Beshear also issued an executive order directing all residents to vote by mail if they're able to do so. Cincinnati.com reported that Beshear has said fewer voting locations would be open to limit in-person spread of the coronavirus and reduce the need for poll workers. Politico reported that Adams said less than 200 polling places will be open statewide for those voting in person, as compared with approximately 3,700 places in a usual year.

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.