How Alabama handled school reopenings following the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic + a U.S. Senate committee approves REINS Act
------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------

[link removed]

Welcome to the Tuesday, July 28, Brew. Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

* School reopenings in 1918
* U.S. Senate committee approves REINS Act
* Oil and gas ballot measures won't appear on Colorado ballot

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

 
** SCHOOL REOPENINGS IN 1918
------------------------------------------------------------

As the beginning of the school year approaches, we’re bringing you updates on the status of public school reopening plans ([link removed]) by state.  We provide detailed information about these plans in both our _Coronavirus Weekly Update ([link removed]) _ and _Documenting America’s Path to Recovery ([link removed]) _ newsletters. 

As the pandemic has unfolded, we’ve been interested in its historical context of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. Earlier this year, we focused our look back on how elections were handled during that cycle. With all of the attention lately on schools, we thought it would be interesting to dig a bit into how schools were handled in 1918. Here’s an excerpt from last Thursday’s weekly update ([link removed]) newsletter discussing how Alabama handled school reopenings in 1918:

On Oct. 30, _The Birmingham News_ reported that Alabama schools would be reopening soon, after having been closed for a number of weeks in response to the influenza pandemic.

_“Practically all schools of the State will reopen Monday after having been closed for several weeks on account of the influenza epidemic, according to State Superintendent of Education Spright Dowell, who passed through Birmingham Wednesday en route to Colbert County. _

_Mr. Dowel said that the influenza had caused closing of all schools in the State except in four or five counties. However, no time would be lost as the teachers have been doing their State reading circle work. He gave several different ways in which the time would be made up by the pupils. One of the most practical, he suggested, would be to teach one hour later in the afternoons, do some work on Saturday and cut the holiday time down usually taken for Christmas. One county, he said, instead of taking 10 days for Christmas holidays as is the custom, would only take two days this year.”_

Click here to read the original article, courtesy of the University of Michigan Center for the History of Medicine and Michigan Publishing's Influenza Encyclopedia. ([link removed])

Speaking of school reopenings, we asked you on Friday ([link removed]) about how closely you’ve been following the school reopening plans in your area. Here are the results:

[School openings]

Find out the status of your state’s reopening plan—click the link below.

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

 
** U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE APPROVES REINS ACT
------------------------------------------------------------

On July 22, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs voted 8-5 to send the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act) to the full U.S. Senate for a vote without offering any amendments.

In case you didn’t catch it in our post last week on _Ballotpedia News ([link removed]) _, here’s a quick rundown about the REINS Act.

*
The REINS Act is a proposal designed to amend the Congressional Review Act ([link removed]) (CRA) of 1996. 

*
Under the CRA, Congress has the authority to issue resolutions of disapproval to block new agency regulations.

*
The REINS Act would broaden the CRA not only to allow Congress to issue resolutions of disapproval, but also to require congressional approval of major agency regulations before those regulations go into effect. 

*
The REINS Act defines major regulations as those that have annual economic effects of $100 million or more, that increase consumer prices, or that have significant harmful effects on the economy.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the REINS Act in the Senate for the 116th Congress. Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) introduced a companion version of the REINS Act in the U.S. House. Members of Congress have introduced versions of the REINS Act since the 112th Congress (2011-2013).

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

 
** OIL AND GAS BALLOT MEASURES WON'T APPEAR ON COLORADO BALLOT
------------------------------------------------------------

On July 24, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) announced he would oppose all oil and gas related measures in 2020 and 2022 in order to allow Senate Bill 181 of 2019 to take full effect. SB 181 would change the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, create "additional public welfare protections," and implement new rules related to oil and gas operations. 

Several groups sponsoring potential initiatives announced they were ending their initiative campaigns: 

*
Initiative #284 ([link removed]) would have prohibited laws limiting use and installation of natural gas. Protect Colorado sponsored it.

*
Initiative #304 ([link removed]) would have required fiscal impact statements to appear on the ballot for future initiatives. Protect Colorado also sponsored it.

*
Initiative #312 ([link removed]) would have prohibited the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from amending or repealing certain rules—including those regarding safety, aesthetics and noise control, reporting, and emissions. 

Initiative #174 ([link removed]) also won’t be on the November ballot. It would have created distance setbacks for new oil, gas, and fracking projects in the vicinity of occupied buildings. The campaign ceased signature gathering on July 2 after the Colorado Supreme Court blocked Polis' executive order allowing remote signature gathering.

Polis said, "In recent years, those conflicts [between the oil and gas industry and environmental groups] resulted in expensive, divisive fights at the ballot box and the courtroom, which did not satisfy homeowners, environmentalists, or the oil and gas industry. There are no real winners in these fights, and for most of this election season it looked like we might see another round of the oil and gas ballot wars in 2020. But today, I’m very proud to report that we have a path before us to make those divisive oil and gas ballot fights a thing of the past."

The executive director of Colorado Rising, a group that self-describes as challenging ([link removed]) “the power of the oil and gas industry,” responded ([link removed]) to Polis’ comments: “I don’t know what he means by a truce...We are keeping everything on the table — we are not saying yes and we are not saying no.”

Likewise, Protect Colorado said ([link removed]) that if environmental groups propose restrictions on drilling, Protect Colorado will “respond if adverse measures are filed or regulations are advanced that don’t reflect a collaborative process.”

A $50-million battle largely between oil and gas interests and environmental groups took place in 2018 over two ballot initiatives, both of which were defeated:

*
Proposition 112 would have required minimum setbacks for oil and gas development.

*
Amendment 74 would have required that property owners be compensated for any reduction in property value caused by state laws or regulations.

To get an initiative on the November ballot, proponents need to collect 124,632 valid signatures by the Aug. 3 deadline. The remaining 13 initiatives that were cleared for signature gathering concern a variety of topics including elections, taxes, education, gambling, and paid family and medical leave.

As of July 24, seven statewide ballot measures are certified to appear on Colorado’s November ballot.

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] )
.