Procedural rights: States that place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication (2020)

This survey is part of a series of 50-state surveys examining the five pillars key to understanding the administrative state |
Administrative State |
---|
![]() |
Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
•Agency control • Executive control • Judicial control •Legislative control • Public Control |
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
Disclaimer:
The research presented on this page was completed in 2020. It has not been regularly updated since its completion. This page is likely outdated and may be incomplete.
This Ballotpedia article is in need of updates. Please email us if you would like to suggest a revision. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
This page contains information from a 2020 Ballotpedia survey about administrative due process and procedural rights. Ballotpedia reviewed the 50 state constitutions and administrative procedures acts (APAs) to determine which states place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication.
Placing the burden of proof on administrative agencies requires them to shoulder the responsibility of establishing the merits of their claims during adjudication.
Because state administrative agencies are not part of the judicial branch of government, adjudication proceedings before them do not necessarily afford the same procedural protections as in a courtroom trial. Ballotpedia conducted this survey in 2020 to see whether states give agencies the responsibility of proving their cases.
Understanding adjudication procedures provides insight into due process procedural rights of citizens at the state level. Procedural rights is one of the five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state.
According to the Ballotpedia survey, 2 state APAs placed the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication, as of November 2020. No state constitutions placed the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication at that time.
This page features the following sections:
- Background and methodology
- Summary of key findings
- Table showing states that place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication
Background and methodology
Background
For this survey, Ballotpedia examined whether states place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication. Placing the burden of proof on administrative agencies requires them to shoulder the responsibility of establishing the merits of their claims during adjudication.
For instance, Hawaii placed "the burden of proof, including the burden of producing evidence as well as the burden of persuasion" on the party who initiates an adjudication proceeding, as of 2020. Under Hawaii's rules at that time, the burden of proof could fall on the agency or the regulated party.[1]
In Kentucky, by contrast, agencies had "the burden to show the propriety of a penalty imposed or the removal of a benefit previously granted," as of 2020.[2]
Methodology
Ballotpedia examined all 50 state constitutions and Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) to see whether states place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication. Ballotpedia reviewed each provision involving agency adjudication to see whether states included such provisions.
In 2020, Ballotpedia concluded that Kentucky and North Carolina placed the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication because provisions in their APAs described certain cases in which agencies have the burden of proof. In most other states, the state APA placed the burden of proof on whoever initiated adjudication proceedings—either the state agency or a regulated person or business.
Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) govern the procedures state administrative agencies must follow to issue regulations and adjudicate disputes. The particular procedures outlined in each APA vary among the 50 states.
Other state laws might place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication but those were beyond the scope of this survey.
To see the specific legal provisions Ballotpedia used to categorize each state, click here.
Summary of findings
Ballotpedia's survey of state constitutions and APAs produced the following key takeaways (as of November 2020):
- 2 states had APAs with provisions that place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication as of 2020.
- 48 states had APAs and constitutions that do not appear to place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication as of 2020.
Results: States that place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication
The table below includes each state in alphabetical order and indicates those that had specific provisions in their constitutions or APAs that placed the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication in 2020.
means that the state APA or constitution placed the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication
means that the state APA or constitution did not place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication
Other state laws that might place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication were beyond the scope of this survey.
State | Constitution or APA provisions that place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication |
---|---|
Alabama | ![]() |
Alaska | ![]() |
Arizona | ![]() |
Arkansas | ![]() |
California | ![]() |
Colorado | ![]() |
Connecticut | ![]() |
Delaware | ![]() |
Florida | ![]() |
Georgia | ![]() |
Hawaii | ![]() |
Idaho | ![]() |
Illinois | ![]() |
Indiana | ![]() |
Iowa | ![]() |
Kansas | ![]() |
Kentucky | ![]() |
Louisiana | ![]() |
Maine | ![]() |
Maryland | ![]() |
Massachusetts | ![]() |
Michigan | ![]() |
Minnesota | ![]() |
Mississippi | ![]() |
Missouri | ![]() |
Montana | ![]() |
Nebraska | ![]() |
Nevada | ![]() |
New Hampshire | ![]() |
New Jersey | ![]() |
New Mexico | ![]() |
New York | ![]() |
North Carolina | ![]() |
North Dakota | ![]() |
Ohio | ![]() |
Oklahoma | ![]() |
Oregon | ![]() |
Pennsylvania | ![]() |
Rhode Island | ![]() |
South Carolina | ![]() |
South Dakota | ![]() |
Tennessee | ![]() |
Texas | ![]() |
Utah | ![]() |
Vermont | ![]() |
Virginia | ![]() |
Washington | ![]() |
West Virginia | ![]() |
Wisconsin | ![]() |
Wyoming | ![]() |
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Hawaii Revised Statutes, TITLE 8. PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS AND RECORDS, 91. Administrative Procedure, 91-10 Rules of evidence; official notice.," accessed November 12, 2020
- ↑ JUSTIA, "2019 Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 13B - Administrative hearings, 13B.090 Findings of fact, Evidence, Recording of hearing, Burdens of proof," accessed November 23, 2020