Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

The Policy Tracker: February 2016

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Public Policy-Main-Masthead.png

The Public Policy Project on Ballotpedia produces a weekly Policy Tracker to report on major national and state policy news, covering budgets, civil liberties, education, elections, energy and the environment, healthcare, and pensions. This page contains national and state policy stories from February 2016.

February 29, 2016

Recent developments regarding the Affordable Care Act

Click to learn more about the Affordable Care Act.
  • On February 24, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced it will begin requiring documentation as proof for some life changes that allow individuals to sign up for health insurance outside of the open enrollment period on the federal exchange, Healthcare.gov. Previously, no proof of one's life event was required, and health insurance companies said the system was being abused and "distorting the risk pool." CMS will now require proof of a loss of coverage, a permanent move, a birth or adoption, or a marriage in order for an individual to qualify for a special enrollment period.[1]
The announcement comes after three of the major health insurers reported losses on the health insurance exchanges for 2015, which were reflected in fourth-quarter profit declines for the companies. Humana's profits fell by 30 percent in the final quarter of 2015, while UnitedHealth's fell by 19 percent and Anthem's by 64 percent. The companies said enrollees were sicker than expected, leading to a larger number of claims and greater medical costs. In December 2015, A.M. Best—a rating agency for the insurance industry—downgraded the outlook for the exchanges from 'stable' to 'negative,' citing the declines in profits and higher premium rates. Its press release noted: "While the exchange enrollment represents just a small percentage of many carriers' enrollment and revenues, the impact on earnings has been meaningful."[2][3][4][5]
  • Health Republic Insurance of Oregon, one of the 12 failed co-ops established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), filed a class-action lawsuit against the federal government for failing to provide the risk corridor payments promised to insurers by the law. The risk corridor payments were intended to stabilize insurers during the implementation of the ACA, but last year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced insurers would only be receiving 12.6 percent of the requested payments for the 2014 plan year. Many of the co-ops were counting on the payments to remain financially solvent; consequently, they closed at the end of the year. The lawsuit claims that insurers are owed $5 billion in payments and damages by the federal government and that "[t]he money could have helped it and others stay open."
The co-ops were intended to be a new type of nonprofit health insurance company to offer insurance on the exchanges and compete with the larger health insurance companies. In total, 23 co-ops were established using $2.4 billion in low-interest federal loans. To boost enrollment, many of the co-ops offered low premiums, but they suffered losses when their enrollment then grew too quickly to build enough revenue to cover medical costs. By the end of 2015, half of the co-ops had closed, and uncertainty remains over repayment of the loans.[6][7]

Michigan Legislature, governor approve $30 million Flint aid package

Click to learn more about the Flint drinking water crisis and the federal safe drinking water laws.

On February 23, 2016, the Michigan State Legislature passed a bill providing Flint, Michigan, with $30 million to offset residents’ water bills due to the city’s drinking water crisis. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the bill on February 26, calling it a "testament to the state's continued commitment to helping during this crisis." The bill brings the state's total emergency funding for Flint to $70 million.[8][9]

Around 9,000 residents have not been paying their bills since the crisis began, while 21,000 residents have been paying. Residents would pay for other water costs unrelated to drinking water, such as flushing toilets or washing clothes.[8][9]

Democratic senators said the state should pay for more of the residents' bills and proposed amendments to increase the funding to $60 million, but these proposals were rejected by the Republican-controlled state Senate.[8][9]

In 2014, the city of Flint switched from using Detroit's water supply to using water from the Flint River. High levels of harmful chemicals were found in drinking water from the Flint River in 2015, and a state of emergency in Flint was declared by state and federal officials in January 2016.[10]

Virginia's voter ID requirement challenged in federal court

Click to learn more about voting in Virginia.

On February 22, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, a trial commenced to determine the validity of Virginia's photo voter identification law. The suit challenging the law was brought by the Virginia Democratic Party, which has argued that the law unduly—and unconstitutionally—burdens black, Latino and young voters. Attorneys for state officials have argued that the requirement constitutes a reasonable effort to prevent voter fraud and maintain election integrity. Judge Henry Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, is presiding over the case. The court's decision will not impact the state's presidential primary, which is scheduled to take place on March 1, 2013.[11][12][13]

Bruce Spiva, an attorney representing state Democrats, argued in his opening statement that the law produced "irrational hoops that people have to jump through," having a "disproportional impact on people of color." Mike Hearne, an independent attorney for the state, dismissed this claim, saying, "It is impossible to show a suppressive effect on minorities from the photo ID law."[12]

Approved in 2013, Virginia's photo ID law requires all voters to present a valid form of photo identification at the polls. If a voter is unable to produce a valid form of ID, he or she is required to cast a provisional ballot. The law took effect on July 1, 2014. As of February 2016, 33 states enforced voter identification requirements. A total of 19 states, including Virginia, required voters to present photo ID, while 14 accepted other forms of identification.[11][12][13]

February 22, 2016

Oklahoma Supreme Court upholds school voucher program

Click to learn more about school choice in Oklahoma.

In an Oklahoma lawsuit against state-awarded school vouchers for students with disabilities, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the program on February 16. The voucher program provided state funds to students with disabilities to attend the private school of their choice, "including religious schools." The lawsuit argued that the program violated the state constitution, which prohibits direct or indirect state aid for religious institutions. The court ruled that because the school is chosen by the parent and not the state, the program does not equate to state involvement in religion.[14]

Multiple states have seen challenges to school voucher programs on similar grounds. In July 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Douglas County School District's voucher program unconstitutional for providing "public funds to religious schools." The district, joined together with the Colorado Department of Education, petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the case in October 2015; the court has not yet decided whether to grant certiorari. Earlier this year, a judge in Nevada put the state's program of educational savings accounts on hold while a lawsuit against the program progresses through the courts. That lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, alleging the program "violates the Nevada Constitution’s prohibition against the use of public money for sectarian (religious) purposes."[15][16][17][18]

In Oklahoma, the court's ruling could open the doors for the adoption of a wider education savings account program, which is currently being considered by the state legislature. On the day before the court's ruling, the Oklahoma House Common Education Committee passed a bill that would authorize such a program.[19]

Sierra Club sues energy companies over earthquakes in Oklahoma

Click to learn more about climate change and the Clean Power Plan.

The Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against three energy companies in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The environmental group alleges that the energy companies' use of injection wells to store wastewater from fracking operations has led to an increase in earthquakes (also known as seismicity). According to the suit, earthquakes increased from an average high of 167 quakes per year (from 1977 to 2009) to 5,800 earthquakes in 2015. The same day, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which regulates the state's oil and gas industry, asked injection well operators to reduce the amount of water injected by 40 percent across almost 250 injection wells.[20][21]

Oklahoma has seen an increase in the number of earthquakes it experiences, especially in the number of earthquakes with a magnitude of 3.5 or greater. As of October 2014, the rate of 3.0-magnitude earthquakes was 300 times higher than in previous decades. A 2014 USGS-funded study looked at one of these earthquakes, a 5.6-magnitude earthquake from November 6, 2011, that "was the largest earthquake in Oklahoma’s recorded history."[22] This earthquake was part of a series of earthquakes—known as the Prague earthquake sequence—that occurred in November 2011. The USGS study about the 5.6-magnitude quake found that a wastewater injection well may have caused the foreshock that later led to the earthquake. In response to this and other earthquakes, "oil and gas officials [in Oklahoma] have stiffened monitoring requirements for certain disposal well operators." According to The New York Times, "Oklahoma Geological Survey said it 'considers it very likely' that the practice is causing most of the shaking." This acknowledgment led to the debut of an earthquake mapping tool, which is available here.[23][24][25][26][27]

Patients file lawsuit in Washington state against Medicaid denials of costly prescription drugs

Click here to learn more about Medicaid spending in Washington.

On February 17, a federal class-action lawsuit was filed in Washington state against the state's Medicaid policy of denying coverage of costly drugs for hepatitis C until patients have advanced liver damage. Sovaldi and Harvoni are newly developed drugs that have a 90 percent cure rate for hepatitis C, but cost $84,000 to $95,000 for a course of treatment. The complaint argues that "It is unlawful to withhold prescription drugs that cure a disease from Medicaid beneficiaries based on the cost of those drugs." Purchasing the drugs for every Medicaid patient with hepatitis C would present a budgetary challenge for the state, which estimates that this policy change would cost $3 billion per year, about 29 percent of its 2014 Medicaid budget.[28][29]

A similar lawsuit was filed against Medicaid last year in Indiana, and three lawsuits have been filed against prison systems in Massachusetts, Minnesota and Pennsylvania for similar reasons. A study published last August in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that Medicaid programs in 34 states restrict coverage of Sovaldi to patients with some form of liver damage.[30][31]

Gilead Sciences, the maker of Sovaldi and Harvoni, has faced nationwide backlash for its pricing of the drugs; the company received a letter from the Massachusetts attorney general's office in late January warning the company to lower its prices or face legal action. The letter indicated that the state was considering filing a lawsuit against the company, alleging that the prices of Sovaldi and Harvoni "may constitute an unfair trade practice in violation of Massachusetts law." Gilead says that its prices are fair based on the drugs' effectiveness and that the drugs will "save the healthcare system much more money in the long run, by preventing liver transplants and cancer."[30][32][33]

New Mexico State Legislature approves voting for 17-year-olds in primary elections

Click to learn more about voting in New Mexico.

On February 17, 2016, the New Mexico State Senate approved legislation that would permit 17-year-olds to vote in primary elections. The law would apply only to those individuals who are 17 years old at the time of the primary, but who will be 18 years old at the time of the general election. The bill, which was introduced by Sen. Mark Moores (R), passed the Senate by a 24-16 vote. Earlier in February, the bill passed the New Mexico House of Representatives by a 41-26 vote. The bill, which passed both chambers with bipartisan support, was sent to Governor Susana Martinez (R) for her signature after clearing the Senate. If Martinez signs the bill into law, it will take effect in 2018.[34][35]

Rep. Jeff Steinborn (D), who sponsored the bill in the House, said, "I'm excited for the young people who will be affected by this and have a voice. It's also nice that it will happen for many while they are in high school." Sen. Lisa Torraco (R), who opposed the bill, said, "There is a reason why we don't let 17 and a half year olds vote. That's because their brains haven't fully matured."[34][35]

In 15 states, 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the time of the next general election are permitted to vote in that year's congressional primaries. In 21 states, 17-year-olds may have the same option for presidential primaries and caucuses, though rules can differ from party to party within a state.[34][35]

February 16, 2016

Kansas Supreme Court finds public school block grants inequitable

Click to learn more about public education in Kansas.

On February 11, 2016, the Kansas Supreme Court issued an opinion that struck down the state legislature's use of block grants to fund state public schools, finding that appropriations were inequitably distributed between districts. The court ordered the legislature to find a way to fix the funding inequities by June 30 of this year, warning that a failure to act could determine whether "the schoolhouse doors will be open" in the 2016-2017 school year.[36][37]

The issue of adequate and equitable public school funding in Kansas dates back to 2010, when four school districts filed a lawsuit against the state's school funding system in response to cuts by the legislature. In 2014, after the state supreme court affirmed the finding of a three-judge district court panel that the funding system was inequitable, the legislature enacted legislation to restore funding. The panel found the plan to satisfy the court's requirements.[38]

However, after funding requirements were found to be higher than initially estimated, new legislation was passed in 2015 that scrapped the 2014 formula and instituted a system of relatively fixed block grants. The block grants were meant to freeze funding while a new funding formula was developed over the following two years. The plaintiffs in the original suit requested the panel to review the formula, and in June 2015, the panel ruled the block grants unconstitutional. The Kansas Supreme Court issued its February 11 opinion on an appeal of the panel's ruling by the state attorney general.[36][37][38]

The Kansas Supreme Court had previously threatened closure of the state's public schools in 2005, when "lawmakers failed to comply with its order to double the amount of education funding." The closure was averted with "legislation passed during a special session" three days before the court's deadline.[36]

Supreme Court temporarily halts Obama climate change plan

Click to learn more about climate change and the Clean Power Plan.

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted the implementation of President Barack Obama's (D) climate change initiative—known as the Clean Power Plan—until legal challenges against the plan are resolved. The court voted five to four. Justice Antonin Scalia, who died on February 13, 2016, voted in favor of halting the plan. The Clean Power Plan would require cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 32 percent before 2030.[39]

The main legal question is whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which drafted the plan, has the legal authority to enact sweeping greenhouse gas regulations for power plants under the federal Clean Air Act. Twenty-nine states and state agencies have challenged the plan as unlawful and burdensome to the states. Eighteen states have supported the plan as legally authorized and necessary to combat climate change. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments on the case on June 2, 2016.[39]

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf announces fiscal 2017 budget

Click here to learn more about Pennsylvania state budget and finances.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf (D) announced the state’s fiscal year 2017 budget on February 9, 2016. Some highlights of the proposal include raising the state’s personal income tax from 3.07 percent to 3.4 percent, adding the state’s sales tax to some previously untaxed items and services such as cable television and movie theater tickets, increasing the state’s minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.25 an hour, and increasing spending on education throughout the state. Wolf’s budget also proposed adding a severance tax of 6.5 percent to the state’s natural gas extraction industry. These proposals have been met with severe criticism from Republicans in the Pennsylvania Legislature, with State Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (R) calling some of the governor’s remarks the “most absurd” he has heard in his time in office. Democrats in the state’s legislature rallied behind the governor’s latest budget proposal, continuing the budget stalemate that has been ongoing since July of 2015. Illinois is the only other state to be without an enacted state budget.[40][41][42]

One of Wolf's major platforms in his campaign was to increase spending on public education throughout the state. However, with little to no measurable progress on budget discussions, Wolf's goals have not yet been met.

February 8, 2016

SCOTUS denies request to delay implementation of Virginia's new congressional district map

Click to learn more about Redistricting in Virginia.

On February 1, 2016, the United States Supreme Court ordered that congressional elections in Virginia proceed using a district map drawn by a panel of federal judges in January 2016. Virginia's congressional primary is scheduled to take place in June 2016; the general election will occur in November. The court is still scheduled to conduct a full review of the original district map approved by the state legislature. The case, Wittman v. Personhuballah, will be heard in March 2016; a decision is expected in June 2016.[43][44][45][46]

The February 1 order by the United States Supreme Court marks the latest development in a complex, years-long battle over Virginia's congressional district map. The original map approved by the Virginia State Legislature following the 2010 census was first thrown out by a federal court in 2014. The court found that "the legislature's use of broad demographic target percentages, without accounting for the political reality on the ground, left its plan insufficiently tailored to Voting Rights Act compliance." Subsequent appeals resulted in the same essential finding. In June 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ordered that the state legislature draft a new map by September 1, 2015. The state legislature failed to meet this deadline, leaving the task to a panel of federal judges. The panel unveiled its map on January 7, 2016. The Richmond Times-Dispatch described this map as follows:[47][48][49][50][51]

“ [The map] centers [District 3] in Hampton Roads. The new map adds Richmond and Petersburg to the 4th District, represented by Republican J. Randy Forbes, improving Democrats’ chances of winning the district in November. The new map makes lesser changes to the districts of three other Republicans, Reps. Dave Brat, R-District 7, Robert J. Wittman, R-District 1, and Scott Rigell, R-District 2.[52][53] ”
—Richmond Times-Dispatch

In January 2016, a group of Republican lawmakers, including Representatives Rob Wittman, Bob Goodlatte, J. Randy Forbes, Morgan Griffith, Scott Rigell, Robert Hurt, David Brat and Barbara Comstock, petitioned the United States Supreme Court, asking that the court halt the use of this newly-drawn map. The lawmakers argued that implementation of this map would result in "electoral chaos" and "mass voter confusion." The Virginia State Board of Elections, along with opponents of the original map drawn by the state legislature, "urged the court to deny the postponement."[54]

Nevada governor proposes altered sage grouse mining plan

Click to learn more about endangered species policy in the United States.

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval (R) requested that the Obama administration revise its plan to protect the sage grouse bird species and its habitat in the state. Sandoval's proposal would allow current mining claims on federal land to go forward. In exchange, Sandoval proposed protecting more sage grouse mating grounds in other areas. According to The Associated Press, the Nevada mining industry employs 15,000 people. The industry accounted for nearly 5 percent of Nevada's gross domestic product in 2014—around $6.4 billion.[55]

Sandoval's proposal would allow mining development on 555,000 acres and protect 394,000 previously unregulated acres that Sandoval claimed is more important to the sage grouse's survival. In his January 15, 2016, letter to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Sandoval said that increased wildfire restoration and more regulation of wild mustangs will do more to protect the sage grouse than restricting ranching and mining on federal land.[55]

In September 2015, the federal government decided against giving the sage grouse full federal protection in 11 Western states under the Endangered Species Act. Meanwhile, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management instituted restrictions on ranching, mining and other development near sage grouse habitats. Critics contend that the protections are as burdensome as full federal protection would have been, while supporters of increased protection say the regulations do not go far enough to protect the species.[55][56][57]

Pennsylvania's Environmental Quality Board moves forward with new rules for oil and gas industry

Click here to learn more about Fracking in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania's Environmental Quality Board (EQB) approved a new set of rules governing oil and gas extraction in a 15-4 vote on February 3, 2016. The rules are "intended to reduce the surface impacts of oil and gas drilling." This is the first update to the rules since 2001; the EQB spent five years writing the new rules. Included in the rules are a ban on unsealed wastewater pits, increased well monitoring standards, and minimum distance requirements between wells and schools or playgrounds. The rules are anticipated to cost $28.6 million to $31.1 million per year, depending on the type of drilling.[58]

The EQB is part of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which is responsible for issuing permits to those seeking to drill for oil or natural gas. The DEP is responsible for much of the oversight of the state's oil and natural gas industry. As of September 2015, Pennsylvania had four main laws that governed oil and gas extraction: the Coal and Gas Resource Coordination Act, the Oil and Gas Act, the Oil and Gas Conservation Law and, most recently, the Oil and Gas Act of 2012 (Act 13) (passed in February 2012).[59][60][61]

Drilling for oil and natural gas can impact the surrounding land in several ways. When oil and gas companies are preparing the area around a future well for drilling, roads must first be constructed. Then the surrounding area must be flattened and covered with crushed stone and plastic liners to protect the ground. During the drilling process, several pits and water storages areas may be constructed to hold the waste and wastewater that is generated. Once operations cease, reclamation can begin. Reclamation includes closing the well, removing all storage tanks, vehicles and other equipment, returning the land to its previous form by shaping it, and planting seeds.[62]

February 1, 2016

Supreme Court rules on FERC case regarding electricity consumption programs

Click here to learn more about FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association.

On January 25, 2016, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) program designed to incentivize consumers to decrease their electricity consumption during peak demand periods. The court's 6-2 decision overturned an earlier ruling from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and has been heralded as a "big victory [for] environmentalists and federal power regulators."[63][64][65]

Writing for a six-member majority, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, stating that the rule did not encroach on a state's ability to regulate retail electricity sales. Justice Kagan was accompanied by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. In his dissent, Justice Scalia argued that the rule does regulate electricity sales, a matter that he said should be left to the states. Justice Samuel Alito was not part of the case because he had recused himself.[63][64]

Demand response programs pay consumers to decrease their consumption of electricity during periods of peak demand in an effort to increase the reliability of the electricity grid. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, "the electric power industry considers demand response programs as an increasingly valuable resource option whose capabilities and potential impacts are expanded by grid modernization efforts." New technology has allowed the power industry to better sense areas on the grid that may require more power and strategically divert power to those areas.[64][66]

Voter ID requirement on trial in North Carolina

Click to learn more about Voting in North Carolina.

On January 25, 2016, a trial began to determine the validity of North Carolina's voter identification law. The law's challengers, which include the U.S. Department of Justice and the NAACP, allege that "racial minorities are more likely than whites to lack acceptable ID; that there's no significant voter fraud of the kind that could be stopped by the ID requirement; and that the state hasn't done enough to educate voters about the law." Proponents of voter ID laws say that they are needed to prevent voter fraud, they affect a very small group of people, and they are no more onerous than other common practices requiring an ID, such as getting on a plane or buying certain drugs at a pharmacy. Federal judge Thomas Schroeder was set to preside over the case, which will not be heard by a jury. Schroeder was appointed by former president George W. Bush (R).[67][68]

On July 25, 2013, the North Carolina legislature passed a voter identification law. The law "limits the kind of identification that voters can use at the polls to a North Carolina driver’s license, a state-issued ID card, a military ID, or a U.S. passport." Governor Pat McCrory (R) signed the bill into law on August 12, 2013. Parts of the law took effect in 2014, although primary photo identification requirements were not scheduled to take effect until 2016. North Carolina was the first state to approve a voter identification law after the United States Supreme Court struck down portions of the federal Voting Rights Act in June 2013.[69][70][71][72]

On June 18, 2015, the General Assembly of North Carolina voted to relax the photo identification requirement set to take effect in 2016. As a result, a voter who does not possess a valid form of identification may cast a ballot by providing poll workers with his or her birthdate, the last four digits of his or her Social Security number, and an affidavit "stating that there is a 'reasonable impediment' to [his or her] ability to present a photo ID."[73][74]

Federal lawsuit alleges violation of Safe Drinking Water Act in Flint, Michigan

Click to learn more about the Safe Drinking Water Act.

On January 27, 2016, environmental, civil rights and religious groups filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that city and state officials in Michigan violated the federal Safe Drinking Water Act for failing to treat the city of Flint's drinking water for lead contamination during the city's water crisis.[75][76]

Led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan and Concerned Pastors for Social Action, the lawsuit asks the court to require the city and state governments to replace all lead pipes in Flint at no costs to residents, to test the water to ensure safety and notify residents of the results, and to submit the test results to state government regulators, as required by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.[75][76]

"The damage done to the city’s pipes from the Flint River water means that lead will continue to contaminate the city’s drinking water. This contamination poses an ongoing health risk to city residents, especially young children who are most vulnerable to the effects of lead," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit named as defendants Michigan Treasury Secretary Nick Khouri, Flint city administrator Natasha Henderson and members of the Flint Receivership Advisory Board.[75][76]

The Safe Drinking Water Act was passed in 1974 and allowed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to mandate minimum standards for tap water quality for about 168,000 public water systems in the United States.[77][78][79]

See also

Public policy in the 50 states

Click your state for an overview of policy information in your state.
http://ballotpedia.org/Public policy in STATE


Footnotes

  1. ↑ Health Affairs, "CMS Announces New Requirements To Enroll In Special Enrollment Periods (Updated)," February 24, 2016
  2. ↑ Forbes, "Humana May Withdraw From Obamacare Exchanges," February 10, 2016
  3. ↑ Modern Healthcare, "UnitedHealth's ACA exchange losses reach $720 million," January 19, 2016
  4. ↑ International Business Times, "Health Insurer Anthem Blames Obamacare Exchanges For Slimmer Profits In Fourth Quarter While Posting Billions In Revenue," January 27, 2016
  5. ↑ A.M. Best, "A.M. Best Briefing: A.M. Best Revises Outlook to Negative for U.S. Health Industry As Pressures Build," December 18, 2015
  6. ↑ The Hill, "The Affordable Care Act’s co-op collapse," November 27, 2015
  7. ↑ American Enterprise Institute, "Obamacare Co-ops: Cause Celebre or Costly Conundrum?" June 24, 2015
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Click on Detroit, "Snyder signs off on $30M for Flint water bills," February 23, 2016
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Associated Press, "$30 Million for Flint Water Bills as Officials Seek Answers," February 23, 2016
  10. ↑ Mlive, "How Flint water crisis emerged," accessed January 19, 2016
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Trial begins on lawsuit challenging Virginia voter ID law," February 22, 2016
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Reuters, "Virginia's voter ID law challenged in federal trial," February 22, 2016
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 ABC News, "Trial Begins on Lawsuit Challenging Virginia Voter ID Law," February 22, 2016
  14. ↑ Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, "Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds School Vouchers Despite 'No Aid' Law," February 16, 2016
  15. ↑ Las Vegas Sun, "Judge puts sweeping Nevada school choice program on hold," January 11, 2016
  16. ↑ The Daily Signal, "ACLU Files Lawsuit to Block School Choice for Nevada Children," August 27, 2015
  17. ↑ The Washington Post, "Colorado Supreme Court strikes down school voucher program," June 29, 2015
  18. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Douglas Cnty. School Dist. v. Taxpayers for Public Education," accessed February 22, 2016
  19. ↑ KGOU, "GOP-Led Oklahoma School Voucher Program Clears First Legislative Hurdle," February 16, 2016
  20. ↑ Sierra Club, "Sierra Club v. Chesapeake Operating LLC; Devon Energy Production Co. LP; and New Dominion LLC.," accessed February 18, 2016
  21. ↑ Fuel Fix, "Oklahoma agency calls for wastewater cuts to stem quakes," February 16, 2016
  22. ↑ The Leading Edge, "Efforts to monitor and characterize the recent increasing seismicity in central Oklahoma," June 2015
  23. ↑ U.S. Geological Survey, "2011 Oklahoma Induced Earthquake May Have Triggered Larger Quake," March 6, 2014
  24. ↑ The New York Times, "U.S. Maps Pinpoint Earthquakes Linked to Quest for Oil and Gas," April 23, 2015
  25. ↑ National Public Radio, "Is Fracking To Blame For Increase In Quakes In Oklahoma?" July 31, 2014
  26. ↑ News OK, "Oklahoma's earthquake council discusses seismic swarm," October 8, 2014
  27. ↑ The Hill, "Oklahoma earthquakes linked to oil, gas drilling," April 22, 2015
  28. ↑ The Seattle Times, "Lawsuit targets Medicaid policy that limits spendy hepatitis C drugs," February 17, 2016
  29. ↑ The New York Times, "High Cost of Sovaldi Hepatitis C Drug Prompts a Call to Void Its Patents," May 19, 2015
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 The Pew Charitable Trusts, "Are States Obligated to Provide Expensive Hepatitis C Drugs?" February 9, 2016
  31. ↑ Annals of Internal Medicine, "Restrictions for Medicaid Reimbursement of Sofosbuvir for the Treatment of Hepatitis C Virus Infection in the United States," August 4, 2015
  32. ↑ The Boston Globe, "AG warns maker on hepatitis drug costs," January 27, 2016
  33. ↑ FiercePharma, "Gilead faces legal action in Massachusetts if it doesn't cut hep C prices: State AG," January 27, 2016
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 New Mexico Political Report, "Gov to decide if 17 year olds should vote in primaries," February 17, 2016
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 Santa Fe New Mexican, "Bill expanding primary voting rights to some 17-year-olds heads to governor," February 17, 2016
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 The Wichita Eagle, "Kansas Supreme Court: School funding inequitable (+video)," February 11, 2016
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 Lawrence Journal-World, "Kansas Supreme Court strikes down block grant school funding law," February 11, 2016
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 Kansas Supreme Court, "Luke Gannon v. State of Kansas," February 11, 2016
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 The New York Times, "Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions," February 9, 2016
  40. ↑ PennLive.com, "How will Tom Wolf's Pa. budget hit your pocket book? Five highlights," accessed February 16, 2016
  41. ↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Gov. Wolf challenges Republicans with his second state budget," accessed February 16, 2016
  42. ↑ WNEP.com, "What now for budget impasse?" accessed February 16, 2016
  43. ↑ The Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Federal judges will redraw Virginia’s congressional map," August 17, 2015
  44. ↑ Roll Call, "Lawmakers Ask Supreme Court to Stop Virginia Redistricting Plan," January 13, 2016
  45. ↑ Roll Call, "Supreme Court Allows Virginia Redistricting to Stand in 2016," February 1, 2016
  46. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Allows Virginia Redistricting to Stand in 2016," February 1, 2016
  47. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Breaking: Federal Court on 2-1 Vote Finds Congressional Districting Plan Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander," June 5, 2015
  48. ↑ Ballot Access News, "Virginia U.S. House District Lines Again Invalidated by 3-Judge U.S. District Court," June 5, 2015
  49. ↑ The Daily Press, "3rd Congressional District again deemed unconstitutional," June 5, 2015
  50. ↑ The Roanoke Times, "Three-judge panel rules Virginia must redraw congressional map," June 5, 2015
  51. ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, "Page v. Virginia State Board of Elections Memorandum Opinion— Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD," June 5, 2015
  52. ↑ Richmond Times-Dispatch, "U.S. Supreme Court sets March 21 arguments in Va. redistricting case," January 30, 2016
  53. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  54. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "No delay of new Virginia federal districting map," February 2, 2016
  55. ↑ 55.0 55.1 55.2 The Associated Press, "Nevada governor seeks change in sage grouse mining rule," January 28, 2016
  56. ↑ National Public Radio, "Sage Grouse Bird Does Not Need Protection, U.S. Decides," September 22, 2015
  57. ↑ U.S. Department of the Interior, "BLM, USFS Plans for Western Public Lands Provide for Greater Sage-Grouse Protection, Balanced Development," May 28, 2015
  58. ↑ philly.com, "Pa. board approves new rules for gas and oil drillers," February 3, 2016
  59. ↑ Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality, "Laws, Regulations and Guidelines," accessed September 30, 2015
  60. ↑ PennFuture, "Pennsylvania’s New Oil and Gas Law (Act 13): A Plain Language Guide and Analysis," April 27, 2012
  61. ↑ PennFuture, "About PennFuture," accessed September 22, 2015
  62. ↑ Bob Puls, University of Oklahoma, "Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources," accessed March 12, 2014
  63. ↑ 63.0 63.1 Politico, "Supreme Court backs federal authority in power saving rule," January 25, 2016
  64. ↑ 64.0 64.1 64.2 SupremeCourt.gov, "FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association," accessed January 25, 2016
  65. ↑ Bloomberg, "FERC Energy-Saving Rule in Doubt After Supreme Court Session," October 14, 2015
  66. ↑ U.S. Department of Energy, "Demand Response," accessed January 25, 2016
  67. ↑ The Washington Post, "Is North Carolina's Strict Voter-ID Law Constitutional?" January 26, 2015
  68. ↑ MSNBC, "North Carolina's voter ID law on trial," January 27, 2016
  69. ↑ Politic 365, "Strict North Carolina voter ID law passes, DOJ could review law," July 28, 2013
  70. ↑ The Huffington Post, "North Carolina Voter ID Opponents React To Bill's Passage, Vow To Continue To Fight," April 25, 2013
  71. ↑ The Washington Post, "Gov. McCrory quietly signs Republican-backed bill making sweeping changes to NC voting," August 12, 2013
  72. ↑ The Washington Post, "The next round of the battle over voting rights has begun," August 14, 2013
  73. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Big News: Changes Made to North Carolina Voter ID Law," June 18, 2015
  74. ↑ Ballot Access News, "In a Surprise Move, North Carolina Legislature Substantially Relaxes Photo ID Requirement for Voters at the Polls," June 18, 2015
  75. ↑ 75.0 75.1 75.2 Detroit News, "Suit: Safe Drinking Water Act violated in Flint," January 27, 2016
  76. ↑ 76.0 76.1 76.2 Michigan Radio, "New federal lawsuit alleges state violated Safe Drinking Water Act in Flint," January 27, 2016
  77. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Fiscal Year 2011 Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics," March 1, 2013
  78. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements," February 5, 2014
  79. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act," accessed January 15, 2015
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Policy_Tracker:_February_2016&oldid=8576906"