Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

States need to define emergency

States need to define emergency

Boiling lava erupts at night in the Helemaumau crater of the 4,090 ft. high Mt. Kilauea on the island of Hawaii, the site of multiple state emergencies.

Getty Images

Kevin Frazier is an Assistant Professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.

Desuetude. It’s a funny word lawyers pull out to remind their friends they went to law school. It just means disuse. Lawyers, admittedly, have another purpose for using such a dense word -- to refer to laws that, like the appendix--once served a purpose but have since become outdated or, in some cases, simply forgotten. This might not sound like a problem -- after all, if such laws aren’t enforced, then is anyone really bothered by them?


Well, again like an appendix, a forgotten law can burst and cause quite a bit of damage. This happens when a bored scholar or, more likely, a creative litigant brings a law out of the dustbin and attempts to release its neglected power on an unsuspecting individual or community. That may soon be the cause with respect to continuity of government (CoG) provisions.

At the height of the Cold War, thirty-five states--including California, Texas, and Florida--ratified some version of this template provision:

The Legislature, in order to ensure continuity of state and local governmental operations in periods of emergency resulting from disasters caused by enemy attack, shall have the power and the immediate duty . . . to adopt such other measures as may be necessary and proper for ensuring the continuity of governmental operations.

It doesn’t take a law degree to see that a state legislature that invoked its CoG provision would have substantial--even extra-constitutional--power to respond to a period of emergency. Two major questions, though, are somewhat unclear. First, who decides what constitutes a “period of emergency?” Second, which circumstances give rise to such an emergency?

Let’s take those in order. Typically, courts help answer these questions but they’ve been of little assistance for more than fifty years--turns out these provisions have rarely been invoked and, even when they have, courts have generally deferred to the state legislature’s judgment. A few states have altered their CoG provisions to give the governor the sole power to declare such an emergency. But, for the most part, the provisions have received little judicial scrutiny and as much scholarly attention as the backup punter receives in the write-up of a football game. The most likely answer is that state legislatures are responsible for pulling the trigger or keeping the safety on.

How, then, should state legislatures decide when and if a period of emergency has occurred? One answer would be to look to the history of the provisions. Voters ratified these constitutional amendments by massive majorities and didn’t bother to ask about the details because they had a single situation in mind: a catastrophic nuclear attack. Having witnessed the destructive power of nuclear weapons and lived through Soviet attempts to place such weapons in our backyard, voters acted out of fear and gave the state legislature broad powers to respond in the event of widespread and significant destruction of life and property. So “emergency” likely only referred to nuclear war and the “enemy” probably exclusively applied to other nation states.

How does that history translate into the present? The diversity of answers to that question is what spells trouble. Is a cyberattack on critical infrastructure close enough to a nuclear attack? Is a major terrorist organization a substitute for a nation state? You see the problem: the definitions of emergency and enemy could be morphed to align with the political or personal wishes of legislators.

Some legislators could try to call a limited and unlikely threat an “emergency;” others might refuse to trigger the provision even after a major natural disaster--mother earth isn’t a nation state, right? This ambiguity and uncertainty does no one any good--just like an appendix.

Citizens in thirty-five states need to tend to their appendices before they burst--clean up or clarify your state constitutions. The alternative--trying to answer these questions in the middle of a calamity--is a can that can’t be kicked; the weight of the question is too heavy. So, go read your state constitution, call up your state rep and tell them to figure out the definition of emergency, clarify who counts as an enemy, or to take the provision off the books.


Read More

Kevin Kiley Left the Republican Party Over Gerrymandering. Now He's Testing Whether an Independent Can Beat the Map Drawn to Defeat Him.

U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA) on Capitol Hill on January 22, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)

Kevin Kiley Left the Republican Party Over Gerrymandering. Now He's Testing Whether an Independent Can Beat the Map Drawn to Defeat Him.

Independent voters now represent the largest share of the American electorate, and yet they remain almost entirely unrepresented in Congress. Both major parties have spent decades optimizing for their bases, leaving the near majority of Americans who identify as independent with the choice of either voting for a party candidate they don't fully support or staying home.

A handful of high-profile independent candidates are trying to change that in 2026. They are often covered as fringe candidates whose stories are told through the lens of how they'll impact the outcome between a Republican and a Democrat, rather than on their own terms. This series exists because independent voters deserve better than that.

Keep ReadingShow less
Veterans Day. US soldiers. US army. USA patch flag on the US military uniform and USA flag.

A record number of veterans, especially women veterans, are running for Congress in 2026, bringing military leadership and public service to the campaign trail.

KairosDee/Getty Images

In Lady Veterans We Trust

Many people who have served, or are still serving in the military, are not thrilled with the state of our country. There are plenty of active duty members who wish they could quit–and many of them are in my DMs asking for my advice–which might be why the number of military personnel inquiring about conscientious objection has risen by 1,000% since the start of the Iran war. Whether they joined to patriotically serve their country or simply for the promise of stability and upward mobility, a draft dodger who “finds the notion of military service difficult to understand, and the idea of volunteering to serve especially incomprehensible” is now holding them hostage in an indefinite war against Iran.

Veterans feel an obligation to speak up against the betrayal. 752 of them are running for Congress in 2026. A record number of them are women.

Keep ReadingShow less
In this photo illustration, Predictions market sites are shown on electronic devices on February 25, 2026 in Chicago, Illinois. Online prediction market platforms, such as Polymarket and Kalshi, allow people to place bets on wide-ranging subjects such as sports, finance, politics and currents events.

Prediction markets are expanding beyond finance into politics, war, and public policy. Explore the ethical, democratic, and legislative questions they raise.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Betting on Crisis: Why Prediction Markets Are a Threat to Democratic Trust

Imagine opening an app on your phone and placing a bet on whether peace talks between two countries will fail, a conflict will escalate, or a terrorist attack will occur before the end of the year.

For a growing number of people, that is no longer a hypothetical scenario.

Keep ReadingShow less
AI Chatbots for Kids Should Act Like Tools, Not Friends

Close-up of AI chatbot on mobile

Getty Images

AI Chatbots for Kids Should Act Like Tools, Not Friends

During the rise of the Internet, as the World Wide Web moved from government and academic settings to family homes, parents worried about the exposure of their children to predators in online chatrooms. A generation later, as social media became central to young people’s lives, the dangers of platforms like Facebook and Instagram to children’s mental health moved to the forefront of the national conversation.

Now, as lawmakers and parents continue to grapple with how to keep children safe on social media, there’s a new danger already taking shape: AI-powered chatbots that simulate friendship, emotional intimacy, and care with children who may not be able to tell the difference.

Keep ReadingShow less