Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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for using such a dense word -- to refer to laws that, like the appendix--once served a purpose but have since become outdated or, in some cases, simply forgotten.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

Mary Kenion on Homelessness: Policy, Principles, and Solutions
man lying on brown cardboard box
Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Mary Kenion on Homelessness: Policy, Principles, and Solutions

I had the opportunity to speak with Mary Kenion, the Chief Equity Officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness. The NAEH, in her words, is a non-profit organization with a “deceptively simple mission; to end homelessness in America.” We discussed the trends in policy that potentially could worsen the crisis, in relation to Medicaid, and the recent Executive Order regarding vagrancy and the mentally ill, and, finally, why this should matter as practical policy and how this reflects our national character and moral principles.

The NAEH cooperates with specialists to guide research efforts and serve in leadership roles; they also have a team of “lived experience advisors.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
A teacher passing out papers to students in a classroom.

California’s teacher shortage highlights inequities in teacher education. Supporting and retaining teachers of color starts with racially just TEPs.

Getty Images, Maskot

There’s a Shortage of Teachers of Color—Support Begins in Preservice Education

The LAist reported a shortage of teachers in Southern California, and especially a shortage of teachers of color. In California, almost 80% of public school students are students of color, while 64.4% of teachers are white. (Nationally, 80% of teachers are white, and over 50% of public school students are of color.) The article suggests that to support and retain teachers requires an investment in teacher candidates (TCs), mostly through full funding given that many teachers can’t afford such costly fast paced teacher education programs (TEPs), where they have no time to work for extra income. Ensuring affordability for these programs to recruit and sustain teachers, and especially teachers of color, is absolutely critical, but TEPs must consider additional supports, including culturally relevant curriculum, faculty of color they can trust and space for them to build community among themselves.

Hundreds of thousands of aspiring teachers enroll in TEPs, yet preservice teachers of color are a clear minority. A study revealed that 48 U.S. states and Washington, D.C have higher percentages of white TCs than they do white public-school students. Furthermore, in 35 of the programs that had enrollment of 400 or more, 90% of enrollees were white. Scholar Christine Sleeter declared an “overwhelming presence of whiteness” in teacher education and expert Cheryl Matias discussed how TEPs generate “emotionalities of whiteness,” meaning feelings such as guilt and defensiveness in white people, might result in people of color protecting white comfort instead of addressing the root issues and manifestations of racism.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a megaphone with a speech bubble.

As threats to democracy rise, Amherst College faculty show how collective action and courage within institutions can defend freedom and the rule of law.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

A Small College Faculty Takes Unprecedented Action to Stand Up for Democracy

In the Trump era, most of the attention on higher education has focused on presidents and what they will or won't do to protect their institutions from threats to academic freedom and institutional independence. Leadership matters, but it's time for the rank-and-file in the academy — and in business and other institutions — to fulfill their own obligations to protect democracy.

With a few exceptions, neither the rank and file nor their leaders in the academy have stood up for democracy and the rule of law in the world beyond their organizations. They have had little to say about the administration’s mounting lawlessness, corruption, and abuse of power.

Keep ReadingShow less