Wisconsin Supreme Court Says School Policy Subject to Governor’s Approval

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the state’s school superintendent must seek the approval of the governor for any administrative rule changes, in a reversal of the court’s 2016 decision on the matter. "The (state superintendent)...has the executive constitutional function to supervise public instruction…[but] it is of no constitutional concern that the governor is given equal or greater legislative authority than the (state superintendent) in rulemaking,” the court wrote. It is unlikely that any rule changes proposed by current Superintendent Carolyn Taylor, will be blocked by Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, who held that role before he was elected and tapped Taylor as his replacement. But Republicans in the state have been trying to bring the superintendent under gubernatorial control for nearly two decades, as liberal-leaning superintendents have often bucked the wishes of Republican governors. The conservative-leaning Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty brought the case against the Department of Public Instruction, calling it an organization that has “historically been dominated by an education establishment hostile to school choice and K-12 education reform.” The institute’s president, Rick Esenberg, praised the ruling, calling it "a huge win for democratic government, the separation of powers and public accountability." Justice Ann Walsh Bradley penned a dissent criticizing the decision as “an about-face,” from the 2016 ruling, and noting that “nothing in our Constitution has changed” since the previous decision, apart from the members of the court. “Because the majority disregards binding precedent and arrives at a result that unconstitutionally transfers the vested authority of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to the governor, I respectfully dissent,” she wrote. [The Capital Times; News 8000; Wisconsin State Journal]

SALT LAKE CITY PORT | Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski is seeking a court order to block a contRoversial, land-based inland port facility while litigation over the project unfolds. Biskupski originally filed a lawsuit in March, after the state took over about 19,000 acres of city land and granted a port authority the power to tap into city sources of tax revenue. “The lawsuit I have filed continues to argue that the state’s seizure of the city’s taxing and land use authority is unconstitutional," Biskupski said. The mayor’s request for an injunction arrived less than a week after she met with city residents opposed to further construction at the port, along with state House Democrats who represent districts it. “As representatives of the communities of those that will be most impacted by the inland port, we have serious concerns about tying the hands of our communities with these mandates that usurp our local sales and use taxes. We are also very concerned about how this project will degrade the environment and the health of our constituents,” said state Rep. Sandra Hollins. But Derek Miller, chairman of the Utah Inland Port Authority, said that the construction will proceed regardless. "We will let the politicians and lawyers argue and fight while the board moves forward building the most technologically advanced port in the nation," he said. [Salt Lake Tribune; Deseret News; ABC 4]

BENEFITS FOR 9/11 RESPONDERS | A bill passed by the New York state legislature would make the estimated 610 non-uniformed first responders who aided emergency personnel on 9/11 eligible for disability retirement benefits. If Gov. Andrew Cuomo signs the bill into law, it will allow workers to receive 75% of their annual income upon retirement, a benefit previously reserved only for uniformed first responders like police and firefighters. “Hundreds of state employees responded in the hours, months and weeks after the towers came down. They worked on the pile and they worked under the pile, side-by-side police and firefighters, but because of an unexplainable oversight, they lack the same protections as those considered uniformed employees,” said state Sen. James Gaughran, a Democrat. Last week, a bill also passed the New Jersey Senate allowing some public employees with disabilities resulting from a minimum of eight hours of work related to 9/11, or those who sustained an injury that prevented them from working eight hours, to receive disability benefits. [Democrat & Chronicle; Insider New Jersey]

AFFORDABLE HOUSING | Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms revealed a citywide “Housing Affordability Action Plan” this week. The plan features 13 initiatives under four central goals: create or preserve 20,000 affordable homes by 2026, invest $1 billion from public, private, and philanthropic sources into the production and preservation of affordable housing, ensure equitable growth for all Atlantans while minimizing displacement, and support innovation. “There’s a growing gap in what people can afford and what people make. The reality is that no city has gotten this right, and in true Atlanta fashion, I truly believe we will be the first to get it right in terms of the affordable housing challenge across this country,” Bottoms said. But critics, including Dan Immergluck, a professor at Georgia State University, say the plan isn’t specific enough and therefore won’t be able to achieve its goals. “There’s too few details, no firm dollar commitments on different proposals,” he said. In order to make the proposals a reality, Bottoms will have to work with the city council to pass zoning changes, and will have to coordinate with state and federal agencies for funding. [Atlanta In-Town; Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

HEALTH CARE MANDATE | The California legislature voted to bring back a tax on people who refuse to buy health insurance, following the 2017 elimination of the individual mandate by Republicans in Congress. The penalty will not apply to undocumented immigrants, people in prison, and members of Native tribes. If Gov. Gavin Newsom signs the bill, which seems likely given his campaign promise to bring back the individual mandate, California will join New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Washington D.C., who have already reinstated the mandate. But California will be the first state to use money collected from the penalty to help people who earn up to six times the federal poverty level pay for their monthly premiums. That means a family of four making up to $150,000 would be eligible.  “These new subsidies will impact almost 1 million Californians and help them get the health care access that they deserve,” said Democratic state Rep. Phil Ting. But Republicans in the legislature said that in 2014, most of the Californians who paid the penalty were making less than $50,000. Rep. Jay Obernolte said the bill “will take money away from people making $30,000 to $50,000 a year and give it to people making between $75,000 and $130,000 a year. That makes no sense.” [Associated Press]