In addition to the usual business of governing (writing the budget, for example), the legislature in Vermont has an important responsibility it seldom needs to use -- if no one candidate for governor picks up 50 percent of the vote on Election Day, the race is left for the House of Representatives to decide.

And there is a real possibility that might happen this year.

As we all know, state legislation often affects Americans’ daily lives much more than federal legislation. The key issues that impact us are state-level issues –- e.g., crime and education -- and the specific nature of that impact on our daily lives –- e.g., whether it is a progressive or regressive one –- depends on which political party controls the legislature. One area where we clearly see a difference is in the area of the educational curriculum.

I often use this blog to document nationwide trends and patterns, but today, I would like to take an opportunity to point out some bills that are remarkable because of their uniqueness.

Promoting language study in Washington State

A provocative 2007 story in Stateline conveys the urgency in making sure American students can compete globally.

Last year, the Democratically controlled legislature introduced HB 1517. The bill has 2 key components: (1) it requires the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to assign a full-time staff to serve as world language supervisor and describes the supervisor's duties and (2) subject to funding, it directs the OSPI to allocate grants for pilot projects to enhance world language instruction in elementary and middle schools.

This year, a key foreign-languages bill was HB 2523, which would create the position of world language supervisor in the office of the superintendent of public instruction.

Teaching labor history in Wisconsin

In a political culture where students know more about Hollywood celebrities and sports figures than they do about Samuel Gompers or Howard Zinn, Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate tried to improve students’ historical literacy.

In Wisconsin, SB 108 would require every school district in Wisconsin to teach labor history. This 2007 labor bill passed 19-14 in the Democratic Senate and died in the Republican Assembly. This unique and important bill required that every school board’s instructional program in state, national, and world history include information on the history of organized labor in America and the collective bargaining process.

*For more information – including foreign-language requirements for high-school graduation – check out the state reports on the National Council of State Supervisors for Languages.

We have all seen stories about the persistent problem of unhealthy weight levels in the US, and oftentimes, this news can feel discouraging and overwhelming. In the face of that, the efforts by Democratic legislators nationwide to solve these health problems are impressive.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the big news story on doctors' concerns about high cholesterol problems emerging in children as young as 8 years old -- and how states had already started to pass legislation to address such concerns through improving children's diet and exercise.

Paying attention to the American diet continues to be a key issue and resulted in the governor of California signing landmark legislation on Friday, July 25. This past Saturday's New York Times, recounts the California legislature's passage of a law banning the use of trans fats in restaurants.

According to the story, New York City was the first jurisdiction to ban trans fats and was soon joined by a handful of other cities and counties. But, California is the first state legislature to pass such a law.

The story explains that:

Under the new law, restaurants, bakeries, delicatessens, cafeterias and other businesses classified as “food facilities” will, in the preparation of any foods, have to discontinue use of oils, margarine and shortening containing trans fats.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Assembly Bill 97, sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, was opposed by most Republicans.

What else have Democratic legislatures done in 2008 to improve the health of Americans?

The Democratically-controlled legislature in Colorado passed a measure that will enable 50,000 more Colorado children to be eligible for Medicaid and the state’s health program for kids.

In the Iowa legislature, Democrats passed a bill expanding health insurance for children to achieve a goal of covering all children by 2010. House File 2539 will greatly increase the health of Iowa's children. Read more on this landmark legislation making Iowa the first state in the nation to cover all its children. (Washington State also passed legislation this year to try to cover all children by 2010. See Senate Bill 5093.)

In Maine, the Democratic majorities expanded the Dirigo health care program for the uninsured. Read more on LD 2247 -- "An Act to Continue Maine's Leadership in Covering the Uninsured" -- here. The bill, sponsored by Democratic Representative Hannah Pingree, will provide insurance rate relief to about 40,000 Mainers. Nearly half of Maine's uninsured are under 30, and the bill addresses these young residents.

And, despite a $3 billion budget shortfall, the Democratic majority in the New Jersey legislature pushed forward on health care with 3 important bills. The first bill aims for universal health insurance for New Jersey residents by 2011 by requiring all children to be covered. A second bill expands NJ FamilyCare for poor families. A third bill -- landmark legislation -- provides the most generous paid family leave in the country -- up to 6 weeks a year to care for family members.

When it comes to health care, Democratic state legislators are both addressing newly emerging healthcare issues (such as trans fats and paid family leave) and also improving access and coverage for basic health insurance.

As the summer heats up and the thermometer rises, I thought it would be the perfect time to talk about how Democratic state legislators have stepped up to tackle a problem that – only a few years back – would not have been considered a state legislative issue.

States started to seriously address climate change in 2006 in California. In that year, the Democratic legislature passed the “California Global Warming Solutions Act,” sponsored by Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (a DLCC board member). Assembly Bill 32 passed the Assembly on August 31, 2006 on a 47-32 vote. It then passed the Senate on August 30, 2006 on a 23-14 vote and was approved by the governor on September 27, 2006. The bill requires that, by 2020, California’s greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to 1990s levels.

California’s landmark legislation in 2006 led to a number of successes nationwide in 2007.

Just a year after California’s success, the Democratically controlled Washington legislature passed Senate Bill 6001. This bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Craig Pridemore, establishes the following goals: by 2020, reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in the state to 1990 levels; by 2035, reduce overall GHG emissions in the state to 25 percent below 1990 levels; and by 2050, the state will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reducing overall emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels, or 70 percent below the state's expected emissions that year. The governor signed the bill on May 3, 2007.

That same year, the Democratically-controlled Oregon legislature passed HB 3543. The goals of Oregon’s bill are to achieve the following reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: by 2010, arrest the growth of Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions and begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; by 2020, achieve greenhouse gas levels that are 10 percent below 1990 levels; and, by 2050, achieve greenhouse gas levels that are at least 75 percent below 1990 levels. The governor signed the bill on August 7, 2007.

The Iowa Democratic legislature passed Senate File 485 in 2007. SF 485 addresses power-plant greenhouse gas emissions by creating a greenhouse gas inventory to collect data on greenhouse gas production; by creating a greenhouse gas registry for tracking, and by creating the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council to analyze the possibility of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2050. On April 23, 2007, SF 485 passed the Senate 30-19, and, on April 18, 2007, the bill passed the House 66-32. On April 27, 2007, SF 485 was signed by the governor.

In 2007, the Democratically-controlled legislature in Minnesota passed Senate File 145, the “Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 and Omnibus Energy Policy Bill.” This bill -- sponsored by Democratic Rep. Bill Hilty and Democratic Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon -- contains the Global Warming Mitigation Act of 2007. The goal of this bill is to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors producing those emissions to a level at least 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2015, to a level at least 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and to a level at least 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The governor approved the bill on May 25, 2007.

Also in 2007, the Democratically controlled New Jersey legislature passed Assembly Bill 3301. The bills sponsors include Democratic Assemblypersons Linda Stender, Valerie Vainieri Huttle, Reed Gusciora, Linda R. Greenstein, and John F. McKeon and Democratic Sens. Barbara Buono, and Bob Smith. Assembly Bill 3301 establishes a greenhouse gas emissions reduction program to limit the level of statewide greenhouse gas emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generated outside the state but consumed in the state, to the 1990 level or below, of those emissions by the year 2020, and to reduce those emissions to 80% below the 2006 level by the year 2050. The real strength of this bill is that it mandates drastic reductions by 2050. According to the Washington Post (July 6, 2007), “U.S. states have taken action on their own and in regional groups because the federal government has not yet passed mandatory regulations on emissions.” This story notes that the New Jersey law is tougher than California’s 2006 law because the NJ law contains “hard,” “enforceable” mandates – whereas the CA law only contains targets. The bill was signed by the governor on July 6, 2007.

Democratic legislators are continuing to fight for the environment through legislation on “green jobs,” “green buildings,” and renewable energy standards. For a good overview of state legislative action on environmental issues, be sure to check out the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

On Friday, about the same time that Megan was breaking down the National Popular Vote on this site, I was listening to a panel attempting to do the same at Netroots Nation. The guy sitting behind me was Matt Yglesias (who I read constantly and have linked to before).

He has more to say about the issue here and here.

Point being there are a ton of really good resources out there if you're interested in the NPV movement.

There has been a lot of talk in the office about the NCSL Legislative Summit next week, and one event that caught my attention was a breakfast to discuss the National Popular Vote movement. I am intrigued by this legislation, so for my second DLCC blog post, I thought I’d try to write a little more about it.

The National Popular Vote bill would award all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This in turn would nationalize the race for the presidency and give a voice to the citizens who do not reside in battleground states (accounting for about two thirds of all voters) and are ignored under the current system.

I write about it here because this movement is one that is being advanced completely by the nation’s legislatures.

Last week the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed legislation to become a member of The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by the National Popular Vote. The bill won by a 117-36 vote. Massachusetts is the 5th state to pass such legislation joining Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii. These states represent 19 percent of the 270 votes needed to activate the law and elect a president.

Legislation to change to a popular vote system has been introduced in 45 states and is making great progress in a majority of them. This bill currently has 439 sponsors at the state level.

For a much more detailed description of the movement, please visit the National Popular Vote website: nationalpopularvote.com

Megan Hannigan is a Klindt/Dye Intern for the 2008 Summer Semester

On Monday, I wrote about Democrats taking the lead on state legislation to promote children’s health through nutrition and physical-education legislation. Today, I would like to touch upon three more crucial issues in children’s health care: insurance coverage for autism, getting rid of toxic toys, and second-hand smoke in cars.

COVERAGE FOR AUTISM

On July 14, the Chicago Sun Times ran a story about another key children’s health care issue for which Democrats are fighting. Illinois Democratic Gov. Blagojevich added language to House Bill 4225 to create landmark legislation, making his state provide the most comprehensive autism coverage in the nation.

According to the organization Autism Speaks, one in 150 children is diagnosed with autism; a new case is diagnosed almost every 20 minutes; and it is the fastest-growing serious developmental disability in the country.

A recent story in Stateline provides a great overview of state laws on insurance coverage for autism. According to the piece, 12 states already require insurance coverage for autism, one state has passed legislation this year, and 12 states have legislation pending.

In Wisconsin, Democrats were blocked in their efforts to pass an autism bill. Democratic Rep. Amy Sue Vruwink wrote a newspaper column about how – after passing the Senate – SB 178 by Democratic Sen. Judy Robson (and co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Russ Decker, among others), died in the Assembly. According to a story in the Daily Cardinal, the Autism Society of Wisconsin supported Democratic SB 178 over Republican AB 901.

In Oklahoma, Democrats were also blocked in their efforts to pass an autism bill. There have been at least 3 attempts this session to pass an autism insurance bill. SB 1537, written by Democratic Sen. Jay Paul Gumm and dubbed “Nick’s Law, did not even make it out of committee. HB 2531, which would require insurance coverage for autism, passed the Senate on a 30-18 vote, but -- despite the pleas of parents of autistic children -- House Republican leadership refused to hear the bill. SB 2118, another attempt to pass insurance coverage for autism, sailed through the Senate, but died in a House committee.

TOXIC TOYS

In Washington, Democratic Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson authored HB 2647, the “Children’s Safe Products Act of 2008,” which bans 3 toxins from children’s toys: lead, cadmium, and phthalates. This bill was signed by the governor on March 13.

In California, AB 1108 (2007) -- the “California Toxic Toys Bill” – was sponsored by Democratic Assemblywoman Fiona Ma and signed by the governor on October 14, 2007.

In New Jersey, Democratic Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein and Democratic Sen. Loretta Weinberg have joined the fight for safe children’s toys this year with their introduction of bills for the “Toxic-free Children's Products Act” – AB 2332 and SB 1428.

In Maine, Rep. Hannah Pingree authored LD 2048, “An Act to Protect Children's Health and the Environment from Toxic Chemicals in Toys and Children's Products,” which was signed by the governor on April 17, 2008.

In MARYLAND, Democratic Delegate James Hubbard sponsored HB 62, which prohibits children’s products containing lead. It was signed by the governor on May 13.

BANNING SMOKING IN AUTOMOBILES WHERE CHILDREN ARE PRESENT

Democrats are also going after adults who smoke in vehicles when children are passengers in those cars. For an excellent overview of state legislation through 2007, take a look at another story in Stateline. In 2008, we see the Democratically controlled legislatures in Maine and Washington State defending children’s health and safety in this area.

In Maine, LD 2012 -- which is a primary-offense prohibition smoking in a motor vehicle when a person under 16 years of age is present in that vehicle -- was signed by the governor on April 10, 2008. Democratic Rep. Patricia Blanchette sponsored a state-wide ban bill modeled on an ordinance in her town of Bangor, which protects children up to age 18. In the end, Blanchette’s version lost out to a Republican version which lowered the age from 18 to 16.

In Washington, HB 2519 (sponsored by Democratic Rep. Shay Schual-Berke) and SB 6287 (sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chris Marr) both ban smoking in cars with children inside. The House bill would cover children under 18, and the Senate version would include children under 14. Both bills make the violation a secondary offense. While neither bill made it into law this session, future success is very likely since the bills were supported by the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and state law-enforcement agencies, troopers, and firefighters.

One of the most interesting parts of my job as research director of the DLCC is watching the appearance of state legislation on issues that were previously not on the state legislative agenda in earlier sessions. When California passed innovative, landmark legislation in 2006 on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, many other states began emulating this legislation in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

One relatively recent emerging issue is in the area of health care. We all know about the unfortunate reputation of the United States as being a nation of overweight adults. But, increasingly both the news and state legislative agendas have focused on the equally -– if not more -– startling figures on overweight children.

On the Thursday, July 10, editorial page of the New York Times, the newspaper’s editors expressed shock at the recent recommendation issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics that some children as young as 8 years old should be taking cholesterol-reducing statin drugs because of the poor nutrition and exercise habits of many of America’s children.

The Department of Human Services’ Center for Disease Control and Prevention has a wonderful “Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity State Legislative Database” website that allows one to search a database of state legislation to improve children’s health. One can search topics such as physical education legislation across all states over numerous years. According to the site, 52 bills on children’s physical education were introduced in 2008 in state legislatures across the nation.

While Democrats have always been the leaders on traditional healthcare issues such as expanding children’s health insurance, we are now adding innovative exercise and nutrition legislation to our list of accomplishments on behalf of American children. We see Democrats taking the lead on this children’s health issue across the country—including states like Oregon, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Maryland.

In OREGON, Democrats are tackling the nutrition issue. On the Oregon House Democrats website, you can read about an innovative nutrition program known as farm-to-table or farm-to-school. HB 3601 establishes the Oregon Farm-to-School and School Garden Program to promote nutrition education and wellness in Oregon’s schools. It was signed by the governor on March 11.

In OKLAHOMA, Democratic Senator Mary Easley was a sponsor of SB 1186, which doubles the requirement for physical activity from 60 minutes to 120 minutes a week. The bill was signed by the governor on May 5.

In VIRGINIA, Democratic Senator Janet Howell introduced SB 61 -- a bill that requires the Department of Education to develop a database of best practices for nutrition and physical education. The bill was signed by the governor on March 5.

In MARYLAND, Democratic Senator David Harrington authored SB 955, to study tougher physical education requirements for K-12 to reduce childhood obesity. The governor signed this bill on May 13.

Because of the need for both better nutrition and increased physical activity in combating high cholesterol at all ages, these laws represent a key step towards improving children’s health.

As the research director at the DLCC, I have seen many bills on drivers, cell phones, and text-messaging introduced over the past several years in legislatures nationwide. We have all read news stories about tragic accidents with possible connections to cell-phone use, and we could all share anecdotes about distracted drivers we have seen.

But as laws went into effect at the beginning of this month in California and Washington State, I thought it might be interesting to start to get a big picture of legislation nationwide. (My goal is to start providing legislation overviews like this semi-regularly).

On July 1, 2008, California and Washington State joined three other states (Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York) and the District of Columbia in banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving.

According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, all of these laws -- except for Washington State’s -- are “primary enforcement” laws (meaning that they can be the sole reason for being pulled over). Also according to the GHSA, only four states (Alaska, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Washington) ban text-messaging, and 17 states as well as the District of Columbia have laws specifically restricting young drivers. The most interesting figure compiled by the GHSA is that there is not a single state that bans both hand-held and hands-free cell phone use for every driver -- not one.

There is a story in Tuesday’s New York Times about a second California law prohibiting motorists under the age of 18 from using both hand-held and hands-free cell phones. Thirteen other states have similar under-18 laws.

According to a recent story in USA Today, some researchers believe that it is the fact that one speaker (the driver) can see traffic and one (the person on the other end of the phone) cannot that causes a four-fold increase in crashes with injuries (a figure from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety).

Of course, the real question is whether a hands-free requirement really solves the distracted-driver problem. A spokesman for the GHSA argues that it does not.

Although there are still many unanswered questions about what kinds of laws really make drivers more focused and a larger philosophical debate about individual freedoms versus public safety, the popularity of such laws is strong. According to USA Today, Hawaii and Massachusetts are considering new legislation.

As we near the end of the week, I thought I'd post this fun story from Maryland:

Bypassing their Annapolis offices, members of the House Ways and Means Committee drove down to the new National Harbor waterfront city in Prince George’s County on Tuesday.

The unusual site visit — the group only makes about three a year — gave members a chance to stroll along the new $5 billion development being built on the shores of the Potomac River. National Harbor, which opened in April, includes an $800 million Gaylord hotel and convention center and a waterfront shopping village surrounded by towering condos.

While a site visit might seem like a unconventional use of time, members of the committee were able to get a look at the development's infrastructure needs in person. Ways and Means handles much of the state's transportation funding requests.

This probably goes without saying, but a development like this has the potential to add significant revenue to the state's economy.