PSN Blog

(Ed. Note: This article was first published on Immigration Impact)

Proposals to increase educational access for students (particularly the undocumented) continue to advance in state legislatures nationwide, even as they are being upheld in the nation’s courts.  Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced and upheld California’s tuition equity law, the nation’s oldest and one of the strongest tuition equity models nationwide, by choosing not to consider a challenge to the law.  California’s law, AB 540, passed a decade ago and was already unanimously upheld by the State’s Supreme Court last November.

California’s law allows all students who graduate from state high schools and have attended state schools for at least three years to pay in-state tuition rates at public universities and colleges regardless of their immigration status.  The law was challenged in the courts by some U.S. citizen students for several years, yet was ultimately (and resoundingly) reinforced by the State Supreme Court.  By denying without comment the request to review the law again, the U.S. Supreme Court sent a strong message that state tuition equity laws remain legally sound—and that it is a waste of time and legal fees to continue to challenge these laws in court.  In fact, proposals to repeal existing tuition equity laws in four states (California, Kansas, Nebraska, and Utah) failed this year alone, according to the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).

Tuition equity laws ensure that cost is not a barrier for talented and motivated immigrant students by allowing them to pay in-state tuition rates at state universities and colleges, provided they meet a set of requirements.  Out-of-state tuition rates are significantly more expensive, often by a factor of up to 400%—so allowing immigrant students to get an affordable college education often hinges upon them being able to pay in-state tuition.

At least ten other states have introduced bills to increase access to higher education for undocumented students by allowing them to pay in-state tuition rates while attending state universities and colleges.

Maryland and Connecticut both passed laws that make a college education affordable by allowing undocumented students and others who are not considered state residents to pay in-state tuition rates at state universities and colleges.  Proposals in Oregon and Colorado came very close to passage: Oregon’s bill was short of only five votes in the State House after passing in the State Senate.  Similarly, Colorado’s proposal was postponed indefinitely in the House after passing in the Senate.

The victories in Maryland and Connecticut bring the total number of states that have passed tuition equity laws to thirteen.  And advocates and legislators in Colorado and Florida are determined to continue their work to expand educational access for immigrant and non-resident students—many are already preparing to re-introduce their tuition equity bills next year.

Business executives, educators, and immigrant youth are unanimous in their support for in-state tuition rates, particularly as a workforce development issue.  The nation as a whole desperately needs college graduates, particularly high-technology industries: in fact, the U.S. is poised to be short of roughly 16 million college graduates as soon as 2025.  Allowing promising immigrant students to fill that need for college-educated workers simply makes sense for America’s future.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently announced a misguided compromise with conservatives in the state legislature to place a hard cap on the annual growth of property tax revenues. The cap would limit revenue growth to the lesser of a 2% annual increase or the rate of inflation. The only exception would require a restrictive super-majority vote of 60% in municipalities where the residents wish to opt out of the program. If passed into law, this proposal will lead to a drastic reduction in essential services for hardworking New York families and place an additional burden on middle class communities which have already been battered by the economic downturn.

Hard caps create systemic revenue shortfalls in which municipalities lack the resources necessary to fund services, including education and public safety, leading to teacher, police, and firefighter layoffs and deterioration of essential programs.  Other states – such as California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Illinois – that have tried this approach have learned the hard way just how harmful it can be for state residents.

One need look no further than Massachusetts – the supposed success story of property tax caps – to see the vast reduction of municipal services that will inevitably result. Throughout that state, schools were closed, libraries were shuttered, educational programs were reduced, senior centers were eliminated, public works projects were cut, police officers and firefighters were laid off, and even street lights were turned off in order to weather the storm of revenue pressures.

Proponents of hard caps argue that they result in forced efficiency in municipal budgets. Studies have shown that this is a myth, as many inevitable expenses are simply outside the control of municipalities. Governor Cuomo’s own projections indicate that property tax revenue would have to increase at a rate of 5% just to keep up with current demand. As such, the inevitable result of a rate cap will be to limit the ability of local communities to generate revenue, leading to severe cuts to the essential services which many residents can ill afford to go without in a time of economic hardship.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities further outlines some of the deleterious consequences of severe property tax caps, which include, increasing disparities between wealthy and moderate income districts, disproportionately impacting the fiscal security of low-income communities, and placing the majority of the burden of the cap on the middle class.

Supporters of the cap argue that high property taxes are hurting New York by causing wealthy residents to leave the state. However, statistics indicate that people care more about good schools and safe streets than property tax rates. 

Karen Scharff, Executive Director of Citizen Action of New York, commented:

“[T]he tax cap is one more fake Albany quick fix. After severely cutting state school aid, and forcing more costs onto local property taxpayers, the Governor and Senate now want to squeeze schools from both directions by capping local taxes. And they want a cap that doesn’t even have exemptions for costs that schools and local governments can’t control, like rising energy and health care costs. Albany politicians want to tie the hands of local schools and governments.”

Several state-based advocates have been working diligently to oppose this damaging policy, including New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness, Citizen Action of New York, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, New York State School Boards Association, New York State United Teachers, Center for Working Families, and many others.

A better method of tackling the issue of property taxes is a “circuit breaker,” an approach that ties property tax increases to residents’ individual incomes. This system would provide tax relief for hardworking New Yorkers while giving municipalities the flexibility to provide adequate services for their residents. A more sensible approach like this would help protect the economic security of working families and the middle class without the drastic consequences that a hard cap is sure to bring.

Progressive States Network is at Netroots Nation 2011 this week, the 6th annual gathering of progressive activists, bloggers, policymakers, elected officials, and advocates taking place this year in Minneapolis, MN. Be sure to say hi if you see us here, or follow along at home via livestreams of selected panels or on Twitter by following the hashtag #NN11 (we'll be tweeting some of the highlights at @PSNwire). Here are just a few of the highlights in a great schedule of panels and sessions that feature a focus on state policy:

• Taking Back Your State: How to Respond to Restrictive State Immigration Legislation: Join PSN's Immigration Policy Specialist Suman Raghunathan for this critical discussion of immigration policy in the states, as lawmakers turn from SB1070-copycat bills to common-sense, positive immigration legislation. (Saturday June 18th, 1:30-2:45pm CT, Room L100AB)
• 40 Under 40: Political Rising Stars: Arizona State Senator Kyrsten Sinema, a PSN board member, will speak on this panel of state legislators from across the nation, along with State Rep. Jefferson Smith (Oregon), State Rep. Ellie Hill (Montana), State Assemblyman Elliot Anderson (Nevada), and State Senator Shannon Aguarre (Montana). (Saturday June 18th, 3-4::15pm CT, Room M100FG)
• Senator Sinema is also scheduled to deliver remarks along with Rep. Raul Grijalva (Arizona), Rep. Donna Edwards (Maryland), Rep. Keith Ellison (Minnesota) and others at the conference's closing keynote on Saturday at 5pm CT.

Other sessions with a focus on state policy include:

• Protecting Reproductive Rights in Your State (Thursday June 16th, 3-4:15pm CT, Room M100FG)
• Bottoms-Up! Affecting National Policy on a Local Level Thursday June 16th, 4:30-5:45pm CT, Room L100H)
• Managing a State Community Blog (Thursday June 16th, 10:30-11:45pm CT, Room M100E)
• Working Together: How Coalition Campaigns Saved the Day in Minnesota (Thursday June 16th, 10:30-11:45pm CT, Room L100I)

This month, in an unprecedented report to the United Nations, the UN's Human Rights Council declared that the Internet not only enables individuals to exercise their right to freedom of expression, but is also a critical tool to promote the progress of society as a whole. The report, delivered by Special Rapporteur Frank LaRue, also stressed that expanding Internet access is a necessity for economic development: 

"Given that the Internet has become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights, combating inequality, and accelerating development and human progress, ensuring universal access to the Internet should be a priority for all states." 

The UN report further maintained that there are two prongs to the right to Internet access: (1) access to content and (2) access to the physical and technical infrastructure required to access the Internet in the first place. 

Progressive advocates and state lawmakers across the United States agree strongly with these conclusions. They know that our states cannot achieve economic prosperity without the necessary infrastructure to do so - and that in the 21st century, this infrastructure is now broadband.

As Progressive States Network has highlighted, expanded Internet access facilitates economic development in the United States and across the world. It is clear that the global community now recognizes the critical importance of broadband as well. Consistent with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Internet is the “enabler” of other rights, including economic, social and cultural rights, such as the right to education.  Further, lack of access, in particular for minority groups and rural residents, perpetuates further economic inequality domestically and globally.  

The UN report concludes that Internet expansion should be a priority for all levels of government, since the Internet is a crucial tool needed to realize a range of human rights. State lawmakers should heed this advice as they look to rebuild prosperity in their states and ensure the economic competitiveness of their communities in what is an increasingly global marketplace.

In the 21st century, even mom-and-pop stores need the ability to market their products, to purchase inventory and supplies, and to enable quick and safe transactions that high-speed Internet provides. A recent report by the prestigious finance research firm McKinsey Global found that 75 percent of the value added by the Internet is created in traditional brick-and-mortar industries, not online startups.

No matter what a business does, it will always benefit from high-speed Internet access.

A recent story from rural Nebraska, where a meat processing plant started collecting orders online, illustrates the type of immediate impact that connecting to global markets can have on a business and on an entire community. Since getting online and creating a website, the company doubled its gross volume of business to $1.8 million a year and went from having one part-time employee to 21-full time and 8 part-time employees.

There is no one who better understands the needs and benefits of small businesses than their own communities and the elected officials that serve them. With the economic recovery still sputtering in many places, state and local legislators are increasingly and understandably interested in guaranteeing that small businesses are more productive, more sustainable, and better able to create jobs and thrive in a 21st-century economy.  It is through these local efforts – in cities and municipalities, through co-ops and non-profits – that we will better enable small businesses to access broadband at affordable rates, and encourage the increased competition that will also result in better service. It is crucial that these local alternatives be allowed to provide broadband, since their priority is to fulfill the community’s best interests.

This is not a new strategy.

Over the past 100 years, local entities have played a critical role in expanding access to other pieces infrastructure, like electricity and telephone service, which were once considered a luxuries but are now considered essential. Legislation should therefore promote, not restrict, the local build-out, operation, and maintenance of broadband networks.

As many analysts have highlighted, these types of investments in infrastructure are desperately needed to help rebuild prosperity and create jobs in struggling local economies. Small businesses have much to gain from legislation allowing community-based broadband networks. Diversifying the ownership of networks allows for more competition, resulting in higher speeds, better quality of service, and more affordable rates. Particularly in places were broadband is not offered – an area encompassing a full third of the U.S. population according to the Federal Communications Commission – small businesses have much to gain from community based broadband networks.

When governments invest in strong Internet ecosystems, analysts agree, huge and sustainable economic benefits result. 

(Connecticut State Representative Zeke Zalaski on the state's landmark Paid Sick Days legislation.)

Last week, Connecticut’s State Senate took a huge step towards ensuring the job security of workers in the service sector and the well-being of all residents by passing landmark legislation that would require that businesses offer paid sick time to certain employees. The paid sick days bill, S.B. 913, is now set to be considered by the state House of Representatives. If it passes there, the bill will head to the desk of Gov. Dannel Malloy, who campaigned successfully on the policy and has promised to sign it into law. While San Francisco has already enacted Paid Sick Days (with little resulting outcry from the business community), and while other cities like Philadelphia and Seattle are considering similar legislation this year, enacting the first statewide law would make the Nutmeg State a national trailblazer in protecting workers and promoting public health.

As the legislation is about to be considered in the House, Progressive States Network asked Connecticut State Rep. Zeke Zalaski, Chair of the Labor & Public Employees Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill, for his thoughts on the benefits that Paid Sick Days promises to bring to workers and families in his state, the motivations behind corporate opposition to the measure, and how Connecticut may be setting an example for the rest of the nation:

PSN: Why do you think the paid sick legislation is important, and how will it benefit the State of Connecticut?

REP. ZALASKI: We should not force people to have to go to work when they are sick because they do not have paid sick days. But that’s what happens for too many employees who have to choose between their health and earning a living. When someone is sick, he or she should be able to stay home, get well and then return to work. This is about doing the right thing for working people, particularly for people who are service sector workers. Paid sick days benefit the state because we create a better, healthier and safer work environment for everyone who works and lives in Connecticut.

PSN: We are already seeing plenty of evidence that paid sick days is good for both business and workers in the cities where it has been implemented, yet opposition by groups claiming to represent businesses has been quite strong.  Why do you think these organizations are so opposed to paid sick days and how have you and your colleagues been able to respond to their arguments most effectively?

REP. ZALASKI: It is hard for me to understand why various groups would oppose paid sick days for hard working people. I would like to think opposing businesses were not well informed, but maybe it’s simply a way for certain lobbying groups who are ideologically opposed to enrich themselves. We have made changes in the bill to address legitimate concerns, but in the end, we must protect the real concerns of working people.

PSN: States have traditionally been the trailblazers in advancing workers' rights, from Maine and Massachusetts being early states to pass child labor laws, to California and New York enacting landmark protections for farm workers and domestic workers.  How exciting is it to have Connecticut lead the way on paid sick leave?

REP. ZALASKI: This is a great opportunity for us to send a message to the rest of the country that we in Connecticut value our workers. This is a landmark bill that is as important as other precedent setting gains like child labor and civil rights laws.

PSN: In so many other states, this has been such a terrible year for working families and the middle class. What do you think has made Connecticut different?

REP. ZALASKI: I like to think that we in Connecticut have strong leadership both in the Governor’s office and in the General Assembly. Historically, we have opposed efforts to take advantage of workers and to erode measures that protect people. This is not the time for us to reverse our course. Our goal to provide paid sick leave for working families is a result of many organizations, coalitions and people of good will working together. Now is the right time to be the first state in the nation to pass this legislation.

This morning, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed into law a groundbreaking health care bill that puts his state on a path towards universal coverage for all residents. The legislation, H.202, sets Vermont on course to become the first state in the nation to implement a single-payer system, and had previously passed both the House and Senate chambers by significant margins. At the signing ceremony, Gov. Shumlin commented on the historic nature of the legislation, and the increased benefits it promises to bring to the Green Mountain State:

"We gather here today to launch the first single-payer health care system in America, to do in Vermont what has taken too long — have a health care system that is the best in the world, that treats health care as a right and not a privilege, where health care follows the individual, isn't required by an employer — that's a huge jobs creator."

Dr. Deb Richter, a single-payer advocate who attended the bill signing, warned in comments to the Associated Press that, "we're going to hear all kinds of scare stories that this is a thoughtless experiment or that it is too bold. But I would remind you that every other industrialized country is doing what we are trying to do. And they do it for far less money, they live longer and they get better-quality care."

One key piece of the legislation is the enactment of the Vermont Health Benefit Exchange, which will serve as the marketplace for consumers provided for under the Affordable Care Act until the enactment of a state-based single-payer system scheduled for 2017.

Community Catalyst's Health Policy Hub provides a great breakdown of the exchange and other key provisions of the Vermont bill signed into law today:

• Vermont Health Benefit Exchange: The Exchange — established as a division within the Vermont Department of Health Access (the state Medicaid agency) — will facilitate purchase of affordable, qualified health plans in the individual and group markets and will meet all other requirements specified in the ACA for state Exchanges. Upon the implementation of Green Mountain Care (the name for the new single-payer system), the Vermont Health Benefit Exchange will cease operation.

• Green Mountain Care: Upon receipt of the necessary federal waivers and approval of a financing plan by the legislature, Green Mountain Care will be implemented to provide comprehensive, affordable, high-quality, and publicly financed health care coverage for all Vermont residents. Assuming that the necessary waivers are granted, the federal funding previously provided in the form of premium tax credits, cost-sharing subsidies, and small business tax credits under the ACA would be used to partially finance Green Mountain Care. The state will also seek to use Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP funds as a financing mechanism.

• Green Mountain Care Board: A board will also be created to oversee the development and implementation of health care payment and delivery system reforms designed to control health care costs and maintain health care quality in Vermont. The board will have five members, nominated by a new Green Mountain Care Nominating Committee and appointed by the governor with the consent of the Senate.

The approval of a state-based exchange in Vermont follows the recent passage of legislation creating exchanges in Washington state and Colorado, both with bipartisan support.

On Tuesday, after nine hours of floor debate, the Connecticut Senate passed legislation granting undocumented students in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. The bill, which passed by a 21-14 margin, now heads to Governor Dannel Malloy who has indicated he will sign it. After the bill’s passage, Malloy said, “This bill isn’t controversial, it’s common sense… Anyone that has a degree from a Connecticut high school should be able to attend a public institution at an in-state rate. That's what I believe.” 

With Malloy’s signature, Connecticut will become the 13th state to adopt tuition equity legislation, joining California, New York, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, Maryland, Texas, Wisconsin, Illinois, and New Mexico in offering improved access to higher education for talented and aspiring undocumented students. 

The bill had strong support from a broad coalition, including key higher education officials, religious leaders and immigrant advocates. 

"I think this is a compassionate law, trying to give people a leg up,'' said Sen. Beth Bye, co-chair of the legislature's higher education committee. "We can make a difference in the lives of these students."

For an overview of other states who have passed or are considering similar legislation, click here.