Connect with us

Economics

Ballot-measure results reveal the power of state policy

Published

on

WIPING AWAY tears, Lauren Brenzel, who led Florida’s campaign to enshrine a constitutional right to an abortion, claimed one victory: “A majority of Floridians…just voted to end Florida’s abortion ban.” Though 57% of Floridians supported the amendment, it fell short of the 60% threshold required in the state. Florida’s current law banning abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy, with limited exceptions, will stand. The proposed amendment would have made abortion accessible until about 24 weeks from conception. The loss will affect 4m women in Florida and millions more across America’s south-east, where the procedure is highly restricted.

Nine other states voted on abortion measures on November 5th. South Dakotans rejected even a limited loosening of their strict ban. Nebraskans enshrined a 12-week ban into their constitution. Some states voted the other way: a slim majority of Missourians threw out the state’s complete prohibition. In Arizona, Montana and Nevada amendments passed easily. At an election-night party in Phoenix, Laura Dent, campaign manager of the pro-abortion-rights side, lamented the fragmented policy landscape that resulted in victory in Arizona and defeat in Florida. The failures mark the first times abortion-rights supporters have lost a state ballot campaign since the Supreme Court overturned a national right to the procedure in 2022.

Abortion amendments were among the most prominent of nearly 150 initiatives on America’s ballots on November 5th. Such measures allow voters to decide their own policies on everything from criminal justice to climate policy. About $1.2bn was spent campaigning for and against them. Some states have yet to finish counting votes. Abortion aside, the results so far suggest that Americans were aligned on several issues. For the most part, voters repudiated ranked-choice voting (RCV), barred non-citizens from voting and strengthened criminal penalties.

Seven states and Washington, DC, voted on whether to adopt RCV or open primaries, in which all candidates are listed on one ballot regardless of party affiliation. Campaigners hoped such constitutional amendments could help boost moderate candidates over more extreme ones, despite emerging evidence that RCV’s effects on partisanship are minimal. The nation’s capital was the only place that chose to adopt such a system, while Missourians voted to pre-emptively reject the practice. At the time of writing, a measure to repeal Alaska’s relatively new RCV-and-open primaries combo was narrowly leading.

Each of the eight (Republican-leaning) states that weighed whether to bar non-citizens from voting endorsed the idea. These results are a political signal, not a policy change. Before the poll, Donald Trump and Republicans began to question the results of the election by arguing, incorrectly, that illegal immigrants were voting en masse. In reality, the practice is already unlawful except in very few local jurisdictions. A more consequential vote came from Ohioans, who decided not to create an independent redistricting commission for congressional and legislative races. It is the third time in a decade that voters there have tried and failed to stamp out rampant partisan gerrymandering.

Californians will be counting votes for some time, but a controversial measure to strengthen penalties for some thefts and drug crimes seems to have passed with widespread support. In Colorado voters opted to increase funding for police, deny bail for people facing first-degree murder charges and delay parole for violent offenders. These results are part of a broader shift away from milder criminal-justice policies in Democratic states. Arizonans voted to allow police to arrest people for crossing the border illegally. The measure was modelled on a similar law in Texas which is tied up in the courts.

All these votes together offer a mishmash of policies in states that can differ greatly from one another. But the results still provide lessons. The biggest? Americans fed up with what is happening in Washington should look to the states: that’s where a lot of the action is.

Economics

BOI Reporting and the impact of the recent Federal Injunction

Published

on

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a legislative measure designed to enhance financial transparency

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a legislative measure designed to enhance financial transparency and mitigate risks such as money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial activities. The CTA aims to close loopholes and create a fairer business environment by requiring certain entities to disclose their beneficial ownership information. However, recent legal developments have temporarily impacted compliance requirements, bringing attention to the act’s ongoing litigation and implementation.

Federal Court Decision and Its Implications

On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al. (No. 4:24-cv-00478). This injunction temporarily halts the enforcement of the CTA, specifically its beneficial ownership reporting requirements. Additionally, the court order stays all deadlines for compliance.

As a result, reporting companies are currently not obligated to submit beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). During the injunction, these entities are also shielded from liability for non-compliance with CTA mandates.

Despite this pause, FinCEN has clarified that companies may still voluntarily submit their BOI reports. This voluntary reporting option remains available for businesses that wish to align with the CTA’s transparency goals.

Overview of the Corporate Transparency Act

The CTA mandates that certain entities provide information about their beneficial owners—individuals who own or control a business. The act is intended to increase transparency, enhance national security, and reduce the anonymity that can facilitate financial crimes.

While the CTA has garnered support for its objectives, it has also faced legal challenges questioning its constitutionality. Courts in different jurisdictions have issued varying rulings, with some upholding the law and others granting temporary injunctions. For example, district courts in Virginia and Oregon have ruled in favor of the Department of the Treasury, asserting the CTA’s alignment with constitutional principles.

Compliance During the Injunction

Currently, the federal injunction exempts businesses from mandatory BOI filing requirements nationwide. This temporary halt will remain in place until further developments, such as a decision by an appellate court or a reversal of the injunction.

In response to the ruling, the Department of Justice, representing the Department of the Treasury, has filed an appeal. While the case proceeds through the legal system, FinCEN has confirmed its compliance with the court order.

Looking Ahead

The legal proceedings surrounding the CTA highlight the evolving nature of financial regulation. As courts continue to deliberate, businesses should monitor updates to remain informed about their obligations. By staying informed and prepared, businesses can effectively manage their compliance responsibilities and contribute to efforts that promote financial integrity and transparency.

Continue Reading

Economics

After a chaotic scramble, Congress strikes a budget deal

Published

on

Donald Trump is the most powerful Republican politician in a generation, but the president-elect is still no match for the most nihilistic members of his own party. The budget chaos that unfolded on Capitol Hill as the Christmas break approached is only a preview of the difficult realities Mr Trump will face when he starts to govern next month.

Continue Reading

Economics

Why Congress is so dysfunctional

Published

on

Budgetary chaos is a sign that governing will be harder than Donald Trump might assume

Continue Reading

Trending