# data[].attributes.body
Motto: "For the People, By the People"

Political Mascot: Capybara

# data[].attributes.body
As of 2024, we, the American Cooperative Party, believe political polarization from our two-party system pins us against each other through culture wars, reducing cooperation and increasing political gridlock. Our polarization is due to the way our two party system has chosen to focus on capitalization rather than cooperation. A few examples of this are through gerrymandering, state preemption of local laws, and misleading untruths disguised as political rhetoric. We believe Americans deserve better. We believe America deserves an alternate choice from single member district plurality. A choice that puts the people's vote first, values free press, prioritizes local autonomy, seeks for a cleaner environment, and increases economic stability for all social classes. Most of all we want to mediate the bullying between progressives and conservatives in our country. As a third party, we wont let our vanity supersede the will of the people or truth. We will stand tall in defeat, for as we know it's inevitable in our system, because we stood for something more than just a candidacy; we stood for a different perspective, one that challenged the status quo. Our perspective is divided into three different platforms: Social Democracy Reform, Home Rule Reform, and Combatting Climate Change.

# data[].attributes.body
Home Rule Reform is the legal basis for local decision-making. It allows for essential issues to be solved at the closest level of government to the people. Home rule differs throughout the United States, leaving counties with varying local authority. Implementation of home rule reform differs between states but is upheld by constitutional amendments, ballot initiatives, and statutory change. It’s important to note that only Federal and State governments have constitutional authority, so all cities, counties, and school districts are legally susceptible to preemption. State Preemption of Local Law is a modern dynamic in the American Federalist system, where state governments override local governments’ regulatory authority, such as cities and counties. While preemption can set universal standards across a state, it may derail local autonomy and innovation, potentially leading to stagnating local issues, needs, and representation. Denial of local self-determination is a cause for concern, especially at a time when special interest groups, with their potential for bias, can sway legislatures in their favor by lobbying. Ultimately, it proposes whether state power is overstepping democracy’s “majority rule” by ignoring the will of selective majorities within the state. The rise of state preemption in recent years is a significant trend, as it has affected whole policy areas rather than individual laws since “nearly 50 percent of states have preempted at least one new area since 2019.” (NLC, 2022). The National League of Cities (NLC) has defined such areas as Civil Rights & Education, Housing, Infrastructure, Public Safety & Policing, Workforce, Tax, and Budgeting & Finance. This trend of state preemption is mainly active within states that have historically preempted the most, such as the South and is affecting policy areas that are more culturally relevant, such as transgender rights and critical race theory in schools. High rates of state preemption aren’t just limited to the South, though. For example, Democratic states have dabbled in the preemption of Conservative policy agenda, “In July [2023], Oregon updated its first-in-the-nation statewide rent control law, which rural areas didn’t want in the first place. Blue-state requirements around water usage or other environmental protections have prompted a lively secession movement among rural counties in several western states.” (Greenblatt, 2023). Therefore, preemption’s increased relevance is concentrated but not limited to a singular political party or location. We, the American Cooperative Party, plan to advocate and incentivize majority rule in cities, as local policy areas are closest to the electorate, facilitating direct public influence on policy. It allows the people to dictate policy easily, allowing for better exploration of political orientation.

# data[].attributes.body
As a Social Democratic party, we reject the absolutist agenda, which interprets the debate between capitalism and socialism. We wholeheartedly believe in the democratic process and reject the idea of a one-party state. Our party instead believes in the process of reform and innovation within the marketplace of ideas. We believe society will mature along with voters' needs, wants, and ideas. However, we must point out social inequality when presented within society and take action by introducing policies that we believe can help the average American. As seen in Martin Gilens' statistics regarding the relationship between affluence and influence, we can logically hypothesize that wealthy people have more say in policy changes than low and middle-income Americans. We believe it's no coincidence that this phenomenon was reported after the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United v. FEC. This landmark case ruled on January 21, 2010, granted the freedom of speech clause within the First Amendment to allow corporations, non-profit organizations, and labor unions access to independent expenditures for political campaigns. An example of corporate favoritism over the average American can be seen in the case of environmental policy in the State of Arizona. Following the case of Berkeley, California’s 2019 innovative ban on natural gas in new buildings, gas utility companies have worked to suppress the advancement of all-electric futures. For instance, according to Joan Fitzgerald of Planetizen, “Southwest Gas and its political action committee donated a total of $9,000 to the campaigns of Arizona Senate President Karen Fann and Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers before they introduced a bill [2020] that would benefit the gas company by preventing Arizona towns and cities from enacting building codes that would reduce reliance on gas in favor of electricity.” (Fitzgerald, 2021). We believe a reform in the way we dictate lobbying is necessary to provide a fair playing field of policy influence between all Americans. However, we know the likelihood of reforming lobbying is an uphill task that could take years. To combat wealth disparity within the U.S. right now, we want to advocate for Co-operative Enterprises. Inspired by the U.K.'s Co-Operative Party, we want to inspire and promote the philosophy of Co-opertivism. The way a Co-operative enterprise works is that it is ran by the democratic process of "one member one vote" in a way that all members jointly own the enterprise, its members consist of either its own workers, producers, or consumers. Co-ops also aren't founded by the need to maximize profit, they instead focus on how well they serve their members. This philosophy takes a bottom-up approach compared to the traditional top-bottom approach in the hiring process. Members in a Co-operative enterprise vote on who and what policies they want an individual to manage within their enterprise through their own member one vote voting system, which outshines the share percentage influence in voting power within the traditional overarching top-down approach. The Co-operative simply relies on a majority vote, in which some can revoke at anytime with another majority vote. As for salary comparison, Mondragon Worker Cooperative Federation pays their management positions only six times more than their workers lowest salary. On the other hand, a CEO in the traditional top-down approach in Spain makes 143 times the typical worker. Interestingly enough, according to TED-Ed, "Studies in the U.K. show that co-op start-ups are almost half as likely to close within five years as traditional businesses." We believe promoting this way of doing business prioritizes cooperation between our countrymen, and can be a crucial step in helping end polarization. This philosophy uses capitalism in a way that promotes growth and teamwork, and allows for the working class to own and dictate their own policy. This aligns snugly with our Home Rule policy in that it directs public influence on policy, providing the average American man a way to impact policy and climb the economic ladder in a cooperative manner rather than an exploitive one.

# data[].attributes.body
The statistics above show that most Americans understand the need to prioritize alternative energy options. After all, Richard Nixon, a Republican, founded the Environmental Protection Agency. However, we believe Donald Trump's casual untruths under his administration clouded the average American's judgment on environmental policy. During his time in office, Trump made 1,065 false and

misleading claims about environmental policy (The Washington Post, 2021). For example, Trump repeated this false talking point over 64 times: "To protect American workers, I withdrew the United States from the unfair and one-sided Paris Climate Accord, a very unfair act for the United States. The Paris Accord was not designed to save the environment. It was designed to kill the American economy. I refuse to surrender millions of American jobs and send trillions of American dollars to the world's worst polluters and environmental offenders." (The Washington Post, 2021). Trump was allowed to tweak commitments within the Paris Accord under his administration, and he failed to mention the benefits of having a better environment or welcoming new green jobs. On the other hand, the man whose party platform is "battling climate change," Joe Biden, hypocritically approved the Willow Project in March 2023. The Willow Project allows oil drilling in Northern Alaska, creating 500 million barrels of petroleum and releasing carbon levels equivalent to 76 coal-fired plants annually. At its peak, it can extract up to 180,000 barrels per day. This policy completely opposes what Biden's party platform stands for and disregards his constituents. This drilling will speed up the melting process of sea ice, which polar bears and seals depend on to live. Our platform will cut back on fracking and other forms of oil drilling, only using pre-existing locations; we will rely on those and prohibit the increase of fracking in different locations within America. Therefore, this creates a stable environment where all Americans and other countries benefit.

# data[].attributes.headline
Full Tracker and Timeline of Donald Trump's 30,573 Falsehoods While in Office:

# data[].attributes.subject
Full Tracker and Timeline of Donald Trump's 30,573 Falsehoods While in Office:

# data[].attributes.body
This was last updated in 2021, so the number is much higher now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fact Checker Search claims

Source: Washington Post reporting.

Reporting by Glenn Kessler, Meg Kelly, Salvador Rizzo and Michelle Ye Hee Lee. Design and development by Leslie Shapiro.

Originally published May 19, 2017. We aim to update the database about once every two months or whenever key thresholds are reached.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis | Tracking all of President Trump's false or misleading claims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fact Checker Search claims Source: Washington Post reporting. Reporting by Glenn Kessler, Meg Kelly, Salvador Rizzo and Michelle Ye Hee Lee. Design and development by Leslie Shapiro. Originally published May 19, 2017. We aim to update the database about once every two months or whenever key thresholds are reached.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this updated 2018 edition of City Rights in an Era of Preemption we are continuing to observe aggressive moves by state legislatures nationwide to usurp local authority.

Preemption is the use of state law to nullify a municipal ordinance or authority. In some cases, preemption can lead to improved policy statewide. However, preemption that prevents cities from expanding rights, building stronger economies, and promoting innovation can be counterproductive when decision-making is divorced from the core wants and needs of community members.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
City Rights in an Era of Preemption: A State-by-State Analysis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this updated 2018 edition of City Rights in an Era of Preemption we are continuing to observe aggressive moves by state legislatures nationwide to usurp local authority. Preemption is the use of...

# data[].attributes.headline
More on NLC's State Preemption (My source):

# data[].attributes.subject
More on NLC's State Preemption (My source):

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For years, the National League of Cities (NLC) has been an advocate for local authority because of its impact on localities' ability to respond to resident needs. In recent years, NLC has worked to track and research local authority trends such as preemption and provide resources for localities and states on this topic. A recent NLC publication, The Local Authority Landscape: Trends in Select Issues from 2019-2022 brief, dives into these trends with further analysis of how issue areas changed in a three-year period.

In partnership with NLC, the Center for Public Health Law Research (CPHLR) at Temple University Beasley School of Law gathers legal data on 15 policies spanning six themes. Using the following six themes, NLC conducted an analysis of local authority data from 2019 to 2022:

Civil Rights and Education

Housing

Infrastructure

Public Safety and Policing

Tax, Budgeting and Finance

Workforce

Across these themes, three key insights were uncovered:

1. Policy Area Variation

About half of the policy areas saw no change in preemptions, indicating stagnant preemption levels in those domains. Additionally, in two policy areas-property tax and expenditure limits (TELs) and municipal broadband-the number of states preempting decreased. New laws implemented in other domains not tracked in the CPHLR dataset could still have similar impacts on local authorities like the property TELs.

However, preemption did increase in five policy areas tracked, with expansion concentrated in a select few areas. Specifically, transgender rights and school curriculum on race and racism accounted for 80% of new preemptions. Nonetheless, leaders should be conscious of potential preemptions in areas not tracked by CPHLR.

2. New Sectors in Preemption

Since 2019, about half of states have preempted at least one new policy area tracked. These states were often those in the higher preemption quartiles, indicating that new activity is concentrated in states with a historical precedent for such actions.

Figure: State action ranged from preemption of three new areas to repeal of preemption in one area

change in number of policy areas preempted by state between 2019-2022

3. Geographical Variations

There is a notable geographical bent in preemption rates, with southern states featuring prominently in the highest quartile of preemptions. Arizona and Tennessee lead in the number of policy areas preempted, while Connecticut and Vermont show minimal preemption activity in the areas tracked by CPHLR. The range between quartiles also demonstrates a widening difference between high-preemption and low-preemption states.

Looking Ahead

As America's local authority landscape continues to evolve, it is important for local leaders to stay informed on and understand trends in key issue areas. NLC and CPHLR remain committed to providing local leaders with the resources that they need to respond to residents' needs

The Local Authority Landscape: Trends in Select Issues from 2019-2022 brief adds further context to the trends detailed above. For more resources, see NLC's Empowering Local Authority initiative page.

Here are a few terms to help you understand the local authority landscape:

Local authority is the ability of municipalities to self-govern.

Preemption occurs when a higher level of government supersedes the authority of lower levels of government. Through inefficient state interference, municipalities have experienced limits to their authority that can constrain local innovation and efforts to make communities stronger, safer and fairer.

Home rule reform provides the legal basis for local decision-making and can set limits on state interference. Home rule allows for important issues to be handled at the closest level of government to the people. Currently, access to home rule differs across and within states throughout the US, leaving municipalities with varying degrees of local authority. Opportunities for home rule reform differ between states but may occur through ballot initiatives, constitutional amendments, or statutory change.

About the Authors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three Local Authority Trends and Insights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Co-authored by Chukwudi Ukonne, Graduate Research Intern, Center for Research and Data Analysis, National League of Cities For years, the National League of Cities (NLC) has been an advocate for local...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
States have grown more active in pre-empting cities and counties over the past dozen years.

This has been mainly but not exclusively the province of red states blocking progressive laws.

Now states are attacking not only specific laws but the ability of local governments to address entire issues, such as labor relations.

This year, the San Antonio City Council has passed numerous ordinances meant to protect residents. That's what you'd expect from a city council. In March, the council voted to impose additional fees and inspections on landlords who don't rectify unsafe living conditions. In May, they passed a "tenants' bill of rights" resolution to make renters more aware of protections under state and federal law. Then, toward the end of a long, hot summer, they passed a requirement in August that employers provide shade, water and breaks when the temperature exceeds 95 degrees.

Such actions might be blocked if the City Council attempted them now. A broad pre-emption law went into effect in Texas last month that takes away the ability of cities and counties, in most cases, from passing laws in areas that are now the exclusive domain of the state, including business, labor, natural resources and property. A state judge declared the law, derided by opponents as the "Death Star bill," unconstitutional in August, but it took effect anyway as the appeals process continues.

"We all know that local government is the closest to our communities and thus best positioned to respond to local needs," says Teri Castillo, a member of the San Antonio City Council. "The Death Star bill strips local officials of the ability to respond."

Texas is not alone. Pre-emption has become a primary policymaking - or policy breaking - tool of state governments over the past dozen years or so. States have pre-empted localities across a broad range of policy areas, including minimum-wage levels, environmental protections, police budgets and public health.

At this point, however, state lawmakers are not only asserting their control over specific policies, but much more widely limiting the ability of cities and counties to set their own courses or even, in some cases, choose their own leaders. "In some states, they're trying to return to the Gilded Age, in terms of stripping away municipal home rule," says Paul Diller, a Willamette University law professor. "But they're not doing it by rewriting the constitution. They're doing it either in one big stroke or through death by a thousand cuts."

Whole Lotta Pre-Emption Going On

Florida approved a long list of pre-emption legislation this year, including a bill that erases local tenant protection ordinances and another that makes it easier for companies and individuals to sue local governments. In August, Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis removed a second elected Democratic county prosecutor from office.

In Georgia, Senate Republicans have called on a panel to investigate Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis under a new law, which took effect this month, allowing state sanction of "rogue" prosecutors. Willis has indicted former President Donald Trump and more than a dozen allies for allegedly interfering with the 2020 election. Both the new law and the senators' complaint are clearly payback for this action. GOP Gov. Brian Kemp has rejected calls for a special session to remove Willis, saying he doesn't believe she's done anything illegal.

Mississippi extended its own ability to patrol and prosecute people within the city limits of Jackson. Tennessee moved to reduce local lawmaking ability directly in Nashville, cutting the number of seats on its Metro Council in half. The city sued and won, with the state dropping its appeal due to local elections this year. Still, state Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti insists the smaller size will be the standard moving forward.

"This is a pattern we've seen throughout this entire legislative session, as well as sessions before - state governments preventing localities from policymaking around issues that are truly local, whether it's criminal justice reform or educational curriculum decisions or worker protections," says Katie Belanger, lead consultant with the Local Solutions Support Center.

Belanger points out that pre-emption is not necessarily a bad thing - it's "a neutral policy tool," she says - but states are now going beyond bigfooting cities and counties on specific issues to take away their lawmaking authority more generally. "They're actually just attacking local governments and the existence of local governments," she says.

What's Driving This

There are examples of blue states pushing around red areas. In July, Oregon updated its first-in-the-nation statewide rent control law, which rural areas didn't want in the first place. Blue-state requirements around water usage or other environmental protections have prompted a lively secession movement among rural counties in several western states.

"The problem is the state legislature is trying to do something for the whole state, but taking away local authority to address these problems," says Christine Baker-Smith, research director for the National League of Cities' Center for Research and Data. "They are well-intentioned efforts in many cases, but at the same time they are putting limits on municipalities and their economies."

Present-day pre-emption trends are mostly driven by red states blocking liberal cities from pursuing policy aims. Diller suggests that a couple of factors are at play. For one thing, politics has become more nationalized and multistate interest groups have become more effective at promoting model bills from state to state. "There's more of a national infrastructure for spreading policy ideas around the country," he says.

There's also a political mismatch within states. Big cities such as Chicago, Louisville and Milwaukee have never gotten much love from rural legislators, but now there's a complete partisan divide between Republican rural areas and Democrat-dominated major cities. In a majority of states, that translates into GOP majorities that feel little loyalty to their largest cities.

"There's a continuing, widening split between urban areas and exurban and rural areas in terms of their policy preferences," Diller says. "You do have urban areas in some states trying to do things that the rest of the state doesn't like, or at least the politicians representing the rest of the state don't like."

This dynamic not only translates into conservatives blocking progressive policies, but has given corporations a powerful tool for eradicating local regulations they argue are unduly burdensome. Some say racial politics are involved, given the demographic differences between cities and outlying areas. "There is no question this has racial implications, taking power from Black and brown communities," says Luis Figueroa, chief of legislative affairs for Every Texan, a progressive nonprofit group, referring to the state's Death Star bill.

A Widening Net

There's always a power imbalance between states and localities. The level of home-rule authority varies from state to state, but it's clear that the state is the dominant partner, generally able to strip powers away at will from cities and counties. Now that the pre-emption habit is well-ingrained, perhaps it's not surprising that it continues to grow stronger.

There are lots of instances of local governments banding together to push back against pre-emption attempts. Even Republican local officials opposed the Texas Death Star bill. And pre-emption is not always a one-way street. Arizona has been one of the most active pre-emption states in recent years, but in 2022 the state restored the power of cities to create licensing and permitting requirements for short-term rentals such as Airbnb. Local regulation of short-term rentals and ride-sharing services has been one of the most active areas of pre-emption in recent years.

Local officials can not only form alliances among themselves, but find common cause with interest groups concerned with a specific policy approach put at risk by pre-emption, says Baker-Smith, of the National League of Cities.

"I think what we will see is a greater activation of the folks who are pushing back against state pre-emption," she says. "Unfortunately, that's a lot harder to do when it's a blanket pre-emption like we see in Texas."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Less Politics Is Local: States Get Increasingly Aggressive About Pre-Emption

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pre-emption of local authority has been a major concern over the past decade. Now, states are not only blocking specific laws but stopping cities and counties from addressing entire areas of policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Attribution and the Willow Project: Federal Obligations to Evaluate the Effects of Fossil Fuel Leasing on Endangered Species - Climate Law Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In November, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska dismissed two lawsuits filed by environmental organizations and an indigenous Iñupiat group seeking vacatur of the Biden administration's approval of the Willow oil and gas project. As we have detailed in previous blog posts, the Willow project has garnered considerable controversy due [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Willow Project

Located on Alaska's North Slope in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A), the Willow project is estimated to produce 180,000 barrels of oil per day at its peak, decreasing American dependence on foreign energy supplies. The project is projected to deliver $8 billion to $17 billion in new revenue for the federal government, the state of Alaska and North Slope Borough communities. Willow will be built using materials primarily made and sourced in the U.S. and has the potential to create over 2,500 construction jobs and approximately 300 long-term jobs. The project is designed to support and coexist with subsistence activities with many mitigation measures built into the project design.

ConocoPhillips welcomes the Department of the Interior's recent Record of Decision (ROD) on the Willow project, adopting the three core pads detailed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) preferred Alternative E. Willow is important for both Alaska's economy and America's energy security.

Download the Fact Sheet.

Quick Facts about the Willow Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Located on Alaska's North Slope in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A), the Willow project is estimated to produce 180,000 barrels of oil per day at its peak, decreasing American dependence on foreign energy supplies. The project is projected to deliver $8 billion to $17 billion in new revenue for the federal government, the state of Alaska and North Slope Borough communities.

# data[].attributes.body
I found it interesting how Cooperative Enterprises employ up to 10% of the world's workforce. That's 280 million people! They also bring in profits of over 2 trillion dollars every year. For enterprises without CEO's, that's pretty remarkable!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These companies with no CEO are thriving

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We talk about the power of cities to act aggressively on climate change and equity, but there are many barriers to action. Republican state legislatures, acting to slow down or altogether stop environmental action, are one of the biggest barriers. The Republican party, which historically has advocated for state and local control, has changed its tune in state legislatures as more cities are controlled by Democrats.

Their main tool is preemption-laws by state legislatures that nullify an existing municipal or county ordinance. State legislatures can also create new laws that stop environmental action in its tracks.

Plastic Bags

Let's start with plastic bags. Starting in 2007, several cities have enacted laws to limit or ban plastic bag bans to reduce municipal waste and the amount of plastic waste that makes its way to our oceans. Since then, 19 states have enacted laws that prevent municipal or county governments from prohibiting, taxing, or otherwise regulating the use or sale of plastic containers. Of these, 17 were enacted by Republican legislatures under strong influence from plastic bag manufacturers. During the same 2015 legislative session, Arizona's legislature preempted cities and towns from banning plastic bags and also prohibited local governments from imposing emissions benchmarking requirements or disclosing energy usage.

As with executive orders, preemption can be undone when administrations or legislative control flips. Colorado's legislature is currently acting to undo prohibitions previously imposed on cities that prohibited or limited plastic bags and foam food containers.

Fracking

Local bans on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) have been another target of state preemption. Texas is one of five states that has preempted local bans on fracking. Governor Abbott signed the bill in May 2015, citing the harm of a " patchwork of local regulations" threatening the state's oil and gas production. Never mind the threat to public health that prompted the city of Denton to pass the state's first ban in 2014, despite considerable pressure from the oil and gas industry. Denton was home to close to 300 fracking wells, many of which were built within close proximity to city playgrounds, schools, a hospital, and residential areas, which violated a city ordinance requiring 1,000-foot setbacks.

Buildings and Natural Gas

If cities are to meet aggressive goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or become carbon neutral, they'll have to move fast on reducing fossil fuels in buildings. Co-benefits include reducing energy burden and improving indoor air quality. The interconnected mechanisms available to cities are mandating strict building codes and banning fossil fuel hookups. Both are being preempted.

Berkeley, California was the first city to impose a natural gas ban in 2019. The ordinance bans natural gas hook-ups in new multi-family construction, with some allowances for first-floor retail and certain types of large structures. New construction not covered by the ban must immediately be built for conversion to all-electric in the future. Other California cities have followed by incentivizing or mandating electric appliances in new buildings and offering subsidies for residents in existing housing to purchase electric appliances.

Natural gas utilities noticed. Southwest Gas and its political action committee donated a total of $9,000 to the campaigns of Arizona Senate President Karen Fann and Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers before they introduced a bill that would benefit the gas company by preventing Arizona towns and cities from enacting building codes that would reduce reliance on gas in favor of electricity. The law passed quickly in February 2020 even though no cities had attempted gas bans.

Brookline, Massachusetts passed a similar bylaw in November 2019, but Attorney General Maura Healey reluctantly ruled that the prohibition of oil and gas lines in new and substantially renovated buildings violated existing state law. This is not a case of preemption, but of existing law. Massachusetts is one of about 21 states that do not allow cities and towns to pass energy codes stronger than the state's code. Since banning natural gas hookups is essentially imposing a zero-carbon building standard, it is stricter.

Not to be defeated, in June 2021 Brookline's Town Meeting members passed two proposals that incentivize electrification by placing time limits on applications for special construction permits that are not fossil-free. This approach illustrates how cities and towns can use their land use authority, rather than building codes, to influence construction. While waiting to see if this law passes muster at the state level, Brookline and three other towns are supporting three bills under consideration by the state legislature's Municipalities and Regional Government Committee that would allow Brookline, Arlington, and Lexington to prohibit fossil-fuel infrastructure in new buildings. Advocates of the bill in Massachusetts argue that allowing the three towns to implement the fossil-fuel bans will allow state government to assess impacts before going statewide with the policy. Another proposed bill would allow cities and towns to pass fossil-fuel bans without seeking state permission.

Fossil fuel interests such as the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the American Gas Association have been lobbying state legislatures to preempt fossil-fuel bans, which more than 14 states are considering. In addition to Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kansas, and Louisiana have passed laws to preempt cities from banning or limiting fossil fuel hook-ups.

ALEC in fact has written the templates for many of the environmental preemption laws. The Sierra Club reports that ALEC templates were used by 29 state legislatures to preempt local pesticide bans. ALEC also drafted many of the state laws preempting cities to ban or limit fracking and plastic bags. Groups working with ALEC on plastic preemption include the American Chemistry Council (a member of ALEC) and the Plastics Industry Association.

The Threat to Democracy

These and a host of other preemptions on firearms, minimum wages, or paid sick leave, are a threat to local democracy. As I've noted in other posts, some cities are attempting to place equity at the forefront of their climate action. Participation from residents, particularly residents of frontline communities, is the first step. State preemption subverts processes in which residents had a voice in determining a local energy policy. And it will slow down progress on climate change at a time we need to accelerate.

The politics of preemption also involves federal-state relations. The big infrastructure bill working its way through Congress shovels out about $600 billion in new federal money, mostly in grants to states. It imposes some federal standards, but to get Republican support, it does not interfere with existing state preemptions of actions by cities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Preemption of Green Cities in Red States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We talk about the power of cities to act aggressively on climate change and equity, but there are many barriers to action. Republican state legislatures, acting to slow down or altogether stop environmental action, are one of the biggest barriers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Counter Arguments of American Cooperative Party

# data[].attributes.subject
Counter Arguments of American Cooperative Party

# data[].attributes.body
A significant weakness in my party platform is that most of it is theoretical. Neither of the two major parties have selected candidates who have voiced their take on two of my party platforms on a national scale. For example, as a party platform, Home Rule Reform is nowhere near the same level of popularity as the Protection of the Second Amendment, especially since State Preemption is legal and has valuable properties. An example of this is the purpose of state authority over local policy, which is vital in keeping costs down by preempting the reduced supply of housing units within counties looking to increase property value. Generally, supporters of preemption believe that "local laws produce a harmful 'patchwork' of regulations within a state, increasing costs for businesses, government, residents, and consumers." (Treskon et al., 2021). This perspective is valid since state zoning isn't biased toward the local economy and will make housing affordable for future generations rather than just prioritizing current generations. Another counterargument you can make from my platform is that I'm romanticizing the idea of Co-operatives since there are already a bunch of enterprises with that philosophy. Lastly, a conservative might argue that my policies are too progressive and maybe even radical. However, I beg to differ; Cooperative enterprises are a staple in the U.K. economy. They have managed to influence their philosophy into politics through the Consumer Co-operative, Co-operative Group Limited, and have become the 4th largest party in the House of Commons with 26 seats. I also believe Home Rule Reform is precisely what conservatives need. The state has a form of government that correlates with the federal government. It's easier to influence policy in your congressional district, and local autonomy is essential to how we view majority rule.

# data[].attributes.headline
Source regarding need of state preemption: 

# data[].attributes.subject
Source regarding need of state preemption: 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This report investigates arguments that justify state preemption of local lawmaking on the basis that local laws produce a harmful "patchwork" of regulations within a state. We examine the use and merits of the patchwork argument across 10 policy areas, (focusing on paid sick leave, rent control, plastic bag bans and regulations, and antidiscrimination laws) and review the evidence around the patchwork argument's merits. We find little research evidence that a patchwork of local laws harms businesses, residents, or consumers. Arguments in favor of preemption generally focus on the supposed harm of the regulation itself, rather than on the marginal costs of a patchwork of local laws. Given this lack of evidence, we recommend more research studying the marginal costs andbenefitsof having different local laws in different jurisdictions.
Executive Summary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do the Effects of a Regulatory Patchwork Justify State Preemption of Local Laws?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This report investigates arguments that justify state preemption of local lawmaking on the basis that local laws produce a harmful "patchwork" of regulations within a state. We examine the use and merits of the patchwork argument across 10 policy areas­, (focusing on paid sick leave, rent control, plastic bag bans and regulations, and antidiscrimination laws) and review the evidence around the patchwork argument's merits.