Preemption conflicts between state and local governments

Ballotpedia's coverage of state and local preemption conflicts

Preemption conflicts by policy Coronavirus • Energy infrastructure Firearms • GMO Labor • LGBT • Marijuana Plastic bags Police department budgets Ridesharing Sanctuary jurisdictions • Soda taxes

Other storylines: Sharing economy Municipal partisanship

Staff Writer Elisabeth Moore gives a quick overview of preemption View other episodes here.

Preemption occurs when law at a higher level of government is used to overrule authority at a lower level. State law can be used to preempt local ordinances, and federal law can be used to preempt state or local law. This page focuses on preemption of local ordinances by state law.

Preemption conflicts can emerge between state and local governments due to differences in the partisan makeup of the respective governments. Sometimes Democratic-led cities are preempted by Republican state governments, such as when the state legislature in Missouri preempted efforts to increase the minimum wage in St. Louis. Democratic state governments have also come into conflict with Republican-led localities, such as when several Virginia municipal governments passed firearms resolutions that were preempted by state law.

However, shared party affiliations don't guarantee that state and local governments will see eye-to-eye. For example, in 2017 New York's Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo, signed a bill blocking a plastic bag tax in Democratic-led New York City.

Common recent targets of state preemption include ordinances related to the minimum wage and paid sick leave, firearms policy, plastic bags, and marijuana decriminalization.

Timeline

The following timeline highlights recent developments in major preemption conflicts that Ballotpedia is covering.

• May 27, 2022: Governor Polis (D) signed a law expanding the collective bargaining rights of county employees.
• June 1, 2021: Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed a law establishing penalties for cities that reduce their police department budgets, possibly preempting Austin's recent public safety budget changes.
• May 7, 2021: Governor Brian Kemp (R) signed a bill into law preempting local police department budget reductions after proposals do so failed in Athens-Clarke County and Atlanta.
• May 4, 2021: Mayor Stan Pulliam, along with a business owner and several interest groups, filed a lawsuit challenging Governor Kate Brown's (D) coronavirus business restrictions.
• May 3, 2021: Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill into law preempting local emergency regulations.
• April 22, 2021: Tennessee passed a law preempting localities from instituting certain regulations related to contractors, which preempted proposed legislation in Nashville relating to construction health and safety regulations.
• April 19, 2021: Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed a law preempting local police department budget reductions.
• April 9, 2021: A Washington appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling affirming the preemption of a local firearms storage regulation.
• April 9, 2021: The Kansas State Legislature passed the Energy Choice Act, which preempted parts of the city of Lawrence's renewable energy transition plan.
• March 12, 2021: A Colorado district court affirmed the preemption of a Boulder ordinance that would have banned the possession, sale, and transfer of certain types of automatic firearms and magazines.
• February 22, 2021: A Florida appeals court upheld a 2011 law imposing penalties on local government officials who enact or enforce firearms ordinances.

Email [email protected] to notify us of updates or new preemption stories.

Preemption conflicts

Click on the tabs below to find out more about preemption conflicts between state and local governments.

Coronavirus

Summary

Click here to read more about coronavirus preemption conflicts.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) preemption conflicts overview
Year	State	Summary
2021	Texas	The Texas Supreme Court temporarily upheld Gov. Greg Abbott's (R) executive order banning local government mask requirements following legal challenges from local governments.
2021	Florida	Several parents in Florida filed a lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), alleging his executive order banning mask requirements in schools violated the state constitution.
2021	Oregon	Mayor Stan Pulliam, along with a business owner and several interest groups, filed a lawsuit challenging Governor Kate Brown's (D) coronavirus business restrictions.
2021	Florida	Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill into law preempting local emergency regulations.
2020	Pennsylvania	Lancaster County, among others, proposed reopening ahead of the state timeline.
2020	Georgia	Governor Brian Kemp (R) withdrew a lawsuit against Atlanta's mayor and city council after the city altered its stay-at-home order.
2020	Illinois	The Sangamon County Circuit Court issued an injunction against a school district mask mandate after Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) filed a lawsuit.

Energy infrastructure

Summary

Click here to read more about energy infrastructure preemption conflicts.

Energy infrastructure preemption conflicts overview
Year	State	Summary
2021	Kansas	The Kansas State Legislature passed the Energy Choice Act, which preempted parts of the city of Lawrence's renewable energy transition plan.
2020	Colorado	A Colorado district court upheld a previous Colorado Supreme Court ruling finding a hydraulic fracking ban in the City of Longmont to be preempted by state law.
2020	Arizona	Arizona passed a law preempting municipal natural gas bans in new construction, which preempted parts of the city of Flagstaff's plan to transition to renewable energy.
2019	Pennsylvania	An Allegheny Township zoning board decision to allow fracking in each of the town's zoning districts was challenged by residents in court, with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ultimately upholding the zoning board's decision.
2017	Colorado	Colorado’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Boulder County for having a moratorium on new oil and gas development that conflicted with a state law, but the lawsuit was dismissed as the moratorium had expired.
2016	Various	Thirty-three mayors issued a statement seeking greater local control over fracking.
2016	West Virginia	A federal judge struck down a Fayette County fracking waste disposal ban on the grounds that it was preempted by state and federal law.
2016	Louisiana	St. Tammany Parish attempted to block a drilling project using zoning ordinances, but the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the parish’s ordinances were preempted by state oil and gas regulations.
2016	Colorado	The Colorado Supreme Court struck down a five-year moratorium on fracking in Fort Collins and a fracking ban in Longmont since the cities’ fracking regulations were preempted by state law.
2015	Texas	Texas passed an oil and gas preemption bill in response to a Denton ballot measure that would have banned fracking in the city.

Firearms

Summary

Click here to read more about firearms preemption conflicts.

Firearms preemption conflicts overview
Year	State	Summary
2021	Minnesota	The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and two individuals filed a complaint challenging the Minnesota State Fair's ban on weapons.
2021	Missouri	Cole County judge rejected St. Louis, St. Louis County, and Jackson County's request that House Bill 85 be ruled unconstitutional.
2021	Florida	A Florida appeals court upheld a 2011 law imposing penalties on local government officials who enact or enforce firearms ordinances.
2021	Colorado	A Colorado district court affirmed the preemption of a Boulder ordinance that would have banned the possession, sale, and transfer of certain types of automatic firearms and magazines. Gov. Polis (D) later signed Senate Bill 256 permitting local governments to enact ordinances or regulations on firearms that are not less restrictive than state laws.
2021	Washington	A Washington appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling affirming the preemption of a local firearms storage regulation.
2020	Pennsylvania	Philadelphia, joined by city residents impacted by violence related to firearms and Ceasefire Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit challenging the state's firearms preemption laws.
2020	Virginia	After the Virginia legislature passed a package of seven gun laws, local jurisdictions passed resolutions refusing to enforce state gun laws. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring responded by saying these local resolutions had no legal force.
2019	Montana	A legislatively referred state statute was placed on the November 3, 2020, ballot that, if passed, would remove local governments' authority to regulate the carrying of permitted concealed weapons.
2017	Florida	An appeals court rejected a lawsuit claiming local firearm ordinances passed in 1957 and 1984 were in violation of a 1987 state law preempting local regulation of firearms because the ordinances were not being enforced.
2017	Iowa	The governor signed a firearms bill into law that would prohibit cities, counties, and townships from passing firearm regulations.
2017	Michigan	A majority in the Michigan House of Representatives voted to pass legislation prohibiting local firearms regulation.
2017	Montana	The Montana Attorney General struck down a Missoula background check ordinance citing a Montana State Legislature ordinance prohibiting local government from enacting firearm regulations.
2017	Pennsylvania	A Pennsylvania appellate court struck down a Lower Merion township prohibition on carrying or discharging firearms in a public park for its potential to violate a state-level firearms law.
2017	Washington	The Washington Supreme Court upheld a Seattle tax on firearms and ammunition, finding it not in violation of a state law prohibiting local regulation of guns.
2016	Arizona	The Arizona Supreme Court struck down a Tucson law requiring confiscated or surrendered firearms to be destroyed because it contradicted a state law requiring law enforcement agencies sell such firearms.
2016	Pennsylvania	Allentown Council indefinitely tabled an ordinance requiring gun owners report lost or stolen firearms after a previous iteration of the ordinance had been repealed to avoid a lawsuit enabled by a 2015 state law, which was later repealed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
2010	Ohio	The Ohio Supreme Court upheld a 2006 state law that invalidated stricter local firearms ordinances, like those passed in the city of Cleveland.

GMOs

Summary

Click here to read more about GMO preemption conflicts.

GMO preemption conflicts overview
Year	State	Summary
2016	Oregon	A Josephine County ban on GMOs was struck down by state courts on the grounds that the ban conflicted with a state law prohibiting counties from regulating GMOs.
2015	Hawaii	A federal judge struck down a Maui County GMO moratorium on the grounds that it was preempted by state agriculture laws regulating GMO use.
2015	Oregon	After Jackson County voters approved a GMO ban, farmers filed suit and the county agreed to a settlement.
2014	Hawaii	A federal court struck down a Kauai County law requiring large agricultural operations to report pesticide and genetic engineering on the grounds that it deviated from state law.

Labor

Summary

Click here to read more about labor preemption conflicts.

Labor preemption conflicts overview
Year	State	Summary
2022	Colorado	Colorado passed a law expanding the collective bargaining rights of county employees.
2022	Washington	Washington passed a law preempting certain local ordinances regarding rideshare drivers and companies.
2021	Tennessee	Tennessee passed a law preempting localities from instituting certain regulations related to contractors, which preempted proposed legislation in Nashville relating to construction health and safety regulations.
2020	Minnesota	The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a Minneapolis sick time ordinance, ruling it was not preempted by state law.
2020	Texas	A federal judge blocked a Dallas paid sick leave ordinance on the grounds that it was preempted by state law.
2019	Colorado	Colorado became the first state to repeal a state law preempting local wage regulation.
2019	Maine	Maine’s state government passed a bill regulating paid leave earnings that also included a preemption clause.
2019	North Dakota	The governor signed a bill into law that would prohibit local governments from setting a minimum wage greater than the state’s minimum wage.
2018	Wisconsin	A bill was passed by the state prohibiting local governments from enacting employment ordinances related to a range of subjects.
2018	Texas	The Texas Third District Court of Appeals ruled Austin’s paid sick leave ordinance was unconstitutional, saying it was preempted by the state’s minimum wage law.
2017	New York	A New York Supreme Court judge upheld a set of New York City ordinances regulating scheduling for restaurant workers on the grounds that the city’s ordinances did not infringe on state prerogatives.
2017	Washington	An income tax approved by the Seattle City Council was struck down in court. According to a 1984 state law, the city did not have authority to impose the income tax without approval from the state legislature.
2017	Iowa	The governor signed a bill into law that would prohibit local governments from setting a minimum wage greater than the state’s minimum wage.
2017	Florida	An ordinance passed in Miami Beach to raise the minimum wage was struck down in court on the grounds that it violated a state law barring localities from setting their own minimum wages.
2017	Minnesota	The governor of Minnesota vetoed a bill that would have prohibited local ordinances from setting minimum wage or paid leave requirements higher than the state mandated.
2017	Missouri	A bill was passed by the state legislature to preempt local minimum wage regulations, namely those in St. Louis and Kansas City.
2017	Ohio	A Cuyahoga County judge permanently blocked a state law that would have preempted Cleveland’s Fannie Lewis Law, which regulated hiring at public construction projects.
2016	Alabama	The Alabama State Legislature passed a law to preempt a minimum wage ordinance passed by the Birmingham City Council. The Alabama NAACP filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional, but the case was dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit.
2015	Pennsylvania	The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a Pittsburgh paid sick leave ordinance, saying that the city has authority based on the Pennsylvania Disease Prevention and Control Law.
2011	Wisconsin	In response to a proposed paid sick leave ballot measure in Milwaukee, a state law was passed preempting local paid sick leave ordinances.

LGBT

Summary

Click here to read more about LGBT preemption conflicts

LGBT preemption conflicts overview
Year	State	Summary
2017	Arkansas	A Fayetteville ordinance barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity was struck down by the Arkansas Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated a state law prohibiting local government from expanding protected classes.
2017	Texas	The Texas State Legislature did not pass a proposed bill that would have prohibited local ordinances requiring access to bathrooms on the basis of gender identity.
2016	North Carolina	In response to a Charlotte ordinance requiring access to bathrooms on the basis of gender identity and prohibiting businesses from discriminating against LGBT customers, the North Carolina State Legislature passed a bill prohibiting localities from enacting such ordinances. The legislature repealed the bill a year later.

Marijuana

Summary

Click here to read more about marijuana preemption conflicts.

Marijuana preemption conflicts overview
Year	State	Summary
2021	Massachusetts	Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that local bylaws requiring marijuana dispensaries to operate as nonprofits were preempted by state statute.
2019	California	Twenty-four cities sued the California Bureau of Cannabis Control arguing that a state policy on home delivery of marijuana violated state law, which allowed localities to ban marijuana establishments within their borders. The case was dismissed after the court found the local ordinance was not in violation of state regulations.
2019	California	California filed to join a lawsuit against Santa Cruz county seeking to prevent the county from enforcing an ordinance on marijuana delivery.
2018	California	Berkeley City Council voted to enact a marijuana sanctuary policy, which would bar city agencies and employees from assisting with the enforcement of federal marijuana law.
2017	Florida	A bill was passed legalizing and regulating medical marijuana in the state, preempting efforts by county governments to enact their own medical marijuana regulations.
2017	Tennessee	The state passed a law preempting ordinances to decriminalize marijuana in Nashville and Memphis.
2016	Kansas	The Kansas Supreme Court overturned a Wichita ballot measure that would have decriminalized the possession of marijuana.

Plastic bags

Summary

Click here to read more about plastic bag preemption conflicts.

Plastic bag preemption conflicts overview
Year	State	Summary
2020	Ohio	A state law was passed prohibiting local governments from regulating the use of auxiliary containers, such as plastic bags, for one year.
2020	Pennsylvania	An amendment to a budget bill prohibited local governments from regulating the use of auxiliary containers until July 1, 2021, or six months after the end of the state's pandemic emergency order—whichever was later.
2020	South Dakota	A state law was passed prohibiting local governments from regulating the use of auxiliary containers, such as plastic bags.
2019	Florida	A Florida court upheld the constitutionality of sections of state law that prohibit local governments from regulating plastic bags and other packaging, causing cities and towns with such ordinances to repeal or delay their bans.
2019	Tennessee	A bill was passed prohibiting local governments from regulating the use of auxiliary containers, such as plastic bags.
2019	Oklahoma	A law was passed prohibiting local governments from restricting, taxing, banning, or regulating the use, disposition, or sale of auxiliary containers, such as plastic bags.
2019	North Dakota	A law was passed prohibiting local governments from regulating, restricting, or taxing the use of auxiliary containers, such as plastic bags.
2018	Texas	The Texas Supreme Court struck down a Laredo city plastic bag ban, finding it in violation of a state prohibition of local regulations on solid waste management.
2017	Arizona	The state Attorney General ruled that a five-cent bag fee enacted by the Bisbee City Council violated a state law prohibiting local regulations on retail bag use.
2017	Minnesota	A state law was passed prohibiting cities from enacting bag regulations, including a ban on plastic bags and a five-cent tax on paper bags that had been previously approved by the Minneapolis City Council.
2017	New York	A law was passed delaying the implementation of a New York City bag tax.
2017	Pennsylvania	The governor vetoed a bill that would have preempted local restrictions on plastic bag use by retailers.
2016	California	California voters approved a statewide plastic bag ban, which included a clause allowing any public agency with preexisting plastic bag regulations to continue enforcing those regulations.
2016	Michigan	A state law was passed prohibiting local bag regulations, including a ten-cent bag fee that had been approved by Washtenaw County officials.

Police department budgets

Summary

Click here to read more about police department budget preemption conflicts.

Police department budget preemption conflicts overview
Year	State	Summary
2021	Missouri	After the city council in Kansas City voted to approve ordinances reallocating a portion of the city's police budget to other public safety measures, the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, a state-level board with authority over Kansas City's police department, voted to sue the city government.
2021	Texas	Austin increased its police department funding after Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed a law establishing penalties for cities that reduce their police department budgets.
2021	Georgia	Governor Brian Kemp (R) signed a bill into law preempting local police department budget reductions after proposals to do so failed in Athens-Clarke County and Atlanta.
2021	Florida	Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed a law preempting local police department budget reductions.

Housing

2018

California ballot measure: California Proposition 10, Local Rent Control Initiative

See also: California Proposition 10, Local Rent Control Initiative (2018)

California Proposition 10, the Local Rent Control Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018. The measure was defeated.

Proposition 10 was an initiated state statute that would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), thus allowing local governments to adopt rent control ordinances—regulations that govern how much landlords can charge tenants for renting apartments and houses. Costa-Hawkins is a state statute that limits the use of rent control in California by providing that cities cannot enact rent control on (a) housing first occupied after February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units where the title is separate from connected units, such as condominiums and townhouses. Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive just and reasonable returns on their rental properties. The California State Legislature passed Costa-Hawkins in 1995.

California Proposition 10
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		4,949,543	40.57%
No		7,251,443	59.43%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Food and beverage taxes

Summary

Click here to read more about food and beverage tax preemption conflicts.

Food and beverage tax preemption conflicts overview
Year	State	Summary
2020	California	A lawsuit was filed in California challenging the constitutionality of the state's soda tax preemption law.
2019	Oregon	A veto referendum was introduced that would overturn a prohibition on local governments imposing taxes on grocery sales, but the referendum was not certified.
2018	Arizona	A bill was passed preempting cities and counties from taxing soda, requiring they instead tax all food equally.
2018	California	A law was passed prohibiting cities and counties from implementing a tax on soda and sugar-sweetened drinks through 2030, preempting fees in Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany.
2018	Pennsylvania	The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a Philadelphia tax on soda, finding it did not violate state law.

Ridesharing

Summary

Click here to read more about ridesharing preemption conflicts.

Ridesharing preemption conflicts summaries
Year	State	Summary
2020	California	California voters approved Proposition 22, a ballot measure that preempts local regulation of ridesharing services.
2017	Florida	The Florida State Legislature approved legislation that would prohibit local governments from regulating requirements for rideshare employees.
2017	New York	The New York State Legislature passed a budget allowing and regulating rideshare company operations outside of New York City.
2017	Texas	The state passed a bill regulating rideshare company operations, preempting existing regulations in cities like Austin, Corpus Christi, and Houston.

Sanctuary jurisdiction

Summary

See also Sanctuary policy preemption conflicts between the federal and local governments

Local jurisdictions have employed a spectrum of law enforcement policies that do not distinguish between citizens and other residents. This spectrum ranges from instructing police not to inquire about immigration status at traffic stops to providing municipal identification cards to city residents regardless of citizenship in order to gain access to public services.

On April 28, 2021, the Biden administration rescinded a Trump administration executive order that introduced penalties against sanctuary cities—which limit the enforcement and prosecution of federal immigration laws—including making them ineligible for federal grants. The order drew opposition from cities that self-identified as sanctuary jurisdictions. A federal ruling on April 25, 2017, halted the order.

The Trump administration executive order was an example of preemption, a legal concept that allows the federal government to preempt local or state laws if those laws conflict with federal laws. To learn about preemption conflicts between local and state governments, click here.

Ballotpedia's analysis uses a local jurisdiction's stance on detainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a primary indicator of sanctuary status. Cities and counties that decline detainer requests outside of capital offenses or otherwise provide public services without regard to immigration status are categorized as sanctuary jurisdictions.

Other

2018

Ballot measure in Tempe, Arizona

In November 2017, the Tempe, Arizona City Council approved an ordinance that requires organizations spending more than $1,000 in a city election to disclose their funding sources. The city council vote referred the ordinance to voters, who approved it in March 2018.

Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed House Bill (HB) 2153 on April 5, 2018. The law established limits on city, town, county, and political subdivisions, prohibiting them from requiring organizations to disclose campaign contribution information.

On March 11, 2019, Arizona State Sen. Vince Leach (R) asked the Arizona attorney general's office to investigate the Tempe ordinance, arguing it violated HB 2153.

Groups

Engagement with preemption conflicts isn't limited to legislative chambers and courtrooms. Outside groups that favor more state or more local control over policymaking also weigh in. Ballotpedia has identified the following groups as key players in state and local preemption debates.

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was founded in 1973. According to its website, the group "is dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism." ALEC maintains a model policy library, which includes model bills in issue areas such as criminal justice, education, and economic development.

A December 2013 report by the Brookings Institution found that 34 states proposed 132 bills based on ALEC model policies during the 2011-2012 legislative session and enacted 12 of them. According to the report, the five ALEC model bills most commonly introduced during that legislative session were proposals to prohibit sanctuary cities (introduced in 23 states), require disclosure of the fluid used in hydraulic fracturing (10 states), permit deadly use of force against a home invader (nine states), recommend withdrawal from regional climate change initiatives (nine states), and preempt local firearms regulations (nine states).

The following is the text of the model firearms regulation preemption bill, as approved by ALEC's board of directors in 1999:

Consistency in Firearms Regulation Act Summary This Act would prohibit local jurisdictions from independently enacting restrictions on the possession of firearms. This Act would also preempt the right of local jurisdictions to bring certain civil actions against firearms or ammunition manufacturers, trade associations, and dealers. Model Legislation {Title, enacting clause, etc.} Section 1. {Title} This Act may be cited as the Consistency in Firearms Regulation Act. Section 2. {Declaration} The (insert state body) declares that the lawful design, marketing, manufacture, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public is not unreasonably dangerous activity and does not constitute a nuisance per se, and further finds that the unlawful use of firearms and ammunition, rather than their lawful design, marketing, manufacture, or sale, is the proximate cause of injuries arising from their unlawful use. Section 3. {State preemption of local firearms laws.} Any political subdivision shall not impose special taxation on, enact any law, ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, carrying, or possession of handguns or other firearms, ammunition for handguns or other firearms, or components of handguns or other firearms, except as otherwise provided in state or federal law. Section 4. {State preemption of local suits pertaining to firearms or ammunition} The authority to bring suit and right to recover against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or dealer by or on behalf of any governmental unit created by or pursuant to an Act of the (insert name of state legislature) or the constitution, or any department, agency, or authority thereof, for damages, abatement, or injunctive relief resulting from or relating to the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public shall be reserved exclusively to the state. Furthermore, no action against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or dealer shall be brought without the authorization of the (insert name of legislature) by adoption of a concurrent resolution or by enactment of a law. This paragraph shall not prohibit a political subdivision or local government authority from bringing an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the political subdivision or local government authority. This paragraph shall not prohibit actions for injuries resulting from a firearm malfunction due to defects in design or manufacture. Section 5. {Applicability} This Act shall apply to any action pending on or brought on or after the date this Act becomes effective. Section 6. {Severability clause.} Section 7. {Repealer clause.} Section 8. {Effective date.}

American City County Exchange (ACCE)

ALEC created the American City County Exchange (ACCE) in 2013. According to the ACCE's website, its mission is "to engage local elected officials and leaders from business and industry for the advancement of limited government and free market principles" and it aims to "[bring] together local elected officials and the private sector in a non-partisan forum to develop model policy and other measures that promote low taxes, taxpayer transparency, minimal debt and regulations."

The following is the most recent model policy listed on ACCE's website as of February 19, 2018:

An Ordinance for Local Right to Work (Private Sector) WHEREAS, it is the intent of this ordinance to provide that no employee covered by the National Labor Relations Act need join or pay dues to a union, or refrain from joining a union, as a condition of employment; and provide certain penalties for violation of those employment rights; and WHEREAS, the [Township/City/County] desires to promote economic development within its legal boundaries, directly and in cooperation with public and private entities promoting the [township/city] and its resources, its people and its many geographical and cultural advantages; and WHEREAS, _________ and its residents compete for the expansion of employment opportunities with other cities, counties and states whose citizens benefit from the protections under similar right to work legislation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to [Insert Section and Article] of the [Insert State] Constitution, this Body is tasked with and empowered to enact ordinances of local self-governance, including for the protection and convenience of the public, to encourage local commerce; and protect the rights and well-being of its citizens, and WHEREAS, we hereby find and determine that it is in the best interest of the citizens of ___________ to promote and encourage direct commerce for the protection and convenience of the public and the expansion of the tax base, by protecting employees’ right to choose employment without restraint or coercion regarding the payment of mandatory dues, fees or other payments to a labor organization as a condition of that employment. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY ________________, STATE OF [INSERT STATE], that no employee within ____________ covered by the National Labor Relations Act need join or pay dues to a union, or refrain from joining a union, as a condition of employment; and certain penalties shall be provided for violation of those employment rights: Section 1. Authority. This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority granted to this body in [Insert Section and Article] of the [Insert State] Constitution, as a political subdivision of the State, in accordance with the laws set forth in the [Insert State] Revised Statutes and the laws of the United States of America. The intent of this Ordinance is to be applied throughout the [township/city/county], and all governmental entities subsumed thereunder, included. Section 2. Declaration of public policy. It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the [township/city] in order to ensure individual freedom of choice in the pursuit of employment, for the protection and convenience of its citizens who desire the broadest choice of employment opportunities, to permit its citizens to choose to increase their real take home pay by decreasing mandatory payroll deductions in order to stimulate savings and economic growth, and to encourage an employment climate conducive to the economic development of the community, including recruiting new businesses to the community, that the right to work shall not be subject to undue restraint or coercion. The right to work shall not be infringed or restricted in any way based on membership in, affiliation with, or financial support of a labor organization. Section 3. Terms. The terms “employee,” “employer,” “labor organization,” and “person” as used in this Ordinance shall have the same meanings as defined by the National Labor Relations Act. Section 4. Freedom of choice guaranteed, discrimination prohibited. No person covered by the National Labor Relations Act shall be required as a condition of employment or continuation of employment: (A) to resign or refrain from voluntary membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization; (B) to become or remain a member of a labor organization; (C) to pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization; (D) to pay to any charity or other third party, in lieu of such payments, any amount equivalent to or a pro-rata portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges regularly required of members of a labor organization; or Section 5. Voluntary deductions protected. It shall be unlawful to deduct from the wages, earnings, or compensation of an employee any union dues, fees, assessments, or other charges to be held for, transferred to, or paid over to a labor organization, unless the employee has first presented, and the employer has received, a signed written authorization of such deductions, which authorization may be revoked by the employee at any time by giving written notice of such revocation to the employer, unless the employee has expressly waived such right of revocation in the express terms of an otherwise lawful “dues check-off” card. In the invent of ambiguity in the meaning of the dues check off language, the burden of proving notice, and assent shall be on the party seeking enforcement of the dues check off agreement. Section 6. Agreements in violation, and actions to induce such agreements, declared illegal. Any agreement, understanding, or practice, written or oral, implied or expressed, between any labor organization and employer that violates the rights of employees as guaranteed by provisions of this Ordinance is hereby declared to be unlawful, null and void, and of no legal effect. Section 7. Coercion and intimidation prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person, labor organization, or officer, agent or member thereof, or employer, or officer thereof, by any threatened or actual intimidation of an employee or prospective employee, or an employee’s or prospective employee’s parents, spouse, children, grand-children, or any other persons residing in the employee’s or prospective employee’s home, or by any damage or threatened damage to an employee’s or prospective employee’s property, to compel or attempt to compel such employee to join, affiliate with, or financially support a labor organization or to refrain from doing so, or otherwise forfeit any rights as guaranteed by provisions of this Ordinance. It shall also be unlawful to cause or attempt to cause an employee to be denied employment or discharged from employment because of support or nonsupport of a labor organization by inducing or attempting to induce any other person to refuse to work with such employees. Section 8. Penalties. Any person who violates Section 7 of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor. A violation of any other section of this Ordinance shall be classified as a Class B Misdemeanor. Section 9. Civil remedies. Any individual harmed as a result of any violation or threatened violation of the provisions of this Ordinance shall have a civil cause of action in _____ Court to enjoin further violations, and to recover the actual damages sustained, together with the cost of the lawsuit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. Such remedies shall be independent of and in addition to the penalties and remedies prescribed in other provisions of this Ordinance. Section 10. Duty to investigate. It shall be the duty of [local law enforcement agency] to investigate complaints of violation or threatened violations of this Ordinance and to take all means at his/her command to ensure the effective enforcement of this Ordinance. Section 11. Prospective application. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all contracts entered into after the effective date of this Ordinance by employers or labor organizations covering employees within our jurisdiction, and shall apply to any renewal or extension of any existing contract. Section 12. Effective date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage and approval. Section 13. Severability clause. If any provision of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, entity or circumstances, shall be invalid or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this Ordinance, and the application of such provision to other person, entities or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall be enforced to the greatest extent permitted by law. Section 14. Repealer clause. All prior Orders, Resolutions or Ordinances or parts thereof, in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to [Insert State] State Constitution, [Insert Section and Article] in that it was published ——— said Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon signature, recordation and publication in summary form pursuant to [Insert State] State Constitution, [Insert Section and Article].

Local Solutions Support Center

The Local Solutions Support Center was launched in 2017, and describes itself as a "national hub that coordinates and creates efforts to counter the abuse of preemption and strengthen local democracy." According to the group's website, it aims to "raise awareness of state preemption and its consequences, reduce the use of this threat to local autonomy, and strengthen the power of local governments to advance policies that promote equity, inclusion, public health, and civic participation."

In a report on 2020-2021 state preemption trends, the Local Solutions Support Center wrote:

“

Since 2011, state legislatures have passed preemption laws barring local control over a large and growing set of public health, economic, environmental, and social justice policy solutions. In addition to pushing a vast deregulatory agenda, state legislatures have also worked to consolidate governing powers at the state level, even taking control of “core” local powers including local zoning, local elections, and local revenues. In Florida, for example, the legislature has meddled in the work of city councils, such as setting home gardening and tree-trimming ordinances, and even trying to set the terms of local school boards. Finally, over the past decade, state lawmakers have adopted increasingly harsh methods for enforcing preemption laws, including the threat of fiscal penalties, removal of local officials from office, and civil and criminal sanctions.

”

National League of Cities (NLC)

The National League of Cities (NLC) was first established in 1924 as an umbrella group for state municipal leagues. According to its website, its goals are to:

“	1. Proactively drive federal policy on behalf of cities, on issues that directly impact them. 2. Promote innovation and provide proven strategies and valuable resources. that address the challenges cities face. 3. Raise the profile of city governments as key leaders and partners in improving the quality of life for our nation. 4. Expand the capacity of city officials to serve as ethical, effective and engaged leaders. 5. Achieve our mission and goals through an organizational structure that is aligned, nimble, accountable and transparent.	”
—National League of Cities

On February 16, 2017, the NLC published a report, titled "City rights in an era of preemption: A state-by-state analysis," that raised concerns about increased state preemption of local laws. In the report, NLC Center for City Solutions Director Brooks Rainwater said:

“

In the economic sphere, there has been a concerted effort to impinge on the ability of cities to regulate economic activity taking place in communities. While a range of local laws have been preempted, this analysis centers on local minimum wage ordinances, the implementation of municipal broadband and the regulation of sharing economy activity in the ride-hailing and home-sharing space. When it comes to social policy, aggressive state action has limited the ability of city leaders to expand rights and provide opportunities to community members. Recently, we have observed states curtailing the ability of cities to pass laws supporting inclusive, family-friendly communities—particularly as it pertains to the areas of LGBTQ rights and paid leave laws. In some cases, state preemption does not mean progress is lost and can even lead to improved policy statewide. However, preemption that prevents cities from expanding rights, building stronger economies and promoting innovation can be counterproductive and even dangerous. When decision-making is divorced from the core wants and needs of community members, it creates a perilous environment. Local control and city rights are priority number one. We know well that innovation happens in cities and then percolates upwards. This process should be celebrated, not stymied.

”

See also

Local Politics	2021 Election Analysis	Preemption conflicts
Municipal government Local courts School boards Local ballot measures Local recalls	Municipal elections, 2021 Local court elections, 2021 School board elections, 2021 Local ballot measure elections, 2021 Political recall efforts, 2021	Coronavirus • Energy infrastructure Firearms • GMOs • Labor LGBT • Marijuana Plastic bags Police department budgets Ridesharing Sanctuary jurisdictions • Soda taxes

External links

• Stanford Law Review, "Preempting Politics: State Power and Local Democracy," accessed July 24, 2020
• Institute for Market Studies at Mississippi State University, "Local Governments Run Amok? A Guide for State Officials Considering Local Preemption," accessed July 24, 2020
• New America, "Punching Down: How States are Suppressing Local Democracy," July 11, 2019