Table of Contents Categories
  • Laws related to the administrative state
  • REINS page views
    •   Encyclosphere.org ENCYCLOREADER
      supported by EncyclosphereKSF

    REINS Act

    From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 28 min


    Administrative State Banner - Circle Graphic - V2.jpg


    What is the REINS Act?

    The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act) is a legislative proposal aimed at increasing legislative oversight of administrative agency rulemaking by requiring legislative approval of agency regulations with certain financial or economic impacts before the regulations take effect. Click here to learn about the federal-level REINS Act. Click here to learn about REINS-style laws at the state level.


    Five Pillars of the Administrative State
    Administrative State Icon Gold.png
    Nondelegation
    •Nondelegation doctrine
    • Timeline
    • Court cases
    • Arguments for and against
    • Reform proposals
    • Scholarly work
    More pillars
    • Judicial deference
    • Executive control of agencies
    • Procedural rights
    • Agency dynamics
    Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
    Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.

    The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, also known as the REINS Act, is a legislative proposal put forth at both the federal and state levels designed to increase legislative oversight of administrative agency rulemaking by requiring legislative approval of agency regulations with certain financial or economic impacts before the regulations become effective. This page focuses on the federal REINS Act, which would apply to major agency rules—defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA) as agency rules that have financial implications on the U.S. economy of $100 million or more, increase consumer prices, or have significant harmful effects on the economy.[1][2]

    REINS-style state laws, which take similar approaches to legislative oversight of agency rulemaking, were effective in four states as of May 2024. These laws were enacted in Florida (2010), Wisconsin (2017), Indiana (2024), and Kansas (2024). To track the progress of other proposed REINS-style state laws, view Ballotpedia's Administrative State Legislation Tracker.

    This article contains the following sections:

    Background[edit]

    See also: Congressional Review Act

    The REINS Act is designed to amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996. Under the CRA, Congress has the authority to issue resolutions of disapproval to nullify certain agency regulations that it considers to be harmful. The REINS Act aims to expand the CRA to require congressional approval of certain major agency regulations before those regulations are implemented. Rather than issuing resolutions of disapproval after a rule takes effect, the REINS Act seeks to give Congress the preemptive authority to halt the initial enactment of certain regulations.[2]

    The REINS Act defines major agency regulations as those that have financial impacts on the U.S. economy of $100 million or more, increase consumer prices, or have significant harmful effects on the economy.[2]

    In addition, the REINS Act would require Congress to examine all existing regulations that have financial impacts on the U.S. economy of $100 million or more.

    History of the REINS Act in Congress[edit]

    The REINS Act was initially designed by Tea Party activist Lloyd Rogers in 2009. Rogers contacted former U.S. Representative Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) to propose legislation requiring that "all rules, regulations, or mandates that require citizens, state or local government financial expenditures must first be approved by the U.S. Congress before they can become effective."[3] The proposal was incorporated into the Republican Party's Pledge to America legislative agenda leading up to the 2010 election cycle, and the legislation was first introduced on October 8, 2009, by Davis in the 111th Congress (2009-2010).[4]

    The REINS Act was later introduced as legislation in the 112th Congress (2011-2013), the 113th Congress (2013-2015), the 114th Congress (2015-2017) and the 115th Congress (2017-2019). The U.S. House of Representatives passed every version of the legislation between the 112th and 115th Congresses. The U.S. Senate, however, had not taken action on the legislation until the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed a version of the bill out of committee during the 115th Congress.[3][5][6][7][8]

    The legislation was reintroduced during the 116th Congress (2019-2021) and the 117th Congress (2021-2022) but did not pass.[9] In July 2020, the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the REINS Act with a party-line vote of 8-5.[10]

    Congresswoman Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), joined by more than 170 Republican cosponsors, introduced the REINS Act as H.R. 277 in the 118th Congress (2023-2025) on January 11, 2023. The U.S. House of Representatives voted 221-210 on June 14, 2023, to pass the act.[11]

    Timeline[edit]

    This is a timeline of events about the federal REINS Act and the enactment of REINS-style state laws:

    Provisions[edit]

    The REINS Act proposes the following procedures, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service:

    “ The bill sets forth the congressional approval procedure for major rules and the congressional disapproval procedure for nonmajor rules. Agencies are prohibited from allowing a major rule to take effect without the congressional review procedures set forth in this bill.[25][26] ”


    The REINS Act proposes the following changes to provisions regarding congressional review of agency rulemaking:

    “ The bill revises provisions relating to congressional review of agency rulemaking to require federal agencies promulgating rules to:
    1. identify and repeal or amend existing rules to completely offset any annual costs of new rules to the U.S. economy; and
    2. publish information about the rules in the Federal Register and include in their reports to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) a classification of the rules as major or nonmajor rules and a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the rules, including an analysis of any jobs added or lost, differentiating between public and private sector jobs.[25][26]
    		 ”


    The REINS Act defines the following regulations as major rules:

    “ A 'major rule' is any rule that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to result in:
    1. an annual cost on the economy of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation);
    2. a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
    3. significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.[25][26]
    		 ”

    Text of the bill[edit]

    The full text of the REINS Act, introduced by U.S. Representative Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) during the 118th Congress, is provided below:[27]

    Sponsors of the REINS Act[edit]

    118th Congress (2023-2025)[edit]

    In the U.S. House of Representatives[edit]

    Congresswoman Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) introduced the REINS Act as H.R. 277 in the 118th Congress (2023-2025) on January 11, 2023. "The REINS Act is a core part of House Republicans' mission to reintroduce government accountability and to restore Congress' role to check the regulatory actions of federal agencies. I'm grateful to the overwhelming support of my colleagues on this bill and look forward to seeing it pass the House this Congress," said Cammack in a press release about the bill.[28]

    The bill had 182 Republican cosponsors as of May 2023.[11]

    In the U.S. Senate[edit]

    The REINS Act of 2023 was sponsored by U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in the U.S. Senate on January 31, 2023.[12]

    The bill had 28 cosponsors as of June 2023:[12]

    117th Congress (2021-2023)[edit]

    In the U.S. Senate[edit]

    The REINS Act of 2021 was sponsored by U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in the U.S. Senate on January 27, 2021. "By making Congress more accountable for the most costly and intrusive federal rules, the REINS Act would give Kentuckians and citizens throughout the country a greater voice in determining whether these major rules are in America’s best interests," said Sen. Paul in a statement about the 2021 version of the bill.[29]

    The bill had 30 cosponsors as of March 2022:[14]

    In the U.S. House of Representatives[edit]

    The REINS Act of 2021 was sponsored by Representative Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 10, 2021.[13]

    The bill had 126 cosponsors as of November 2022:[13]

    116th Congress (2019-2021)[edit]

    In the U.S. Senate[edit]

    The REINS Act of 2019 was sponsored by U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in the U.S. Senate. "Last Congress, we made tremendous progress on relieving the burdens placed on the American people by unelected bureaucrats, but much more remains to be done," said Senator Paul in a statement about the 2019 version of the bill. "Passing the REINS Act would reassert Congress’ legislative authority and help us further reduce unnecessary, overreaching government interference in Americans’ everyday lives."[30]

    The bill had 42 cosponsors as of July 2020:[16]

    In the U.S. House of Representatives[edit]

    The REINS Act of 2019 was sponsored by U.S. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) in the U.S. House of Representatives. In a statement released the day he sponsored the bill, Sensenbrenner said, "It is time for Congress to reclaim its Article I authority by restoring the constitutional balance of power. The American people deserve a more direct say in regulations that could impact their everyday lives. The REINS Act would place a desperately needed check on unelected bureaucrats, saving taxpayers money."[31]

    The bill had 16 cosponsors as of September 2020:[15]

    Arguments about the REINS Act[edit]

    See also: Areas of inquiry and disagreement related to the administrative state

    The following sections provide a selection of policy arguments about the REINS Act.

    Arguments in support of the REINS Act[edit]

    Joseph Postell, a visiting fellow for The Heritage Foundation, argued in a 2023 article that the REINS Act is necessary to address concerns with the administrative state:[32]

    “ Even the original defenders of the administrative state acknowledged that there were concerns that must be addressed in order to preserve the structure and character of our constitutional system. The basic idea of the REINS Act—that Congress should vote on the major rules that carry significant impact—is rooted in the core constitutional principle of self-government through elected representatives.[26] ”


    A 2016 report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) argued that the REINS Act would improve relations between Congress and the administrative state by helping to restore the separation of powers by making members more accountable for regulatory decisions:[33]

    “ Members of Congress must face voters every few years. Agency officials do not, and they often enjoy decades-long careers under multiple administrations from both parties. If Members of Congress must publicly put their name to an unpopular or burdensome regulation, they are less likely to let it stand.[26] ”


    The CEI report also contended that the REINS Act would increase transparency in the rulemaking process because agencies would know that Congress had the final say before a new regulation could take effect:[33]

    “ REINS can provide common ground for conservatives and progressives to work together. Progressives tend to support an active approach to regulation, but that support depends on the content of each individual regulation. REINS would likely still let most, if not all major agency regulations pass—but with some democratic accountability.[26] ”


    Law professor Jonathan H. Adler wrote in a 2011 opinion piece in The Regulatory Review that the REINS Act would create accountability in the regulatory process:[34]

    “ Delegation of regulatory authority to federal agencies is a fixture of modern administrative law. It is not going away any time soon. But the REINS Act would provide a measured – and wholly constitutional – means to bring under control a practice that undermines political control of and accountability for major regulatory policy decisions.[26] ”


    Arguments in opposition to the REINS Act[edit]

    The Office of Management and Budget argued in a 2023 statement that the REINS Act undermines the regulatory process. The statement argued against passing the act, according to Government Executive:[35]

    “ Congress has explicitly charged federal agencies with the responsibility and the authority to act, but the REINS Act of 2023 would undermine agencies’ efforts by inserting into the regulatory process an unwieldy, unnecessary, and time-consuming hurdle that would prevent implementation of critical safeguards that protect public safety, grow our economy, and advance the public interest.[26] ”


    Opponents of the REINS Act have argued that the proposal would make it harder for agencies to protect the public and follow the law, according to a 2017 report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University (NYU) School of Law. The report claimed that Congress cannot make the highly technical decisions necessary for good regulation:[36]

    “ Preparing and issuing a major rule can take years of hard work by expert agency staff members. The agency must conduct a careful review of scientific evidence, respond to comments from the regulated industry and the protected citizens, and articulate their basis for the rule in the Federal Register. Congress, with its wider docket of issues and its relative lack of expertise on each given regulatory matter, is not well equipped to make these highly technical decisions.[26] ”


    The report also argued that the REINS Act raises constitutional concerns because delayed regulations could face court challenges that resemble INS v. Chadha (1984). In Chadha, the U.S. Supreme Court held that one-house legislative vetoes are unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution:[36]

    “ The REINS Act is legally questionable and potentially unconstitutional. The major rule review process could result in situations where Congress would be implicitly repealing earlier statutes by omission alone. In particular, in situations where regulations have been issued pursuant to mandatory requirements in earlier statutes, especially those with specific deadlines, Congress would, by failing to approve a rule, effectively be striking down the requirements in those earlier statutes without ever voting directly on an amendment. Courts strongly disfavor implied repeals of statutes.[26] ”


    The Public Citizen, a nonprofit advocacy organization, argued in a 2017 article against the REINS Act, stating that it threatens the separation of powers and politicizes the regulatory process:[37]

    “ The REINS Act would inappropriately – but deliberately – inject political considerations into a regulatory process that is supposed to be based on objective agency science and expertise. Federal agencies employ personnel with policy, scientific, and technical expertise to produce smart and sensible regulations. Allowing Congress to have the final say on regulations would give lobbyists, special interest groups, and those who provide legislators with campaign contributions even more influence in shaping a rule.[26] ”

    Attempts to achieve goals of the REINS Act in other legislation[edit]

    The following sections provide information on legislation that attempted to achieve goals similar to the REINS Act.

    Limit, Save, Grow Act (2023)[edit]

    The U.S. House of Representatives on April 26, 2023, voted 219-210 to pass H.R. 2811, the Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023, which aimed to raise the federal government’s debt ceiling and included provisions related to the REINS Act. President Joe Biden (D) had stated that he would veto the Limit, Save, Grow Act if it reached his desk.[38]

    The Limit, Save, Grow Act did not become law. Congress raised the debt ceiling by passing the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, which was signed into law on June 3, 2023. The Fiscal Responsibility Act did not include the REINS provisions.[39]

    Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (2018)[edit]

    The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) would have granted the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a panel housed within the Treasury Department, increased authority to review transactions related to direct foreign investments for potential security hazards. The legislation was amended in May 2018 with the support of U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) to mirror elements of the REINS Act. Toomey’s amendment would have required a simple majority for congressional approval for CFIUS’ major regulations—those with an annual economic impact upwards of $100 million.[40][41]

    The Trump administration opposed FIRRMA on the grounds that the legislation “could potentially result in CFIUS being unable to establish regulations, thereby undermining national security,” according to The Washington Post. FIRRMA did not come to a vote during the 115th United States Congress.[42]

    See also[edit]

    External links[edit]

    Footnotes[edit]

    1. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Disapproval of Regulations by Congress:Procedure Under the Congressional Review Act," October 10, 2001
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 GovTrack, "H.R. 26: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017—Overview," accessed July 14, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 The Jackson Sun, "We were never closer to seeing REINS Act become law," January 4, 2017
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Congress.gov, "H.R. 3765 - Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2009," accessed June 7, 2023
    5. ↑ Boston Herald, "Smith: Congress can regain power with REINS," January 6, 2017
    6. ↑ The Heritage Foundation’, “Taking the REINS on Regulation,” October 12, 2011
    7. ↑ The Heritage Foundation, “'REINS Act of 2013': Promoting Jobs, Growth, and Competitiveness,” March 6, 2013
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Congress.gov, "S.21 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017," accessed June 7, 2023
    9. ↑ Reuters, "Republicans act to curb U.S. regulation; Democrats poised for fight," January 5, 2017
    10. ↑ Bloomberg Law, "Senate Panel Moves Regulatory Bills to Aid Economic Recovery (1)," July 22, 2020
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Congress.gov, "H.R.277 - REINS Act of 2023," accessed June 7, 2023
    12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Congress.gov, "S.184 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023
    13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Congress.gov, "H.R.1776 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2021," accessed June 7, 2023
    14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Congress.gov, "S.68 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2021," accessed June 7, 2023
    15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Congress.gov, "H.R.3972 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2019," accessed June 7, 2023
    16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Congress.gov, "S.92 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2019," accessed June 7, 2023
    17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Congress.gov, "H.R.26 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017," accessed June 7, 2023
    18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Congress.gov, "H.R.427 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015," accessed June 7, 2023
    19. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.266 - Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015," accessed June 7, 2023
    20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Congress.gov, "H.R. 367 - Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013," accessed June 7, 2023
    21. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.15 - Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013," accessed June 7, 2023
    22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Congress.gov, "H.R.10 - Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011," accessed June 7, 2023
    23. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.299 - REINS Act," accessed June 7, 2023
    24. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.3826 - Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2010," accessed June 7, 2023
    25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 GovTrack, "H.R. 26: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017—Library of Congress Summary," accessed July 14, 2017
    26. ↑ 26.00 26.01 26.02 26.03 26.04 26.05 26.06 26.07 26.08 26.09 26.10 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    27. ↑ Kat Cammack, "H.R.277 - Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023," accessed January 31, 2023
    28. ↑ Congresswoman Kat Cammack, "Congresswoman Cammack Introduces REINS Act To Limit Executive Overreach," January 11, 2023
    29. ↑ Rand Paul, "Dr. Rand Paul Reintroduces the REINS Act for 2021," January 28, 2021
    30. ↑ Official Website, U.S. Senator Rand Paul, "Senators Reintroduce REINS Act," accessed February 8, 2019
    31. ↑ Jim Sensenbrenner, "Sensenbrenner Leads Effort to Rein in Unelected Bureaucrats," July 25, 2019
    32. ↑ The Heritage Foundation, "House to Vote to Reduce Power of Bureaucracy With REINS Act," June 7, 2023
    33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Competitive Enterprise Institute, "REINing In Regulatory Overreach," November 15, 2016
    34. ↑ The Regulatory Review, "The REINS Act: A Constitutional Means to Control Delegation," July 25, 2011
    35. ↑ Government Executive, "The White House Threatens Vetoes Over Regulation Bills," June 6, 2023
    36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Institute for Policy Integrity, "The REINS Act Is Burdensome, Irrational, and Legally Questionable," June 2017
    37. ↑ The Public Citizen, "What is the REINS Act and why do we oppose it?" January 3, 2017
    38. ↑ Congress.gov, "H.R.2811 - Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023," accessed June 12, 2023
    39. ↑ Congress.gov, "H.R.3746 - Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023," accessed June 12, 2023
    40. ↑ The Weekly Standard, "Senate to Vote on Measure Giving Congress a Say in Foreign Investment Review Process," June 14, 2018
    41. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.2098 - Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018," accessed June 14, 2018
    42. ↑ The Washington Post, "Senate sides with Trump, votes down GOP plan to expand Congress’s national security oversight," June 14, 2018
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Ethan Sorell • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora
    Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Original source: https://ballotpedia.org/REINS_Act
    Status: cached on August 24 2024 15:10:56
    Encyclosphere.org EncycloReader is supported by the EncyclosphereKSF