Procedural rights: A 50-state survey

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrative State Banner - Circle Graphic - V2.jpg
This survey is part of a series of 50-state surveys examining the five pillars key to understanding the administrative state
Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
• Nondelegation
• Judicial deference
• Executive control
• 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.


This page compares results from a series of Ballotpedia surveys about procedural rights, one of the five pillars key to understanding the main areas of debate about the nature and scope of the administrative state. Ballotpedia reviewed all 50 state constitutions and administrative procedures acts (APAs) to see how each state approaches procedural rights.

This article shows how state approaches to procedural rights compare with one another based on the following 22 questions:

  • Does the state APA or constitution allow challenges to agency adjudication actions in a state court in all cases?
  • Does the state APA or constitution allow for appeals of agency adjudication to state courts without exhausting administrative appeals?
  • Does the state APA or constitution require agencies to prove rule violators acted knowingly before imposing penalties?
  • Does the state APA or constitution require agencies to meet higher burdens of proof in proportion to the size of monetary penalties they seek to impose?
  • Does the state APA or constitution require a court order for agencies to impose monetary penalties
  • Does the state APA or constitution require agencies to always follow formal adjudication procedures in administrative hearings?
  • Does the state APA or constitution always prohibit administrative agencies use of informal adjudication procedures?
  • Does the state APA or constitution provide for juries to participate in agency adjudication hearings?
  • Does the state APA or constitution always require administrative agencies to accept oral evidence during adjudicative hearings?
  • Does the state APA or constitution require agencies to allow cross-examination during adjudicative hearings?
  • Does the state APA or constitution always require administrative agencies to provide a transcript of adjudicative hearings?
  • Does the state APA or constitution require administrative agency officers to base decisions on the adjudication record?
  • Does the state APA or constitution always require administrative agencies to explain the reasons for all material findings and conclusions in adjudication decisions?
  • Does the state APA or constitution provide for administrative agency leader review of all initial adjudication decisions by ALJs or hearing officers?
  • Does the state APA or constitution explicitly permit lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings?
  • Does the state APA or constitution clearly allow appeals to a state court without final agency action?
  • Does the state APA or constitution define final agency action?
  • Does the state APA or constitution establish training requirements or professional qualifications for ALJs, hearing officers, or other agency officials who preside over adjudications?
  • Does the state APA or constitution place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication
  • Does the state APA or constitution limit ex parte communications between hearing officers and the parties involved in adjudication
  • Does the state APA or constitution require administrative agencies to share the evidence against regulated parties during adjudication
  • Does the state APA or constitution always require agencies to notify people about the agencies’ legal authority and particular matters of law or fact at issue before a hearing

For each survey question, Ballotpedia labeled a state as yes or no based on whether the state gives more or less power to its administrative state.

You can find the results of other Ballotpedia surveys here.

This page features the following sections:

Methodology

Ballotpedia examined all 50 state constitutions and Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) to see how states approach procedural rights in their foundational laws. Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) govern the procedures state administrative agencies must follow to issue regulations and adjudicate disputes. The particular procedures outlined in each APA vary among the 50 states.

For each survey question, Ballotpedia labeled a state as yes or no based on whether the state gives more or less power to its administrative state.

Other state laws that might address how a state approaches procedural rights are beyond the scope of this survey.

To see the specific legal provisions Ballotpedia used to categorize each state, click here.

Summary of key findings

Ballotpedia's survey of state constitutions and APAs produced the following key takeaways (as of November 2020):

  • Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, and Virginia have the most yeses for procedural rights questions. They each have 13 yes answers.
  • Alaska and Mississippi have 20 nos for procedural rights questions. Those states have the fewest limits in their APAs and constitutions on their administrative states measured on procedural rights grounds.

Table showing how states approach procedural rights

The table below includes each state in alphabetical order and indicates how specific provisions in their constitutions or APAs address procedural rights. Ballotpedia evaluated each state according to the following questions:

  • Does the state APA or constitution allow challenges to agency adjudication actions in a state court in all cases?
  • Does the state APA or constitution allow for appeals of agency adjudication to state courts without exhausting administrative appeals?
  • Does the state APA or constitution require agencies to prove rule violators acted knowingly before imposing penalties?
  • Does the state APA or constitution require agencies to meet higher burdens of proof in proportion to the size of monetary penalties they seek to impose?
  • Does the state APA or constitution require a court order for agencies to impose monetary penalties
  • Does the state APA or constitution require agencies to always follow formal adjudication procedures in administrative hearings?
  • Does the state APA or constitution always prohibit administrative agencies use of informal adjudication procedures?
  • Does the state APA or constitution provide for juries to participate in agency adjudication hearings?
  • Does the state APA or constitution always require administrative agencies to accept oral evidence during adjudicative hearings?
  • Does the state APA or constitution require agencies to allow cross-examination during adjudicative hearings?
  • Does the state APA or constitution always require administrative agencies to provide a transcript of adjudicative hearings?
  • Does the state APA or constitution require administrative agency officers to base decisions on the adjudication record?
  • Does the state APA or constitution always require administrative agencies to explain the reasons for all material findings and conclusions in adjudication decisions?
  • Does the state APA or constitution provide for administrative agency leader review of all initial adjudication decisions by ALJs or hearing officers?
  • Does the state APA or constitution explicitly permit lawyers to represent parties during adjudication proceedings?
  • Does the state APA or constitution clearly allow appeals to a state court without final agency action?
  • Does the state APA or constitution define final agency action?
  • Does the state APA or constitution establish training requirements or professional qualifications for ALJs, hearing officers, or other agency officials who preside over adjudications?
  • Does the state APA or constitution place the burden of proof on administrative agencies during adjudication
  • Does the state APA or constitution limit ex parte communications between hearing officers and the parties involved in adjudication
  • Does the state APA or constitution require administrative agencies to share the evidence against regulated parties during adjudication
  • Does the state APA or constitution always require agencies to notify people about the agencies’ legal authority and particular matters of law or fact at issue before a hearing

For the answers:

  • Yes means that the state's APA or constitution limits the power of the administrative state
  • No means that the state APA or constitution expands or does not limit the power of the administrative state
  • The numbers at the right side of the table indicate how many yeses and nos each state has

Other state laws that might address how a state approaches procedural rights are beyond the scope of this survey.

State Yeses Nos Challenge in court Exhaustion Knowing violation Proportional burden Court orders for fines Formal adjudication No informal adjudication Juries Oral evidence Cross-examination Transcript Decisions based on record Explain reasons Leader review Lawyers Appeals before final action Define final action ALJ training Agency burden of proof Ex parte limits Share evidence Notification
Alabama 10 12 No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes
Alaska 2 20 No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No
Arizona 11 11 Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes
Arkansas 11 11 No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
California 12 10 Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Colorado 9 13 No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Connecticut 8 14 No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Delaware 9 13 No Yes No No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Florida 12 10 No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Georgia 11 11 No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
Hawaii 13 9 No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Idaho 10 12 No Yes No No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Illinois 13 9 Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Indiana 11 11 No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Iowa 11 11 No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Kansas 11 11 Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Kentucky 11 11 No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Louisiana 11 11 No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Maine 10 12 No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Maryland 12 10 No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Massachusetts 7 15 No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No
Michigan 10 12 No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Minnesota 9 13 No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No
Mississippi 2 20 Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
Missouri 6 16 No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No
Montana 10 12 No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Nebraska 7 15 No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No
Nevada 12 10 No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
New Hampshire 12 10 Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
New Jersey 8 14 Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes Yes
New Mexico 8 14 No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes
New York 10 12 Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
North Carolina 7 15 No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
North Dakota 8 14 No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No
Ohio 6 16 No Yes No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No
Oklahoma 12 10 No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Oregon 13 9 No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Pennsylvania 4 18 No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No
Rhode Island 10 12 No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
South Carolina 11 11 No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
South Dakota 11 11 No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Tennessee 12 10 No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Texas 9 13 No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Utah 7 15 No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes
Vermont 10 12 No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Virginia 13 9 No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Washington 9 13 No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
West Virginia 7 15 No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No
Wisconsin 9 13 No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Wyoming 9 13 No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

See also

Footnotes

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 • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • 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 • Frank Festa • 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 • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Procedural_rights:_A_50-state_survey&oldid=8753158"