RESEARCH METHODS & SCORING
Maine Policy examined each state’s emergency powers statutes by utilizing either the state government website or Justia, an online legal database. This research was conducted to determine the extent of legislative oversight, the powers delegated to the chief executive, and the process for initiating or terminating a state of emergency declaration in each state. In 2019, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Public Health Law Program surveyed the emergency authority of U.S. governors to alter statutes and/or regulations. These findings were largely affirmed and included in Maine Policy’s analysis.
Every state’s emergency powers law was reviewed across five factors, and scored up to 20 possible points each, for a maximum possible score of 100. Taken into account are: 1) the process by which an emergency is declared; 2) the process by which it is extended or terminated; 3) the time limit on each emergency declaration or extension; 4) whether executive powers last after the termination of the state of emergency; and 5) whether the governor can amend or suspend statute or regulations during a declared emergency. Factors related to the declaration process and the time limitations of emergency declarations were given double weight due to their importance in setting a standard process for legislative involvement in executive emergency actions.
The highest score denotes the most stringent executive powers, allowing for the greatest accountability from the people’s branch, the legislature. High scoring states maintain the clearest process for legislative involvement in terms of being required to convene and vote on the governor’s declaration or extension of a state of emergency. The lowest score denotes the weakest check on executive powers and the greatest potential threat to individual liberty.
This analysis does not measure the extent of governors’ authority to regulate the sale, possession, or transfer of firearms during states of emergency.