2026 State Legislative Review
National Summary and 2027 Working Agenda
The Year in Brief
Most associations would have taken the 2026 public notice results at the beginning of the year. Connecticut, Hawaii, Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire and West Virginia all stopped sweeping substitution proposals. The workload still spread. Procurement, foreclosure, self-storage, local government, qualification rules and online posting all produced narrower changes. Newspaper publication often stayed in the law, but sometimes with less paid publication, new unpaid duties or a smaller role in how the public finds the notice.
This review is grounded in official legislative records and in a year of regular conversations with state association directors. Those conversations are essential to understanding how proposals were viewed locally, what changed after passage and which issues are likely to return. The examples below are included so colleagues can compare notes. Bill status is current through Sept. 1, 2026; pending measures and early-stage ideas are identified as such.
Why the smaller bills are gaining ground
After a year of talking with directors, our read is that the shift has several causes. Some communities have lost qualifying newspapers, leaving officials to find a workable alternative. Elsewhere, the push is for simpler placement, lower costs or easier online access. A category-specific change or technical definition is also easier to move than a bill that openly replaces newspaper notice statewide.
There is no reason to assume every narrow bill is part of a coordinated campaign. The effect can still be cumulative. Smaller changes attract less attention, give opponents less time to organize and can be copied without reopening the larger argument over independent notice. If monitoring begins with the statehouse bill list, associations will see too much too late. Local publishers need to flag these discussions while they are still local.
Indiana shows why overlapping lines of sight are needed. Its public-notice language appeared late in a much larger bill after the House had acted. No ordinary bill list could have predicted that path. Local publishers, association staff, lobbyists and national partners need overlapping lines of sight because each sees a different part of the problem.
What Changed in 2026
Eight patterns from the year's record and from regular conversations with state association directors.
Public notice moved into narrower bills
While the broad proposals failed, smaller changes advanced elsewhere. Alabama changed specific categories; Indiana opened several channels for local-government notices; Kentucky raised a procurement threshold; Louisiana allowed a self-storage alternative; Washington raised bidding thresholds, reducing the number of notices required; and California's AB 2323, now Chapter 113, requires qualifying notices to appear in print and online without an added charge for the online posting. New Hampshire narrowed an outright website-substitution proposal into a two-of-three rule for special town-meeting warrants, but the enacted compromise still allows towns to use physical posting and their own website without newspaper publication.
A newspaper can remain in the statute while the notice gets shorter, moves partly online, pays less or reaches fewer people. The lost revenue is real, but the monitoring burden may be just as important. Associations and publishers have more places to watch, often with less time to react.
"Modernization" meant something different in every state
Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Maine, Arizona, Missouri and California all used modernization language and ended up in very different places. Some preserved print and added free online posting. Some created a fallback for communities without a qualifying newspaper. Others changed publication history, auditing, content or eligibility standards. Missouri's HB 1940 shortened the publication history needed to qualify and appears to be a workable reform.
Modernization is a label, not a policy result. The useful questions are more basic: How much print remains? Who gets paid? What new work is required? Who qualifies? How narrow is the fallback? An agreement that fits one state may create real problems in another.
Texas offers a narrow comparison. SB 1062 (2025) permits eligible digital newspapers to carry notices chiefly in counties without a qualifying print paper; a narrowly defined Red River-border county also falls under the provision. It requires audited paid subscribers, three years in business, local staff and coverage, general-interest news and weekly updates. TPA estimates about 30 of 254 counties lack print and identifies three digital outlets it believes qualify. This limited fallback should not be cited as statewide digital substitution.
Qualification rules need more attention
The qualification debate is moving beyond postal permits and publication frequency. States are beginning to ask whether a digital publication can qualify, whether online-only eligibility begins only when print is unavailable, what evidence of local reporting is required and what happens when a county loses its last newspaper.
Pennsylvania has one of the most developed proposals. HB 1291 begins with a printed newspaper and reaches digital or online-only alternatives when qualifying print is unavailable. Where qualifying print exists, the safer starting point is to keep it central and define a narrow fallback for communities with a genuine gap. A statewide digital-only opening reaches far beyond the local availability problem lawmakers say they are solving.
Support-program eligibility and public-notice eligibility are not interchangeable. A definition broad enough for a grant, tax credit or coalition may be too broad for a legal publication duty. Public notice requires independent publication, established local distribution, original reporting, accountability and proof. Producing some local content is not enough by itself.
Newspaper publication remains the strongest default because it places notice inside a recurring local information system: an audience built around original reporting, distribution beyond interested officials, archives and legal proof. The case rests on the functions the public loses when government becomes its own publisher.
The fight can keep moving after a statewide loss
Massachusetts produced a run of municipality-specific bills in the 2025-26 session. Dennis, North Brookfield, Topsfield and Wellesley each had proposals using different mixes of print, newspaper websites, municipal websites and repositories. The volume is more important than any one bill. Each local exception gives the next community language to borrow.
North Carolina has seen the same county-level approach. Foreclosure, probate, self-storage and procurement bills can also change one category at a time without producing a single statewide fight. Statehouse monitoring alone will not catch all of it. Publishers need to flag local proposals before they become legislative language or accepted practice.
Rates, formats and affidavits can change the outcome
Arizona and Louisiana offer different implementation lessons. Arizona is beginning work under a compromise the association supported and has chosen not to reopen. Louisiana returned to the legislature for a rate correction after the earlier framework produced results the association sought to change. In both states, the practical effects will become clearer as notices move through the new systems.
FPA is taking a more proactive approach in Florida. It is expanding an association-backed statewide notice site and self-service placement option, while making the public case for the system newspapers have already built. House Bill 925, enacted as Chapter 2026-112, separately broadened the publicly accessible website options for certain real-property notices handled by a clerk of court or county comptroller. That narrower local-government change should not be confused with either the failed statewide substitution bills or FPA's voluntary system. A broad rewrite could return, but Florida's immediate work is centered on education, infrastructure and implementation.
A digital posting rule can affect rates, display advertising, file preparation, deadlines, affidavits and customer service, even when the headline change is described simply as print plus online. Those operating details deserve the same scrutiny as eligibility and publication frequency. Associations need evidence from publishers and vendors early enough to correct a problem before it becomes accepted practice.
States are beginning to test government-advertising policies
Connecticut enacted annual reporting on state advertising purchases, and Illinois is approaching its first reporting cycle. Colorado used budget language to prioritize local outlets. Vermont used an executive order to establish a local-media preference and reporting. Maryland passed a 50 percent local-news requirement, which the governor vetoed. MDDC reported on Aug. 26 that the executive order was still pending. New Jersey's 30 percent set-aside was reported from Senate committee with amendments and remains pending. Tennessee is also considering a small-business advertising credit, but that idea is preliminary and separate from the TACIR public notice study.
Government advertising is a legitimate 2027 policy lane, not a single model to copy. We recommend beginning with reporting when a state does not have reliable spending data or a coalition ready to administer something larger. Preferences and set-asides can produce a bigger result, but they raise harder questions about eligibility, administration, editorial independence and audience reach. Each association will need to decide which approach, if any, fits its state. ANSAC can help with that evaluation.
Support proposals are moving beyond payroll credits
New Mexico enacted employment credits for local journalists and a separate credit for local-news printing. California's AB 2222 has passed the Legislature and is awaiting action by the governor. It would create a much larger refundable employment program, though its broad print, digital and broadcast eligibility deserves scrutiny. Iowa's bridge program has kept public notice service intact and created time for ownership transitions after several papers closed at once. The association is considering how to build on that work in 2027; the next step is still preliminary.
Washington is working through succession, fundraising and publisher-support concepts. Wisconsin has discussed subscription credits, fellowships and a Civic Information Consortium. Both warrant continued comparison, but neither has a finished program ready to carry elsewhere.
We judge these programs by the reporting, printing, delivery or ownership capacity they leave behind. Before carrying an idea across state lines, we need to know who qualifies, what public benefit is required and how much of the support reaches community-rooted news organizations. Broad eligibility can help build a coalition, but it can also direct much of the benefit away from the publications the policy was meant to support.
Keep the AI issues separate from access work
New York has already seen two different AI fights. One deals with publisher content and unauthorized crawling. The other deals with how news organizations create, label or distribute AI-assisted content. Publisher-content protection is the clearest area for the coalition to act together. Newsroom-use rules can create new obligations for our members and should not be bundled with content protection for convenience.
The wider workload also includes records, meetings, police access, privacy, economic-development secrecy, ownership transition and the systems publishers use to deliver notices. No association can take on every new issue. Notice, access, independent publication and original local reporting offer a practical way to decide where newspaper organizations have a role.
A Practical 2027 Working Agenda
Look beyond bills labeled public notice
Procurement, foreclosure, zoning, utilities, economic-development incentives, self-storage, elections and local-government authority can all affect notice or access.
Keep public notice on the standing agenda
A quiet bill list can hide local exceptions, eligibility changes and implementation decisions. The 2026 record gives associations a reason to maintain board and publisher attention between the large statewide fights.
Build a local early-warning system
A local early-warning system adds another line of sight to work already under way. Publishers should know whom to call when a city, county, school district or other local body begins discussing a change. A local signal may be the only warning before language arrives in an omnibus or late amendment.
Set the guardrails before a bill is moving
Associations should work through the tradeoffs with their boards in advance: print, compensation, free online posting, repositories, abbreviated notices, e-editions, subscriber thresholds, audits and the test for declaring a community unserved.
Match states by the problem, not the map
The useful comparison may be a state with the same legal mechanism, the same stage of the fight, similar political conditions or a tool that can transfer. Each state readout should name a small number of peers and say exactly what is comparable.
Have an answer for communities without a qualifying newspaper
Lawmakers will look for a fallback. Newspaper organizations should be ready with one that preserves independent notice and sets clear eligibility rules.
Match the government-advertising tool to the state
Where the spending picture is unknown, reporting is usually the right first step. Preferences and set-asides require stronger eligibility rules and more administrative capacity.
Keep building support options beyond payroll
Printing, delivery, ownership succession, internships, subscriptions and advertising demand may fit states where an employment credit does not. Each should include a clear original-reporting standard.
Use local examples that make the argument real
Data-center siting and networked-surveillance contracts show why residents need advance warning before consequential local decisions are effectively settled. Use another issue when it fits the state record better. Do not claim a notice caused public engagement unless the connection is documented.
Keep the AI issues separate
Publisher-content protection, newsroom-use rules and access to government technology each require their own legal and political analysis.
Check back on the 2026 laws
Rates, eligibility decisions, reporting data, local participation and agency spending will tell us what worked and what may be useful elsewhere.
What Is Coming in 2027
The states below are here because another director's experience may be useful, not because ANSAC is grading anyone's work. Some have live bills; others are implementing new laws or preparing for familiar proposals to return. The groups identify the reason for comparison. The state readouts will make the match more specific.
PNA is working on two separate questions. HB 1291 addresses who qualifies and how print, digital and online-only publications relate to one another. HB 2179 allows second-class townships to publish a brief ordinance summary while keeping newspaper publication and access to the full text. HB 1291 is about eligibility. HB 2179 changes the amount of information carried in the paid notice. Bill and PNA have been developing options, testing definitions and comparing language from other states while trying to preserve a print-first path. ANSAC can help with those comparisons and pressure-test the language. PNA will decide what fits Pennsylvania.
SB 135 remains pending in the House after passing the Senate. The Senate version keeps a first notice in the print or digital edition of a qualifying newspaper and allows later notices on the selling officer's website. The Ohio association views the negotiated version as manageable. We should follow the foreclosure language because it could be borrowed elsewhere.
California's print-plus-online requirement will show what the added posting duty costs and how it works. New Jersey has separate public-notice and local-news advertising questions, including S3744's proposed state-agency set-aside. We should watch both closely without treating either as ready-made language for another state.
The TACIR study will compare other states, technology, rural access, government accountability and the costs of different notice systems. Findings are expected in summer 2027. TPA now has a formal place to build the record. The small-business advertising credit remains an exploratory idea and is not yet part of that work.
Florida is building and promoting a statewide placement and access system; House Bill 925 also created a narrower local-government website option for certain real-property notices. Arizona is implementing a locally supported compromise and has chosen not to reopen it immediately. Louisiana raised listed per-character rates in Act 924 but capped the applicable cost at the lesser of the amended rate or the Jan. 1, 2026 rate. In all three, the implementation record will tell us more than the bill text alone.
Maryland's set-aside bill was vetoed, and MDDC reported Aug. 26 that the anticipated executive action was still pending. New Jersey's S3744 first reprint would pair a 30 percent set-aside with eligibility and reporting rules, but its later disposition should be confirmed. New Jersey belongs in both conversations: the opportunity on advertising and the continuing public-notice transition.
Spending reports and early implementation will give us evidence on transparency, budget direction and executive preference. Illinois also offers a coalition lesson from its local-journalism support work: newspapers, broadcasters, nonprofit and niche outlets were aligned before the proposal moved and have remained involved through implementation. Illinois' political conditions will not carry over everywhere, but the early coalition-building is still worth studying.
New Mexico can provide early results from its journalist and printer credits. California's AB 2222 passed both houses and was enrolled Sept. 4, but the latest official record used here does not show gubernatorial action. Iowa's bridge program is already operating and offers a practical example for associations dealing with multiple closures or ownership transitions.
Several substitution measures failed in 2026. The number and variety of vehicles make another round likely enough to prepare for, even though no specific 2027 bill is yet known.
Massachusetts continues to see town-by-town change. The Dennis bill, S3098, passed the Senate on Aug. 27 and moved to the House. Hawaii's direct government electronic-posting proposal advanced far enough to justify preparation if it returns, though its passage would be far from assured.
What This Means for ANSAC
ANSAC is most useful when a director sees familiar language in an unexpected bill and can quickly learn where it came from, what happened elsewhere and who has already worked through it.
Virginia and Arkansas bring more state intelligence into the coalition. The planned state readouts should put each member's work beside the national record and identify two to five states worth comparing. Each match should say whether the useful connection is statutory, political, operational or evidentiary. The readouts should also identify the choices that remain local and show where ANSAC can provide research, language or another director's experience.
Local directors will make the calls on local compromises. Our job is to give them better information before they have to make those calls.
The 2026 results justify confidence in the industry's ability to stop broad public notice bills. Directors and lobbyists were watching. The problem is that more of the work now appears in narrow categories, local measures, qualification rules, abbreviated notices, unpaid online duties and implementation decisions. No single layer sees all of it.
ANSAC should enter 2027 with a broader watch list, clearer model guardrails and a faster way to get useful language into directors' hands. We should stay with new laws through implementation, bring publishers into the process earlier and connect states around specific shared problems. Local directors will continue to make the calls; our job is to make sure they have more than one workable option.