Tag: Bill (law)

Share H.R. 1, the political regulation omnibus bill, contains “provisions that unconstitutionally infringe the freedoms of speech and association,” and which “will have the effect of harming our public discourse by silencing necessary voices that would otherwise speak out about the public issues of the day.” Don’t just take my word for it; that’s the view of the American Civil Liberties Union, expressed in this March 1 letter (more). For example, the bill would apply speech-chilling new restrictions to issue ads by cause organizations, should they happen to mention individual lawmakers. The House of Representatives nonetheless voted Friday along party lines to pass the bill, which was sponsored by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD). For now, it has no prospect of passage in the Senate. The issues raised in the ACLU letter aside, H.R. 1 contains many other provisions that likely are unconstitutional, unwise, or both. Colleagues Ilya Shapiro and Nathan Harvey enumerate some of them (“If ever adopted, [HR1] would give power to one slice of Washington’s elite at the expense of American democracy’s carefully crafted checks and balances”). More criticism: Brad Smith on the bill’s restrictions on discussion and coordination of expenditures on speech; David A. French (“At its essence, the bill federalizes control over elections to an unprecedented scale, expands government power over political speech, mandates increased disclosures of private citizens’ personal information (down to name and address), places conditions on citizen contact with legislators that inhibits citizens’ freedom of expression, and then places enforcement of most of these measures in the hands of a revamped Federal Election Commission that is far more responsive to presidential influence.”) On gerrymandering, an issue on which the Constitution does grant Congress a power to prescribe standards which I’ve argued it should consider using more vigorously, the bill takes the heavy-handed approach of requiring all states to create a commission of a certain format. Whatever the comparative virtues of one format or another, that would likely run into the Supreme Court’s doctrine against federal “commandeering” of state government resources.

LAS VEGAS - Should the names of retired public employees be public, along with the amounts of their pension? But in 2013, courts ruled that a separate report containing the names, pension amounts and related information was public, and ordered it released. Flash forward to Friday, when democratic state Senator Julia Ratti of Sparks introduced Senate Bill 224, which would specifically keep names confidential, but release the ID number, pension amount and some other information. Ratti got a similar bill through the 2017 session, but it was vetoed. Ratti and the public employee unions who testified in favor said the bill is needed to prevent identity theft, protect public workers including police officers and to shield vulnerable seniors from unscrupulous scam artists. And Ratti also contended that even though the contributions to PERS come from taxpayer-paid salaries and local government matching funds, they aren't taxpayer money. Privacy. When we are prying into their individual accounts, we are not looking at taxpayer money, we are looking that that individual's earned benefit, no different than if I wanted to know about the contents of each of your personal retirement accounts," said Sen. Ratti. And Rob Fellner of the NPRI said some lawmakers voting on the bill have a conflict, since there are several state and local government employees and retirees serving in Carson City. Ratti's 2017 bill passed the legislature on a party-line vote, so it's probably got a good chance of passing this time around.

Bill prohibiting dual role of legislator and political party chair stalls in subcommittee Watch again A new bill would prohibit state lawmakers from serving as the leader of a state political party while in office, but it wouldn't affect House Speaker Michael Madigan, who has come under fire by Republicans and some Democrats for the power he has as the longest-serving state legislative leader and his control over campaign finances as chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois. The state's other legislative leaders have term limits. House Republicans also have leader limits, but not in the entire House. Lawmakers have filed legislation for several years to set term limits for legislative leaders. Republicans have chafed at Madigan's dual role as House Speaker and the leader of the Democrat's statewide political party. The Democratic Party of Illinois' state central committee has elected Madigan party chairman since 1998. “When you’re a legislative leader, your goal ought to be legislating for the good of everyone in Illinois.” McDermed said she was surprised when her bill was discussed House Judiciary - Civil Constitutional Law Subcommittee last week. They voted against advancing it. McDermed said her bill was about ethics, not politics. Democrats questioned the constitutionality of McDermed's bill in committee, but committee chair state Rep. André Thapedi, D-Chicago, declined to comment after the hearing.

The panel’s recommendation that schools be given the option to arm teachers was met with mixed reaction. But other groups disagreed, including several on hand Monday. Representatives from Moms Demand Action voiced concerns that having guns inside classrooms could put students at risk, especially if the students have the ability to get access to the gun. The League of Women Voters and Florida PTA also spoke out in opposition. And the Florida Democratic Party (FDP) put out a statement condemning the committee after the measure was approved. As we approach the anniversary of the Parkland shooting, it is shameful that instead of honoring the victims Republicans are trying to put more guns in our schools.” Republicans on the committee, including Committee Chair Manny Diaz, pointed out that the recommendation originated from the MSD Commission’s report. And when several speakers voiced concern over teachers being given the task of defending students, Republican Sen. Dennis Baxley pushed back, pointing out that the bill merely gives teachers the option to undergo Guardian training and carry on campus. “No educator is required to be a Guardian,” Baxley said. “No educator is required to carry any kind of defensive weapon. “I do understand that no educator is asked or required to be a Guardian,” Berman said.

Immigration hawks slammed the border security compromise President Trump signed into law Friday for containing last-minute provisions that they argued give "amnesty" to many – but a Department of Homeland Security official insisted to Fox News that’s a misunderstanding of the bill. "This 'deal' provides de facto amnesty for anyone claiming to be even in the household of a potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien minor," Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, wrote on Twitter Thursday. But a DHS official told Fox News that terms like "potential sponsor" have precise meanings in Department of Homeland Security regulations -- meanings that severely limit the number of people the budget keeps safe from deportation. Further, because the bill only applies to kids who are unaccompanied, it does not provide protection for those bringing kids into the US. That would significantly limit the number of people to whom the no-deportation provision applies. Chris Chmielenski, the deputy director of NumbersUSA, which fights for lower immigration levels and which urged President Trump to veto the budget, told Fox News that the provision is still problematic despite DHS’s clarifications. That’s not a precedent we should be setting.” He noted that, despite the paperwork DHS demands of someone to become a “potential sponsor,” some might still try to game the system and that it could still encourage “unaccompanied” kids to be sent over the border. If those blue municipalities don't agree with DHS, the fence can't get built.” But the DHS official told Fox News on background that the exact language in the budget -- "confer and seek to reach mutual agreement" – nowhere requires the federal government to actually reach an agreement before building fences. “I hope DHS is right, I just think it’s wishful thinking,” he told Fox News. Gorka says the claims of the sky falling are overblown, and also told Fox News that it was silly to call anything in the budget “amnesty” because it’s just an annual budget.

He represents eight localities, but only two are entirely in his 19th Senate District. Of Roanoke County’s five magisterial districts, he represents all of one, and the rest are split with two other senators representing them. When Democrats controlled the state Senate in 2011, Northam, then a senator from Norfolk, voted to approve lines like these. A main difference between McClellan’s bill and Suetterlein’s bill was that McClellan included language that says districts should not be drawn for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring any political party or legislator. Political data can’t be used to draw districts. Her language addresses one of the reasons Northam cited for his veto of Suetterlein’s bill last year. McClellan’s SB 1327 also gives more weight to keeping communities of interest together that may otherwise get split up if districts are drawn by prioritizing county or city lines. She said communities should not be split up, if possible. Suetterlein’s bill does say that “consideration may be given to communities of interest by creating districts that do not carve up homogeneous neighborhoods or separate groups of people living in an area with similar interests or needs in transportation, employment or culture.” General Assembly members draw their own district lines as well as Virginia’s congressional districts. Jessica Killeen, deputy counsel to Northam, told the committee last week that the Northam administration opposes Suetterlein’s bill because it believes “it does not go far enough to address some of the concerns we believe should be in criteria for redistricting.” Before McClellan’s bill died, committee Chairwoman Jill Vogel, R-Fauquier, asked Killeen if Northam would support Suetterlein’s bill.

Orlando’s Democratic state Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith and Fort Lauderdale’s Democratic state Sen. Gary Farmer are trying again with bills to ban the possession or sales of assault weapons. Smith filed his bill late Tuesday and Farmer is planning on filing a companion bill, to ban the civilian purchase or possession of military-style assault weapons and large capacity magazines. House Bill 455 calls not just for a ban on future sales, but for the relinquishment of currently owned assault weapons, which the bill explicitly defines as any of dozens of specifically listed makes and models, or similar weapons the bill contends are “selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user.” The bill makes possession after July 1, 2020, a third-degree felony, punishable by a year in prison. Similar bills were filed in each of the past two Florida Legislature Sessions, first as a response to the 2016 mass murder at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, and then for that and the 2018 mass murder at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. The issue splits pretty evenly along partisan lines with Republicans holding fast to the argument that guns are protected by the federal Second Amendment, meaning the Democrats’ bills likely have no more chance this year of being heard anywhere. “Gun violence prevention is an essential part of any comprehensive plan to address school safety as well as the safety of the general public. We owe it to the victims and families of MSD, of Pulse and of everyday gun violence to keep assault weapons off our streets and to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. I will continue fighting this fight for as long as it takes,” Smith stated in a news release issued by his office Tuesday. That news release also included a statement from Farmer: “The single common denominator for many of these senseless mass shootings is the use of these weapons of war. It is our obligation to pass this legislation to ensure the safety and security of our children in our homes and communities.”

A bill filed in the Senate to protect residential vegetable gardens from local bans now has a House companion. The goal: Facilitating “the development of sustainable cultivation of vegetables and fruits at all levels of production, including for personal consumption.” A request for comment from Fetterhoff is pending. Bradley, now Senate Appropriations chair, sponsored the measure last Session when it cleared the Senate 36-1. However, it later died in the House without a hearing. The issue attained statewide prominence when a Miami Shores couple sued for the right to plant a vegetable garden in their front yard. While they had cultivated their garden for two decades, local code enforcers made their move. Indeed, a recurrent debate in the Capitol is one of pre-emption versus home rule. When asked about potential concerns that state law would abrogate local control, Bradley noted that “home rule is not a blank check to stomp on the fundamental rights of citizens. “Whether it’s a hobby or a way for a cash strapped family to save money without sacrificing their nutrition, government at any level has no business telling Floridians they cannot grow their own food because of where they live,” she said. “Just today, I toured a garden in my district that is being set up to help educate and empower our community through self-sustainability practices like gardening.

Tom Brenner for The New York Times WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced on Thursday that it would seek to put in place more stringent work requirements for adults who rely on food stamps, even as the president signed a sweeping farm bill in which lawmakers had rejected stricter rules. By moving to limit the ability of states to issue waivers to people who say they cannot make ends meet under the requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Agriculture Department found another route to create restrictions, bypassing Congress and drawing immediate criticism that the proposed rule was sure to harm Americans below the poverty line. The administration, which along with conservatives had fought to include stricter work requirements in the farm bill, continued to argue that food stamps were never meant to be a way of life and that able-bodied adults should be able to find jobs in a healthy economy. “Long-term reliance on government assistance has never been part of the American dream,” Sonny Perdue, the agriculture secretary, said in a statement. The Trump administration is planning to make it harder for some food stamp recipients to obtain waivers of the program’s work requirements. “I think a fresh view from the Department of Agriculture at that process and at that data is a healthy and good thing,” he said. “Was it a partisan move when the Obama administration expanded the waivers?” Representative K. Michael Conaway, Republican of Texas and the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, praised the department’s move. In campaign rallies, Mr. Trump has used exaggerated terms to describe the reduction, which began before he took office. In September, individuals with SNAP benefits received an average benefit of $123 a month, compared with $245 for families, according to the most recently available government data. With the new rules, the Agriculture Department is focusing on able-bodied adults without dependents, who can access SNAP for only three months in a three-year period unless they are working at least 80 hours a month.

House Bill 2002 would direct the State Board of Education to devise a code of ethics for educators that would include provisions forbidding the spread of political and religious messages in public district and charter schools. The ethics code would explicitly ban teachers from endorsing political candidates, legislation or judicial action in the classroom. It could also increase law enforcement and military recruiter access to students, and it would restrict teachers from teaching "controversial issues" or blaming one racial group of students for the "suffering or inequities" of another racial group. Introducing "controversial issues" in class not related to the course being taught. Advocating for one side of a controversial issue. The bill states that the ethics code would apply to all "certificated" teachers in the state. Not all public school teachers in Arizona are certified: State law doesn't require charter school teachers to be certified. A ban on politics in the classroom is hardly unprecedented. Earlier this year, some Arizona districts, with that law in mind, warned teachers about wearing #RedForEd shirts in the classroom. This part of the bill seems to be a callback to the state's so-called ethnic studies ban, a controversial law banning classes that "promote the overthrow of the United States government; promote resentment toward a race or class of people; are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group; advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."