Senate Revenue Committee

Sales tax bill targets internet purchases

Fight with Exxon continues; two tax breaks OK'd

By Sarah Gorin

In its last meeting of the 2010 session, the Senate Revenue Committee quickly worked several bills in its small committee room crammed with lobbyists.

The Senators voted 3-2 to approve House Bill 29 Taxation of specified digital products. It imposes a sales tax on such digital products as downloaded movies, songs, ringtones, etc. that become the permanent property of the user.

The bill is intended to put internet vendors on the same plane as a brick-and-mortar seller of the same product. For example, if you buy a DVD at a store in Wyoming, you pay sales tax, but you might not if you buy the same thing over the internet.

The ESPC favors the bill. Failing to tax these products essentially creates a new exemption in Wyoming’s tax statutes. Senators voting for HB 29 were Chairman John Schiffer (R-S22, Kaycee), Grant Larson (R-S17, Jackson), and Drew Perkins (R-S29, Casper).

Cale Case (R-S25, Lander) and Marty Martin (D-S12, Rock Springs) voted no.

ExxonMobil's wilting glare

Next on the agenda was House Bill 78 Natural gas – taxation. It addresses a subject many hoped to hear no more of after the 2008 Legislature finally passed a bill incorporating a new method of valuing producer-processed natural gas. But last November, the Wyoming Supreme Court – in a case brought by ExxonMobil Corporation – ruled that Wyoming’s laws are not clear on a point central to the litigation, which concerned production from ExxonMobil’s LaBarge-Shute Creek operation, and that ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.

As a result, the amount ExxonMobil owed in severance taxes was reduced.

House Bill 78 was an attempt to clarify the law, but it went down amidst heavy lobbying from ExxonMobil lawyers and some doubt as to whether it was better to go ahead with a bill or to wait while ExxonMobil and the Wyoming Department of Revenue negotiate.

The ESPC favored the bill on the grounds that having legislation would put more weight on the negotiations. The topic likely will be included in interim study for the Joint Interim Revenue Committee (between the end of the current session and the opening of the 2011 Legislature).

Chairman John Schiffer and Sen. Cale Case voted for HB 78.

Sens. Grant Larson, Marty Martin, and Drew Perkins voted no.

Tempting tax breaks

The committee took up two bills proposing tax exemptions. House Bill 44 Taxation of property used for economic development, proposes a property tax exemption for “property used for economic development” – that is, land owned by a community economic development organization,

House Bill 67 Data processing center - sales/use tax exemption, will exempt purchases of computers and other equipment needed for large data-processing centers. Legislators have been told that a one such center is poised to locate in Cheyenne. Advocates for the bill say the sales tax break is essential to bring it to Wyoming.

It seems rather odd that despite the state’s dismal revenue picture, the majority of legislators seem unable to quit proposing and enacting tax exemptions. Some believe that the exemptions will attract businesses that will generate other tax revenues. But Wyoming already offers an advantage: it does not have corporate or personal income taxes – unlike most of the states it is “competing” with.

The ESPC believes it is highly unlikely that state and local governments will end up with more money as a result of a sales tax exemption.

The ESPC also is concerned about the state’s current inability to quantify most of its tax exemptions and exclusions so that lawmakers and the public can evaluate whether their cost is worth it. Consequently, the ESPC advocates for the addition of reporting requirements to each tax exemption bill.

The Senate Revenue Committee unanimously adopted an ESPC-offered reporting amendment to HB 44, It then passed the bill.

Chairman John Schiffer and Senators Grant Larson and Marty Martin voted for the measure.

Senators Cale Case and Drew Perkins voted no.

Senator Larson noted that he would bring a floor amendment to tighten the definition of a qualifying community economic development organization.

A Wyoming "clawback"

House Bill 67, the data processing center exemption, already had a reporting requirement. It also includes an initial attempt at a “clawback” provision – that is, the company claiming the tax exemption must show that it has not only purchased a certain amount of equipment, but also that it is generating (or will generate) an appropriate number of jobs for the size and stage of the development of the center.

If it cannot show appropriate job creation, the exemption recipient will be liable for the tax.

While this clawback probably could be constructed more strongly, the ESPC commends this line of thinking, which represents a first in Wyoming tax policies.

Chairman John Schiffer and Senators Grant Larson, Marty Martin, and Drew Perkins voted for HB 67. Senator Cale Case voted no. Again, Senator Larson indicated he would bring a floor amendment, this time defining “qualifying equipment.”

Sarah Gorin conducts policy research and lobbies the Wyoming Legislature for the ESPC.

Democracy and special excise taxes

Buchanan bill lifts majority rule on 'specific purpose' tax

By Sarah Gorin

Although the bill attracted no press attention, interesting exchanges took place when the House Revenue Committee and subsequently the full House considered HB 115 Specific purpose excise tax – voter petition.

Wyoming law currently allows local governments to seek voter approval to impose excise (sales and use) taxes on top of the statewide 4% sales tax. Additional pennies may be designated for general revenue, lodging, specific purposes, and/or economic development, up to an additional three cents.

Proposed sales taxes are put on the ballot by the governing authority of a county – the county commissioners – in agreement with at least two-thirds of the incorporated municipalities within the county. As noted above, any additional tax requires approval from a majority of voters before it can go into effect.

The requirement for the two-thirds agreement effectively gives smaller municipalities within a county a way to ensure that they get some of the money. For example, in Albany County, the county commissioners have to cut a deal with the City of Laramie (where most county residents live) and the Town of Rock River (population approximately 200) to get a tax proposal on the ballot.

Looking at it another way, smaller municipalities – a minority of the county population – hold veto power over the majority of county residents.

This weighting of power to a minority over the majority probably is constitutionally questionable, and it came into focus in the debate over HB 115, brought by Torrington Republican Ed Buchanan and co-sponsored by 10 other legislators (see below).

In all the above cases except the specific purpose tax, a tax proposal can be brought to the ballot not only by the agreement of the local governments, but also by petition of 5% of the voters within a county. Buchanan’s bill simply adds the petitioning option to the specific purpose tax.

The first question asked was whether the petitioning provision would enable proponents of an additional tax to “get around” the required agreement of the local governments. Rep. Buchanan admitted that it would, but pointed out that this already is the case with the other three taxes and, of course, the proposed tax still would have to be approved by a majority of voters.

That response carried the bill through committee and then the House of Representatives (barely), but a number of lawmakers clearly were uncomfortable with anything that might deny the small municipalities their veto power.

Our representative government at both the national and state levels is based on the concept of majority rule with protection of minority rights. Extra scrutiny of the use of governmental taxation power is justified. But we also must maintain the fundamental commitment to democracy and citizen participation.

HB 115 specific purpose excise tax – voter petition
Sponsor: Rep. Ed Buchanan (R-H4, Torrington); co-sponsors Reps. Seth Carson (D-H45, Laramie); Pete Illoway (R-H42, Cheyenne); Lori Millin (D-H8, Cheyenne); Bryan Pedersen (R-H7, Cheyenne); Matt Teeters (R-H5, Lingle); Mary Throne (D-H11, Cheyenne); and Sens. Bruce Burns (R-S21, Sheridan); Marty Martin (D-S12, Rock Springs); Curt Meier (R-S3, LaGrange); Tony Ross (R-S4, Cheyenne)

Passed the House 2/22/10 with 33 ayes, 24 noes, 3 excused

Sarah Gorin conducts policy research and lobbies the Wyoming Legislature for the ESPC.

Tax battle at Exxon's Shute Creek facilities

House Revenue Committee clarifies valuation of ExxonMobil's sour gas


The House Revenue Committee Wednesday narrowly approved a bill to clarify the valuation of natural gas produced at ExxonMobil’s LaBarge-Shute Creek operation.

The history of tax disputes with ExxonMobil is long. Back in the late 1980s, Exxon declined to pay taxes on its gas production at Shute Creek, declaring that the gas was worthless – even as the company continued to produce and sell the gas. Exxon held that after it deducted all its expenses, including a large deduction for return on investment, there was no value left to the gas.

Exxon’s action triggered a legislative overhaul of the state’s mineral taxation statutes during the early 1990s.

Taxation of processed natural gas — the “sour” gas produced in western Wyoming that requires processing to remove toxic compounds — continued to be an issue throughout the decade and well into the current century. The 2008 Legislature at long last enacted a bill that appears to have addressed most of the problems.

The measure considered Wednesday, HB 78 Natural gas-taxation, is sponsored by Rep. Tom Lubnau II (R-H31, Gillette — pictured above) and co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of legislators including the Revenue Committee chairman, Rep. Rodney “Pete” Anderson (R-H10, Pine Bluffs), Rep. Jim Roscoe (D-H22, Wilson) and Sen. John Schiffer (R-S22, Kaycee).

The measure addresses another situation peculiar to the ExxonMobil LaBarge-Shute Creek operation: whether a facility located between the wellfield and the Shute Creek plant is a dehydrator or a processing facility. The difference is more than semantic, as it determines the “point of valuation” for the gas and therefore how much ExxonMobil owes in taxes.

In late 2009, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that Wyoming’s tax statutes on this point were ambiguous and that ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the taxpayer, ExxonMobil. HB 78 seeks to remove the ambiguity by adding definitions, thereby restoring the state’s position on the point of valuation.

The change will increase state severance and advalorem tax revenues on ExxonMobil's extraction by about $1.1 million in 2011 and an estimated $2.2 million in 2012 and 2013, according to the fiscal note attached to the bill.

Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg led off Wednesday morning’s testimony in concert with a lawyer for Sublette County, followed by a lawyer for ExxonMobil. It was a quick education (of sorts, since the third lawyer did not agree with the first two) for several of the committee members who were not involved in the years of legislative work leading up to the 2008 processed gas valuation bill.

Committee members voting for HB 78 were Reps. Amy Edmonds (R-H12, Cheyenne), Ken Esquibel (D-H41, Cheyenne), Patrick Goggles (D-H33, Ethete), Mike Madden (R-H40, Buffalo) and Owen Petersen (R-H19, Mountain View).

Those voting against it included one of the co-sponsors, Chairman Rodney “Pete” Anderson (R-H10, Pine Bluffs) and Reps. David Miller (R-H55, Riverton), Mark Semlek (R-H1, Moorcroft) and Sue Wallis (R-H52, Recluse).

The ESPC supports the bill and has long advocated that the state hire an expert to help with the valuation of the LaBarge-Shute Creek operation, which undeniably is unique, and to boost its investment in the technical and legal teams needed to counteract ExxonMobil’s aggressively litigious approach to tax issues.

House panel softens wind tax

Revenue Committee cuts tax rate

The House Revenue Committee Monday morning backed a bill that will impose a tax on power generated by wind turbines, but not before softening its impact by amending it to delay implementation and to reduce the tax rate substantially.

House Bill 101 Electricity generated from wind-taxation would levy an excise tax "upon the privilege of producing electricity from wind resources" in Wyoming. Gov. Dave Freudenthal called for legislators to support the tax in his State of the State speech last week.

The ESPC supports the idea, and told the committee that the state must tax renewable energy sources in order to sustain its tax base now and into the future.

Advocates for county governments said the tax is needed to produce the revenues necessary to maintain the roads and other basic services the wind-energy companies need. Still, Joe Evans of the Wyoming County Commissioners Association said, "We don't know what the correct rate of taxation should be."

Natrona County Commission Chairman Rob Hendry said Natrona County needs revenues to maintain roads, then quickly announced that as a contractor, he hopes to do business with the companies building wind farms.

Industry advocates lobbed rocks at the idea. A representative of Wasatch Wind, a wind power developer with offices in Canada and Utah, described the proposed rate of taxation of $3 per megawatt hour as "onerous."

Matt Grant, Rocky Mountain Power's lobbyist, said that the taxes will be passed on to customers. Since minerals producers are the company's largest customers in Wyoming, he said, "This tax will be paid by the minerals industry."

House Revenue Committee Chairman Rodney Pete Anderson, R-HD10, (pictured above) proposed an amendment to delay the implementation to 2012, rather than 2011 as the bill originally required. He also proposed reducing the rate of taxation to $1 per megawatt hour. Both those amendments passed.

The bill's fiscal note indicated the tax would generate about $14.8 million in both fiscal 2012 and 2013. But that estimate was based on the $3 rate. It's unclear how much the $1 rate will generate. Anderson said his amendment will postpone imposing the tax for the first three years a generator is in service.

An amendment to send all the revenues from the tax to the counties where wind power is generated was defeated. The bill proposes splitting the revenues, with 60% going to the state and 40% going to the counties where the power is produced.

Grant and other industry lobbyists like Dan Sullivan and Larry Wolfe argued for more thorough study. Wolfe opposed the tax. Sullivan suggested that state probably will develop a power generation tax “of some kind.” Wolfe said the tax would be the first power generation tax in the West, a point later disputed by Chairman Anderson.

Wolfe also said one of his wind-power clients, Duke Energy, has signed such tight contracts with Rocky Mountain Power to buy its electricity that it will not be able to pass-through tax increases as Rocky Mountain can.

When the committee considered the amendment to cut the tax rate from $3 per megawatt hour to $1, Rep Sue Wallis, R-HD52, Recluse, proposed cutting the rate to just 5 cents per megawatt hour. Her amendment failed, garnering support only from Rep. Mark Semlek, R-HD1, Moorcroft, and Rep. Amy Edmonds, R-HD12, Cheyenne.

The bill ultimately won approval from the committee on a 6-3 vote with Edmonds, Semlek and Wallis voting no.

Here's the committee vote as listed by the LSO:

Ayes: Representative(s) Anderson, R., Esquibel, K., Goggles, Madden, Miller and Petersen

Nayes: Representative(s) Edmonds, Semlek and Wallis

2/15/2010 H Placed on General File

An eye on Blue Sky

Discussion of the wind generation tax ranged fairly widely, with the committee focusing attention on Rocky Mountain Power’s Blue Sky Renewable Energy Program.

Rep. David Miller, R-HD55, Riverton, asked if any of the company’s wind-generated power is sole in Wyoming or if Wyoming customers are charged for it.

“No we are not,” RMP lobbyist Grant answered. He noted that once electricity enters the grid it is impossible to tell where or how any of the electrons were generated. The company simply gives customers the privilege to buy green power.

“How much of your green power is sold that way?” Chairman Anderson asked. “All of it or more than all of it?”

The company website notes that its customers can participate in the Blue Sky program “and help bring new renewable energy facilities on-line.” Once customers enroll in the program, RMP says it buys renewable energy credits from newly developed renewable energy facilities.

“Buying one 100-kwh block of Blue Sky each month for a year is as good for the environment as planting nearly 63 trees or not driving a car for 1,482 miles!”

The RMP web site lists this explanation of the calculation of environmental benefits:

"Rocky Mountain Power purchases the exclusive right to claim all of the environmental benefits from the generation of electricity produced by renewable energy power plants in the exact amount of Blue Sky purchases. The environmental benefits figures are based on the average non-base load generation emissions from the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC) region, as updated December 2008, and on data and calculations provided by the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency."

Sixty attend Citizen Lobbyist Training

Mock committee highlights workshop

CHEYENNE - The ESPC's annual Citizen Lobbyist Training Feb. 10 attracted 60 attendees to learn about the basic structures of the Wyoming Legislature and how they can affect public policy-making.

The training this year attracted many younger budding advocates including students from the Sage Trio program at Laramie County Community College, from Eastern Wyoming College, and from Casper College. A number of Americorps volunteers also attended including volunteers for the Wyoming Conservation Corps and United Way of Sweetwater County.

Five sitting legislators, including Sens. Cale Case, John Hastert, and Bill Landen and Reps. Keith Gingery and Deb Hammons, conducted a mock committee hearing. Seneca Riggins and Rachel Martinez of LCCC advocated for a proposal to extend Wyoming's Hathaway scholarship program to students who do not go to college directly from high school. (That's Seneca Riggins answering questions in the photograph above.)

The workshop also taught attendees how a bill becomes law, the attributes of a good lobbyist, how to use the Legislative Service Office website. Tours of the Capitol including opportunities to send messages into legislators in-session followed the workshop at The Plains Hotel.

States rights, doggone it

House introduces 2 states rights resolutions

The Wyoming House decided it will debate two resolutions asserting states rights Wednesday when it approved introduction of both HJ 2 and HJ 5.

A Senate resolution asserting the state's right to ignore any national health insurance reform failed to win introduction.

Sixteen reps and eight senators co-sponsored HJ 2 Assertion of states rights.

HJ2 is sponsored by Representative(s) Illoway, Anderson, R., Brechtel, Childers, Edmonds, Harvey, Lubnau, Madden, McOmie, Miller, Moniz, Quarberg, Shepperson, Simpson, Wallis and Zwonitzer, Dn. and Senator(s) Anderson, J., Bebout, Case, Cooper, Dockstader, Martin, Meier and Ross.

Here's the HJ 2 title: A JOINT RESOLUTION requesting Congress to cease and desist from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution of the United States.

2/9/2010 H Introduced and Referred to H01

Ayes: Representative(s) Anderson, R., Bagby, Barbuto, Berger, Blake, Blikre, Bonner, Brechtel, Brown, Buchanan, Cannady, Childers, Cohee, Craft, Davison, Diercks, Edmonds, Esquibel, K., Gingery, Goggles, Harshman, Harvey, Illoway, Jaggi, Kimble, Landon, Lockhart, Lubnau, Madden, McKim, McOmie, Miller, Millin, Moniz, Patton, Peasley, Pedersen, Petersen, Quarberg, Roscoe, Semlek, Shepperson, Simpson, Steward, Stubson, Teeters, Throne, Wallis, Zwonitzer, Dn. and Zwonitzer, Dv..

Nays: Representative(s) Byrd, Carson, Connolly, Gilmore, Hales, Hammons, Jorgensen and Thompson.

Excused: Representative(s) Hallinan and Philp.

Ayes 50 Nays 8 Excused 2 Absent 0 Conflicts 0

The House also voted to introduce HJ 5 Assetion of state sovereignty, though with less enthusiasm than it showed for HJ 2. This is the resolution that claims if the state finds the federal government exercises powers the state does not believe it surrendered, the Act of Admission is breached -- and Wyoming, presumably, could secede.

One wonders what the nation's great Civil War president, Abraham Lincoln, would think of this resolution.

HJ 5 is sponsored by: Representative(s) Childers, Cohee, Davison, Hallinan, Jaggi, McOmie, Shepperson and Wallis and Senator(s) Case, Coe and Townsend

2/9/2010 H Introduced and Referred to H01

Ayes: Representative(s) Anderson, R., Bagby, Barbuto, Berger, Bonner, Brechtel, Brown, Buchanan, Cannady, Childers, Cohee, Davison, Diercks, Edmonds, Esquibel, K., Gingery, Harshman, Harvey, Illoway, Jaggi, Landon, Lockhart, Lubnau, Madden, McKim, McOmie, Miller, Moniz, Peasley, Pedersen, Petersen, Quarberg, Semlek, Shepperson, Simpson, Steward, Stubson, Teeters, Wallis, Zwonitzer, Dn. and Zwonitzer, Dv..

Nays: Representative(s) Blake, Blikre, Byrd, Carson, Connolly, Craft, Gilmore, Goggles, Hales, Hammons, Jorgensen, Kimble, Millin, Patton, Roscoe, Thompson and Throne.

Excused: Representative(s) Hallinan and Philp.

Ayes 41 Nays 17 Excused 2 Absent 0 Conflicts 0


In the Senate, SJ 1 Health Freedom of Choice bill failed to win introduction Wednesday. It proposed an amendment to the state Constitution that asseerted the state's right to ignore any national health care system. It apparently did not stop the elderly from signing up for Medicare.

Here's the bill title: A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing to amend the Wyoming Constitution by creating a new section specifying that the federal government shall not interfere with an individual's health care decisions and prohibiting any penalty, fine or tax imposed because of a decision to participate in or decline health insurance, or to pay directly or receive payment directly for health care services.

2/9/2010 S Failed Introduction

Ayes: Senator(s) Anderson, J., Bebout, Case, Coe, Cooper, Dockstader, Geis, Hines, Hunnicutt, Jennings, Johnson, Meier, Nicholas, Perkins, Peterson, Ross, Townsend and Von Flatern.

Nays: Senator(s) Burns, Elliott, Esquibel, F., Hastert, Landen, Larson, Martin, Massie, Meyer, Schiffer, Scott and Sessions.

Ayes 18 Nays 12 Excused 0 Absent 0 Conflicts 0

Meanwhile, Sen. John Schiffer's bill to limit who can use eminent domain to force sales of rights of way for transmission lines easily won introduction. The bill, SF58 Eminent domain-limitations, restricts the use of the power of eminent domain to public utilities and power cooperatives.

Legislators pontificate on states rights

Resolutions demand that the feds back off

The Legislature opened today and, in a session that ultimately focus on state funding is off and running talking about states rights and health care.

It's to be expected in Wyoming, which like many Western states, loves to bash the feds with one hand while taking those green federal dollars with the other. Bernard de Voto condensed the thinking in his classic sardonic line: "Get out and give us more money."

In the Senate, President John Hines, R-Gillette, and others have proposed a constitutional amendment under SJ 1 Health freedom of choice. It challenges the federal health reform plan that may or may not be close to passage in Washington. D.C. This proposed amendment declares that the federal government cannot require Wyoming residents to buy health insurance. The sponsors claim the U.S. Constitution does not allow the federal government to impose such mandates.

It could be a signal that some Wyoming policy-makers will fight federal efforts to reform the nation's health care system. But it it doesn't mean that the legislators would oppose creation of some sort of insurance exchange by them. It does not preclude Wyoming lawmakers from imposing such mandates, just as they have done with the requirement that all drivers in Wyoming must show proof of insurance before the state will issue a driver's license.

The Senate states' rightests have compadres in the House. Rep. Bob Brechtel, R-Casper, has offered HJ 1 Resolution - State sovereignty, telling Congress to stick to the limitations of the 10th Amendment. Rep. Pete Illoway filed HJ 2 Resolution - assertion of states rights, again demanding that Congress stop mandating action by the states that exceed its 10th Amendment authority.

There's also HJ 5 Assertion of state sovereignty. It's a humdinger that in my brief reading indicates that any federal effort to limit the states' rights enumerated in the resolution will represent a breach of the Act of Admission under which Wyoming became a state; the breach means the states can dissolve and form another government — secession without saying the word.

The resolution implies that most federal criminal laws are unconstitutional. The sponsors believe federal government has no right to punish people guilty of racketeering, drug trafficking, and presumably for fouling the air we breathe and the water we drink.

The resolution says, "That all acts of Congress that assume to create, define or punish crimes, other than those enumerated in the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, are void and of no
force."

What are those crimes? The resolution says this:

" ... the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting of the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, felonies committed on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, slavery and no other crimes."

But the states have the power to do many things, including impose limits on the freedom of speech, religion, and the press, HJ 5 claims.

" ... power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press remains and is reserved by the states or the people, allowing states the right to judge how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom and how far those abuses, which cannot be separated from their use, should be tolerated, rather than allowing the use to be destroyed."

Among other things, the resolution maintains the federal government does not have the power to restrict in any way the type or number of firearms or ammunition that Wyoming citizens may possess. After this resolution passes, if the feds continue to require permits to buy machine guns, the Act of Admission is breached. The Constitution dissolves and a new government will have to be formed. If it is formed, no state can be required to join.

Wyoming may just drop out of the whole deal.

Of course, we'd have to give up the millions we get in federal mineral royalty payments, subsidies for health care for the aged and for poor children, federal money for highways, school programs, etc.

State boundaries would be more interesting since these apparently would go around national parks, federal forests and grasslands, wildlife refuges, and maybe the military's electronic bombing targets, missile silos and F.E. Warren Air Force Base.

We might get to keep the national guard training facility at Guernsey though the other states might ask us to buy out the federal investments there.

I don't know. Maybe our legislators are just having some fun. We'll see if they debate the resolution.

A real worry

Meanwhile, there's a more ominous proposal for another run at limiting citizen rights to justice in medical malpractice cases.

Several House members have proposed HJ 6 Medical Malpractice. It proposes a constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to limit non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases to $250,000. It's basically the same amendment that Wyoming voters wisely rejected in 2004 despite claims from proponents that failure to make it law would spur doctors across the state to abandon their practices. The promised exodus did not happen.

Still, it's interesting to note that several of the sponsors of HJ 5, aimed a blocking federal limits on individual freedom, also are listed as sponsors of HJ 6.