Gay marriage amendment squeaks through Senate
“The people of Wyoming want to vote on this,” Sen. Curt Meier asserted Thursday as he called for the Senate to endorse his bill putting a proposed constitutional amendment voiding the marriage contracts of same-sex couples living in or traveling through Wyoming.
The amendment, proposed to Article 1, Section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution would state:
“Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in Wyoming. The legislature may define the benefits and obligations of marriage which may be different than the benefits and obligations afforded to all other civil relationships.”
Approval of the resolution, SF5 -Defense of marriage - constitutional amendment, required a two-thirds vote from the Senate, and it got just that, passing on the slimmest margin of 20-10.
Sen. Cale Case (R-SD25, Lander) termed the decision to amend Article 1 of the state constitution the “greatest irony of all” because it is the document’s “Declaration of Rights.” Section 2 of Article 1 states, “Equality of all. In their inherent right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, all members of the human race are equal.” (Bold face type in original)
“You’re going to take this beautiful list and you’re going to deny rights in this same section” of the constitution, Case said.
Sen. Drew Perkins (R-SD29, Casper) countered that voting for the proposed amendment merely gives the citizens of Wyoming the right to vote on the idea. “This isn’t the law,” he said, and noted that opponents did not trust the same neighbors they rely on to sit on juries to address the idea of further limiting the rights of gay and lesbian couples.
“It either passes or it fails,” he said. “It’s not our decision.”
But Sen. Chris Rothfuss (D-SD9, Laramie) said those defending their votes as merely giving the public a chance to vote were denying the Senate’s essential role as defined by the people who wrote the state constitution. The founders put in a requirement of a two-thirds vote to place amendments before the voters as a first check to prevent “the opportunity for the majority to overwhelm” the rights of the minority.
He said senators could easily think of many policies that the majority of voters would favor at the expense of various minorities and pass them. A church could be singled out for discrimination. But he noted doing so “… won’t be right and it won’t be equitable.”
He said senators should vote yes or no because they favor the intent of the amendment, not to somehow empower the public at large. “You’re on the hot seat.”
Sen. Meier closed the debate saying, “This is a vote on public policy.”
Here’s how the vote is reported on the bill digest:
Ayes: Senator(s) Anderson, Barnard, Bebout, Coe, Cooper, Dockstader, Driskill, Emerich, Geis, Hicks, Hines, Jennings, Johnson, Landen, Meier, Nutting, Perkins, Peterson, Ross and Scott.
Nays: Senator(s) Burns, Case, Christensen, Esquibel, F., Hastert, Martin, Nicholas P, Rothfuss, Schiffer and Von Flatern.
Ayes 20 Nays 10
The proposed amendment now goes to the House where opponents believe they have a chance of preventing it receiving the 40 votes needed for final passage.
Health litigation fund whacked
The House Appropriations Committee Thursday morning cut the appropriation for a special fund to finance state litigation that proponents say will enable the state to “push back” against the Affordable Care Act, the major health care reform bill passed by Congress last year.
The Joint Interim Labor, Health and Social Services Committee approved the HB 39 - Health litigation fund with a $2 million appropriation. That’s down from the $10 million - $20 million interim Chairmen Sen. Charles Scott (R-SD30, Casper) and now-retired Rep. Jack Landon of Sheridan originally considered necessary, House Labor Chairman Elaine Harvey (R-HD26, Lovell) told the committee.
“We need the ability to fight it. We need the ability to fight back,” Harvey said of the implementation of the new federal law.
Chris Boswell, the new head of the Department of Administration and Information, told the committee the fund would be used to develop the expertise necessary to implement the ACA. “This has to do with where Wyoming wants to take this,” Boswell said of the ACA.
The ESPC has opposed the litigation fund, arguing the money could be put to better use helping to fund the education of the doctors, dentists, and other health care providers the state needs. The bill calls for state involvement in lawsuits against the ACA brought by private citizens under certain circumstances. The ESPC believes state involvement in private lawsuits is poor public policy.
But the discussion that the fund could be used to develop state expertise that might aid in implementation of the act (or in litigating against it) was a new tack by proponents.
The committee decided to cut the appropriation by 75 percent to $500,000. That size of fund is similar to other state funds set up to represent state issues in water disputes and natural resources litigation.
The bill now goes to the House floor.
Participate
Citizens can register their opinions on specific legislation by using the “Online Hotline” or the telephone Hotline – 1-866-966-8683 or, in Cheyenne, 777-8683.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
A new campaign finance resource
ESPC offers analyses of Citizens United v. FEC
Senate ponders resolution to require constitutional instruction
With the legislature nearly certain to pass legislation to bring state statutes into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowing corporations to finance independent expenditure campaigns, future Wyoming election campaigns could look and sound much different.
In the case Citizens United v. FEC, the court cleared the way for corporations to engage in independent spending to support or oppose candidates in elections at all levels – from the town council to the U.S. Presidency.
The ESPC laid out its criticism of the court’s decision earlier this month in a debate with the Wyoming Liberty Group at the University of Wyoming College of Law. Preparation for that debate prompted a decision to put together a page on the ESPC web site to present the majority and dissenting opinions of the High Court and offer other analyses from independent sources. It includes a link to a humorous but on-point assessment from comedian Stephen Colbert.
You can access the page under the Projects tab and clicking on Campaign Finance. Or you can click here to go directly to the page.
We hope this page will inform Wyoming citizens about the potential impact on elections of the Supreme Court decision and the need to press for broader disclosure of the corporations or other interests behind any independent expenditure campaign. We’re also taking suggestions for links to other helpful resources.
Be It Resolved
Thursday will be a lively day for considering resolutions if the committees get to all their scheduled bills.
The Senate Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee will consider a resolution and a bill calling for a constitutional amendment requiring that any elected official or other person required by law to take an oath to uphold the U.S. or state constitutions receive no less than three hours of constitutional instruction. Both are sponsored by Sen. Kit Jennings (R-SD28, Casper) and Rep. Bob Brechtel (R-HD38, Casper).
The instruction “shall teach the fundamental principals (sic) of the United States and Wyoming constitutions without interpretation and consistent with the plain meaning of the constitutional language drafted by the founding fathers.”
The idea begs a few questions, not the least of which is how the instruction should handle the amendments passed since the founders left this mortal plane and whether the instructions should include full explication of the U.S. Constitution’s handling of slavery and slaves.
Meanwhile, in the House Judiciary Committee, HJ 3 - Resolution to Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court tackles the mandates flowing from Washington that the sponsors believe violate the 10th Amendment. The resolution calls for an amendment to the 10th Amendment and an amendment specifically limiting the use of the Commerce Clause (Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) to extend federal authority into the states.
Prohibiting gay marriage
Unfortunately, what may be the most serious of these constitutional amendment proposals is SF 5 – Defense of marriage – constitutional amendment. It will be considered on third reading in the Senate Thursday (Jan. 27). This bill would enshrine in the state constitution the idea that gays, lesbians, and transgendered people are second-class citizens who don’t deserve even the option of a civil union. The ESPC believes the idea is unconstitutional because it violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause … but what do we know?
We expect a close vote. It is possible the Senate could muster 11 “nay” votes, thus blocking the two-thirds majority required to place a constitutional amendment on the Wyoming election ballot in 2012. Social justice advocates have been working hard to find those 11 senators.
Senate ponders resolution to require constitutional instruction
With the legislature nearly certain to pass legislation to bring state statutes into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowing corporations to finance independent expenditure campaigns, future Wyoming election campaigns could look and sound much different.
In the case Citizens United v. FEC, the court cleared the way for corporations to engage in independent spending to support or oppose candidates in elections at all levels – from the town council to the U.S. Presidency.
The ESPC laid out its criticism of the court’s decision earlier this month in a debate with the Wyoming Liberty Group at the University of Wyoming College of Law. Preparation for that debate prompted a decision to put together a page on the ESPC web site to present the majority and dissenting opinions of the High Court and offer other analyses from independent sources. It includes a link to a humorous but on-point assessment from comedian Stephen Colbert.
You can access the page under the Projects tab and clicking on Campaign Finance. Or you can click here to go directly to the page.
We hope this page will inform Wyoming citizens about the potential impact on elections of the Supreme Court decision and the need to press for broader disclosure of the corporations or other interests behind any independent expenditure campaign. We’re also taking suggestions for links to other helpful resources.
Be It Resolved
Thursday will be a lively day for considering resolutions if the committees get to all their scheduled bills.
The Senate Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee will consider a resolution and a bill calling for a constitutional amendment requiring that any elected official or other person required by law to take an oath to uphold the U.S. or state constitutions receive no less than three hours of constitutional instruction. Both are sponsored by Sen. Kit Jennings (R-SD28, Casper) and Rep. Bob Brechtel (R-HD38, Casper).
The instruction “shall teach the fundamental principals (sic) of the United States and Wyoming constitutions without interpretation and consistent with the plain meaning of the constitutional language drafted by the founding fathers.”
The idea begs a few questions, not the least of which is how the instruction should handle the amendments passed since the founders left this mortal plane and whether the instructions should include full explication of the U.S. Constitution’s handling of slavery and slaves.
Meanwhile, in the House Judiciary Committee, HJ 3 - Resolution to Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court tackles the mandates flowing from Washington that the sponsors believe violate the 10th Amendment. The resolution calls for an amendment to the 10th Amendment and an amendment specifically limiting the use of the Commerce Clause (Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) to extend federal authority into the states.
Prohibiting gay marriage
Unfortunately, what may be the most serious of these constitutional amendment proposals is SF 5 – Defense of marriage – constitutional amendment. It will be considered on third reading in the Senate Thursday (Jan. 27). This bill would enshrine in the state constitution the idea that gays, lesbians, and transgendered people are second-class citizens who don’t deserve even the option of a civil union. The ESPC believes the idea is unconstitutional because it violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause … but what do we know?
We expect a close vote. It is possible the Senate could muster 11 “nay” votes, thus blocking the two-thirds majority required to place a constitutional amendment on the Wyoming election ballot in 2012. Social justice advocates have been working hard to find those 11 senators.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Sexual orientation and anti-discrimination law
Sexual orientation deserves legal protection
During its first two weeks of the session, much of the legislature’s attention focused on marriage and whether the state should recognize gay and lesbian marriages legally made outside Wyoming. Tuesday morning, Rep. Cathy Connolly shepherded a bill through the House Judiciary Committee that will make it illegal in Wyoming to discriminate against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“I consider this bill simple yet profound,” Connolly (D-HD13, Laramie) told the committee. House Bill 142 - Discrimination adds the words “sexual orientation or gender identity in all state laws that have anti-discrimination clauses.
For example, Wyoming statute 19-14-107 creases the veterans’ commission and outlines its composition and terms of commissioners.
“Appointments shall be made without regard to political affiliation, sex, religion or ethnic background,” the statute now reads. Connolly’s bill will insert the words “sexual orientation or gender identify” between the words sex and religion in that statute.
Connolly noted she did not propose adding the anti-discrimination clause anywhere one does not already exist, a decision that gives the measure a Goldilocks sheen. “It’s not too much and it’s not too little. It’s just right.”
She also noted the bill is necessary because gays, lesbians and transgendered people “have been and are the victims of discrimination” and these days often are the primary targets of “vicious bigotry.”
University of Wyoming Provost Myron Allen spoke in favor of the bill. He said the university long ago adopted an anti-discrimination policy that encompasses sexual orientation and political beliefs. The policy is critical to recruitment efforts at UW, he reported. He pointed out of the top 25 institutions of higher learning in the U.S., only one – Notre Dame – does not have a policy protecting sexual orientation. Similarly, of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies, only one does not bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Linda Burt of the Wyoming Chapter of the ACLU said her offices takes many complaints each year from people who believe they lost a job or were denied a promotion because of sexual orientation. Without specific state protection, she said, “Generally, what we can do is nothing.”
The committee approved the bill on a 6-3 vote:
Ayes: Representative(s) Barbuto, Brown, Cannady, Greene, Krone and Throne
Nayes: Representative(s) Brechtel, Nicholas B and Peasley
Political party registration
The Senate Corporations Committee killed a measure aimed at blocking voters from switching parties to vote in primaries. Sen. Kit Jennings (R-SD28, Casper) sponsored SF13 – Change of political party affiliation to stop what he termed meddling in one party’s primary by voters temporarily switching registration. He said some 10,000 people changed registration to vote in the Republican primary last August, when Matt Mead won the GOP nomination by fewer than 800 votes.
“That’s meddling,” he said. “The primary is about parties.”
The committee did not agree with his argument and voted 0-5 to kill the bill.
Open primary - The committee took up freshman Sen. Chris Rothfuss’ proposal to establish an open primary under which a voter in a state primary could request a ballot for any party. He said SF96 – Open primaries particularly would show respect for Independent voters who sometimes feel compelled to register as a Republican or Democrat in order to have choices in the primary.
“It increases the freedom of the voters to choose people we want,” Rothfuss (D-SD9, Laramie) said. He noted that even prominent members of a party, such as the members of the committee would be allowed to take the other party’s ballot in a primary and know that their choice would not become public.
The committee likewise killed Rothfuss’ bill, though on a narrow 3-2 vote. Sens. John Hines (R-SD23, Gillette,) Wayne Johnson (R-SD6, Cheyenne) and Marty Martin (D-SD12, Superior) voted against the bill. Sen. Charles Scott (R-SD30, Casper) and committee Chairman Cale Case (R-SD25, Lander) voted for the bill.
During its first two weeks of the session, much of the legislature’s attention focused on marriage and whether the state should recognize gay and lesbian marriages legally made outside Wyoming. Tuesday morning, Rep. Cathy Connolly shepherded a bill through the House Judiciary Committee that will make it illegal in Wyoming to discriminate against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“I consider this bill simple yet profound,” Connolly (D-HD13, Laramie) told the committee. House Bill 142 - Discrimination adds the words “sexual orientation or gender identity in all state laws that have anti-discrimination clauses.
For example, Wyoming statute 19-14-107 creases the veterans’ commission and outlines its composition and terms of commissioners.
“Appointments shall be made without regard to political affiliation, sex, religion or ethnic background,” the statute now reads. Connolly’s bill will insert the words “sexual orientation or gender identify” between the words sex and religion in that statute.
Connolly noted she did not propose adding the anti-discrimination clause anywhere one does not already exist, a decision that gives the measure a Goldilocks sheen. “It’s not too much and it’s not too little. It’s just right.”
She also noted the bill is necessary because gays, lesbians and transgendered people “have been and are the victims of discrimination” and these days often are the primary targets of “vicious bigotry.”
University of Wyoming Provost Myron Allen spoke in favor of the bill. He said the university long ago adopted an anti-discrimination policy that encompasses sexual orientation and political beliefs. The policy is critical to recruitment efforts at UW, he reported. He pointed out of the top 25 institutions of higher learning in the U.S., only one – Notre Dame – does not have a policy protecting sexual orientation. Similarly, of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies, only one does not bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Linda Burt of the Wyoming Chapter of the ACLU said her offices takes many complaints each year from people who believe they lost a job or were denied a promotion because of sexual orientation. Without specific state protection, she said, “Generally, what we can do is nothing.”
The committee approved the bill on a 6-3 vote:
Ayes: Representative(s) Barbuto, Brown, Cannady, Greene, Krone and Throne
Nayes: Representative(s) Brechtel, Nicholas B and Peasley
Political party registration
The Senate Corporations Committee killed a measure aimed at blocking voters from switching parties to vote in primaries. Sen. Kit Jennings (R-SD28, Casper) sponsored SF13 – Change of political party affiliation to stop what he termed meddling in one party’s primary by voters temporarily switching registration. He said some 10,000 people changed registration to vote in the Republican primary last August, when Matt Mead won the GOP nomination by fewer than 800 votes.
“That’s meddling,” he said. “The primary is about parties.”
The committee did not agree with his argument and voted 0-5 to kill the bill.
Open primary - The committee took up freshman Sen. Chris Rothfuss’ proposal to establish an open primary under which a voter in a state primary could request a ballot for any party. He said SF96 – Open primaries particularly would show respect for Independent voters who sometimes feel compelled to register as a Republican or Democrat in order to have choices in the primary.
“It increases the freedom of the voters to choose people we want,” Rothfuss (D-SD9, Laramie) said. He noted that even prominent members of a party, such as the members of the committee would be allowed to take the other party’s ballot in a primary and know that their choice would not become public.
The committee likewise killed Rothfuss’ bill, though on a narrow 3-2 vote. Sens. John Hines (R-SD23, Gillette,) Wayne Johnson (R-SD6, Cheyenne) and Marty Martin (D-SD12, Superior) voted against the bill. Sen. Charles Scott (R-SD30, Casper) and committee Chairman Cale Case (R-SD25, Lander) voted for the bill.
Monday, January 24, 2011
A day at the legislative races
Arizona copy cat bill fails
Minerals committee refuses to move ALEC-motivated measure
In a session dominated by discriminatory legislation, justice advocates registered a significant victory Monday when the House Minerals Committee refused to put a troubling immigration bill up for discussion.
Members of the House Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee killed a bill modeled after Arizona’s controversial SB1070 by simply refusing even to offer a motion for passage. There was significant Establishment opposition to the bill, House Bill 94 – Illegal Immigration, including from the Wyoming Lodging and Restaurant Lodging Association.
The ESPC and its allies believed the bill would lead to racial profiling, split up families that include documented and undocumented people living in the state, would hamper police, who would have to devote resources to enforcing federal immigration law, and could spawn national protests that would adversely affect Wyoming’s tourism industry.
The bill was modeled closely on Arizona's SB1070. Reports by National Public Radio last fall tied the bill to the American Legislative Exchange Congress (ALEC) and the private prison industry in the U.S.
Chesie Lee, the lobbyist for ESPC-member group the Wyoming Association of Churches celebrated the victory with this message:
“Good News! ... After a lengthy hearing before the House Minerals Committee with many raising significant problems with HB 94 for Wyoming from diverse points of view, no one on the House Minerals Committee was willing to move the bill, so it died in committee being indefinitely postponed following some discussion.
“I believe the voice of the Wyoming Association of Churches on this issue was good and made a difference. … The room was packed with many having to stand in the hallway. Only a couple other than sponsors spoke in favor of the bill, but no one representing any organization spoke for it.”
Lee notes that some students plan a rally for 11:30 am on Thursday at the State Capitol to celebrate.
This is a great victory, especially considering the socially conservative tenor of this legislature. We all winced Monday when House Bill 74 – Validity of Marriage passed the House. The measure makes gay and lesbian marriage illegal in Wyoming, including existing marriages made legally in other states.
Advocates managed to narrow the number of representatives who favored the measure in earlier votes, but in the end fell still needed to swing three more legislators when the House voted 32-27 to pass the bill. (House Minority Leader Patrick Goggles was excused from the vote. Goggles is working his way through some significant family matters.)
Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee killed one of three bills aimed at refining Wyoming’s Open Meetings and Public Records laws. The committee amended but approved a bill, House Bill 120 – Public meetings, requiring public entities to inform interested media outlets and others 24 hours in advance of special meetings. Those entities, such as city councils, boards, commissions, and conservation districts, still could schedule emergency meetings without the 24-hour notice when circumstances demand immediate action.
A provision that would have required audio recordings of all executive sessions held by public boards and entities was stripped from the bill via an amendment proposed by Rep. Bob Nicholas (R-HD 8, Cheyenne). Supporters, including the Wyoming Coalition for Open Government, the Wyoming Press Association, the League of Women Voters, and the ESPC hope to see that provision restored.
Reps. Sam Krone (R-HD24, Cody) joined Rep. Nicholas in voting against the measure.
The Judiciary Committee also approved HB 121, which seeks to impose a deadline, initially within three days, to ensure fulfillment of a request for public documents. Opposition from the Wyoming Association of Municipalities and the Wyoming County Commissioners Association led the committee to adopt an amendment aimed at giving a public board or agency more time to respond to complicated requests or requests for voluminous amounts of material.
The proponents had hoped to limit severely the ability of public agencies to charge exorbitant amounts for producing and providing copies of public documents, noting that taxpayers already pay for the initial creation of the documents.
Again, agencies opposing the measure convinced the committee they need the ability to recover costs of obeying state public records law intended to assure public access to government records. The committee stripped out a clause prohibiting charging labor costs associated with producing a public document. They also successfully amended the bill to allow agencies to charge for the costs of redacting information from documents that could jeopardize a police investigation or expose other information that is entitled to protection.
Proponents said such charges represent a “hidden tax” on members of the public.
Meanwhile, the committee killed HB119 – Public records and meetings – court proceedings. Committee member objected to provisions that made challenges of denial of access to meetings and public records the top priority in Wyoming courts. Supporters said the priority designation was essential to ensuring timely access to information essential to the public as it considers public policy decision-making by its elected and appointed leaders.
Quicker hits
Marriage law: The House Labor, Health and Social Service Committee narrowly defeated HB65 - Marital counseling and approved HB39 – Health Litigation Fund. The first bill would have required couples seeking to get married or divorced to get three hours of counseling before a marriage license or a divorce could be obtained.
Suing the feds: The ESPC opposed HB 39, which appropriates $2 million to support litigation to challenge the new federal health care reform law, suggested the funds could be better spent to train doctors, dentists, physicians assistants and/or other providers who deliver care in Wyoming communities that lack practitioners.
Chairman Elaine Harvey (HD26, Lovell) said the funding will support state efforts to challenge what many see as the federal government acting unconstitutionally and usurping states rights. The litigation fund will demonstrate to the federal government that “we’re … prepared to do what we need to do to push back on this legislation.”
Rep. Frank Peasley (HD3, Douglas) reiterated the states rights argument. “Our pushback has more to do with general states rights. If they can do this to us,” he said of the Affordable Care Act, “they can do anything to us.” Peasley conceded Rep. Keith Gingery’s point that potential travel costs laid out in the bill are exorbitant if the state simply intends to file friend-of-the-court briefs as it joins lawsuits conducted by other states against the new law.
Reps. Gerald Gay (HD36, Casper), Matt Greene (R-HD45, Laramie), Hans Hunt (HD2, Newcastle), David Miller (HD55, Riverton) joined Peasley and Harvey in supporting the bill.
Reps. Craft, Barbuto and Gingery opposed the measure, which passed on a 6-3 vote.
Campaign finance: The Senate on Monday defeated on a 15-15 tie vote an effort to strip disclosure amendments made to Senate File 3 – Campaign Finance – organizations. This is the bill that will change state law to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which allows corporations to funnel unlimited amounts of money into independent expenditure campaigns to support or oppose candidates for election. The measure ultimately won final passage by the Senate on a 28-2 vote.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The Insurance Industry and the Affordable Care Act:
What consumers need to know
By Barb Rea
ESPC health issues volunteer
The insurance industry poured $80 million into lobbying what is now known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the nation’s new health care law. The industry succeeded in reaching its main objectives, killing the public option and ensuring the inclusion of an insurance mandate—a requirement that people buy health care—that will bring them millions of new customers.
Many healthcare policy analysts believe that efforts to repeal the ACA will not be successful because the powerful insurance industry wants the provision that will tax people who fail to buy insurance to remain intact.
In exchange for the mandate that will bring the industry tens of millions of new customers, the industry agreed to comply with new rules and regulations. The new rules and regs will profoundly affect the way the companies compete, and will at the same time provide new security for millions of Americans. The industry is now spending millions of our premium dollars to influence the people in charge of writing the new rules and regulations.
Instead of fighting for repeal of the law, our representatives both in Congress and the Wyoming Legislature should be working to ensure Wyoming has a way to enforce compliance with these new consumer protections.
This is especially important in Wyoming, where representatives of the insurance industry are the default experts on all insurance questions. We have very little experience with or expertise in insurance regulation—the state has, for example, no authority to review rates unless it declares a particular insurance market is not competitive.
And the state declined to apply for $1 million in federal grant money that the ACA made available to all states to help them beef up their insurance oversight. Wyoming Blue Cross/Blue Shield currently operates with an excessive surplus, one of the highest in the nation, and continues to file for rate hikes, which our Insurance Commissioner has no authority to deny.
Wendell Potter, a former public relations executive for Cigna, one of the largest insurance companies in the U.S., reveals in his new book, Deadly Spin, how the industry works systematically to increase profits at the expense of consumers and pours millions of dollars into PR campaigns created to spread disinformation.
Mr. Potter resigned after he began to see that his industry was contributing daily to the growing numbers of un- and underinsured. The industry was part of the problem—and its promise to support health reform efforts under President Obama was disingenuous.
He explains the relationship between health care and how the industry works to maintain its profit margin. Currently, insurance companies compete on risk selection-- companies (for-profit and non-profit alike[1]) try, in a variety of ways, to select healthy customers and dump sick ones to avoid having to pay claims.
These are some of the tactics:
- denying people coverage or charging them more because of some pre-existing health condition;
- excluding or limiting coverage of certain conditions;
- “rescinding”— canceling—a policy when a person gets sick;
- more subtle tricks like discontinuing coverage of certain medications or changing the amount the customer must pay for them; and
- changing the network of providers available to the customer to exclude certain types of specialists —or maybe your specialist.
The new federal healthcare law addresses these problems and establishes new rules to eliminate “gotchas.” The ACA is designed to move the industry from one that competes on risk selection to one that competes on risk management.
Many of these rules have already gone into effect. Insurers, for example, can no longer cancel a policy if a person gets sick, or deny coverage to children with preexisting conditions. [3]
Starting this year, thanks to the ACA, we will be able to see what proportion of our premiums is used to pay for medical care and what proportion goes into marketing, other overhead—and profit. If companies don’t spend 80 to 85% of our premiums on our claims, they will have to pay us a rebate.
If the new law drives insurers who are taking a larger bite out of our premiums out of business, they shouldn’t be missed. That will be a good thing for consumers. These companies now are collecting premiums without paying claims. And insurance customers, under the new law, are guaranteed the right to an external appeal if companies fail to pay as promised.
The law also allows for the establishment of a set of “essential benefits” so all insurance companies have to cover the same set of benefits, making policies easier to compare and spreading the risk of the total cost of health care in our state across as many people as possible.
This is important in Wyoming, because the federal guidelines for establishing these benefits are broadly defined and states will have the authority to make consumer protections stronger if they want to. We could make Wyoming citizens much safer by making these standards as broad as possible. We could guarantee that patients in Wyoming will never be put in a situation where the doctor tells them they need something but their insurance doesn’t cover it.
With the establishment of insurance exchanges in 2014, insurers will have to begin to compete by adding value to their products, like providing great customer service, or patient education, or by offering coverage for popular elective procedures over and above the essential benefit package.
The mandate to buy insurance is the key to spreading the risk. Without a mandate the likelihood is greater that people would only buy insurance when they got sick.
The ACA puts us on the path to near total coverage in several different ways:
- Most people in Wyoming will continue to get their health insurance through their employer.
- Forty thousand will find coverage through the new insurance exchange where people and small business can shop for insurance. This coverage will be made more affordable with the application of federal subsidies for anyone making less than 400% of Federal Poverty Level (approx. $80,000 for a family of 4).
- Thirty thousand will become eligible for Medicaid, a public insurance program, with the federal government picking up most of the tab and at a cost savings to the state, according to a report prepared for the Wyoming Department of Health.
But if we are unwilling to regulate this industry at the state level we should let the federal government do it for us.
Wyoming has made many attempts at state-wide health care reform over the last 25 years but has never had the political will to do all that is necessary. We need the federal framework provided by the ACA to achieve real reform, and we need to be wary of allowing industry representatives to do the job for us.
A Wyoming solution has to be a real solution to the failure of our health care system to meet the health care needs of all our citizens, not perpetuate the practices that got us here.
[1]“…Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming had only one hundred thousand members in 2007, but CEO Timothy Crilly collected a salary of $471,000, or $4.71 per member, the highest per capita rate in the nation.” Potter, Deadly Spin.
[2] Assessing State External Review Programs and the Effect on Pending Federal Patient s Rights Legislation. Pollitz, Lucia, Bangit. Kaiser Family Foundation, May 2002.
[3] This rule hasn’t stopped the industry from gaming the system for children as many plans stopped offering child only policies. “How States Are Making Sure Coverage is Available to Children. Families USA, 2010.
Barb Rea, pictured above, serves as a consumer representative to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Second week ends on low note
What part of “Equality State” don’t legislators understand?
The Senate Judiciary Committee today approved SJ 5 - Defense of marriage – constitutional amendment. The proposal would amend the Wyoming Constitution as follows: “A marriage between a man and a woman shall be the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”
Testimony on the bill, which opened Wednesday and was continued this morning, was similar to that presented just days ago in the House Education Committee on HB 74 - Validity of Marriages.
HB 74 specifically provides that marriages between more than two parties are void (e.g., polygamy). This topic also came up in today’s discussion of SJ 5, when three senators, Bruce Burns (R-SD21, Sheridan), Larry Hicks (R-SD11, Baggs) and Chairman Drew Perkins (R-SD29, Casper) wondered aloud why opponents of the proposed amendment talked only about same-sex marriages and not polygamy.
Linda Burt, executive director and lobbyist for the Wyoming Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (an ESPC member group), explained that the proposed amendment violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. She said the proposed law restricts the right of two people of the same gender to marry; however, state law does not burden the rights of two people entering marriages involving a man and a woman.
The prohibition against polygamy applies to everyone, regardless of whether a plural marriage is composed of men and women, only women, or only men. Since it is applied evenly, the prohibition against polygamy does not violate the Equal Protection clause, Burt said.
The committee adopted an amendment proposed by Sen. Leland Christensen (R-S17, Alta) who said he hoped to give some latitude when it comes to property owned by a gay or lesbian person.
The bill originally said:
"A marriage between a man and a woman shall be the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."
The Christensen amendment substitutes the following language:
"Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in Wyoming. Any other relationship shall not be valid or recognized as a marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof by the state or any of its political subdivisions."
The ESPC intends to check with several attorneys to see if the language does provide the latitude Sen. Christensen intended. One attorney consulted in the Capitol said he did not see how, since the language explicitly prohibits any political subdivision, which would include the courts, from acknowledging a homosexual couple's relationship as a legal civil union or other legal construct.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Perkins, Sen. Hicks, and Sen. Christensen voted for SJ 5. Sen. Burns and Floyd Esquibel (D-S8, Cheyenne) voted against it.
More Equality next Monday …
The House Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee will take up HB 94 - Illegal immigration, at 7:30 am. The bill mirrors Arizona’s controversial measure.
Tax exemption, anyone? No data required …
The House Revenue Committee today took up HB 143 - Manufacturing tax exemption. The bill continues a sales and use tax exemption for purchases of manufacturing equipment that was originally enacted in 2004 over opposition from the ESPC.
The exemption was set to sunset at the end of 2010, but was extended for a year by the 2010 Legislature in order to study how the exemption might be changed to better accomplish its original purpose of encouraging the creation of manufacturing jobs.
Although the ESPC was not successful in blocking passage of the exemption in 2004, we successfully advocated for the first annual reporting on the costs of a tax exemption. The 2010 report shows:
The total lost tax revenue from this exemption is approximately $53 million, or about $10 million a year since it was enacted.
The Wyoming Business Council, Cheyenne LEADS/Wyoming Economic Development Association, and several manufacturers spoke in favor of retaining the tax exemption. None of them provided any concrete data about jobs created or sustained for this $53 million investment.
Proponents repeatedly stated that the tax exemption is needed as a recruiting tool for economic development, although why Wyoming, without personal or corporate income taxes, also needs a manufacturing tax exemption to compete with other states remains a mystery.
In addition to going over the report, the ESPC questioned the fairness of a tax policy that provides a sales and use tax exemption for one sector but not another, especially in the absence of any additional revenues from economic development the exemption was supposed to generate.
Rep. Mike Madden (R-H40, Buffalo) successfully amended the bill to apply only to purchases of equipment to manufacture a new product line or expand capacity. A further amendment by Rep. Dave Miller (R-H55, Riverton) included equipment to “lower emissions.” Pollution control equipment already is exempt from property tax so, if ultimately passed, this provision will mean that pollution control equipment – an ordinary part of doing business in this day and age – will not be taxed at all.
The bill passed the committee on a 6-2 vote. Chairman Pat Childers (R-H50, Cody) and Representatives Greg Blikre (R-H53, Gillette), Rita Campbell (R-H34, Shoshoni), Miller, Owen Petersen (R-H19, Mountain View), and Clarence Vranish (R-H49, Evanston) voted yes. Representatives Madden and Mark Semlek (R-H1, Moorcroft) voted no. Rep. Pat Goggles (D-H33, Ethete) was excused.
The Senate Judiciary Committee today approved SJ 5 - Defense of marriage – constitutional amendment. The proposal would amend the Wyoming Constitution as follows: “A marriage between a man and a woman shall be the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”
Testimony on the bill, which opened Wednesday and was continued this morning, was similar to that presented just days ago in the House Education Committee on HB 74 - Validity of Marriages.
HB 74 specifically provides that marriages between more than two parties are void (e.g., polygamy). This topic also came up in today’s discussion of SJ 5, when three senators, Bruce Burns (R-SD21, Sheridan), Larry Hicks (R-SD11, Baggs) and Chairman Drew Perkins (R-SD29, Casper) wondered aloud why opponents of the proposed amendment talked only about same-sex marriages and not polygamy.
Linda Burt, executive director and lobbyist for the Wyoming Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (an ESPC member group), explained that the proposed amendment violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. She said the proposed law restricts the right of two people of the same gender to marry; however, state law does not burden the rights of two people entering marriages involving a man and a woman.
The prohibition against polygamy applies to everyone, regardless of whether a plural marriage is composed of men and women, only women, or only men. Since it is applied evenly, the prohibition against polygamy does not violate the Equal Protection clause, Burt said.
The committee adopted an amendment proposed by Sen. Leland Christensen (R-S17, Alta) who said he hoped to give some latitude when it comes to property owned by a gay or lesbian person.
The bill originally said:
"A marriage between a man and a woman shall be the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."
The Christensen amendment substitutes the following language:
"Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in Wyoming. Any other relationship shall not be valid or recognized as a marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof by the state or any of its political subdivisions."
The ESPC intends to check with several attorneys to see if the language does provide the latitude Sen. Christensen intended. One attorney consulted in the Capitol said he did not see how, since the language explicitly prohibits any political subdivision, which would include the courts, from acknowledging a homosexual couple's relationship as a legal civil union or other legal construct.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Perkins, Sen. Hicks, and Sen. Christensen voted for SJ 5. Sen. Burns and Floyd Esquibel (D-S8, Cheyenne) voted against it.
More Equality next Monday …
The House Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee will take up HB 94 - Illegal immigration, at 7:30 am. The bill mirrors Arizona’s controversial measure.
Tax exemption, anyone? No data required …
The House Revenue Committee today took up HB 143 - Manufacturing tax exemption. The bill continues a sales and use tax exemption for purchases of manufacturing equipment that was originally enacted in 2004 over opposition from the ESPC.
The exemption was set to sunset at the end of 2010, but was extended for a year by the 2010 Legislature in order to study how the exemption might be changed to better accomplish its original purpose of encouraging the creation of manufacturing jobs.
Although the ESPC was not successful in blocking passage of the exemption in 2004, we successfully advocated for the first annual reporting on the costs of a tax exemption. The 2010 report shows:
- manufacturing jobs as a percent of total Wyoming employment has declined since passage of the exemption;
- the absolute number of jobs ticked up only slightly and then contracted significantly with the recession;
- the benefits offered to full-time employees in the manufacturing sector are comparable to those in other sectors of the Wyoming economy, but the benefits offered to part-time employees are less than in other sectors; and
- the exemption primarily has benefited the state’s refineries, which upgraded equipment and claimed the exemption. In 2010, for example, a refiner claimed $128 million in exempt purchases, and $138 million the previous year.
The total lost tax revenue from this exemption is approximately $53 million, or about $10 million a year since it was enacted.
The Wyoming Business Council, Cheyenne LEADS/Wyoming Economic Development Association, and several manufacturers spoke in favor of retaining the tax exemption. None of them provided any concrete data about jobs created or sustained for this $53 million investment.
Proponents repeatedly stated that the tax exemption is needed as a recruiting tool for economic development, although why Wyoming, without personal or corporate income taxes, also needs a manufacturing tax exemption to compete with other states remains a mystery.
In addition to going over the report, the ESPC questioned the fairness of a tax policy that provides a sales and use tax exemption for one sector but not another, especially in the absence of any additional revenues from economic development the exemption was supposed to generate.
Rep. Mike Madden (R-H40, Buffalo) successfully amended the bill to apply only to purchases of equipment to manufacture a new product line or expand capacity. A further amendment by Rep. Dave Miller (R-H55, Riverton) included equipment to “lower emissions.” Pollution control equipment already is exempt from property tax so, if ultimately passed, this provision will mean that pollution control equipment – an ordinary part of doing business in this day and age – will not be taxed at all.
The bill passed the committee on a 6-2 vote. Chairman Pat Childers (R-H50, Cody) and Representatives Greg Blikre (R-H53, Gillette), Rita Campbell (R-H34, Shoshoni), Miller, Owen Petersen (R-H19, Mountain View), and Clarence Vranish (R-H49, Evanston) voted yes. Representatives Madden and Mark Semlek (R-H1, Moorcroft) voted no. Rep. Pat Goggles (D-H33, Ethete) was excused.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Speaking of the Affordable Care Act ...
House Labor rehabilitates HB 35
The House Labor, Health and Social Services Committee worked hard – and late – on a nullification act that challenges the Affordable Care Act. It is sponsored by Rep. Bob Brechtel R-HD38, Casper) and a dozen other legislators, at least a few of them itching to prove their anti-federalism credentials.
House Bill 35 – Health care choice and protection act proclaims the ACA unconstitutional and thus null and void in Wyoming. As drafted, the bill imposed a $5,000 fine and a felony conviction on any state employee, official, or public servant found to be enforcing the ACA.
But the sponsors ran into a storm of criticism from a wide variety of interest groups. Wyoming Public Employees Association lobbyist Bob Kuchera expressed worries that the bill puts state employees at risk of committing a felony if they simply went about their work of implementing the new federal law.
Sheila Bush of the Wyoming Medical Society said her members are divided in their opinion of the ACA. Nevertheless, she noted that some doctors in the state are making significant investments in health information technology with the assistance of incentives in the ACA.
“What does it say to our providers … if we say they are breaking the law by doing so?” Bush asked.
Lobbyist Tom Jones of the Wyoming Health Care Association said he believed the bill as proposed could make it legal for a Wyoming resident to refuse to pay taxes that fund Medicaid. And he said the legislative assertion in the bill that the ACA is unconstitutional is meaningless. He noted the Supreme Court reserved the right to rule on the constitutionality of all laws in the early 19th century.
The legislature’s opinion of the ACA “ … doesn’t matter in the end,” Jones said.
Lobbyists for the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society noted the ACA brings many health benefits to people. Jason Mincer of the ACS asked, “What is (HB35)’s intent toward cancer survivors?”
Proponents said the act mirrored the Firearms Freedom Act approved last year. Rep. Keith Gingery, (R-HD 23, Jackson) pushed the committee to amend the bill to more closely mirror that bill. He offered successful amendments to change the felony crime to a misdemeanor carrying a $2,000 fine and made a number of other significant changes.
Rep. Frank Peasley (R-HD 3, Douglas) called the objections to the bill, especially fears of prosecution, “a lot of hooey.”
“We need to make a stand or we don’t make a stand,” he said. When it became clear there was no consensus on the committee over the meaning of some of its sections, Peasley later commented, “I guess we have to pass this bill before we know what’s in it.”
That remark sparked a few guffaws in the committee room and a retort from Chairman Elaine Harvey, who said Congress passes bills it does not understand, not the Wyoming legislature.
“I read this bill as the state is not going to go out and participate,” co-sponsor Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, (R-HD28, Thermopolis) said, and would refuse to allow state employees to enforce the bill. She argued that it does not say doctors cannot take grant money available because of the ACA without committing a crime.
That comment prompted Harvey (R-HD26, Lovell) to note that the state also cannot stop the IRS from impounding property to enforce the IRS code. Quarberg replied that the state needs to stand up to the federal government.
“This is a gutsy move,” replied Quarberg. “You dig down deep.”
Gingery pushed his amendments through, including one that pared down the list of those specifically in position to be accused of a felony. He trimmed wording that said “Any official, agent, employee or public servant of the state of Wyoming” would be found guilty of a felony if they attempted to enforce compliance with “this article.”
As the bill left the committee it said simply “Any public servant” who tried to enforce compliance with the ACA as defined in HB35 would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Though he took some heat, Peasley may be right that at least some of the committee members did not understand the effect of what they did until they review the amendment on the House floor.
The bill was narrowly approved on a 5-4 vote. Rep Gerald Gay (R-HD36, Casper), Rep. Matt Green (R-HD45, Laramie) and Rep. Hans Hunt (R-HD2, Newcastle) joined Peasley and Gingery in supporting the bill.
Rep. Joe Barbuto (D-HD48, Green River), Rep. Bernadine Craft (D-HD17, Rock Springs), and Rep. David Miller (R-HD55, Riverton), joined Harvey in opposing the bill.
Quick notes on Wednesday action on bills of interest –
Senate File 3 – Campaign finance – organizations was approved in the Senate’s Committee of the Whole with a disclosure amendment that will require corporations and other organizations engaging in independent expenditure campaigns to name their top three donors in the advertisements they buy. The Senate seemed a little uneasy about how it will work, so we’re watching for amendments that might ease disclosure needed to keep elections honest.
Senate File 14 – Counties – election districts likewise made it through first reading. We still have fears that the “flexibility” in the bill allows counties to establish a combination of at-large and single-member districts is subject to mischief. At worst, in counties with a substantial minority population, it could lead to a “political quarantine” of the minority group. Sen. Wayne Johnson, R-SD 6, Cheyenne, mentioned similar concerns in comments on the floor.
Health Care Freedom resolutions – The legislature is determined to send a message to Washington, D.C. and the rest of the country that it intends to resist the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress last year. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a heavily amended version of SJ 2 which would place a constitutional amendment on the 2012 ballot that asserts the federal government has never been granted the power to make decisions regarding lawful healthcare services. That power is reserved to the state of Wyoming and its people, the amended version says. It says the attorney general may assist any state resident in litigation to protect the right to make those decisions. The committee included several sections lifted from SJ 3, a similar but less strident proposal. Those sections denote the Legislature’s intention to continue its own authority to mandate care under Workers’ Compensation, at the state’s prisons, and at other institutions.
Contract validity?
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard more than an hour of testimony on SJF 5 – Defense of Marriage – constitutional amendment. Proponents argued the amendment is necessary to somehow protect the institution of marriage from gays, lesbians, and transgendered people. Opponents said they’re merely seeking the same legal protections that society extends to heterosexual couples.
Jason Marsden of the Matthew Shepard Foundation said the proposal will void valid existing contracts, something the Legislature simply would not allow to happen to existing business contracts.
The House Labor, Health and Social Services Committee worked hard – and late – on a nullification act that challenges the Affordable Care Act. It is sponsored by Rep. Bob Brechtel R-HD38, Casper) and a dozen other legislators, at least a few of them itching to prove their anti-federalism credentials.
House Bill 35 – Health care choice and protection act proclaims the ACA unconstitutional and thus null and void in Wyoming. As drafted, the bill imposed a $5,000 fine and a felony conviction on any state employee, official, or public servant found to be enforcing the ACA.
But the sponsors ran into a storm of criticism from a wide variety of interest groups. Wyoming Public Employees Association lobbyist Bob Kuchera expressed worries that the bill puts state employees at risk of committing a felony if they simply went about their work of implementing the new federal law.
Sheila Bush of the Wyoming Medical Society said her members are divided in their opinion of the ACA. Nevertheless, she noted that some doctors in the state are making significant investments in health information technology with the assistance of incentives in the ACA.
“What does it say to our providers … if we say they are breaking the law by doing so?” Bush asked.
Lobbyist Tom Jones of the Wyoming Health Care Association said he believed the bill as proposed could make it legal for a Wyoming resident to refuse to pay taxes that fund Medicaid. And he said the legislative assertion in the bill that the ACA is unconstitutional is meaningless. He noted the Supreme Court reserved the right to rule on the constitutionality of all laws in the early 19th century.
The legislature’s opinion of the ACA “ … doesn’t matter in the end,” Jones said.
Lobbyists for the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society noted the ACA brings many health benefits to people. Jason Mincer of the ACS asked, “What is (HB35)’s intent toward cancer survivors?”
Proponents said the act mirrored the Firearms Freedom Act approved last year. Rep. Keith Gingery, (R-HD 23, Jackson) pushed the committee to amend the bill to more closely mirror that bill. He offered successful amendments to change the felony crime to a misdemeanor carrying a $2,000 fine and made a number of other significant changes.
Rep. Frank Peasley (R-HD 3, Douglas) called the objections to the bill, especially fears of prosecution, “a lot of hooey.”
“We need to make a stand or we don’t make a stand,” he said. When it became clear there was no consensus on the committee over the meaning of some of its sections, Peasley later commented, “I guess we have to pass this bill before we know what’s in it.”
That remark sparked a few guffaws in the committee room and a retort from Chairman Elaine Harvey, who said Congress passes bills it does not understand, not the Wyoming legislature.
“I read this bill as the state is not going to go out and participate,” co-sponsor Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, (R-HD28, Thermopolis) said, and would refuse to allow state employees to enforce the bill. She argued that it does not say doctors cannot take grant money available because of the ACA without committing a crime.
That comment prompted Harvey (R-HD26, Lovell) to note that the state also cannot stop the IRS from impounding property to enforce the IRS code. Quarberg replied that the state needs to stand up to the federal government.
“This is a gutsy move,” replied Quarberg. “You dig down deep.”
Gingery pushed his amendments through, including one that pared down the list of those specifically in position to be accused of a felony. He trimmed wording that said “Any official, agent, employee or public servant of the state of Wyoming” would be found guilty of a felony if they attempted to enforce compliance with “this article.”
As the bill left the committee it said simply “Any public servant” who tried to enforce compliance with the ACA as defined in HB35 would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Though he took some heat, Peasley may be right that at least some of the committee members did not understand the effect of what they did until they review the amendment on the House floor.
The bill was narrowly approved on a 5-4 vote. Rep Gerald Gay (R-HD36, Casper), Rep. Matt Green (R-HD45, Laramie) and Rep. Hans Hunt (R-HD2, Newcastle) joined Peasley and Gingery in supporting the bill.
Rep. Joe Barbuto (D-HD48, Green River), Rep. Bernadine Craft (D-HD17, Rock Springs), and Rep. David Miller (R-HD55, Riverton), joined Harvey in opposing the bill.
Quick notes on Wednesday action on bills of interest –
Senate File 3 – Campaign finance – organizations was approved in the Senate’s Committee of the Whole with a disclosure amendment that will require corporations and other organizations engaging in independent expenditure campaigns to name their top three donors in the advertisements they buy. The Senate seemed a little uneasy about how it will work, so we’re watching for amendments that might ease disclosure needed to keep elections honest.
Senate File 14 – Counties – election districts likewise made it through first reading. We still have fears that the “flexibility” in the bill allows counties to establish a combination of at-large and single-member districts is subject to mischief. At worst, in counties with a substantial minority population, it could lead to a “political quarantine” of the minority group. Sen. Wayne Johnson, R-SD 6, Cheyenne, mentioned similar concerns in comments on the floor.
Health Care Freedom resolutions – The legislature is determined to send a message to Washington, D.C. and the rest of the country that it intends to resist the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress last year. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a heavily amended version of SJ 2 which would place a constitutional amendment on the 2012 ballot that asserts the federal government has never been granted the power to make decisions regarding lawful healthcare services. That power is reserved to the state of Wyoming and its people, the amended version says. It says the attorney general may assist any state resident in litigation to protect the right to make those decisions. The committee included several sections lifted from SJ 3, a similar but less strident proposal. Those sections denote the Legislature’s intention to continue its own authority to mandate care under Workers’ Compensation, at the state’s prisons, and at other institutions.
Contract validity?
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard more than an hour of testimony on SJF 5 – Defense of Marriage – constitutional amendment. Proponents argued the amendment is necessary to somehow protect the institution of marriage from gays, lesbians, and transgendered people. Opponents said they’re merely seeking the same legal protections that society extends to heterosexual couples.
Jason Marsden of the Matthew Shepard Foundation said the proposal will void valid existing contracts, something the Legislature simply would not allow to happen to existing business contracts.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
The Supreme Court, Citizens United and Wyoming
Senate committee shows commitment to honest elections
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission means we’re stuck with the prospect of corporate interests pouring money into state and national elections. It doesn’t matter if you believe that the right to free speech was meant for people who breathe and bleed. The corporations are free to use the biggest megaphone and can buy the most speech through independent expenditures in elections that affect their corporate interests.
Nevertheless, the state still has the authority to force disclosure of who finances that megaphone and who buys the time.
Today, the Senate Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee amended SF 3: Campaign finance – organizations, to help ensure that voters and candidates will know who paid for campaign literature and advertising.
The Senate bill brings state campaign finance law into compliance with the Citizens United decision by expressly allowing corporations, unions and other organizations to make “independent expenditures” directly from their treasuries. These expenditures can be made for or against candidates or ballot measures.
Under current Wyoming law, only candidates, political parties, candidate campaign committees, and political action committees (PACs) can spend money in elections. A corporate PAC is different from the corporation spending corporate funds because a PAC’s money comes from identifiable and publicly disclosed officers, directors and shareholders of the corporation.
The ESPC feared that SF3 would allow organizations to create fake front groups whose names would be put on campaign mailings and advertisements, leaving voters and candidates in the dark about who is paying for the independent expenditure campaign.
The committee approved an amendment offered by Sen. John Hines (R-S23, Gillette) to require that campaign literature or advertising made and paid for by independent expenditures carry the names and telephone numbers of the three largest contributors to the organization making the expenditure. The amendment was modeled after Arizona’s law.
While the requirement is not as complete as the reporting required of political parties or candidate campaign committees, its advantage is that it immediately informs the public of the main interests behind an ad paid for by independent expenditures. Voters then can interpret that information as they see fit.
The dangers of hybrids - election districts, that is
Following the discussion of election spending, the committee took up Senate File 14: Counties – election districts. The ESPC opposed this bill and it barely cleared the committee on a 3-2 vote.
Currently, when creating districts for the purpose of electing county commissioners, Wyoming law allows only the creation of single-member districts. SF 14 allows the creation of “hybrid” districts, meaning there may be a combination of single-member and at-large districts.
Only one county – Fremont – has districting for election of county commissioners, as the result of a Voting Rights Act lawsuit brought by members of the Northern Arapaho Tribe. Last spring, a federal district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who argued that the at-large system of electing county commissioners was discriminatory because it illegally diluted the Native American vote.
Committee Chairman Cale Case (R-SD25, Lander), consistently has argued the bill is not meant to address the situation in Fremont County, because it would apply to all counties, and no new system can go into effect before 2012 in any case. He noted Fremont County was holding a special election today, in compliance with the federal court order, to elect county commissioners.
The ESPC opposed the bill because when it was discussed in the 2010 interim, proponents of the hybrid system suggested that a county could create one district that would give a minority population or other population of interest a good chance to elect one of its own members as a commissioner, but then elect all other commissioners at-large – and not let the residents of the single-member district vote in the at-large district.
Such an approach would serve only to further isolate a minority population from the rest of the county’s residents. The ESPC believes the community should follow a process that allows everyone to move forward together, without what could be termed a “political quarantine” of the minority group.
Sen. Wayne Johnson (R-SD 6, Cheyenne) commented in the committee meeting that human nature would lead ultimately to discriminatory use of the hybrid districting alternatives. Johnson and Sen. Marty Martin (D-SD 12, Superior) opposed the bill.
Chairman Case, Sen. John Hines (R-SD 23, Gillette), and Sen. Charles Scott (R-SD 30, Casper) voted for the bill.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission means we’re stuck with the prospect of corporate interests pouring money into state and national elections. It doesn’t matter if you believe that the right to free speech was meant for people who breathe and bleed. The corporations are free to use the biggest megaphone and can buy the most speech through independent expenditures in elections that affect their corporate interests.
Nevertheless, the state still has the authority to force disclosure of who finances that megaphone and who buys the time.
Today, the Senate Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee amended SF 3: Campaign finance – organizations, to help ensure that voters and candidates will know who paid for campaign literature and advertising.
The Senate bill brings state campaign finance law into compliance with the Citizens United decision by expressly allowing corporations, unions and other organizations to make “independent expenditures” directly from their treasuries. These expenditures can be made for or against candidates or ballot measures.
Under current Wyoming law, only candidates, political parties, candidate campaign committees, and political action committees (PACs) can spend money in elections. A corporate PAC is different from the corporation spending corporate funds because a PAC’s money comes from identifiable and publicly disclosed officers, directors and shareholders of the corporation.
The ESPC feared that SF3 would allow organizations to create fake front groups whose names would be put on campaign mailings and advertisements, leaving voters and candidates in the dark about who is paying for the independent expenditure campaign.
The committee approved an amendment offered by Sen. John Hines (R-S23, Gillette) to require that campaign literature or advertising made and paid for by independent expenditures carry the names and telephone numbers of the three largest contributors to the organization making the expenditure. The amendment was modeled after Arizona’s law.
While the requirement is not as complete as the reporting required of political parties or candidate campaign committees, its advantage is that it immediately informs the public of the main interests behind an ad paid for by independent expenditures. Voters then can interpret that information as they see fit.
The dangers of hybrids - election districts, that is
Following the discussion of election spending, the committee took up Senate File 14: Counties – election districts. The ESPC opposed this bill and it barely cleared the committee on a 3-2 vote.
Currently, when creating districts for the purpose of electing county commissioners, Wyoming law allows only the creation of single-member districts. SF 14 allows the creation of “hybrid” districts, meaning there may be a combination of single-member and at-large districts.
Only one county – Fremont – has districting for election of county commissioners, as the result of a Voting Rights Act lawsuit brought by members of the Northern Arapaho Tribe. Last spring, a federal district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who argued that the at-large system of electing county commissioners was discriminatory because it illegally diluted the Native American vote.
Committee Chairman Cale Case (R-SD25, Lander), consistently has argued the bill is not meant to address the situation in Fremont County, because it would apply to all counties, and no new system can go into effect before 2012 in any case. He noted Fremont County was holding a special election today, in compliance with the federal court order, to elect county commissioners.
The ESPC opposed the bill because when it was discussed in the 2010 interim, proponents of the hybrid system suggested that a county could create one district that would give a minority population or other population of interest a good chance to elect one of its own members as a commissioner, but then elect all other commissioners at-large – and not let the residents of the single-member district vote in the at-large district.
Such an approach would serve only to further isolate a minority population from the rest of the county’s residents. The ESPC believes the community should follow a process that allows everyone to move forward together, without what could be termed a “political quarantine” of the minority group.
Sen. Wayne Johnson (R-SD 6, Cheyenne) commented in the committee meeting that human nature would lead ultimately to discriminatory use of the hybrid districting alternatives. Johnson and Sen. Marty Martin (D-SD 12, Superior) opposed the bill.
Chairman Case, Sen. John Hines (R-SD 23, Gillette), and Sen. Charles Scott (R-SD 30, Casper) voted for the bill.
Monday, January 17, 2011
House Education panel passes DOMA bill
Back of the bus for Equality State gays
The House Education Committee Monday night approved a bill that would clear the way for Wyoming to deny the validity of same-sex marriages legally made in other states or countries.
The committee voted 7-2 to send the bill to the House floor with a do-pass recommendation after opponents of the measure noted the irony of approving legislation limiting the legal rights of the state's gay residents on Martin Luther King Wyoming Equality Day.
Earlier in the day Gov. Matt Mead had addressed celebrants who honored Dr. King's memory by marching to the Capitol at noon.
“In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, King spoke of his audacious belief that peoples everywhere could have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds," the new governor said, "And dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits.”
“Food for the body, mind and soul are not things to be taken for granted. Not everyone has enough of it and we must continue to strive to provide it for all of our citizens. The work is not done,” the governor said.
But the Education Committee did not get the message. Advocates for the bill stayed on message, asserting that the legislation, House Bill 74 - Validity of marriage will protect the integrity of marriage. The law declares that marriages "other than of a male and a female person are void."
How gay relationships threaten heterosexual marriage was not made clear.
Lead sponsor Rep. Owen Petersen, R-HD19, Mountain View, (pictured above) said legislators must protect traditional heterosexual marriage as one of the key building blocks of society. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) allows states to void legal marriage contracts made in other jurisdictions even though the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution generally requires states to recognize legal contracts made in others.
Jason Marsden, formerly a lobbyist for Wyoming Conservation Voters and now executive director of the Matthew Shepard Foundation in Denver, attended the hearing to remind legislators that they really do not know the people the legislation will affect both legally and economically. He said later that most legislators certainly would go out of their way to understand how a change in water policy would affect a few irrigators or a small community.
They don't bring that same concern to members of the gay and lesbian community, he noted.
Rep. Cathy Connolly, D-HD13, Laramie, laid out a long list of arguments against the bill. She warned that adopting the bill threatens economic development by making the state less attractive to skilled professional couples who happen to be gay. But she also noted the personal affront to her as a lesbian who raised a son in a deeply committed relationship.
Connolly and Rep. John Freeman, D-HD60, Green River, cast the two no votes against HB 74.
Reps. Bob Brechtel, R-HD38, Casper, Donald Burkhart, R-HD15, Rawlins, Rep. Kendell Kroeker, R-HD35, Casper, Sam Krone, R-HD24. Cody, Carl "Bunky" Loucks, R-HD59, Casper, and Michael Madden, R-HD40, Buffalo, and Chairman Matt Teeters, R-HD5, Lingle, voted to pass the bill.
Short takes
- The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony for two hours on SJ2 - Health Care Freedom and SJ3 - Health Care Freedom (2). Both challenge the Affordable Care Act. SJ2 is a nullification bill likely in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.Constitution. That has not stopped its advocates who include lead sponsor Sen. Leslie Nutting, R-SD 7, Cheyenne, and the Wyoming Liberty Group. Testimony resumes Wednesday at 7 a.m.
- The Senate Corporations Committee Tuesday morning will consider SF3 - Campaign finance - organizations. The proposed bill brings state campaign finance law into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision that corporations can spend directly and freely through independent expenditure campaigns attacking or supporting specific candidates. The ESPC is advocating comprehensive disclosure laws so Wyoming voters can identify the sources of funding for those independent expenditures.
- Senate File 14 - Counties - election districts also will be heard by Senate Corporations. The bill allows a county to set up commission voting district that would allow some commissioners to be elected at-large in part of a county and by district in others. The ESPC fears the state is simply erecting another racist structure in the wake of federal court's dismantling of an existing one. Last spring, U.S. Distrct Court Judge Alan Johnson ordered Fremont County to end its system of at-large commission elections because they diluted the Native American vote. That dilution made it virtually impossible for a member of that large minority group to win a commission election.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Citizens United and campaign spending
The Legislature is rolling and we've been trying to get up to pace. Our first significant hearing was Thursday morning when the Senate Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee considered Senate File 3 Campaign finance - organizations.
The measure will bring state law into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. FEC. The decision opened the door to allow corporations to tap their treasuries for independent expenditure campaigns deployed to attack or support individual candidates. We're pressing for amendments SF3 to improve disclosure requirements.
Business brings annual attack on co-employee immunity laws
On Friday, Jan. 14, the Senate Labor Committee heard final testimony on Senate File 61 - Co-employee immunity. The measure blocks liability lawsuits when people are injured at work due to wanton, willful actions of a fellow worker or supervisor. Under current law, if a supervisor orders a worker into an area known to be unsafe and in violation of safety rules and the worker gets hurt, he or she can sue the co-employee. Wyoming's Workers Compensation law prevents a worker from suing his or her employee in those cases.
The AFL-CIO, the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association and others opposed it.
Despite dramatic testimony Friday from a Pine Bluffs man whose son was killed on the job due to "wanton and willful" negligence, the committee approved the bill and sent it to the House floor. The measure is supported by mining, oil and gas, trucking and other interests.
Meanwhile, there's more information about Citizens United on the home page of our website: equalitystate.org. Here's an excerpt:Corporate spending threatens integrity of elections
Few U.S. Supreme Court decisions of the past 20 years have opened the door for sweeping change in the basics of our democracy as the Citizens United decision of last winter.
In Citizens United, the Court cleared the way for corporations to engage in independent spending to support or oppose candidates in elections at all levels – from the town council to the U.S. Presidency.
Senate File 3--Campaign finance-organizations would amend Wyoming’s statutes to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision is under consideration. In testimony to the Senate’s Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee on Thursday, January 13, 2011, the ESPC provided a brief analysis of the decision and its implications for state elections. The ESPC also suggested a series of amendments to the bill to require expansive disclosure of independent expenditures by corporations, unions, and other professional organizations. The amendments also would prohibit spending by corporations based on foreign soil.
Eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices supported disclosure. In order for voters to make informed judgments about what they see in campaign advertisements and literature, they need to know who paid for them.
We're developing more information on Citizens United that will be posted on the website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
