County commission districting bill moves forward
Legislature responds to Wind River Voting Rights Act win with potential political quarantine
By Sarah Gorin
ESPC researcher
The Week news magazine always includes a short article called “Boring but Important,” often featuring a governmental process issue that has a significant impact on policy. The ESPC advocates on many such “Boring but Important” issues, which are hard to draw attention to but can affect any area Wyomingites feel passionately about, from education to health care to today’s topic, voting.
We’ve talked previously about SF 14 - Counties – election districts. The bill was brought following a successful Voting Rights Act lawsuit against Fremont County that was filed by several Native American plaintiff.
Voting Rights Act lawsuits focus on discrimination and the reality that HOW candidates are elected can determine WHO gets elected.
The lawsuit alleged that electing county commissioners at-large from the county illegally diluted the Native American vote, making it difficult if not impossible to elect a tribal candidate. A federal district court judge agreed and ordered the county to create five county commission districts from which to elect its five county commissioners. This districting has been accomplished and the first election held on January 18. (The county’s appeal of the decision is pending in federal appellate court.)
Current Wyoming law allows county residents to vote on increasing the number of county commissioners from three to five, and also to vote on whether they want county commission districts. If voters approve districting, however, the only option is single-member districts – one commissioner per district.
Although Fremont County’s county districting was done under federal court order and ultimately resulted in single-member districts, its initial response to losing the lawsuit was to offer a districting plan with a majority Native American district to elect one commissioner, and an at-large district to elect the other four commissioners.
This “hybrid” districting proposal was aimed at preserving the status quo as much as possible, and also was described as a kind of “political quarantine” for the Native American population.
SF 14 changes current law to allow hybrid districting. The ESPC has been working against the bill due to the potential for using hybrid districting to discriminate, not only in Fremont County but in other areas of the state where there are geographical concentrations of minority populations.
SF 14 has passed the Senate and was heard Tuesday (Feb. 8) and again Thursday in the House Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee. The House committee adopted amendments offered by Rep. John Patton (R-H29, Sheridan) to include a multi-member district option as well, so counties could design any combination of single, multi-member, or at-large districts.
The bill passed the committee 6-3, with Chairman Pete Illoway (R-H42, Cheyenne) and Representatives Allen Jaggi (R-H18, Lyman), Kendell Kroeker (R-H35, Casper), Patton, and Tim Stubson (R-H56, Casper) voting yes. Representative Lisa Shepperson (R-H58, Casper) was not present but left a yes vote.
Representatives Gregg Blikre (R-H53, Gillette), Jim Byrd (D-H44, Cheyenne) and Jim Roscoe (D-H22, Wilson) voted no.
And now let’s look at the money …
SF 3 - Campaign finance – organizations, passed second reading in the House today and will be up for its third and final vote on Friday.
SF 3 changes Wyoming law to comply with last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which allows corporations to make unlimited independent expenditures directly from corporate funds (as opposed to corporate political action committees, which are funded by individual contributions from corporate employees, directors and/or shareholders).
The ESPC has worked hard to keep these new independent expenditures identifiable. It would be easy to create a front organization funded by an independent expenditure from a corporation, hiding the true source of the money from voters and candidates.
The Wyoming Senate added an amendment requiring printing or announcement of the top three contributors to the organization making the independent expenditure. This approach was rejected by the House, which appears on track to adopt an amendment requiring independent expenditure organizations to file like political action committees.
The House version will go back to the Senate for “concurrence,” that is, the Senate will vote on whether to agree with the House amendment. If the Senate votes not to concur, a conference committee will be appointed to try to resolve the differences between the two houses. The conference committee will be comprised of three members from each house, two who voted for the bill and one who voted against.
Another area where process counts
Tuesday’s defeat of SF 52 -Teacher tenure, on third and final reading in the Senate was a victory for due process. It would have changed current “continuing contract” law in Wyoming to allow firing of teachers for any reason, papered over with a hearing process that did not include any basic due process rights such as the right to respond to one’s accuser or to directly confront evidence.
The Senate subsequently passed two bills with a much better approach: SF 70 - Education accountability, and SF 146 - Teacher accountability act. These bills now will move to the Wyoming House for further action.
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.
Showing posts with label county elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label county elections. Show all posts
Sunday, February 13, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
