History > 2006 > USA > States > Legislation /
Constitutions (II-III)
Louisiana voters
approve flood-protection
reform
Sat Sep 30, 2006
11:33 PM ET
Reuters
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Louisiana residents on
Saturday approved an amendment to the state constitution to overhaul flood and
hurricane protection efforts in the region still struggling to rebuild from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.
With votes counted in 58 percent of 3,960 precincts, Louisianians were set to
approve 12 of 13 amendments, including a broad measure to consolidate management
of a network of levees that protect the state's coastline.
More than 50 levee breaks are blamed for the devastating flooding after Katrina
that left 80 percent of New Orleans' neighborhoods underwater for weeks. More
than 130,000 homes were destroyed. A year later, rebuilding is moving forward in
some neighborhoods while barely evident in others.
The city's population is about half the 450,000 before the storm.
"Flood protection is the No. 1 issue for anyone who wants to come back," said
Ruthie Frierson, chairman of Citizens for 1 Greater New Orleans, a grass-roots
group pushing for more responsible government as the city rebuilds.
"The levees were a man-made disaster. The fractured board system was part of
it," said Frierson, a native of New Orleans.
The levee reform amendment merges several existing levee boards in southeastern
Louisiana into two boards, one for the east bank of the Mississippi River and
one for the west bank. All levee boards in the state will be overseen by a new
authority created by the Legislature.
New board members, to be appointed by the governor, will be required to have
experience in business, engineering, hydrology, geology or environmental
science, ending years of inexperienced, local political appointments.
Passage of levee reform will send "a huge signal to the rest of the country that
we are taking responsibility for the rebuilding of the city and are demanding
good government," Frierson said.
The federal government has earmarked $1.6 billion to repair the levees and
another $3 billion for long-term fortification. Maintenance of the levees is the
responsibility of the levee districts.
South Louisiana is home to the nation's largest series of ports and serves as a
primary gateway for oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico and for
crude imports.
Voters appeared set to approve 12 amendments on the ballot, including a measure
to set aside increased revenue the state hopes to get from royalties on offshore
oil and gas production. The state wants to use the money to restore the
coastline by rebuilding wetland areas to serve as natural hurricane protection
areas.
The amendment passed even though Congress recessed on Friday without resolving
differences in the federal legislation needed to bring additional royalties to
Louisiana.
Saturday's election was the first statewide election since Hurricane Katrina.
Louisiana voters approve flood-protection reform, R, 30.9.2006,
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-10-01T033325Z_01_N30285744_RTRUKOC_0_US-HURRICANES-LEVEES-ELECTION.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-domesticNews-3
Stricter Voting Laws Carve Latest Partisan
Divide
September 26, 2006
The New York Times
By JOYCE PURNICK
MESA, Ariz. — Eva Charlene Steele, a recent
transplant from Missouri, has no driver’s license or other form of state
identification. So after voting all her adult life, Mrs. Steele will not be
voting in November because of an Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship
to register.
“I have mixed emotions,” said Mrs. Steele, 57, who uses a wheelchair and lives
in a small room in an assisted-living center. “I could see where you would want
to keep people who don’t belong in the country from voting, but there has to be
an easier way.”
Russell K. Pearce, a leading proponent of the new requirement, offers no
apologies.
“You have to show ID for almost everything — to rent a Blockbuster movie!” said
Mr. Pearce, a Republican in the State House of Representatives. “Nobody has the
right to cancel my vote by voting illegally. This is about political
corruption.”
Mrs. Steele and Mr. Pearce are two players in a spreading partisan brawl over
new and proposed voting requirements around the country. Republicans say the
laws are needed to combat fraud, especially among illegal immigrants. Democrats
say there is minimal fraud, if any, and accuse Republicans of suppressing the
votes of those least likely to have the required documentation — minorities, the
poor and the elderly — who tend to vote for Democrats.
In tight races, Democrats say, the loss of votes could matter in November.
In Maricopa County, Arizona’s largest in population, election officials said
that 35 percent of new registrations were rejected for insufficient proof of
citizenship last year and that 17 percent had been rejected so far this year. It
is not known how many of the rejected registrants were not citizens or were
unable to prove their citizenship because they had lost or could not locate
birth certificates and other documents.
In Indiana, Daniel J. Parker, chairman of the state Democratic Party, said:
“Close to 10 percent of registered voters here do not have driver’s licenses.
Who does that impact most? Seniors and minorities.”
A law in Indiana requiring voters to have a state-issued photo ID is being
challenged in the federal courts, as are the voting laws in Arizona and in many
other states.
Republicans say the Democratic complaints are self-serving.
“Democrats believe they represent stupid people who are not smart enough to
vote,” said Randy Pullen, a Republican national committeeman from Arizona who
championed a statewide initiative on the new requirements. “I do not.”
The new measures include tighter controls over absentee balloting and stronger
registration rules. The most contentious are laws in three states — Georgia,
Indiana and Missouri — where people need government-issued picture ID’s to vote,
and provisions here in Arizona that tightened voter ID requirements at the polls
and imposed the proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration.
Several other states are considering similar measures, and the House of
Representatives, voting largely along party lines, recently passed a national
voter ID measure that is headed for the Senate.
The debate in Washington and the state capitals has been heated, with only one
note of agreement: that voting, once burdened by poll taxes and other
impediments, is as divisive an issue as ever.
“I have never seen such a sinister plot — I won’t say plot, I’ll say measure —
as to target a group of people to try to make it difficult for them to vote,”
said Roy E. Barnes, a Democrat and former governor of Georgia who is fighting
the new identification law in his state.
Mr. Pearce, the Arizona Republican, said: “We know people are approached to
register whether they are illegal or not. We know the left side’s agenda.”
Underlying the debate is the fundamental question of voter fraud and whether
people who are not who they say they are — impostors — are voting. Some suggest
that the problem is so widespread that the standard methods of proving
identification, like a utility bill and a signature, are no longer adequate.
“I know a lot of allegations of voter fraud, especially by noncitizens, that may
have been able to tip the balance in favor of one candidate,” said
Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado and an advocate of tough
immigration laws.
The tighter voting rules appeal strongly to people worried about illegal
immigration, Mr. Tancredo said.
There is no data, however, to show more than isolated instances of so-called
impostor voting by illegal immigrants or others.
Experts in election law say most voter fraud involves absentee balloting, which
is unaffected by the new photo identification laws. Few people, they say, will
risk a felony charge to vote illegally at the polls, and few illegal immigrants
want to interact with government officials — even people running a polling
place.
Of Arizona’s 2.7 million registered voters, 238 were believed to have been
noncitizens in the last 10 years; only 4 were believed to have voted; and none
were impostors, plaintiffs stipulate in their lawsuit to overturn the law,
statistics the state has not challenged. Nor is there evidence of impostor
voting in Georgia, Indiana or Missouri.
Advocates for the new laws do not dispute the figures — just their relevance.
Thor Hearne, a lawyer for the American Center for Voting Rights, a conservative
advocacy group, who was President Bush’s election law counsel in 2004, says
there is little proof of impostor voting because few have looked for it.
Todd Rokita, the Indiana secretary of state, agrees. “Critics will say there is
no wholesale fraud, and to that I say you don’t understand the nature of
election fraud,” said Mr. Rokita, a Republican. “A lot of this goes unreported.
Until you have a mechanism in place like photo ID’s, you don’t have anything to
report.”
Arizona’s new rules were passed as part of Proposition 200, a referendum that
denies certain state and local benefits to illegal immigrants. It got 56 percent
of the vote two years ago, after Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed a
Republican-backed measure passed by the Legislature.
Rooted in the state’s debates over illegal immigration, the measure is the
broadest in the country, requiring a driver’s license, a state photo ID or two
nonphotographic forms of identification at the polls. Lawyers for the Navajo
Nation and other American Indian tribes say the provision particularly
discriminates against Indians, many of whom are too poor to drive or are without
electricity or telephone bills, alternative forms of identification.
Because the Arizona measures have been in place for less than two years, there
is limited documentation of their impact. Lawyers fighting the rules say the
measures have prevented thousands of people from registering to vote,
particularly in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, a city with many Latino
voters.
Supporters of the measures say elections have gone smoothly. Critics point to
individual cases, like confusion at the polls in the primary elections earlier
this month. They say that people without adequate documentation have been turned
away or required to file “conditional provisional” ballots that are counted only
if voters follow up — and that not all of them do.
Deborah Lopez, a Democratic political consultant in Phoenix, said that the once
simple matter of registering voters at a rally or a fiesta now required
labor-intensive door-to-door visits.
It was during a registration drive at her assisted-living center, Desert Palms,
that Mrs. Steele learned she could not vote. Disabled, with a son, an Army staff
sergeant, on active duty, she left Missouri recently to stay with her brother
and subsequently moved into the center.
Lacking a driver’s license, she could get a new state identity card, but she
said she had neither the $12 to pay for it nor, because she uses a wheelchair,
the transportation to pick it up.
“It makes me a little angry because my son is fighting now in Iraq for others to
have the right to vote, and I can’t,” said Mrs. Steele, who submitted an
affidavit in the suit against the Arizona law.
Asked if she was a Republican or a Democrat, Mrs. Steele said she was neither:
“I vote for the best person for the job.”
Or, she added, she used to.
Stricter Voting Laws Carve Latest Partisan Divide, NYT, 26.9.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/us/politics/26voting.html?hp&ex=1159329600&en=b3af93a4c8e03f4d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Across South, Push Is On to Make Dry Areas
Wet
August 12, 2006
The New York Times
By MELANIE WARNER
While much of America put Prohibition to rest
73 years ago, large parts of the South have remained strictly off-limits to
alcohol sales.
But local and national business interests that stand to profit from the sale of
alcohol, including real estate developers, grocery chains, restaurant groups and
Wal-Mart, are combining their political and financial muscle to try to persuade
hundreds of dry towns and counties to go wet. In the process, they are changing
the face of the once staunchly prohibitionist Bible Belt.
Since 2002, business groups have spent upwards of $15 million on campaigns,
including professional lobbyists, to persuade voters in some 200 dry towns and
25 dry counties in six Southern states to legalize alcohol sales in stores and
restaurants.
Wal-Mart has financed dozens of local elections, contributing from $5,000 to
$20,000 a campaign, said Tim Reeves of Beverage Election Specialists, which
supports local alcohol referendums.
Wal-Mart, based in a dry county in Arkansas, forbids drinking at events held at
corporate headquarters. But the giant retailer has made a push in the last year
to sell more liquor, along with beer and wine, in its stores.
Attempts by Wal-Mart and others to allow alcohol sales in other places that
remain dry — 415 counties in the South and in Kansas still prohibit such sales —
are meeting fierce resistance from some church groups and religious leaders.
They argue that returning to the days when liquor flowed will mean more family
violence, under-age drinking, drunken driving and a general moral decay in the
community.
But voters are increasingly likely to follow their pocketbooks rather than the
words of their pastors. Alcohol proponents often make the case that liberalizing
laws will increase tax revenue and reduce the need for property tax increases,
an issue looming large in voters’ minds.
More dry-to-wet measures have passed than have been defeated in the last four
years in Texas, Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kansas, the
states where the battles are concentrated. “The communities who effectively make
arguments about economic development and tax dollars typically win the votes,”
said John Hatch, a political strategist based in Austin, Tex.
Some churches are taking a moderate stand on drinking. The Rev. Mike Hunter,
senior minister at the First Christian Church in Lufkin, Tex., said he was
invited by some of the more conservative clergy members in town to participate
in meetings to oppose legalizing alcohol, but declined. “It’s a decision we
leave up to individuals,” he said. “The legal, responsible consumption of
alcohol is not a pulpit point in our congregation.”
The issue is now playing out in Lufkin, an old railroad town in the heart of the
Texas Bible Belt 115 miles northeast of Houston. On a recent Monday night, 175
citizens gathered at the town’s civic center to voice their opposition to a
referendum proposal, scheduled for a vote in November, that would allow sales of
beer and wine in stores and drinks in restaurants all across Angelina County.
Lufkin is the county’s largest town, with 35,000 people.
“This is an unprecedented attack against the family,” the Rev. Ronnie L.
Frankens, pastor of Homer Pentecostal Church in neighboring Diboll, said of the
alcohol vote. “We are going to fight this tooth and nail.” His rousing words
were greeted with cries of “amen” and “praise Jesus.”
Like many in attendance that night, Linda Jones, who works for the city of
Lufkin and whose husband is a pastor at the First Baptist Church in nearby
Moscow, said she thought the measure, if passed, would invite more pernicious
forms of commerce, like bars, nightclubs and liquor stores. She says she
considers drinking to be a sin and does not partake. “My grandmother was an
alcoholic and I never wanted to be like that,” she said.
On the other side of the debate are people like Sarah Strinden, who moved to
Lufkin in the 1980’s from Madison, Wis. She says that most people she knows are
moderate drinkers and would just like the convenience of being able to buy beer
and wine on their regular shopping trips. Currently, she says that getting some
wine to go with dinner involves a 40-minute round-trip drive to a liquor store
in Nacogdoches.
In restaurants in dry areas of Texas, diners who want to order drinks can do so
only if they become members of the restaurant’s “club.” Such memberships are
usually free to the customer, but restaurants must spend up to $20,000 a year
for record-keeping and fees to the alcoholic beverage commission. “Lufkin needs
to come into the modern age,” Ms. Strinden said.
Across the South, some business groups seem to agree with her, backing efforts
to nudge dry towns and counties to go wet.
“It’s going to be much harder to attract restaurants and grocery stores to your
town if they can’t sell alcohol,” said Mr. Hatch, the political strategist who
has been hired to help get the measure passed in Angelina County.
Mr. Hatch and other proponents say their campaigns have been financed by a
diverse group that includes grocery chains like Albertson’s, Kroger and Safeway;
and restaurant groups like Brinker International, which owns Chili’s Grill and
Bar, and Darden Restaurants, owner of Red Lobster and Olive Garden.
And, of course, Wal-Mart. “I think Sam Walton, being the family-oriented man he
was, would be rolling over in his grave about this,” Mr. Frankens, the pastor of
Homer Pentecostal Church, said in a telephone interview, referring to the
Wal-Mart founder. “I’m really disappointed in Wal-Mart as a company.”
Wal-Mart does not break out revenue from alcohol, but according to A. C.
Nielsen, at the end of 2004 Wal-Mart had United States alcohol revenue of $1
billion out of total domestic revenue of $229 billion.
Retailers and restaurants say the ability to sell alcohol is not a precondition
for choosing a new location, but it is a factor. For casual dining chains, the
average restaurant check doubles when someone orders an alcoholic beverage,
according to the research firm NPD Group.
The Distilled Spirits Council, the Washington-based trade group for liquor
manufacturers, says it has participated in half a dozen local elections,
providing some combination of financial assistance and economic data.
In Duncanville, a Dallas suburb of 36,000, voters bought the argument made by a
group called Citizens for Shopping More and Less Taxes, which was financed by
town residents, local convenience stores and real estate developers, as well as
Safeway and Kroger. The group said the town would get some a much-needed tax
boost by allowing beer and wine sales in grocery and convenience stores.
The town is now seeing that boost. Before the vote in September 2003,
Duncanville had experienced four years of declining sales tax revenue. But
revenue rose slightly in the first two years, and is up 15 percent for the first
seven months of 2006 compared with the period in 2005, according to the Texas
comptroller. The Duncanville city manager, Kent Cagle, estimates that beer and
wine sales are bringing in $500,000 a year in sales taxes.
“This extra revenue has kept us from cutting new services and we’re starting to
put back some of the things we had cut, like parks maintenance, some city
positions and street maintenance and signs,” Mr. Cagle said.
Those who fight against alcohol sales say the extra tax revenue comes at a cost.
Lee Miller, a leader of Angelina Citizens for a Better Community, the group
vowing to defeat the measure, points to data from the state of Texas showing
that for every $1 in revenue the state received from alcohol, $9 is paid out for
expenses like treatment for alcohol abuse, law enforcement services and motor
vehicle crashes.
“This will not benefit us as a community,” Mr. Miller said. “It costs us more
money in expenses and in the lives of our children.”
Mr. Miller, who does not drink, says he is concerned that if the vote passes,
his 12-year-old daughter and 14-year-old son will have easier access to alcohol.
Mr. Hatch, the political strategist, argues that Mr. Miller’s cost revenue
figures paint an inaccurate picture because they do not consider the additional
sales taxes from alcohol purchases, only revenue from alcohol excise taxes, the
bulk of which flow to the state.
Oscar Dillahunty, a 69-year-old, one-time beer distributor who hired Mr. Hatch
and started Angelina County Citizens for Responsible Business, has estimated
that the county could rack up at least $15 million in annual beer sales alone,
which would translate into $225,000 in sales tax revenue for Lufkin and $75,000
for the county. He says his estimate is based on sales in a similar county in
Mississippi, where he previously owned a beer distributor.
As for concerns about social consequences, studies that have linked increases in
the number of alcohol outlets to violence or drunken driving draw the strongest
correlation between such problems and bars. Most of the recent dry-to-wet
proposals in the South do not allow for bars.
Many officials in towns and counties that recently went wet say they have not
seen an increase in reported crime or drunken driving. Mr. Cagle, the city
manager in Duncanville, said the town had not devolved into “Drunkenville,” as
church groups claimed it would.
Three police chiefs — David Walker of Fort Payne, Tex.; Benny Womack of
Albertville, Ala.; and Eddie Phillips of East Ridge, Tenn. — all say they have
not seen any increase in law enforcement problems since alcohol sales began in
2004.
But just as the feared public mayhem wrought by alcohol abuse often fails to
materialize, the economic prosperity is often absent, too. In Albertville, Ala.,
the Rev. Willis Kelly, who preaches at Douglas First Baptist Church, says he is
still waiting for the town’s financial boom.
“The folks that wanted it to go wet campaigned on the idea that it would bring
in money to build a new school,” Mr. Willis said. “Last year they collected only
a little over $100,000 in extra taxes. That wouldn’t even buy toilet paper.”
Mr. Willis says no new restaurants have opened in Albertville, a town of 18,000
people 65 miles from Birmingham, since the vote in June 2004, and only one of
the two grocery stores in town opted to sell beer and wine.
Jon Howard, director of finance for Albertville, would not confirm Mr. Willis’s
tax numbers and Mayor Carl Pruett declined to comment on the town’s economy.
In Lufkin, where in recent years the economy has been surging without the help
of alcohol sales, some citizens just want their town to be a bit more like the
rest of the country and a little less Bible Belt. “This is the 21st century,”
said Ernest Rowe, a 70-year-old retired forest worker. “I just want to be able
to buy my case of Coors Light, come home and pop open a cold one.”
Across South, Push Is On to Make Dry Areas Wet, NYT, 12.8.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/business/12dry.html?hp&ex=1155441600&en=df48b4194b0c4d72&ei=5094&partner=homepage
15 States Expand Right to
Shoot in Self-Defense NYT
7.8.2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html?hp&ex=
1155009600&en=3466fb01a2227803&ei=5094&partner=homepage
15 States Expand
Right to Shoot in Self-Defense
August 7, 2006
The New York Times
By ADAM LIPTAK
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws
that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly
force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for
murder.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws. Opponents call them “shoot first”
laws.
Thanks to this sort of law, a prostitute in Port Richey, Fla., who killed her
72-year-old client with his own gun rather than flee was not charged last month.
Similarly, the police in Clearwater, Fla., did not arrest a man who shot a
neighbor in early June after a shouting match over putting out garbage, though
the authorities say they are still reviewing the evidence.
The first of the new laws took effect in Florida in October, and cases under it
are now reaching prosecutors and juries there. The other laws, mostly in
Southern and Midwestern states, were enacted this year, according to the
National Rifle Association, which has enthusiastically promoted them.
Florida does not keep comprehensive records on the impact of its new law, but
prosecutors and defense lawyers there agree that fewer people who claim
self-defense are being charged or convicted.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right
to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need
to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had
intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to
vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person
attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in
the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her
ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids
the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it
prohibits civil suits against them.
The central innovation in the Florida law, said Anthony J. Sebok, a professor at
Brooklyn Law School, is not its elimination of the duty to retreat, which has
been eroding nationally through judicial decisions, but in expanding the right
to shoot intruders who pose no threat to the occupant’s safety.
“In effect,” Professor Sebok said, “the law allows citizens to kill other
citizens in defense of property.”
This month, a jury in West Palm Beach, Fla., will hear the retrial of a murder
case that illustrates the dividing line between the old law and the new one. In
November 2004, before the new law was enacted, a cabdriver in West Palm Beach
killed a drunken passenger in an altercation after dropping him off.
The first jury deadlocked 9-to-3 in favor of convicting the driver, Robert Lee
Smiley Jr., said Henry Munnilal, the jury foreman.
“Mr. Smiley had a lot of chances to retreat and to avoid an escalation,” said
Mr. Munnilal, a 62-year-old accountant. “He could have just gotten in his cab
and left. The thing could have been avoided, and a man’s life would have been
saved.”
Mr. Smiley tried to invoke the new law, which does away with the duty to retreat
and would almost certainly have meant his acquittal, but an appeals court
refused to apply it retroactively. He has appealed that issue to the Florida
Supreme Court.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had
sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens.
“If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being
attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good
decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone,
empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in
2007.
Sarah Brady, chairwoman of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said her
group would fight those efforts. “In a way,” Ms. Brady said of the new laws,
“it’s a license to kill.”
Many prosecutors oppose the laws, saying they are unnecessary at best and
pernicious at worst. “They’re basically giving citizens more rights to use
deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review,” said Paul A.
Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association.
But some legal experts doubt the laws will make a practical difference. “It’s
inconceivable to me that one in a hundred Floridians could tell you how the law
has changed,” said Gary Kleck, who teaches criminology at Florida State
University.
Even before the new laws, Professor Kleck added, claims of self-defense were
often accepted. “In the South,” he said, “they more or less give the benefit of
the doubt to the alleged victim’s account.”
The case involving the Port Richey prostitute, Jacqueline Galas, turned on the
new law, said Michael Halkitis, division director of the state attorney’s office
in nearby New Port Richey. Ms. Galas, 23, said that a longtime client, Frank
Labiento, 72, threatened to kill her and then kill himself last month. A suicide
note he had left and other evidence supported her contention.
The law came into play when Ms. Galas grabbed Mr. Labiento’s gun and chose not
to flee but to kill him. “Before that law,” Mr. Halkitis said, “before you could
use deadly force, you had to retreat. Under the new law, you don’t have to do
that.”
The decision not to charge Ms. Galas was straightforward, Mr. Halkitis said. “It
would have been a more difficult situation with the old law,” he said, “much
more difficult.”
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie
Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar
home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004.
Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its
destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the
cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial,
though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted
by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He
had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his
car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no
knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support
that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he
did have something in his hand.”
In April, a Florida appeals court indicated that the new law, had it applied to
Mr. Smiley’s case, would have affected its outcome.
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the
wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,”
Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that
duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case
illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he
could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his
neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked
on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a
complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting
out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,”
Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands
up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over,
and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for
comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in
the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom
denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
15
States Expand Right to Shoot in Self-Defense, NYT, 7.8.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html?hp&ex=1155009600&en=3466fb01a2227803&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Albany Strategy Lets Rich Evade Donation
Limits
August 4, 2006
The New York Times
By DANNY HAKIM
ALBANY, Aug. 3 — As a candidate for governor
of New York, Eliot Spitzer is barred from taking more than $50,100 from any
single donor.
But that has not stopped wealthy donors from legally circumventing these state
contribution limits to shower six-figure donations on the Spitzer campaign.
Their technique? Using limited liability corporations as a vehicle to give well
above the maximum the state allows.
In fact, this year’s statewide political campaigns are awash with donations from
L.L.C.’s, which are business entities that can be set up for as little as a
couple of hundred dollars and provide special tax benefits and limits on
financial liability. Six of the eight major-party candidates for governor or
attorney general have taken donations from individuals who have contributed the
maximum and then donated further through L.L.C.’s.
The donations are legal in New York State races, but restrictions have been put
on them at the federal level and in New York City races. Election watchdog
groups say the donations violate the spirit of campaign finance laws that seek
to limit the influence of wealthy donors.
“It’s yet another loophole that makes our already weak campaign finance laws
meaningless,” said Rachel Leon, executive director of Common Cause New York,
which has prepared an analysis of these donations and shared its findings with
The New York Times. “We have the highest contribution limits of any state that
has limits, but even those laws you can get around with these loopholes.”
Several donors to Mr. Spitzer, the leading candidate for governor, have gone
above the $50,100 limit on personal donations by contributing through L.L.C.’s
that often have the same address as the donor. A hedge fund manager, Barry
Rosenstein, and his wife, Lizanne, have contributed $120,000 to Mr. Spitzer,
while Howard Markel, a Manhattan lawyer, and his wife, Joan Mintz, have
contributed $190,000. Jeffrey L. Berkowitz, the former business partner of Mr.
Spitzer’s friend Jim Cramer, has donated $68,000.
Asked if the practice was in keeping with the spirit of the law, Christine
Anderson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer, said, “Eliot’s made it very clear that
he believes that New York’s campaign finance laws should be reformed to limit
individual campaign contributions.”
Until campaign finance laws are changed, however, she said Mr. Spitzer “will
continue to abide by the law.” All told, the Spitzer campaign has collected more
than $600,000 from contributors who legally exceed the individual limit by also
contributing through L.L.C.’s.
The phenomenon of statewide candidates’ accepting such donations was previously
reported by The Times Union in Albany in April, and since then, the candidates
have revved up their fund-raising, with their July campaign finance reports
showing the breadth of the practice.
The $50,100 limit is for a candidate in an election with a primary. Candidates
who do not face a primary have a limit of $33,900.
One of the biggest beneficiaries has been Charlie King, a Democratic candidate
for attorney general. Mr. King, a lawyer who ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant
governor four years ago, has taken in nearly $560,000, or nearly a fifth of all
of his fund-raising since 2003, from an old friend from Brown University named
Kent M. Swig, a prominent real estate developer, or Swig family members, or
L.L.C.’s connected to him or to his partners.
The contributions can take the form of either cash or donated office space. In
fact, Mr. Swig appears to be using a network of L.L.C.’s that have ownership
stakes in Mr. King’s campaign headquarters at 48 Wall Street to donate office
space on a rotating basis so as not to exceed the contribution limit,
effectively giving Mr. King free rent. One of Mr. Swig’s business partners, the
real estate development firm Allied Partners, also has a stake in 48 Wall Street
and has contributed office space.
“I’ve known Charlie for over 25 years,” Mr. Swig said in a statement. “We share
the same vision for New York and I am proud to support his campaign.”
Caitlin Klevorick, a spokeswoman for Mr. King, said, “There is a need for
meaningful campaign finance reform and Charlie wholly supports a system modeled
after New York City’s, but until then we will be arguing every campaign season
about how much is too much, from L.L.C.’s, from unions, from corporations and
from individuals.”
Stephen L. Green, a Manhattan real estate developer, and his wife, Nancy, have
donated $165,000 to the attorney general candidacy of Mr. Green’s brother Mark,
with the help of L.L.C.’s, and $135,000 more to the campaign of Mr. Spitzer, who
has not endorsed a candidate to succeed him. Other Green family members have
donated more than $200,000 to Mark Green as individuals.
New York’s limit of $50,100 per candidate is already the highest among the 37
states that have a donation limit and far above the $2,100 limit for federal
campaigns, according to a recent study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New
York University’s School of Law. While corporations have a donation limit of
$5,000, L.L.C.’s have the same limit as individuals in New York State.
In tightening restrictions on these donations, regulators at both the federal
level and in New York City have either banned such giving through L.L.C.’s
donations or factored them in with individual donation limits.
Is it not clear how many of the L.L.C.’s are legitimate businesses — many
clearly are — and how many are simply set up as a channel for donations. But
there is nothing to prevent an individual from setting up multiple L.L.C.’s for
the express purpose of donating well beyond the individual limit, according to
the State Board of Elections.
Candidates criticize the practice, but also do not seem inclined to disarm while
other candidates take in huge donations.
“The L.L.C. exemption is a loophole big enough to push the Titanic through it,”
said David Chauvin, press secretary for Nassau County Executive Thomas R.
Suozzi, a Democrat running against Mr. Spitzer. “This is a dysfunctional system
and Tom has a plan modeled on New York City’s program that will fundamentally
reform and clean up the state’s campaign finance laws.”
Mr. Suozzi himself accepted $15,000 from Steven M. Napolitano, an executive at
First American Title Insurance of New York, $50,000 from Mr. Napolitano’s wife,
Lisa, and another $50,000 from Carnap L.L.C., which is listed at their home
address. First American paid a $2 million fine in May and took a number of other
steps to settle an investigation by Mr. Spitzer’s office into its business
practices.
Andrew M. Cuomo, a candidate for attorney general, has accepted money from
several donors who have given their legal limit and then donated through
L.L.C.’s.
They include his former employer, Island Capital, a real estate investment fund,
its chief executive, Andrew L. Farkas, and an additional L.L.C., which have
donated a total of $125,000 to the Cuomo campaign.
“They are friends and supporters of the campaign,” said Wendy Katz, a
spokeswoman for Mr. Cuomo.
The developer Melvyn Kaufman donated $33,900 to Jeanine F. Pirro, the Republican
candidate for attorney general. Because Ms. Pirro is unopposed on the Republican
side, that was the maximum amount allowed, but an L.L.C. controlled by Mr.
Kaufman, Wyojet, also contributed the limit with a $33,900 donation.
The only major statewide candidates who have not accepted these donations are
the Republican candidate for governor, John Faso, and Sean Patrick Maloney, a
Democratic candidate for attorney general. That might say more about the lack of
fund-raising momentum for the two men, who are far behind in polls.
Susan Del Percio, a spokeswoman for Mr. Faso, said the campaign had no policy
against such donations, adding, “It’s just in this case it hasn’t happened.”
Mr. Maloney tried to claim higher ground.
“I certainly don’t have any misgivings about being the only candidate here not
using shadowy funding schemes,” he said.
Albany Strategy Lets Rich Evade Donation Limits, NYT, 4.8.2006,http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/nyregion/04donate.html?hp&ex=1154750400&en=3175d305e7ee783d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Colorado Court Upholds Ban on Parolees
Voting
July 31, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:48 a.m. ET
The New York Times
DENVER (AP) -- The Colorado Supreme Court on
Monday upheld a state law that prohibits convicted felons from voting while they
are on parole, a ruling that will keep some 6,000 people from casting ballots
this year.
Colorado law denies felons the right to vote while they are serving their
sentences, and the justices said in a unanimous opinion that parole must be
considered part of a sentence.
The ruling affirmed a lower court's interpretation of a 1995 state law.
The American Civil Liberties Union's Colorado chapter challenged the law on
behalf of two nonprofit groups and Michael Danielson of Fort Collins, who was
paroled in 2003 following a conviction on drug and theft charges.
Attorneys for Danielson, the Colorado Criminal Justice Coalition and
Colorado-CURE argued that under the state Constitution, prisoners' voting rights
should be restored when they are released from prison, even if they are still on
parole.
But the Supreme Court agreed with the secretary of state and Denver District
Judge Michael Martinez, who said convicted felons have not served their full
sentence until all components -- including parole -- are completed.
''Of course we agree with Danielson that parole did not exist at the time
Colorado adopted its constitution, but this does not mean that the General
Assembly was constrained from punishing crimes with sentences that include
custody while the convicted person is being transitioned to community and before
restoration of his or her full rights,'' the ruling said.
------
On the Net:
State courts:
http://www.courts.state.co.us
Colorado Court Upholds Ban on Parolees Voting, NYT, 31.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Parole-Vote.html?hp&ex=1154404800&en=251974f75d870fca&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Washington Court Upholds Ban on Gay
Marriage
July 27, 2006
The New York Times
By ADAM LIPTAK and TIMOTHY EGAN
In an angrily divided 5-to-4 decision, the
Washington Supreme Court yesterday upheld a state law banning same-sex
marriages.
The justices issued six opinions in the case, with some in the majority
emphasizing that the Legislature remained free to extend the right to marry to
gay and lesbian couples.
The four dissenting justices said the majority relied on speculation and
circular reasoning to endorse discrimination.
Massachusetts remains the only state that sanctions same-sex marriages. New
York’s highest court, by a vote of 4 to 2 earlier this month, upheld state laws
limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The New Jersey Supreme Court is
expected to rule soon on the legality of same-sex marriages there.
Legal scholars said the closeness of the Washington and New York decisions
suggested that the legal status of same-sex marriages would remain unsettled and
controversial. That alone, they said, represents a significant change in public
and judicial attitudes.
When the Washington courts last addressed the question of same-sex marriage in
1974, by contrast, an appeals court unanimously voted against the plaintiffs and
the State Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
“You’ve gone in 32 years from something that was more or less a slam dunk to
where the court is almost evenly and very bitterly divided,” said William B.
Rubenstein, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and
author of “Sexual Orientation and the Law.” “The issue is in play.”
Opponents of same-sex marriage said yesterday’s decision demonstrated that the
public and the courts remained opposed to altering the traditional definition of
marriage.
“Today is a great day for marriage and the family,” said Mathew D. Staver, the
chairman of Liberty Counsel, a group that opposes the legal recognition of
same-sex marriages. “We are pleased that this latest attempt by the homosexual
agenda to radically redefine our culture has been stopped dead in its tracks.”
The decision consolidated two cases in which state trial courts had struck down
a 1998 state law prohibiting same-sex marriages. The cases were brought by 19
gay and lesbian couples seeking the right to marry or to have their marriages
from other jurisdictions recognized. State and local laws in Washington protect
people there from discrimination based on sexual orientation and provide some
benefits to same-sex couples, but the state has no civil-union law.
Beth Reis, one of the plaintiffs, said the decision was a setback for her, her
partner, Barbara Steele, and their four children.
“We are saddened that the court has said that my 28-year committed relationship
and my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren aren’t entitled to the
same legal protections and obligations as other Washington families,” Ms. Reis
said.
The controlling opinion in yesterday’s decision, signed by three justices,
reversed the lower court’s, holding that the 1998 law, the Washington Defense of
Marriage Act, was supported by rational reasons.
“Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples,” Justice Barbara A. Madsen wrote in
that opinion, “furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human
race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where
children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.”
In a dissent signed by three other justices, Justice Mary E. Fairhurst
questioned the logic of that assertion. “Would giving same-sex couples the same
right that opposite-sex couples enjoy injure the state’s interest in procreation
and healthy child rearing?” Justice Fairhurst asked.
Justice Bobbe J. Bridge, also dissenting, equated the majority’s position with
the endorsement of racial discrimination. The majority, Justice Bridge wrote,
contended “that it is not our place to require equality for Washington’s gay and
lesbian citizens.” Under that reasoning, she said, “there would have been no
Brown v. Board of Education,” the 1954 United States Supreme Court school
desegregation case.
Justice Madsen repeatedly emphasized the limited nature of the court’s ruling.
All that was required for the 1998 law to pass constitutional muster, she wrote,
was some rational basis.
“We see no reason, however,” Justice Madsen added, “why the Legislature or the
people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from enacting
the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington.”
The justices who signed the controlling opinion said they were sympathetic to
the fact that “many day-to-day decisions that are routine for married couples,”
including ones involving children, health care and death, “are more complex,
more agonizing and more costly for same-sex couples.”
The decision seemed to invite targeted constitutional challenges to the denial
of equal treatment to homosexual couples.
Jane Schacter, a law professor at Stanford, said the reaction to the 2003
decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalizing same-sex
marriage there might have left other courts gun-shy about making sweeping
rulings.
“There is a real self-consciousness in this decision and the New York decision
about the role of the courts,” Professor Schacter said. “We’ve traditionally
looked to the courts to buck public opinion to defend liberty and equality, but
we’re not seeing that here.”
Gary Randall, the president of the Faith and Freedom Network and Foundation, a
Washington religious group, took the opposite view, saying the decision was “a
decisive victory that upholds the values of the faith community.”
Two justices in the majority, James M. Johnson and Richard B. Sanders, took a
harder line in opposing same-sex marriage in a concurring opinion. There is,
Justice Johnson wrote, “a compelling governmental interest in preserving the
institution of marriage.”
“This conclusion,” he continued, “may not be changed by mere passage of time or
currents of public favor and surely not changed by courts.”
Washington Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage, NYT, 27.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/us/27gay.html?hp&ex=1154059200&en=a12efe7a97e6e4e6&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Judge Temporarily Blocks Georgia
Sex-Offender Provision
June 27, 2006
The New York Times
By BRENDA GOODMAN
A federal judge has temporarily prevented the
State of Georgia from forcing eight sex offenders from their homes Saturday —
the day a law that prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of
school bus stops goes into effect. According to a brief filed by the plaintiffs'
lawyers, the provision would make nearly 9,000 sex offenders and their families
homeless because there are virtually no housing arrangements that meet the law's
requirements.
Judge
Temporarily Blocks Georgia Sex-Offender Provision, NYT, 27.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/us/27brfs-004.html?ex=1154059200&en=1fca7551a4bcbbf7&ei=5070
Law Restricting Sex Offenders Clears a
Hurdle
July 26, 2006
The New York Times
By BRENDA GOODMAN
ATLANTA, July 25 — Noting that his ruling
would probably cause “delay, confusion and inconsistent actions,” a federal
judge in Georgia said he could not keep the state from enforcing a new law that
makes it illegal for registered sex offenders to live near school bus stops,
because Georgia has no school bus stops as defined by the law.
“There is no evidence in the record to indicate that any local school board of
education has designated school bus stops pursuant to the act,” wrote the judge,
Clarence Cooper of Federal District Court.
To enforce the law, Judge Cooper said, school board members would first have to
“designate” bus stops, a responsibility most districts delegate to a
transportation director.
Though Judge Cooper denied the injunction, his ruling was still a backhanded and
likely temporary victory for the 11,000 registered sex offenders in Georgia,
many of whom had been notified by local sheriff’s offices that they would have
to move or face up to 10 years in prison.
Representative Jerry Keen, a Republican who is House majority leader and sponsor
of the bill, issued a statement with the speaker of the House saying he was
pleased by the ruling and was confident school districts would “take whatever
steps necessary to officially designate school bus stops with the goal of
locating those stops as far as possible from the residences of convicted sex
offenders.”
But in January, as he argued for the bill, Mr. Keen seemed to hope it would
accomplish something different. “We don’t want these types of people staying in
our state,” he said.
Judge Cooper’s ruling sets the stage for more legal battles over what the
Southern Center for Human Rights calls a “sloppily written and
counterproductive” law. Lawyers for the center, which is representing a class of
the state’s registered sex offenders, have said the law is unconstitutional.
“The court has very clearly ruled that this issue is not over yet,” said Sarah
Geraghty, the main lawyer for the plaintiffs.
Law
Restricting Sex Offenders Clears a Hurdle, NYT, 26.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/us/26sex.html
Stem Cell Work Gets States’ Aid After Bush
Veto NYT
25.7.2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/us/25stem.html?hp&ex=
1153886400&en=0a4ddc283632d4a8&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Stem Cell Work
Gets
States’ Aid After Bush Veto
July 25, 2006
The New York Times
By JODI RUDOREN
CHICAGO, July 24 — President Bush’s veto of
legislation to expand federally financed embryonic stem cell research has had
the unintended consequence of drawing state money into the contentious field and
has highlighted the issue in election campaigns across the country.
Two governors seized the political moment Thursday, the day after the veto, to
raise their ante for stem cell research.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican who helped Mr. Bush win a
second term but has long disagreed with him on this research, cited the veto as
he lent $150 million from the state’s general fund to pay for grants to stem
cell scientists. In Illinois, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, a Democrat opposed to
most every White House initiative, offered $5 million for similar grants in his
state.
Before the announcements, the only money available was $72 million that five
states had allocated for the research and $90 million that the National
Institutes of Health had provided since 2001 for work on a restricted number of
stem cell lines.
Several other governors, including one Republican, M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut,
denounced the president’s veto, his first, in a sign of the political potency of
the stem cell debate.
Within hours, too, the issue sprang to the forefront of some crucial campaigns,
including ones for governor, senator and representative in Colorado, Florida,
Maryland, Missouri and Tennessee.
In many cases, Republican moderates, mindful of consistent polls showing public
support for expanded stem cell research and expecting the promised attacks from
Democrats, sought to distinguish their positions from their president’s.
For Mr. Schwarzenegger, who is running for re-election in a state dominated by
Democrats, support for stem cell research has helped position him as a centrist,
but his Democratic opponent, Phil Angelides, the state treasurer, tried to
one-up him by taking credit for the loan.
Sean Tipton, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research,
the lead lobbyist for the bill Mr. Bush vetoed, said, “In terms of actually
getting some resources to the scientists, it turns out like it may be a good
week.”
“I also think there’s symbolic significance,” Mr. Tipton said. “It sends a
strong signal to patients that there are some politicians that care about them
and want to see them taken care of.”
Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, said of the president, “While he
recognizes that states have the legal power to use their own funds for embryonic
stem cell research, he hopes researchers and entrepreneurs will focus on
developing effective cures,” including those “that don’t involve controversial
practices.”
Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee dismissed the
initiatives in Illinois and California as a “public relations gimmick” to divert
attention from a debate over whether scientists should be allowed to create
embryos through cloning.
“It’s regrettable,” Mr. Johnson said, “but it’s really a matter of their trying
to focus public attention on an issue that is significant but is not really the
front line of this battle.”
In Florida, stem cell research is a rare point of contention between two
Republicans vying to succeed the president’s brother Jeb as governor. But when
one of them, Attorney General Charlie Crist, announced that he “respectfully”
disagreed with the veto, his rival Tom Gallagher, the chief financial officer,
accused Mr. Crist of taking “every opportunity to disagree with the governor and
the mainstream of the party.”
Meanwhile, Rod Smith, the Florida state senator who is the Democratic candidate
for governor, promised, “When I become governor, we are absolutely going to do
stem cell research and we are going to fund it in this state.”
In Maryland, Democratic hopefuls in the governor’s race responded to the veto
with visits to the homes of quadriplegics and patients with Parkinson’s disease
who could benefit from stem cell research, while the Republican incumbent, Gov.
Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., pointed to his support of the research as evidence that
he did not “govern from the right or the left but the center, where most of us
are.”
In Colorado, Representative Diana DeGette, a Democrat and a sponsor of the
vetoed legislation, staged a protest rally on Friday when the president visited
her district for a $1,000-a-plate luncheon on behalf of Rick O’Donnell, a
Republican who supports his position.
Nowhere is the issue hotter than in Missouri, where voters in November are
likely to face a ballot initiative supporting stem cell research, and where
Senator Jim Talent, a Republican who is seeking re-election, opposes it. Mr.
Talent’s Democratic challenger, Claire McCaskill, the state auditor, highlighted
the issue last week when she delivered the Democrats’ radio address and then
initiated a conference call with national reporters to spotlight her support.
The moves in California and Illinois continue the patchwork pattern of public
financing for stem cell research since 2001, when Mr. Bush announced his policy
restricting how federal money could be used in the arena.
More than 100 bills have been considered over the past two years by dozens of
state legislatures, with one, South Dakota’s, banning such research altogether
and five — in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey —
allocating state resources to the effort. Other states, including Indiana,
Massachusetts, Virginia and Wisconsin, have taken steps to support stem cell
science without directly paying for research, while Arizona, North Carolina and
Virginia have formed groups to study their state’s role in the emerging field.
Mr. Schwarzenegger’s announcement on Thursday of the $150 million loan will
provide the single largest public pot yet available.
“I think with one stroke, the president energized” the program, said Zach W.
Hall, the president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which
had an anemic $14 million to spread among 16 training grants before the veto,
and which will soon be flush. “It’s not what we would have wanted, but it did
have that beneficent side effect.”
For California, the $150 million is half the $300 million per year that would be
provided under a decade-long, $3 billion bond issue that 59 percent of voters
approved in 2004. Taxpayer groups sued to block the bonds and appealed a verdict
in May that favored the state. At the same time, “bond anticipation notes”
floated in the interim found little favor in the market. The $150 million loan
is intended to fill that shortfall and would be repaid by bond proceeds,
presuming the state prevails in court.
“Arnold is supposed to be a Republican, so I don’t understand his thinking here
with President Bush. It seems like he’s going against the party line,” said Dana
Cody, executive director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, one of the groups
suing the state. “It’s very inconsistent with the governor’s platform, if you
will, of ‘we’re tired of being taxed.’ That’s $150 million coming out of the
taxpayers’ pocket for something that is questionable at best because of the
litigation.”
Asked at a news conference in Sacramento on Friday about the political
implications of making such a forceful public move to oppose the president he
has previously supported, Mr. Schwarzenegger said, “You don’t have to agree with
someone on every issue.”
“It doesn’t matter to me what the president thinks about it, or what any party
thinks about it,” the governor added. “I always try to do what’s best for the
people of California.”
In Illinois, the $5 million would come out of the administrative budget in the
Department of Healthcare and Family Services, and would be added to $10 million
in grants awarded in April to hospitals and universities. A five-year, $100
million investment that Mr. Blagojevich pushed has been stalled in the
Legislature.
Mr. Blagojevich, who was vacationing in Michigan when the new money was
announced via a news release, declined an interview request, through a
spokeswoman, Abby Ottenhoff.
“It was after the veto that the governor determined there were no more options,”
Ms. Ottenhoff said. “This research is too important to put on hold until there
is a new leader in the White House.”
Even with the limitations on federal financing, the overall financing available
for stem cell research could be described as fairly robust, given that the
research is still at a basic stage and that in addition to state money,
philanthropies like the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have made contributions.
Moreover, in the private sector, biotech companies like Geron, Advanced Cell
Technology and Athersys conduct research on embryonic or adult stem cells.
While stem cell scientists applauded the states’ efforts, they cautioned that
such an approach was not ideal.
“In the long term, I don’t think it’s a good idea to have individual states
trying to mount efforts which are going to be more piecemeal, less effective and
take more time than a federal effort,” said Douglas A. Melton, co-director of
the Stem Cell Institute at Harvard University. “I don’t think states should
mount their own militias either.”
Dr. Arnold Kriegstein, director of the Institute for Regeneration Medicine at
the University of California, San Francisco, said that the $150 million was
“absolutely a boon,” but that “if you’re an investigator in another state,
besides Illinois or California, I think you’d be very frustrated right now.”
Candace Coffee, a Los Angeles resident who has suffered partial blindness,
paralysis and constant headaches from Devic’s disease, appeared with Governor
Schwarzenegger on Friday at his news conference.
“President Bush’s veto stole my hope,” Ms. Coffee said. “But just as quickly as
our hope was stolen, it was renewed.”
Stem
Cell Work Gets States’ Aid After Bush Veto, NYT, 25.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/us/25stem.html?hp&ex=1153886400&en=0a4ddc283632d4a8&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Senate to Pass Parental Notification Law
July 25, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:44 a.m. ET
The New York Times
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A pregnant 14-year-old from
Lancaster, Pa., decides to keep and raise her baby. Her boyfriend's parents
drive her to a New Jersey abortion clinic to get around her home state's
parental notification law. They then refuse to take her home until she ends her
pregnancy.
It happened -- and a national parental notification law could have stopped it,
the girl's mother, Marcia Carroll, told a House panel last year.
A year after the House passed the measure, a similar version is heading toward
Senate approval Tuesday with widespread public support.
Opponents, however, say the legislation would cut off an escape route for
pregnant teens with abusive parents and punish confidants who might try to help
them.
''We should not criminalize the grandparents or clergy members to whom a teen in
trouble might turn for help,'' said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who will
introduce an amendment to protect such confidants from prosecution.
No one knows exactly how many girls try to cross state lines to end pregnancies
to circumvent parental notification and consent laws back home.
Polls suggest there is widespread public backing for the bill, with almost
three-quarters of respondents saying a parent has the right to give consent
before a child under 18 has an abortion.
''This is clearly not an issue divided on pro-life or pro-choice lines,'' said
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., the bill's original sponsor. ''There is broad and
consistent support to preserve the rights of parents.''
Under the bill, anyone who helps a pregnant minor cross state lines to obtain an
abortion without the knowledge of her parents could be punished by unspecified
fines and up to a year in prison. The girl and her parents would not be
vulnerable to criminal penalties. The measure contains an exception for those
who help underage girls get such abortions to avoid life-threatening conditions.
Democrats will present several other amendments, including one that would add
exceptions for anyone helping girls to end pregnancies resulting from rape or
incest.
The states without parental notification or consent laws are: Washington,
Oregon, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, plus the District of
Columbia.
The bill passed the House 270-157 in April 2005 after lawmakers rejected an
amendment similar to Feinstein's.
The bills are S. 403 and H.R. 748.
------
On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov
Senate to Pass Parental Notification Law, NYT, 25.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Interstate-Abortion.html
Colorado to Ban Child Marriages
July 19, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:11 a.m. ET
The New York Times
DENVER (AP) -- Gov. Bill Owens signed a
measure banning child brides, ending an uproar sparked by a court ruling that
said 12-year-old girls could enter common-law marriages in Colorado.
The state Court of Appeals ruled on June 15 that Colorado had no stated minimum
age for common-law marriage but said the state has adopted English common law,
which makes girls as young as 12 and boys as young as 14 eligible for marriage.
''It was imperative that Colorado change its law concerning the minimum age for
common law marriage. The age of consent for marriage should be consistent in our
statutes and, most importantly, our young children must be protected,'' Owens
said as he signed the bill Tuesday.
The bill to close the loophole passed without major opposition during a special
session on illegal immigration. Lawmakers said the issue could not wait until
lawmakers return to work in January. The law raises the minimum age for
common-law marriage to 18 or 16 with parental consent and a judge's approval and
goes into effect Sept. 1.
The court ruling came in the case of Willis Rouse, 38, who was 34 years old when
he applied for and received a license to marry a then-15-year-old girl with the
consent of the girl's mother.
A judge granted a motion to invalidate the marriage, saying anybody under the
age of 16 had to obtain judicial approval for either common-law or ceremonial
marriages. The Court of Appeals agreed Rouse could marry the girl, but left the
question of whether their union was valid to a lower court.
Rouse is serving a four-year prison term after pleading guilty to stalking the
girl and has asked a judge to release him in light of the Appeals Court ruling.
Colorado to Ban Child Marriages, NYT, 19.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Teen-Marriage.html
Under rulings, Georgia can't require voter
photo IDs this year
Updated 7/12/2006 9:56 PM ET
AP
USA Today
ROME, Ga. (AP) — The same federal judge who
threw out Georgia's voter ID law last year blocked the state Wednesday from
enforcing its revised law during this year's elections.
The ruling came less than two hours after the
Georgia Supreme Court denied the state's emergency request to overrule a state
court order that blocked enforcement of the new photo ID law during next week's
primary elections and any runoffs.
U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy's ruling, which he delivered verbally from the
bench, was much broader, also including the Nov. 7 general elections and any
runoffs.
If the rulings stand, Georgia voters will not have to show a government-issued
photo ID to cast a ballot this year. The state's primary election — which would
have been the first election for which the IDs were required — is scheduled for
Tuesday. The general elections are Nov. 7.
Murphy said the state's latest attempt at requiring voter photo IDs
discriminated against people who don't have driver's licenses, passports or
other government IDs.
"That is the failure of this legislation as it stands," he said.
The judge last October rejected a more stringent voter ID requirement, saying it
amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax because of the fees associated with
getting the required ID. The Legislature this year passed a new law that made
the IDs free and available in all counties.
Murphy commended lawmakers for addressing problems with the previous version but
said more work is needed. The latest version still denies citizens equal
protection under the law, he said.
"The court never said there cannot be a proper voter ID law," he said.
Mark Cohen, the state's lead attorney, declined to comment on whether the state
would appeal. Unless the ruling is reversed, Murphy's injunction will remain in
place through the November runoff elections.
Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue and other supporters of the IDs had argued they
were needed to prevent election fraud. Civil rights groups challenged the law in
both federal and state court, arguing that it discriminated against poor,
elderly and rural voters. They also argued that voter fraud in Georgia stems
from absentee ballot voting, an issue not even addressed by the law.
"They have chosen deliberately to legislate only in an area where there was no
problem," Emmett Bondurant, the critics' lead attorney, told Murphy in court.
Cohen argued that Georgia must restore confidence in the election system.
"The public in general in this country has a great distrust for the voting
system," he said. "People are questioning whether voting is going on properly."
He also said the law does not deny Georgians the right to vote, because voters
may cast an absentee ballot.
On July 7, a county judge issued a temporary order blocking Georgia from
enforcing the voter ID law in the primary and any runoffs.
The Supreme Court's decision pertained only to that order and does not prevent
the case from coming before the high court again.
Under
rulings, Georgia can't require voter photo IDs this year, UT, 13.7.2006,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-12-voter-ID_x.htm
Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Is Delayed in
Massachusetts
July 13, 2006
The New York Times
By KATIE ZEZIMA
BOSTON, July 12 — The Massachusetts
legislature on Wednesday postponed until after Election Day what promises to be
an impassioned debate and vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex
marriage, which has been legal here for two years.
Meeting in a joint session, legislators spent four hours debating matters
scheduled ahead of the marriage amendment, which was next to last on the agenda,
and voted, 100 to 91, to recess until Nov. 9.
If the amendment is approved by one-quarter of the legislature this year and
next, it will be placed on the ballot as a referendum in November 2008.
The postponement infuriated opponents of same-sex marriage and galvanized its
supporters.
“We now have four more months to show legislators how well marriage equality is
working in Massachusetts,” Marc Solomon, a spokesman for the main group opposing
the amendment, said in a statement. “The legislature should dispense with this
undemocratic, discriminatory amendment and move on to the real concerns facing
Massachusetts.”
Arline Isaacson, chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political
Caucus, said, “We do feel like we dodged a bullet, because had there been a vote
today we would have lost.”
Lisa Barstow, a spokeswoman for voteonmarriage.org, which gathered 170,000
petition signatures, a state record, said the legislature ignored the will of
the voters.
“It’s a travesty,” Ms. Barstow said. “Whenever the people want their voices
heard, the legislature stalls, delays or sends to the political graveyard
whatever citizens are asking to be heard about.”
A spokeswoman for the Senate president, Robert Travaglini, said that legislators
worked through much of the agenda and that he was committed to having a vote on
the marriage amendment by the end of the year.
Gov. Mitt Romney, an opponent of same-sex marriage who last week pushed for a
vote on the issue at a news conference with Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the
archbishop of Boston, said then and again on Wednesday that he was trying to
ensure that the issue would be voted on.
“In a democracy, the people are sovereign,” Mr. Romney, a Republican, said in a
statement. “Tens of thousands of citizens have petitioned the government for the
right to have their voices heard. They have played by the rules. This issue
won’t go away until the people are heard.”
Opponents of same-sex marriage said they planned to use the recess as a campaign
issue, as the entire legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, is up for
re-election this year.
“We want to make sure there is a bright line drawn between those who wanted to
recess and those who wanted to get the job done today,” Ms. Barstow said.
Ms. Isaacson said supporters were not worried.
“They cannot make a campaign issue out of legislators’ simply postponing debate
until a later date,” Ms. Isaacson said. “No one’s saying it won’t be voted on.
They just said we’ll do it later.”
Supporters of same-sex marriage challenged the legality of the measure, saying
an amendment could not challenge the ruling of the state’s highest court, which
ruled in 2003 that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the
Massachusetts Constitution. The same court ruled on Monday that the petition was
legal and should be heard by the legislature.
Vote
on Same-Sex Marriage Is Delayed in Massachusetts, NYT, 13.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/us/13gay.html
A Deal in Colorado on Benefits for Illegal Immigrants
July 12, 2006
The New York Times
By KATIE KELLEY
DENVER, July 11 — Colorado legislators have struck a
compromise over illegal immigration law, forging a deal that Democrats and
Republicans said could be the most far-reaching state overhaul in the country.
The law will restrict nonemergency benefits like food stamps, supplemental
security income and Medicaid to legal residents of Colorado who are 18 or older.
Children will be exempt from the law, which takes effect Aug. 1. Colorado has an
estimated 250,000 illegal immigrants.
Business owners will be required to provide proof that their workers have legal
immigration status.
The agreement, approved late Monday by the State House and Senate, which were
meeting in a special session, will also place two other measures on the ballot
in November, ensuring that immigration will remain a heated debate topic through
the summer.
One of the measures would allow the Colorado attorney general to sue the federal
government if existing federal immigration laws are not enforced. The other
measure would require businesses to confirm the legal status of their employees
to receive deductible business expenses.
Republicans had sought tighter rules and wanted to put all the measures before
voters. The deal puts some of the changes in place without a referendum.
Debate during the five-day session was often intense, with accusations of racism
among some lawmakers. The Senate president, Joan Fitz-Gerald, a Democrat, said
the issue transcended party politics.
“This goes beyond being a political problem; it’s also a moral challenge to do
this correctly,” Ms. Fitz-Gerald said.
The special session of the Legislature, where Democrats control both chambers,
was called by Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, after the State Supreme Court last
month removed an initiative from the November ballot on whether illegal
immigrants should be allowed to receive some state benefits. The ballot measure
was proposed by members of Defend Colorado Now, a group opposed to illegal
immigration, but was removed after the court said it was unconstitutional
because it dealt with more than one subject.
Across the nation, lawmakers have introduced more than 500 pieces of immigration
legislation this year, enacting 57 bills, according to the National Conference
of State Legislators.
“Collectively they are a strong statement of state interest and getting
something done on this issue,” said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for
American Immigration Reform, a nonpartisan organization that follows national
immigration legislation and promotes stricter policies.
Mr. Stein stopped short of saying the overhaul was the toughest in the country,
saying, “It’s certainly one of the strongest bills passed out of state
legislature, but that’s the best you could say.”
A Deal in Colorado
on Benefits for Illegal Immigrants, NYT, 12.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/us/12colorado.html
State Legislator Faces Charges She Took
Bribes
July 11, 2006
The New York Times
By MICHAEL BRICK
A state assemblywoman from Brooklyn was
charged yesterday with conspiracy and receiving bribes, accused of having sought
a $500,000 home from a developer in return for helping the builder acquire city
land.
The assemblywoman, Diane M. Gordon, Democrat of East New York, surrendered to
the authorities at 6 a.m., her lawyer said. Six hours later, at a hearing in
State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, she pleaded not guilty and was released on
$35,000 bail.
The Brooklyn district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, said at a news conference that
Ms. Gordon was confronted in April with evidence of bribery and agreed to resign
from the Assembly, but that she had reneged. Her lawyer, Bernard H. Udell,
denied that any such agreement had existed. He said that she still intended to
run for re-election this year.
An indictment describes six meetings between Ms. Gordon and a developer between
October 2004 and November 2005. The developer, who was not named, wore a
concealed camera when meeting Ms. Gordon in her district office, prosecutors
said. Portions of the videotapes shown at a news conference yesterday showed Ms.
Gordon urging the developer to keep the deal a secret.
“I’ve been around long enough to know, “ Ms. Gordon said on one recording, “that
if you want a dream to come true, you got to keep your mouth shut.”
According to prosecutors, Ms. Gordon promised to help the developer secure a
vacant tract of land on Livonia Avenue from the city’s Department of Housing
Preservation and Development. The parcel, which is intended for low-income
housing, was valued at $2 million.
“There was a quid pro quo,” said an assistant district attorney, Kevin
Richardson.
In exchange for her help, investigators said, Ms. Gordon requested a $500,000
single-family home that would be built to her specifications in a gated
community in Queens; she marked up schematic renderings of the home with stairs,
balconies and measurements in square feet, investigators said. Prosecutors said
that she had also accepted a set of French doors for her office, worth $600, as
part of the bribe.
The plan to execute the deal on the house shifted over time, but the terms
remained the same, prosecutors said. At first, Ms. Gordon offered to pay $1. In
later meetings, she asked to set a price of $200,000, with a mortgage held by
the developer and canceled after the developer received his city property,
prosecutors said.
Later, Ms. Gordon took her mother, Helen Staggers, to meetings. Citing advice
from an unnamed lawyer, she suggested consummating the transaction in Ms.
Staggers’s name to conceal it, prosecutors said. “Because anything I purchase,
buy, whatever like that, he says they check,” Ms. Gordon said on the videotape.
“The state has the right to check into everything, the whole company, the
history, this, that.”
The developer gave Ms. Gordon $7,500 in several cash payments, which Ms.
Staggers used to open a bank account, investigators said. Later, the authorities
said, Ms. Staggers signed a letter of intent to purchase the home and Ms. Gordon
returned $7,000 — $500 less than they said she had received.
Mr. Hynes described the lawyer and Ms. Staggers as unindicted co-conspirators.
A lawyer named in the indictment, Mitch Alter, said that he had attended only
one meeting, adding, “I don’t know too much about this transaction.”
Prosecutors described the return of the money as part of a ploy to avoid a down
payment, but Mr. Udell portrayed it as exculpatory evidence. “Ms. Gordon
returned every cent that was given to her,” Mr. Udell said in court.
Ms. Gordon became the third Assembly member from Brooklyn to be charged with a
crime in recent years. One, Assemblyman Roger L. Green, pleaded guilty to false
billing of the state for travel expenses, resigned, ran for the seat again, won,
and is now running for Congress. Another, Clarence Norman Jr., was the
Democratic Party’s Brooklyn leader but resigned that post and his Assembly seat
last year. He was convicted in his first two trials but is appealing the
verdicts; he was acquitted of other charges in March in a third trial, and a
fourth trial is pending.
Ms. Gordon’s appearance at the defense table yesterday served as a strange
reminder of the second trial of Mr. Norman, the former party chief and
assemblyman. The defense called Ms. Gordon to the witness stand, but she refused
to testify without a grant of immunity from prosecutors. None was given, and she
invoked the Fifth Amendment.
At the hearing yesterday for Ms. Gordon, 56, prosecutors asked for $50,000 bail.
In a 12-count indictment, she was charged with felonious conspiracy and
receiving bribes.
“This indictment represents an elected official’s attempt to self-deal,” Mr.
Richardson said, adding that the conduct of which Ms. Gordon is accused
“represents a most egregious breach of trust.”
Mr. Udell, gesturing toward a group of preachers and family members assembled to
support Ms. Gordon, said that she had breached no one’s trust and intended to
fight the charges.
“Except for Election Day,” Mr. Udell said, “Diane Gordon doesn’t run.”
Rose Gill Hearn, commissioner of the city’s Department of Investigation, said a
city employee had first reported a concern about corruption by Ms. Gordon. That
report, law enforcement officials said, led indirectly to the enlisting of the
developer in the investigation.
The final meeting described in the indictment took place last Nov. 22, one day
after Ms. Gordon backed out of testifying in the trial of Mr. Norman.
After her arraignment, Ms. Gordon was escorted from the courthouse by supporters
who shielded her head with a jacket. She ignored questions, got into the back
seat of a blue sport utility vehicle and rode away.
State
Legislator Faces Charges She Took Bribes, NYT, 11.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/nyregion/11bribe.html
Proposal to Ban Same-Sex Marriage Renews
Old Battles
July 11, 2006
The New York Times
By PAM BELLUCK
BOSTON, July 10 — Massachusetts, the only
state in which same-sex marriage is legal, is bracing for a vociferous battle
this week over a proposal to ban it.
At a constitutional convention on Wednesday, more than two years after the first
gay and lesbian couples took their wedding vows, legislators will consider a
proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as solely between a man and
a woman. If a quarter of the legislators approve it this year and once more
before 2008, the amendment will be presented to voters in November 2008.
The outcome is hardly a foregone conclusion, and after last week’s sizable
defeat for gay rights supporters in New York — a court ruling that the state’s
Constitution does not require a right to same-sex marriage — what happens in
Massachusetts is being watched closely.
“This is a potentially cataclysmic point in the history of this issue,” said
Jeffrey M. Berry, a political scientist at Tufts. “There’s been such uncertainty
around who had the votes and what the outcome would be that it’s heightened a
lot of the anxiety.”
The amendment drive, sponsored by the Massachusetts Family Institute, a
conservative public policy group, gathered 170,000 petition signatures, a record
in the state. For the referendum to get on the ballot, the amendment must get
the votes of at least 50 of the state’s 200 legislators this year and in another
constitutional convention in 2007-8.
People on both sides say the amendment has a strong chance of getting 50
legislators’ votes in this state, where the largely Democratic legislature is
heavily Catholic and not as overwhelmingly liberal as many outsiders think.
Although the leaders of the House and the Senate are against the amendment, some
rank-and-file members support it, while others oppose it but want citizens to
get to vote on it.
“We’re very confident that we have the votes,” said Kristian M. Mineau,
president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political
Caucus, said a vote on Wednesday to approve the amendment “would be devastating”
because gay advocates would then have to spend time and money fighting the issue
for months, through elections for governor and the legislature in November and
the next constitutional convention.
“We are facing a very serious threat to retaining our right to marry,” Ms.
Isaacson said.
While gay rights advocates are lobbying legislators to vote no, they are also
considering other strategies. One tactic is for legislators to spend all day on
the 19 items before gay marriage on the agenda and then postpone the marriage
amendment to a later session. Another strategy involves adjourning before the
marriage amendment comes up, a move requiring at most 101 votes, not the 151
needed to defeat the amendment.
But adjourning could set off a tug of war with Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican
opponent of same-sex marriage who has been emphasizing his conservative views as
he considers a run for president.
If the legislature adjourns, Mr. Romney could call it back into session. He
cannot force legislators to vote on the measure, political scientists say, but
can try to embarrass them by accusing them of shirking their responsibilities.
Mr. Romney renewed his call to put the amendment on the ballot at a recent State
House appearance with the Boston archbishop, Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley.
“Is there anything more fundamental to the commonwealth and this country than
the principle that the power is reserved for the people, that government is the
servant, not the master?” the governor asked.
About 8,000 same-sex couples have married since their doing so became legal in
May 2004, said Marc Solomon, campaign director of MassEquality, a group leading
the anti-amendment effort. Polls of state residents since then have generally
found that just over half of those surveyed support same-sex marriage, but about
the same number want the amendment to go before voters.
Backers of the amendment are supported by the state’s bishops, and have lobbied
legislators with meetings, phone calls, e-mail messages and newspaper and radio
advertisements. “I’ve had legislators complain to me about the volume of
e-mails, which is a good thing,” Mr. Mineau said. “It shows they are taking
notice.”
Gay rights supporters asked Massachusetts’ highest court, which legalized
same-sex marriage, to throw out the amendment on the grounds that citizens could
not challenge a high court ruling. But on Monday, the court ruled unanimously
that the amendment could be considered by the legislature.
Now, advocates of a right to same-sex marriage say they hope their lobbying
efforts will pay off. Those efforts include a full-page advertisement in The
Boston Globe on Monday signed by 165 of the state’s most prominent business and
community leaders, including the owner of the New England Patriots and the heads
of major hospitals and banks.
One signer, Ralph C. Martin II, a Republican former district attorney, said
same-sex marriage was “a powerful, emotional issue for some people, certain
constituencies, and there are good people who are just opposed to this.”
But Mr. Martin added: “I think at a certain point it’s important to recognize it
as an issue that has been decided in the courts, and, you know, there’s been an
open and complete discussion. I guess I’m one of several people who believe that
we need to move on.”
MassEquality has also arranged meetings between same-sex couples and legislators
and has enlisted couples and volunteers to go door to door in swing legislative
districts asking people to sign postcards and call their legislators.
Jenni White, 41, of Holyoke, Mass., met last week with State Representative
Michael Kane, a Democrat who has voted against same-sex marriage, telling him,
“There’s been marriage for two years, and society hasn’t fallen apart at the
seams.”
And on Saturday, Paul Meoni, 46, and Tom Kidd, 54, a married couple from
Randolph, Mass., walked Nantasket Beach asking sunbathers and swimmers to sign
postcards opposing the amendment. Most people signed, especially women, but one
woman told Mr. Meoni, “Live the way you want, but marriage is out of the
question.” Another muttered, “What is this world coming to?”
Mr. Meoni said he found those responses “disturbing,” but added, “We just have
to keep moving on and find people that support us.”
Debate Reopened in California
By The New York Times
SAN FRANCISCO, July 10 — A California appeals court reopened the legal debate
over same-sex marriage on Monday in a review of six cases that seeks to
determine the constitutionality of a state law that defines marriage as a union
between a man and a woman.
Arguments before a three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal
focused on a need to retain the definition of marriage because of tradition.
Same-sex couples said domestic partner laws did not provide the same protection
as marriage.
Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger said the law did not discriminate
against same-sex couples because they are granted equal rights as domestic
partners. Therese Stewart, the chief deputy city attorney of San Francisco,
called the dual approach discriminatory.
Katie Zezima contributed reporting for this article.
Proposal to Ban Same-Sex Marriage Renews Old Battles, NYT, 11.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/us/11gay.html
States try to block illegal workers
Updated 7/10/2006 8:58 AM ET
USA TODAY
By Charisse Jones
At least 30 states have passed laws or taken other steps
this year to crack down on illegal immigrants, often making it harder for
undocumented workers to find jobs or receive public services.
Acting while Congress struggles to set policy regarding the
nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, states have enacted at least
57 laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and a USA
TODAY analysis. Among major themes of the state legislation: fining businesses
that hire undocumented workers and denying such companies public contracts if
they don't verify the legal status of employees.
"The trends ... have leaned toward the punitive side," says Ann Morse, an
immigration expert at the National Conference of State Legislatures. "The No. 1
topic has been employment in terms of deterring employers and employees."
Examples:
•A Colorado law enacted in June prohibits awarding state contracts to businesses
that knowingly employ illegal immigrants.
•A Louisiana law approved in June subjects businesses that have state contracts
and more than 10 employees to fines if they don't fire workers known to be
undocumented.
•A Georgia bill enacted in April has a phased-in requirement that public
employers and government contractors and subcontractors verify information on
newly hired workers through a federal program.
The U.S. Senate and House have passed widely divergent immigration bills. The
Senate's legislation would put most undocumented immigrants on a path to
citizenship. The House bill would make illegal immigrants felons and increase
penalties for hiring them.
Some lawmakers and advocates of stricter immigration enforcement say the flurry
of legislation reflects states' mounting frustration with federal officials.
"State and local politicians and the grass-roots in those states are up in arms
over Washington's conspicuous lack of leadership," says John Keeley, spokesman
for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors tighter controls on
immigration. "Immigration ... is a driving factor for the three biggest budget
items states face: education, health care and criminal justice."
Under federal law, states must provide some services to illegal immigrants,
including public education and emergency medical care. States do not have to
provide commercial licenses, food assistance, health care, unemployment benefits
or other services.
States' focus on workers' documentation is unfair, says Brent Wilkes, national
executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a civil
rights group. "It feels like we're back to the days when it's OK to discriminate
against minorities," he says.
States try to
block illegal workers, UT, 10.7.2006,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-09-states-illegal-workers_x.htm
Massachusetts Court Backs Gay Marriage on Ballot
July 10, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:19 a.m. ET
The New York Times
BOSTON (AP) -- The same court that made
Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage ruled Monday that a
proposed constitutional amendment to ban future same-sex marriages can be placed
on the ballot, if approved by the Legislature.
The ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought by gay-rights supporters who
argued that Attorney General Tom Reilly was wrong to approve the question,
saying that the state constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that
seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Judicial Court said the constitution does
not bar citizen initiatives from making prospective changes to the constitution,
even if that effectively overrules the effect of a prior court decision, because
that change would not be a reversal.
The state Legislature is expected to take up the question Wednesday during a
constitutional convention.
Citizen-initiated ballot questions must be certified by the attorney general and
then approved by two consecutive legislative sessions. Before the marriage
question could be placed on the 2008 ballot, supporters would need to win the
votes of 50 lawmakers -- 25 percent of the Legislature -- in two consecutive
sessions.
Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said she
was disappointed but knew it would be an uphill battle. She said the fight is
not over.
''So now obviously the focus is going to turn to the Legislature, which has a
chance on Wednesday during the constitutional convention to do the right thing
and defeat this amendment,'' said Swislow, whose organization filed the lawsuit
in January.
With a landmark 2003 ruling, the state's highest court cleared the way for
same-sex marriages to begin in Massachusetts in May 2004. More than 7,000 gay
couples have married since.
Massachusetts Court Backs Gay Marriage on Ballot, NYT, 10.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gay-Marriage.html
Judge Blocks Requirement in Georgia for
Voter ID
July 8, 2006
The New York Times
By BRENDA GOODMAN
ATLANTA, July 7 — For the second time, a judge
has blocked a Republican-sponsored effort to require Georgia voters to present
government-issued photo identification cards before they can cast a ballot.
The judge, Melvin K. Westmoreland of Fulton County Superior Court, said the
requirement violated the State Constitution by placing an undue burden on the
fundamental right to vote.
Although the legislature passed the requirement, Judge Westmoreland said, such a
change would require citizens to approve an amendment to the State Constitution,
which now says only that voters must be 18 years old, mentally competent and
state residents.
The judge's temporary restraining order was in response to a legal challenge
against the requirement filed by former Gov. Roy E. Barnes, a Democrat. Mr.
Barnes argued that the requirement would make it harder for minorities, the
elderly and the poor to vote.
State officials immediately vowed to appeal the ruling to the Georgia Supreme
Court. Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican who signed the measure into law earlier
this year, said it was needed to ensure the integrity of the ballot box.
"The sad fact is that dead people have cast votes in Georgia and — before this
law is implemented — there was no way to tell how many deceased voters, felons
or even illegal aliens may have been casting ballots in Georgia elections," Mr.
Perdue said.
The law also faces a challenge in federal court, where a consortium of voter
rights groups have sued on the grounds that it also violates the United States
Constitution.
Since it was first passed in March 2005, the voter ID law has whipsawed between
the legislature and the courts, with lawmakers struggling to find a way to put
the measure into effect without violating federal or state voter protections.
Its first version required voters to have a driver's license or other government
ID, or to buy a special state card.
That law was struck down in October by a federal judge, who said the requirement
that voters buy the card amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.
The law was then rewritten by the Republican-led legislature to make the ID
cards free. But the new version continued to draw strong criticism. Civil rights
groups say those who lack a photo identification are more likely to be black or
Hispanic, poor, or elderly — groups that traditionally cast their ballots for
Democratic candidates.
"The law continues to impose an unnecessary burden on voters and does nothing to
protect against fraud in voting," said Neil Bradley, associate director of the
American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project in Atlanta. Secretary of
State Cathy Cox, a Democrat who oversees Georgia's elections and who is also
vying for the Democratic nomination for governor, said there had not been a
proven case of voter fraud in the state in nearly a decade. Her office has
estimated that some 676,000 otherwise eligible voters lack a driver's license or
state-issued photo ID.
Without dwelling on the political implications of the law, Judge Westmoreland
agreed with critics who said the legislature had pushed past constitutional
protections in passing the measure.
"The General Assembly has wide latitude to legislate unless it undertakes to act
where the Georgia Constitution enumerates a clear and unmistakable right to
Georgia's citizens," the judge wrote. "It is a given that any illegal
restriction of the fundamental right to vote is prohibited."
Mr. Perdue said the state's appeal would rest on ballot security. "I
respectfully disagree with Judge Westmoreland and believe that Georgia's law is
not only constitutional, but a common sense, prudent protection of the election
process," he said.
The restraining order means the law will not be in effect for the state's
primaries on July 18. He referred the matter back to state court for a civil
trial.
Judge
Blocks Requirement in Georgia for Voter ID, NYT, 8.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/08/us/08voter.html
Georgia Court Upholds a Referendum Banning
Same-Sex Marriage
July 7, 2006
The New York Times
By BRENDA GOODMAN
ATLANTA, July 6 — In a unanimous reversal of a
lower court decision, six justices of the Georgia Supreme Court ruled Thursday
that the state's 2004 ban against same-sex marriage was constitutional.
Seventy-six percent of Georgians who voted in a referendum in November 2004
supported the ban, but a Superior Court judge ruled in May that it violated the
Georgia Constitution because the ballot question addressed more than one issue,
including civil unions.
The Supreme Court ruling was expedited at the request of Gov. Sonny Perdue, a
Republican, who had threatened to call a special legislative session if the
court did not act on an appeal by August. Critics said it was a move to rally
conservative voters for his re-election race.
"I'm delighted that they ruled unanimously in favor of the people of Georgia,
that they clearly understood what they were voting for," Mr. Perdue said at a
news conference.
Gay and civil rights groups had hoped the court would toss out the sweeping
amendment because they said its dual purposes — to limit the definition of
marriage as the union of a man and a woman and to refuse legal benefits and
protections to same-sex couples in civil unions — were unfairly linked in the
referendum. They said this forced voters who might have agreed with only one
part to have to approve both.
Moreover, the section of the amendment dealing with those legal benefits and
protections was not printed on the November 2004 ballot or posted at polling
places. Voters could see only the section that limited marriage to a man and a
woman.
The opinion came on the same day the New York State's highest court, the Court
of Appeals, decided that the state had no legal obligation to recognize same-sex
marriages.
"I was very disappointed," said Karla Drenner, a Georgia state representative
who led the fight against the amendment here. "It's a very sad thing when the
empire state of the South and the empire state of the North decide to
discriminate on the same day."
Ms. Drenner, a Democrat, said, "I think the public was deceived here in
Georgia."
The Georgia Supreme Court, however, ruled that voters had not been misled by the
two-part question.
Justice Robert Benham, who wrote the court's opinion, found that the section on
civil unions did not "address a different objective than that of the amendment
as a whole," and thus did not violate state law. One of the court's seven
justices, Harold D. Melton, did not participate in the ruling.
Georgia Court Upholds a Referendum Banning Same-Sex Marriage, NYT, 7.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/us/07georgia.html
The Mayor
Bloomberg Vows to Press for a Change in
State Law
July 7, 2006
The New York Times
By DIANE CARDWELL
The issue of gay marriage is one that haunted
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg as he ran for re-election, with his Democratic
opponents and gay-rights advocates criticizing him for appealing a court
decision that could have allowed same-sex couples to marry in New York.
But yesterday, as the state's highest court essentially followed the reasoning
of the city's Law Department and ruled that the State Constitution does not give
gays the right to marry, Mr. Bloomberg said that he was working to devise a
strategy to guarantee that right by law.
"I will personally campaign to change the law," he said at a news conference.
"I've talked to some people in the gay community that want to get the law
changed, and we've started to work on a strategy, but it will eventually mean
trying to convince the people in the Legislature that they should change the
law."
Though Mr. Bloomberg has a record of supporting gay rights, his reluctant
journey to supporting gay marriage has been tinged with an ambivalence that has
cost him some trust among advocates of the issue.
His support for gay causes goes back at least to his days running Bloomberg
L.P., among the first media companies to offer benefits for domestic partners.
As mayor, he has signed laws recognizing gay marriages and civil unions from
other jurisdictions and adding transgendered people to those protected under the
city's human rights law.
But for years he refused to express an opinion on gay marriage. In 2004 he told
an audience of gay and lesbian journalists that he favored changing state law to
legalize same-sex unions. But a few days later, while saying that civil unions
should have the same protections as marriage, he shied away from further
detailing his views, saying, "I've gone back and forth in my mind as to where I
really stand, but I think everybody deserves to have the same rights."
It was not until last year that Mr. Bloomberg said he thought gay marriage
should be legal, a position he announced as he explained the city's decision to
appeal a state court ruling that opened the door to such marriages in New York.
His explanation was that the appeal was necessary to clarify the scope of the
law.
By authorizing that appeal, Mr. Bloomberg in some ways accelerated the push to
change state law, an approach some advocates of same-sex marriage call a more
lasting way to ensure the right to marry.
And though he has already convened a meeting of gay leaders to discuss
strategies for pushing the change through Albany, it is not clear how central he
will be.
"The strategy will now be determined, and it will be determined by leaders of
the L.G.B.T. community," said City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn, the
city's highest-ranking openly gay official, referring to lesbians, gays,
bisexuals and transgendered people. "We began to have some discussions about
that strategy when we had breakfast at Gracie Mansion with the mayor, but that
is really up to us now to come up with the strategy, and then to reach out to
people like the mayor."
It remains to be seen how much Mr. Bloomberg wants to make the battle his own.
His response to the ruling yesterday was muted, even as he cast it both as a
vindication and a call to action. He spoke of the need to sway Albany
legislators to change the law, but expressed little of the determination he has
displayed on other issues. "If they do, that's great; and if they don't," he
said, "that's what it will be."
Bloomberg Vows to Press for a Change in State Law, NYT, 7.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/nyregion/07bloomberg.html
Albany
Spitzer Says He Would Do What Pataki and
Courts Have Not
July 7, 2006
The New York Times
By DANNY HAKIM
ALBANY, July 6 — Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer said on Thursday that he would draft and propose legislation to legalize
gay marriage in New York State if elected governor in November. His comments
came after the State Court of Appeals deferred to the Legislature on the issue,
leaving the fate of gay marriage in New York to elected officials.
Although the right of gay couples to marry has widespread support among
Democrats, it has little chance in the Republican-led Senate, with the majority
leader, Joseph L. Bruno, reiterating his opposition on Thursday.
Any possibility of changing the law in New York State could hinge on the ability
of Democrats to overturn the 35-27 Republican majority in the Senate, a
development that many in politics do not see as likely in November. Mr. Bruno,
however, has been known to change his mind, and gay-rights advocates and
lawmakers said his views on civil rights for gay people had shifted markedly
during the nearly dozen years he has been majority leader.
Supporters of gay marriage rights in New York have often pinned their hopes on
the courts to legalize such unions, perhaps mindful of the opposition of Gov.
George E. Pataki. Now that the courts have rebuffed them, the effort to change
the law through legislative means may gain new steam, particularly with Mr.
Pataki leaving office.
Mr. Spitzer, who holds a commanding lead in opinion polls in the race for
governor, restated his support even though his office had argued against gay
marriage in its official capacity representing the executive branch.
"I believe same-sex marriage should be constitutional, should be legal, should
be authorized statutorily," he said on Thursday. "I think in New York there is
recognition that this is the right thing to do from a civil rights perspective,
and whether that will be sufficient in both the Assembly and the Senate, we'll
have to wait and see, but it is something I will draft and propose."
Mr. Spitzer's signal that he will actively back the legislation could help its
prospects among Albany lawmakers, although many Republicans remain committed to
defeating such legislation.
The Republican candidate for governor, John Faso, praised the court's ruling and
said, "If elected governor, I will work to ensure that marriage remains a
relationship between a man and a woman."
The Nassau County executive, Thomas R. Suozzi, Mr. Spitzer's Democratic
challenger, said he did not support gay marriage, but hoped "we can come
together to find other ways to provide gay and lesbians in long-term committed
relationships the same economic rights and legal protections."
The measure is not even a foregone conclusion in the overwhelmingly Democratic
Assembly, where gay marriage bills have stalled for several years, though
approval there is far more likely than in the Senate.
"The Court of Appeals decision is going to put this issue on the front burner
for the Legislature, so while there has not been a focused effort to move the
bill out of committee in the past, that changed this morning," said Assemblyman
Richard N. Gottfried of Manhattan, the sponsor of a gay marriage bill.
"I would suspect there would be a strong majority for the bill on the floor of
the Assembly, but I don't know if anyone has done a head count," he added.
Advocates have been frustrated that the Assembly has not already passed
legislation. "Their excuse has been they've been waiting on the courts," said
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and
the former executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, the main
lobbying group for gay rights in the state.
"The reality is there has been no leadership on this issue, or very little," he
said.
Bryan Franke, a spokesman for Speaker Sheldon Silver of the Assembly, said: "The
speaker plans to take up the issue of gay marriage with his conference. He
thinks it's premature to talk about the matter without first discussing it with
the members of the Assembly."
But the main battleground would certainly be in the Senate, which has emerged as
the unpredictable force in Albany as its Republican leadership courts more
moderate voters in the efforts to remain in power.
"I am opposed to gay marriage because I believe in the sanctity of marriage
between a man and a woman," Mr. Bruno said on Thursday.
But he has softened his stance considerably over the years. When he became
majority leader in 1994, Mr. Bruno rescinded domestic partner benefits for
Senate staff members and also repeatedly blocked hate crimes legislation from
coming to a floor vote. But he later reinstated domestic partner benefits and
supported hate crime legislation.
In 2002, he spoke out in favor of the long-stalled Sexual Orientation
Nondiscrimination Act, known as Sonda, saying, "Maybe I have become more
enlightened."
"I am going to vote for this legislation to express tolerance,
antidiscrimination, and just to recognize that people have the right to live
their lives as they see fit," he added at the time.
Senator Thomas K. Duane, a Manhattan Democrat who is gay, said of Mr. Bruno, "He
has absolutely evolved in his thinking, and without his support, hate crimes,
Sonda, would not have come to the floor."
"On the issue of marriage, he never made a commitment to me, but he never closed
off a discussion, and he never tried to dissuade me," he added.
Mr. Foreman said Mr. Bruno had moved "180 degrees on his empathy for gay people,
but he will not move before the Assembly does."
Political pressure, and money, should not be discounted.
While the Conservative Party has opposed gay marriage, gay donors have been
flexing their financial muscle. Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of the
Empire State Pride Agenda, said his group's political contributions grew from
$40,000 two years ago to an expected $300,000 this year, including contributions
to candidates and spending on voter outreach. Recipients have included Senator
Michael A. L. Balboni, a Nassau County Republican, who has sponsored legislation
supported by the gay-rights groups. The group has also been courting and
receiving support from major union leaders.
"Undoubtedly, this is going to be a major debate that we are going to have to
take up in the next session," said Senator Nicholas A. Spano of Yonkers, another
Republican who has sponsored legislation supported by the gay rights groups in
the past.
"There's no doubt this will be a difficult debate," said Mr. Spano, who said he
supports domestic partnerships but has "not taken a position on gay marriage."
Karen James and Jennifer Medina contributed reporting for this article.
Spitzer Says He Would Do What Pataki and Courts Have Not, NYT, 7.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/nyregion/07albany.html
The Judges
Pataki Gets a Decision He Wanted on the
State's Highest Court
July 7, 2006
The New York Times
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
From the time he took office, Gov. George E.
Pataki vowed to remake the state judiciary, calling it too liberal and too eager
to usurp elected officials' powers. In his 12th and final year in office,
yesterday's decision on gay marriage may be the most important step New York's
highest court has taken in the direction the governor charted.
The Court of Appeals ruled that it was up to the Legislature, not the courts, to
decide whether to allow same-sex unions. That was exactly the sort of conclusion
that the governor, a Republican, has advocated under the banner of judicial
restraint, in cases ranging from school financing to the death penalty.
And it was mostly his appointees who delivered it. Three judges chosen by Mr.
Pataki and one named by his predecessor, Mario M. Cuomo, formed the majority in
the 4-2 decision. One Pataki appointee did not take part, and the two dissenters
were named by Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat.
People in both parties have wondered aloud what legacy Mr. Pataki can claim. He
arrived as a fiscal conservative but presided over big increases in spending.
His death penalty law was overturned. Almost five years after the World Trade
Center was destroyed, the future of the ground zero rebuilding project remains
questionable.
A more conservative judiciary is one thing Mr. Pataki will leave behind,
especially at the Appellate Division, the intermediate appeals court. At the
Court of Appeals, the transformation has arrived more slowly, in fits and
starts.
The governor has been able to fill just four of the court's seven seats, whereas
Mr. Cuomo had named all seven judges who sat on the bench when he left office.
And the Cuomo appointees Mr. Pataki has been able to replace included relatively
conservative judges.
"The Court of Appeals is largely a centrist court" that has changed over the
last decade, "but not radically," said Stewart E. Sterk, a professor at the
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University.
At times, the court plays the role Mr. Pataki intended for it — as it did
yesterday — but the makeover is incomplete. He gained a majority on the court in
early 2003 with his fourth appointment, but that did not guarantee that he would
get his way. Five months later, the court ruled against him, 4 to 1, in finding
that the state had not met its obligation to finance New York City schools, and
the next year, on a 4-to-3 vote, it overturned the death penalty law the
governor had signed.
Both times, a Pataki appointee, Judge Albert M. Rosenblatt, joined the judges
named by Mr. Cuomo to form the majority. Judge Rosenblatt recused himself from
the marriage case. His daughter, a lawyer, has argued in favor of gay marriage
before the courts of several other states.
Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, a Cuomo appointee, has often been able to pull
together coalitions that included more conservative judges, "but that's been
breaking down," said Vincent M. Bonventre, a professor at Albany Law School who
studies the court. In the marriage case, she wrote an impassioned dissent,
joined by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick.
Two Pataki appointees, Judge Victoria A. Graffeo and Judge Susan Phillips Read,
had backgrounds in state government as aides to Republican officials, and they
have been the most reliably conservative votes on the court, said Mr. Bonventre,
who signed on to a brief in favor of the gay couples in the marriage case. He
said the other two, Judge Rosenblatt and Judge Robert S. Smith, "have been more
independent and unpredictable, especially in criminal cases, where they side
with the defendants much more often."
Mr. Pataki will have a chance to put his stamp more firmly on the court in
September, with the expiration of Judge George Bundy Smith's 14-year term. Judge
Smith, a Cuomo appointee and the court's only black judge, is hoping to be
reappointed. He is often described as the most liberal of the seven, but he
joined the majority in ruling against gay marriage yesterday.
One striking feature of this Pataki court is the prominence of the newest judge,
Robert Smith, who joined the bench two and a half years ago, after a career as a
trial lawyer, replacing an earlier Pataki appointee.
He wrote the dissent when the court threw out the state's death penalty law. He
wrote the majority decision when the court sided with the governor in a
fundamental power struggle with the Legislature over who can write budget bills.
And he wrote the majority opinion in yesterday's gay marriage ruling.
Judge Smith's opinion included passages that could spark arguments from both the
left and the right. He referred to "the common-sense premise that children will
do best with a mother and father in the home," and he also wrote that "there has
been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals."
Neither his opinion nor a concurring one by Judge Graffeo contain the kind of
strongly antigay language found in some state and federal court opinions in
recent years.
"They are going out of their way to say they are not prejudiced, which you would
not see in most states," said Joanna L. Grossman, a professor and associate dean
at Hofstra University Law School, who has closely followed gay marriage cases
around the country.
"I think it's a pretty conservative view that children need to have a mother and
a father, but the New York court would not be considered that conservative in a
lot of states."
Pataki Gets a Decision He Wanted on the State's Highest Court, NYT, 7.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/nyregion/07justices.html
New Jersey Lawmakers Summoned to Resolve
Budget Crisis
July 4, 2006
The New York Times
By RICHARD G. JONES, LAURA MANSNERUS AND JOHN O'NEIL
TRENTON, July 4 — Gov. Jon S. Corzine today
told the legislators he had summoned to a rare joint session that he was
"willing to work within the structure" of a budget compromise put forward by
Senate Democrats that would devote half of Mr. Corzine's proposed 1 percent
increase in the sales tax toward property tax relief.
But that would mean that another $600 million in spending cuts or new revenues
would be needed, he said, adding that he would not agree to measures that would
fall short of putting the state on a sound financial foundation.
"I'm willing to meet the Legislature halfway, but I'm not willing to compromise
and compromise and compromise just to have a budget finished," Mr. Corzine said.
The state's budget was due on Friday, and on Saturday Mr. Corzine began a phased
shutdown of government services that will take full effect on Wednesday, when
state parks and Atlantic City's casinos will be forced to close, along with all
non-essential government offices.
Mr. Corzine's $31 billion budget has been stalled over the proposed sales tax
increase, which he says is needed for the state's long-term economic stability.
Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts Jr. has insisted such an increase is not the
way to balance the budget.
Mr. Corzine today acknowledged the impact of the government shutdown, which he
said would soon block reimbursement of pharmacies for state-subsidized
prescriptions and make it impossible for home purchasers to close on their
transactions.
"It means more than inconvenience," he said. "Make no mistake, people are being
hurt."
Mr. Corzine also acknowledged that he was asking legislators to take a
politically risky step. "No one, no one is seeking to increase taxes because
they want to," he said.
But he said it was impossible to deal with problems like property tax relief and
school construction until the budget was based on "predictable, reliable,
recurring streams of revenue."
Although essential operations like prisons, mental hospitals and the state
police are still operating, the shutdown has led to the closing of the Motor
Vehicle Commission, and road construction projects have been stopped. Courts
have been ordered to stop all but emergency operations.
In all, about 45,000 of the state's 80,000 employees have been ordered to stay
home without pay.
Unless the Legislature reaches an agreement on Tuesday, all 12 Atlantic City
casinos are to be shuttered at 8 a.m. Wednesday, a move that a State Supreme
Court justice affirmed on Monday by rejecting the industry's appeal. Gambling
will not be allowed but hotels and restaurants will remain open.
The closings will cost the state more than $1 million daily in tax revenue in
addition to the $2.2 million a day that is being lost by the closing of the
state lottery.
On Monday, the two sides appeared to have moved slightly farther apart.
Negotiations between Governor Corzine and top legislative leaders lasted less
than a half-hour with neither side encouraged that the impasse could be broken
any time soon.
Asked if a compromise was imminent that might end the shutdown, Senate President
Richard J. Codey, who attended the meeting, replied, "I don't think so."
Mr. Codey and the Senate Democrats have generally supported Mr. Corzine on the
critical item in Mr. Corzine's proposed budget, an increase in the sales tax. It
was a compromise proposal by Mr. Codey — that the sales tax be increased, but
that half of the new revenues be used for property tax relief — that Mr. Corzine
said today he was willing to accept as a basis for negotiations.
But on Monday, Mr. Corzine's main adversary, Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts
Jr., had stepped up his opposition to the governor's proposal to help balance
the budget by raising the sales tax to 7 percent from 6 percent.
In a day of several unusual moves, Mr. Roberts — who has led the opposition
among Assembly Democrats to the tax increase — challenged the governor to
identify the members of the Legislature who support the tax increase.
"If the governor can demonstrate that legislative support is there, then I will
post his sales tax bill in 24 hours," Mr. Roberts said in a statement that was
made public moments after he entered the meeting with Mr. Corzine and Mr. Codey.
Mr. Roberts questioned whether Mr. Corzine had sufficient support in either
chamber for the increase to be approved, even though Democrats have a 49-to-31
advantage in the Assembly and a 22-to-18 edge in the Senate.
Mr. Corzine dismissed Mr. Roberts's demand to identify legislators who support
the measure, saying that he remained committed to keeping government closed
until the Legislature approved a budget that he felt was fiscally sound.
"He's asking for a vote," Mr. Corzine said of Mr. Roberts's demand. "I think the
budget committee should put a bill on the floor. It won't be everything that I
want. But let's see whether it meets the general principles of recurring revenue
matching recurring expenditures."
Later, Mr. Corzine said that if a budget has not been voted on, "one has to ask
why that isn't happening."
Mr. Roberts said in an interview that the Assembly Budget Committee — which must
report out a budget bill so that it can voted on by both chambers — had not
acted in part because the governor had asked several Democratic members not to
release a bill unless it had a proposal to increase the sales tax in it.
However, the speaker declined to identify the committee members who had been
approached by Mr. Corzine.
Mr. Corzine's press secretary, Anthony Coley, said that Mr. Corzine had not made
any such requests.
The speaker's challenge to Mr. Corzine underscores the persistent bitterness of
the budget talks, which is particularly noteworthy because all of the major
players are Democrats.
The dispute has exposed a rift in the party, prompting rampant speculation about
the political consequences for Mr. Corzine and Mr. Roberts. Because Mr. Corzine
is the de facto leader of the party in New Jersey, some have questioned whether
Mr. Roberts — a veteran of nearly 20 years in the Legislature — might be
replaced as speaker, a post he assumed in January.
Asked if he supported replacing Mr. Roberts, Mr. Corzine replied, "I'm not in
favor of that."
For his part, Mr. Roberts said that he had no concerns about his political
future. "I'm not nervous at all," he said. "I think my good friends here are
going to look out for me, and we'll be fine."
Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, the state Democratic chairman and a supporter of Mr.
Corzine's budget, defended Mr. Roberts's leadership position.
"We have different views here, but that doesn't mean he's a bad speaker," said
Mr. Cryan. "He'll be a great speaker for years to come."
For their part, Republicans have complained that Mr. Roberts has treated them
dismissively since becoming speaker in January.
"I don't think there's any tears being shed for the prospect of Joe Roberts
being in trouble in my caucus," one Republican legislator said.
Richard G. Jones and Laura Mansnerus reported for this article from Trenton
and John O'Neil reported from New York.
New
Jersey Lawmakers Summoned to Resolve Budget Crisis, NYT, 4.7.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/nyregion/04cnd-corzine.html?hp&ex=1152072000&en=8d0a03005d3b2ac2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Court Overturns Arkansas Ban on Same-Sex
Foster Parents
June 30, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times
LITTLE ROCK, Ark., June 29 (AP) — Arkansas
cannot bar gay men and lesbians from becoming foster parents because there is no
link between their sexual orientation and a child's well-being, the State
Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
On a vote of 7 to 0, the justices agreed with a lower court judge that the
state's Child Welfare Agency Review Board, which adopted the ban in 1999, had
improperly tried to regulate public morality and had violated the separation of
powers between the executive branch and the General Assembly, Arkansas's
legislature.
In approving the policy, the board had said children should be in traditional
two-parent households headed by a man and a woman because, it said, they would
be more likely to thrive. Four Arkansas residents, represented by the American
Civil Liberties Union, filed suit claiming discrimination and privacy violations
against gay men and lesbians who otherwise qualified as foster parents.
The justices agreed Thursday, saying the ban was "an attempt to legislate for
the General Assembly with respect to public morality."
"There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster
children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who
resides in a household with a homosexual," Associate Justice Donald L. Corbin
wrote in the opinion.
In addition, the court said, the testimony of a member of the child welfare
board demonstrated that "the driving force behind adoption of the regulations
was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather
based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."
The court also said that contrary to what the state had argued, being raised by
homosexuals did not cause academic or sexual identity problems.
Julie Munsell, a spokeswoman for the Arkansas Health and Human Services
Department, which oversees the child welfare board, said that the ban had not
been applied since the lower court ruling in 2004 and that the plaintiffs had
not sought foster-parent status since then.
Court
Overturns Arkansas Ban on Same-Sex Foster Parents, NYT, 30.6.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/us/30gays.html
A Few Things Lawmakers Can Agree On
June 23, 2006
The New York Times
By JENNIFER MEDINA
ALBANY, June 22 — Property taxes are soaring
and upstaters are fleeing New York. But lawmakers decided that they had to
tackle the ladybug question first.
The state's official insect, a nine-spotted ladybug, would no longer fly in that
role: it is extinct in New York State. So legislators took a break from
bickering over health care spending and property taxes in the waning days of the
session and found common ground on the issue of designating a new state insect,
making it the pink spotted ladybug instead.
They passed other laws, too: The snapping turtle would become the state's
official reptile. And the striped bass would henceforth become the state's
official saltwater fish.
The rush to designate official state critters came amid a crush of activity as
lawmakers put aside some more pressing problems, but it showed how things often
get done in Albany. The sponsor of the ladybug bill, for instance, did not know
it had a chance until it suddenly came to the floor for a vote.
Why? Because she is a Republican in the Democratic-controlled State Assembly,
and members of the minority party often find it impossible to get their bills
passed.
But pass it did, almost unanimously — though a few members did not vote. It must
also be acted on by the Senate.
"I know it's not earth-shattering," said the assemblywoman, Nancy Calhoun, who
represents parts of Orange and Rockland Counties.
Ms. Calhoun says she was just trying to right a wrong. Lawmakers first adopted
the state's official bug in 1989, but the nine-spotted ladybug had already
become extinct in the state. Ms. Calhoun was alerted to the error by a reporter
a couple of years ago and she submitted a bill to rectify the matter.
"Why do we want to get something like this wrong?" Ms. Calhoun said. "It would
be like having a dinosaur as our state reptile."
On the reptile front, Assemblyman Jeffery Dinowitz, a Democrat from the Bronx,
came to the rescue.
Mr. Dinowitz said the bill to make the snapping turtle the official state
reptile was the result of a competitive process — an election among elementary
school students. Mr. Dinowitz acknowledged having his doubts about sponsoring
the legislation.
"I said this was goofy and I didn't really want to end up in the newspaper
talking about this kind of thing at the end of session," Mr. Dinowitz said, as
he sat at his desk on Thursday, talking about this kind of thing to a reporter.
And besides, he noted, the state already had an official muffin, so why not a
state turtle?
So why does this kind of bill always come at the end of the session?
"Don't ask me that, please," he said.
A Few
Things Lawmakers Can Agree On, NYT, 23.6.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/nyregion/23ladybug.html?hp&ex=1151121600&en=5964fd05fe6d5b9d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
State Lawmakers Reach Accords
June 21, 2006
The New York Times
By DANNY HAKIM and JENNIFER MEDINA
ALBANY, June 20 — State lawmakers rushing to
finish their regular session agreed Tuesday night to overhaul the state's
pursuit of Medicaid fraud, eliminate the statute of limitations in rape cases
and broadly expand the state's DNA database of criminals.
The deals broke a logjam between the Republican-led Senate and the
Democratic-led Assembly over what had been some of the thorniest issues facing
lawmakers this year. They came just three hours before a midnight deadline to
conclude Legislative negotiations in order for the session to end this week,
though further negotiations are expected Wednesday since the governor can waive
a requirement to print bills three days before they are voted on.
"We are pleased that both houses of the Legislature came to an agreement on
these three critical items that will help improve the lives of New Yorkers,"
Gov. George E. Pataki said in a statement Tuesday night. "In particular, the
expansion of the DNA databank and the elimination of the statute of limitations
on rape are two critically important crime-fighting initiatives."
The chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Peter S. Kalikow, was
also approved by Senate Republicans for a new six-year term, one of the
governor's more than a hundred nominations approved Tuesday by the Senate for
state authorities and judgeships. Mr. Kalikow said he would not step down if
asked by the next governor, saying he wanted to make sure a number of projects
were far along before he chose to depart.
Democrats accused Mr. Pataki of trying to influence policy-making well into the
next governor's term as several key state authority appointees were approved for
terms of several years — charges the governor's staff was swift to dismiss.
Republicans in the Senate appeared to win a major concession from Democrats in
the area of combating Medicaid fraud, which is seen as contributing to the
state's ballooning $46 billion Medicaid budget. Republicans beat back a
Democratic demand that would have allowed whistle-blowers to sue on behalf of
the government as a way to fight fraud, a practice followed by the federal
government and several other states.
The agreement reached by lawmakers would broadly expand what is a minimally
financed inspector general's office, infusing it with resources to root out
fraud in the Medicaid program — a program that is by far the largest single
expense in the state's budget.
"I feel great, because this is a reorganization of a totally dysfunctional
system that exists in terms of Medicaid fraud," said Senator Dean Skelos, a Long
Island Republican and the Senate's deputy majority leader. "I believe taxpayers
are going to save hundreds of millions of dollars a year."
Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried, a Manhattan Democrat who helped preside over
often-contentious hearings on Medicaid fraud alongside Mr. Skelos, said, "We
yielded on some issues and they yielded too, in the interest of getting things
done," he said. "Cooler heads are prevailing. We will return in the next session
to do more."
Democrats did win what they saw as an important concession when Republicans
dropped their insistence that the inspector general have a fixed term of office,
instead of serving at the will of the governor. With Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer, a Democratic candidate for governor, holding a commanding lead in
polls, Democrats were resistant to the idea of an inspector general appointed by
Governor Pataki serving in a potential Democratic administration.
Democrats also agreed to a major expansion of the state's DNA database, which
now includes samples from people convicted of only the most violent offenses.
Governor Pataki and the Senate wanted the database to include DNA samples from
anyone convicted of a crime. The deal tentatively reached Tuesday would let the
authorities collect DNA from all convicted felons, a move the Assembly had
already supported in its own legislation.
But they also agreed to include petty larceny, a misdemeanor that the governor
had highlighted as a crime that was often committed by people who went on to
become more-violent offenders.
The Legislature also resolved a dispute over expanding the statute of
limitations in rape cases, which is now five years, among the shortest in the
nation. Under the agreement, that statue of limitations would be eliminated in
criminal cases. For civil cases stemming from rapes, the statute of limitations
was increased from one to five years.
New York State's Medicaid fraud problem has been well documented, and was
highlighted in a series of articles that appeared in The New York Times last
year. Shortly after that series, Mr. Skelos and other legislators requested a
federal audit of the state's Medicaid system.
Responding to the request, a branch of the federal Department of Health and
Human Services released a scathing report earlier this month criticizing the
state's commitment to fighting fraud.
The report found that the state had been sharply cutting the staff dedicated to
pursing Medicaid fraud even as Medicaid spending increased by 55 percent in less
than a decade. New York's Medicaid program is the nation's largest.
Assembly Democrats, in pushing for allowing whistle-blowers to bring suits, as
they can in other states, like Texas, argued that many instances of Medicaid
fraud would not be found without providing financial incentives. They also
pointed out that the architect and champion of using whistle-blowers to pursue
government fraud is a powerful Republican, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa.
Mr. Skelos has repeatedly rejected that argument. In a testy exchange at a
Medicaid hearing on Monday, he said "call me old-fashioned, but I believe people
have a civic responsibility to report fraud and abuse."
Mr. Gottfried responded by calling that "an amazingly naïve view of the world."
The sides continue to negotiate several issues, with the Legislature seeking to
restore budget cuts made by Mr. Pataki to hospitals and nursing homes and the
governor intent on luring an Advanced Micro Devices microchip manufacturing
plant to the Albany area. The plan could bring up to 2,000 jobs, officials said,
but would cost about $1 billion.
Officials in the Legislature also were inching toward breaking a stalemate on a
bill requiring that insurers cover treatment for mental illness and addictions
and were negotiating bills to encourage organ donation, including providing tax
credits for families of donors.
The Assembly and the Senate did agree on legislation to overhaul the state's
notoriously bumpy budget process, proposing several of the less-controversial
changes from a constitutional amendment voted down last year. The measure would
create an Independent Budget Office with a director appointed by the Legislature
and require the governor to submit quarterly financial plans.
Michael Marr, a spokesman for the governor, called it "a transparent attempt to
revive what the governor vetoed twice and the voters soundly rejected last
November."
State
Lawmakers Reach Accords, NYT, 21.6.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/nyregion/21albany.html?hp&ex=1150948800&en=58a148381a45767a&ei=5094&partner=homepage
As Session Nears End, Lawmakers Deal With
the Easy Issues
June 20, 2006
The New York Times
By DANNY HAKIM and JENNIFER MEDINA
ALBANY, June 19 — The State Legislature opened
the final week of its regular session by agreeing to toughen drunken-driving
laws. But lawmakers also agreed to allow beer sales earlier on Sunday mornings.
Those two agreements came on a day in which the Legislature failed to resolve
the largest issues that divide lawmakers, or their disagreements with Gov.
George E. Pataki, including restoring several hundred million dollars' worth of
budget cuts to hospitals and nursing homes, the structure of a new office to
fight Medicaid fraud, and the Legislature's billion-dollar-a-year property tax
rebate. In fact, the Republican-led Senate and the Democrat-led Assembly seem
unable even to agree on what day to end the session, Thursday or Friday.
Instead, they focused on some of the less contentious bills on their agenda,
reaching agreement on a requirement that child safety alarms be installed in
pools and on the measure that would allow beer sales starting at 8 a.m. instead
of noon on Sundays, ending one of the last vestiges of the so-called blue laws
that limit alcohol sales on Sundays.
But in a separate measure aimed at curbing the impact of drinking, the
Legislature reached an agreement on a package of bills increasing penalties for
drunken drivers. The legislation would create the new crime of "aggravated
driving while intoxicated" for drivers with a blood-alcohol content higher than
0.18 percent, with up to a year in jail and a fine of $2,500, increasing the
current penalty by $1,500. It also creates regulations to penalize repeat
offenders.
"This goes after the worst of the worst, the recidivists," said Assemblyman Paul
A. Tokasz, a Democrat from Buffalo and one of the sponsors of the legislation.
A driver on probation would be required to install an alcohol sensor on the
dashboard that prevents a car from starting if the driver's alcohol level is too
high. The legislation would also lengthen the amount of time a repeat offender's
driver's license could be revoked.
In some circumstances, the measure would permanently revoke the license of
anyone who has been convicted of drunken driving or who refuses to take a
Breathalyzer test several times. And drivers who agree to plead guilty to
driving while ability impaired, a lesser charge than driving while intoxicated,
would be required to complete an alcohol and drug rehabilitation program.
Mr. Pataki called the legislation "a significant step forward," but said it was
"weaker than it should be."
But he also said that a "whole long list" of issues still remained unresolved,
including how to allocate federal aid to needy families and how to allocate
environmental protection funds. He has also been pushing to create a center
where sexual predators could be confined after their prison terms expired, and
to increase the number of charter schools in the state from 100 to 250, a
proposal that has dim prospects in the Assembly.
The Legislature is supposed to end its session on Thursday. Because of laws
requiring that bills be printed three days before they are voted on, bills would
have had to be completed by Monday evening to be acted upon. But extra days are
common in Legislative sessions, and the governor can effectively waive the
three-day period, though lawmakers are often hesitant to ask him for help.
The Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, is pushing to end the session on
time, while the Assembly appears in no particular hurry.
"I don't know anybody who seriously thinks we're not going to be here on
Friday," said Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried, a Manhattan Democrat, during a
Medicaid hearing in the afternoon.
Senator Dale M. Volker, a Republican from Western New York, replied, "I do; his
name is Bruno."
"Whether or not we reach agreement on these things, I can't say," he said.
"Today is obviously crunch day."
Mr. Pataki also has still not agreed to sign the Legislature's
billion-dollar-a-year property tax rebate package, saying there are "technical
things we can do better" on the measure. But he focused his press conference on
criticizing the Assembly for its legislation on expanding the state's DNA
database. The Assembly's legislation would leave out many criminals convicted of
misdemeanors, while Mr. Pataki has pushed for their inclusion. The Senate has
passed legislation closer to what he wants, and he indicated that he would call
a special session if the Assembly did not follow suit.
"Quite simply it's not good enough," Mr. Pataki said of the Assembly's DNA bill.
"I am going to continue to work to see that we get the all-crimes bill. If it
means coming back, it means coming back."
In a possible peacemaking bid, the governor invited the entire Legislature to a
lunchtime barbecue at the executive mansion on Tuesday. After a half-year of
contentious relations between the governor and the Legislature, the invitation
was met with skepticism even from some Republicans.
"The irony here is delicious," said Senator Michael A. L. Balboni, a Long Island
Republican, noting that he and his colleagues would be in session Tuesday
afternoon. " 'I'll have hot dogs and hamburgers, but you won't be able to come.'
I hate to break this to you, but we work afternoons."
As
Session Nears End, Lawmakers Deal With the Easy Issues, NYT, 20.6.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/nyregion/20albany.html
NYT June 5, 2006
With Gay Marriage Ban, Conservatives
Keep Score NYT
6.6.2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/washington/06bush.html
With Gay Marriage Ban, Conservatives Keep
Score
June 6, 2006
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG
WASHINGTON, June 5 — President Bush's push for the
constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that is being debated in the Senate this
week comes as many Republicans and religious conservatives are beginning a
campaign to help lawmakers who support it during this year's elections — and to
punish those who do not.
Though people on both sides of the debate say they do not expect the amendment
to come anywhere near winning approval this week, both sides say they expect it,
and an anticipated version in the House, to be used as a conservative litmus
test in elections this fall.
"It is true what this vote will do will be to help the voters identify who is
and is not supportive of the family," Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on
the Family, said in an interview on Monday. "And I think those that are not are
going to have to answer for it."
Dr. Dobson's group is already running advertisements against senators who do not
plan to support the amendment, including one against Senator Ken Salazar,
Democrat of Colorado, that says, "Why doesn't Senator Salazar believe every
child needs a mother and a father?"
Republican Party officials in several states have released statements attacking
Democrats who are not expected to vote for the amendment. And another
conservative group, the Family Research Council, is planning to ask lawmakers to
take "a marriage protection pledge" and then tell voters who signs it and who
does not.
Dr. Dobson and other proponents of the ban got a boost on Monday afternoon, when
Mr. Bush called on the Senate to approve the measure. "The constitutional
amendment that the Senate will consider this week would fully protect marriage
from being redefined," Mr. Bush told a room of religious leaders and advocates.
His speech came as the Senate began to debate the proposed amendment, which
would define marriage as being between a man and a woman and would prohibit
judges from requiring states to grant same-sex couples the legal benefits of
marriage.
It was the second time in three days that Mr. Bush made an address supporting
the measure. His speeches were part of an effort by the White House to
re-energize culturally conservative voters who have long supported Mr. Bush and
his Congressional allies, but who are expressing frustration that their issues
have not been pushed strongly enough since 2004.
Pollsters have cited demoralization as a major reason for the low opinion
ratings for the president and his party this election year, when Republicans are
trying to keep control of the Senate and the House.
Republican officials are hoping that the marriage debate will help them as it
did in 2004, when 13 state ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage or civil
unions were credited with drawing many conservative voters to the polls and
propelling Mr. Bush and Congressional Republicans to victory.
Democrats have called the Republican push for the amendment a diversionary
tactic that will not work this year, when voters are focused on other matters
like rising gas prices and the war in Iraq. And some pollsters say the issue may
not resonate as it did in 2004.
"People are so disillusioned with Iraq and $50 tanks of gas that I don't think
it's as much of an attention grabber," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew
Research Center.
But Republican officials note that up to eight states may have ballot measures
to ban same-sex marriage, including Alabama, South Dakota, Virginia and
Tennessee, where a court decision on a referendum is pending.
Chris Devaney, executive director of the Tennessee Republican Party, said a
ballot measure would help drive turnout for whoever wins the Republican Senate
primary in August. "People voting for this are generally more conservative," he
said. "It will definitely have an effect."
The Democrat seeking the open Senate seat, Representative Harold E. Ford Jr.,
supports the amendment being debated this week.
Elsewhere, some moderate Republicans, including Senators Arlen Specter of
Pennsylvania and Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, have not supported
the amendment and are also coming under fire from conservative groups.
The Senate debate on Monday showed just how contentious the issue could become.
"Our nation would be better served if we refrained from divisiveness that is
wielded like a weapon in order to score political and emotional points before an
election," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the
Judiciary Committee.
Republicans argued that the state of marriage and the American family was
exactly the sort of fundamental issue that Congress should take up. "It is not
bigotry to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman," said Senator Sam
Brownback, Republican of Kansas.
Carl Hulse contributed reporting for this article.
With Gay Marriage
Ban, Conservatives Keep Score, NYT, 6.6.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/washington/06bush.html
No Compromise in Sight on Plan to Fight H.I.V.
June 4, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID W. CHEN
TRENTON, May 31 — In every legislative session here but one
since 1992, at least one bill has been introduced to allow drug users to
exchange used syringes for new ones. And though the details have differed from
year to year, one goal has remained constant: to reduce the spread of H.I.V. in
a state with one of the nation's highest infection rates.
But 14 years later, New Jersey remains one of only two states — the other is
Delaware — that still prohibit both needle exchanges and access to syringes at
pharmacies without a prescription.
No one disputes that H.I.V. and AIDS are major public health problems in New
Jersey. The state has the country's highest rate of H.I.V. infection among
women, who make up 36 percent of the cases among New Jerseyans over 13, and the
third highest among children. Over all, almost 33,000 people in New Jersey have
AIDS, up from 26,000 at the end of 1998. Forty-one percent of all cases resulted
from injection drug use, according to the state health department.
Yet in New Jersey, the effort to make needles freely or more easily available
has been blocked repeatedly over the years. Gov. Christie Whitman, a Republican,
adamantly opposed the idea, for instance, while Gov. James E. McGreevey, a
Democrat, dropped his support in the face of opposition from police chiefs and
some legislators.
Now Gov. Jon S. Corzine and the State Assembly are determined to legalize needle
exchanges. But once again, the effort is being blocked, this time in the State
Senate, where Ronald L. Rice, a Democrat, has struck an alliance with Republican
lawmakers, who are in the minority, to keep the legislation bottled up in
committee.
To Mr. Rice and other critics, including John P. Walters, the director of the
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, making needles more
accessible suggests that government is condoning an illegal — and destructive —
activity. They favor educational campaigns and treatment programs to discourage
drug use.
"Needle exchange is a form of keeping people junkies the rest of their lives,"
said Mr. Rice, a former Newark police officer.
"You don't wipe out a whole lot of people by gassing them," he said. "And you
don't wipe people out like the Tuskegee Institute, where we had a bad
experience.
"That's what you're doing with this needle exchange," Mr. Rice said. "Those
aren't offensive statements; those are examples of what people have been doing
to people, and it shouldn't be."
Supporters of needle exchanges counter that they are backed by just about every
major scientific or medical organization, including the National Institutes of
Health, the American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and, closer to home, the New Jersey Hospital Association.
In New York City, studies have shown that such programs had reduced the rate of
new H.I.V. infections by roughly 75 percent since the 1990's, according to Dr.
Don C. Des Jarlais, the director of research for the Baron Edmond de Rothschild
Chemical Dependency Institute at Beth Israel Medical Center.
He cautioned that individual studies might have had flaws, but emphasized that
"the sum of these less-than-perfect studies is sufficiently conclusive: All of
the research syntheses have come to the conclusion that the programs can and do
work."
Across the Hudson, meanwhile, Governor Corzine has said that one of his biggest
disappointments since his inauguration in January has been the lack of progress
toward a needle exchange program.
Other officials have voiced similar complaints.
"It's a disgrace, a disgrace, that we are so far out of step with other states,"
said Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts Jr., a Democrat from Camden County.
Noting that California recently made it easier to buy syringes without
prescriptions, Mr. Roberts added: "That great liberal voice Arnold
Schwarzenegger has been able to tackle this issue, but New Jersey hasn't. We've
allowed a few people who have had very loud voices to demagogue the issue and to
tie it up, and people are dying each and every day."
The late Senator Wynona M. Lipman, a Democrat, introduced the first
needle-exchange bill in 1993. Republicans controlled the Legislature for most of
the 1990's, though, and Governor Whitman was one of the most vocal opponents.
In 1996, Mrs. Whitman appointed David W. Troast, a wealthy businessman and
social acquaintance from Somerset County, as the head of the state's Advisory
Commission on AIDS. But much to everyone's surprise, he endorsed needle exchange
after interviewing experts in public health, AIDS prevention and epidemiology.
"There is nothing that we can come up with as effective as a clean-needle
program and the retail distribution of needles," Mr. Troast said at the time, a
stance that prompted a public spat with Mrs. Whitman.
By the time the Democrats regained control of the Legislature in 2002,
needle-exchange supporters were more optimistic. But it was not until after Mr.
McGreevey announced plans to resign in August 2004 that he got behind the effort
and issued an executive order authorizing pilot exchange programs in Camden and
Atlantic City.
Mr. Rice and three Republican legislators, including State Senator Thomas H.
Kean Jr., who is now running for the United States Senate, quickly went to court
and blocked those programs.
"If the governor could go so greatly beyond his executive order to obviate
criminal standards, that was a very bad precedent," Mr. Kean said. "It sends the
absolute wrong message to the youth of our state."
Mr. Rice has often worked with Republicans on the Senate health committee, like
Mr. Kean, to prevent his Democratic colleagues from garnering a majority of
votes. There are five Democrats and three Republicans now, so Mr. Rice's
opposition virtually guarantees a deadlock.
Senate Democrats tried earlier this year to expand the health committee by
adding Senator Loretta Weinberg, a Bergen County Democrat and needle-exchange
advocate, but the proposal fizzled out. Some legislators and aides have said
that Democrats were uncomfortable expanding a committee just to push through one
bill.
One ardent needle-exchange supporter, Senator Nia H. Gill, a Democrat, has vowed
to use her privilege of "senatorial courtesy" to block nominees to various
governmental entities when they are from her home county, Essex, and are
supported by the Senate president, Richard J. Codey, also from Essex.
She wants him to use his power to bring the needle measure directly to the
Senate floor for a vote, bypassing Senator Rice and his Republican allies. But
Mr. Codey, a supporter of needle exchange, has been loath to do so, in part
because it would break Senate protocol.
"It's about invoking your power and using it for people who have little or no
voice in the process," Ms. Gill said.
In another maneuver, some legislators and aides say Mr. Roberts, the Assembly
speaker, may be holding up passage of one of Mr. Codey's signature causes, a
stem cell research bill, until needle-exchange legislation passes. When asked
about a possible link, Mr. Roberts demurred and said only that "we're going to
get this done, and I need some help in the Senate to get it done."
But he also said that he was "hopeful they'll both be advanced before we leave
in June."
In recent weeks, Mr. Corzine has also made more noise, prompting speculation
that he, Mr. Codey or Mr. Roberts might try to find a creative compromise soon.
"He has signaled a more aggressive stance and a willingness to speak out," said
Anthony Coley, Mr. Corzine's press secretary. "We have an opportunity here to
save people's lives, and that's not overstating the case."
Mr. Rice says he is frustrated that his $100 million proposal for residential
substance abuse treatment centers has gotten no traction, while proposals on
mental health and stem cell research totaling more than $400 million have either
become, or are close to becoming, a reality. Yet he says he also knows that his
longtime efforts may come up short.
"I may lose the battle at the end, but I'm never going to vote — never," said
Mr. Rice, who recently lost the Newark mayor's race. "I'll die before I give a
vote to give free needles to people."
Richard G. Jones contributed reporting to this article
No Compromise in
Sight on Plan to Fight H.I.V., NYT, 4.6.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/nyregion/04needles.html
|