History > 2006 > USA > States > Legislation / Constitutions (IV-VI)

Hundreds of laws kick in Monday

Updated 12/29/2006
2:50 AM ET
USA Today
By Dennis Cauchon

In California, driving with people in the trunk will be illegal. In Alabama, landlords will have to provide livable conditions for tenants.

Illinois agencies will have to provide people to answer phones, not just automated messages.

These are among the hundreds of laws that will take effect Monday. Each New Year's Day, a flurry of legal experiments begin that shape Americans' lives.

The U.S. government spends twice as much money as state and local governments combined, but state government has the greatest effect on Americans' everyday lives — how they drive, how they get married and divorced, how they hunt and fish, and how they buy cigarettes and beer.

This year, new laws include minimum wage hikes, tighter protections on personal privacy and expanded health care rights for consumers. The minimum wage will rise Monday in eight states: to $6.15 an hour in North Carolina, to $7.65 in Connecticut and to somewhere in between in Delaware, Hawaii, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

Raising the federal minimum wage — $5.15 an hour — is a priority of Democrats, who will take control of Congress in January.

More than a dozen states will move to protect personal privacy. Arkansas will make it illegal to publicly show someone's Social Security number.

Maryland will order Social Security numbers removed from paychecks. Eight states will let victims of identity theft freeze their credit reports, so the information can't be released in ways that would hurt their reputation or let crooks get more credit.

States also will address complex moral issues, such as how people die. Idaho will become the 10th state to create a central registry for medical directives and living wills that control end-of-life care.

Other new laws:

•California: People are prohibited from riding in car trunks. High school kids have put friends in trunks to avoid limits on how many teens can ride with newly licensed drivers. "Trunking" has been linked to nine deaths since 2000.

•Louisiana: Couples with children will have to wait a year after separating to file for divorce. The waiting period is designed to encourage reconciliation.

•New York: "Timothy's Law" will require insurers to provide more mental health coverage. It is named after Timothy O'Clair, 12, who committed suicide in 2001.

    Hundreds of laws kick in Monday, UT, 29.12.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-28-new-years-laws_x.htm

N.J. governor to sign bill sanctioning civil unions for gay couples

Posted 12/21/2006 9:07 AM ET
AP
USA Today

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey's gay couples are gaining all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law as New Jersey moves to become the third in the nation to institute civil unions and the fifth to offer some version of marriage.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine planned to sign the civil unions bill on Thursday.

When the law takes effect Feb. 19, New Jersey will join Connecticut and Vermont as states that allow civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights.

Gay couples granted civil unions in New Jersey will have adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights and the right not to testify against a partner in state court.

The Legislature passed the civil unions bill on Dec. 14 in response to an October state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.

Gay couples welcome the law, but some argue that not calling the relationship "marriage" creates a different, inferior institution.

Also, while the state law provide them with the benefits of married couples, they won't be entitled to the same benefits in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Surviving partners won't be able to collect deceased partners' Social Security benefits, for example, said family lawyer Felice T. Londa, who represents many same-sex couples.

Donna Harrison, of Asbury Park, has been with her partner, Kathy Ragauckas, for nine years. She isn't exactly celebrating the bill signing, though she said she and Ragauckas will probably get a civil union certificate.

"Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings," she said.

Chris Schwam and Steven Piacquiadio, of Collingswood, have been together for 20 years, have a 3-year-old son and had a big wedding in 1993, though it wasn't recognized legally. Schwam, 40, said they will get a civil union, but without a big fuss.

"I don't think my mother would be happy to pay for that again," he said.

The gay rights group Garden State Equality has promised to push lawmakers to change the terminology to "marriage." Others are considering lawsuits to force full recognition of gay marriage.

The bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.

Corzine, a Democrat, said that seems a reasonable approach, but he said calling the arrangement a civil union rather than gay marriage is preferable.

"For most, people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief," the governor said. "So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law."

Senate President Richard J. Codey, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, said time could bring change.

"The history of civil rights progress, whether it's women's rights, minorities' rights or any other movement, is one that is typically achieved in incremental steps," Codey said. "This is, by no means, the end, but it is a major step forward."

Social conservative groups and lawmakers opposed the measure, reasoning it brings gay relationships too close to marriage, but it easily passed the legislature. Some have vowed to push to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but Democrats who control the legislature said such proposals won't be heard.

The three-day waiting period required by the law is the same as with marriage licenses. Licenses will be valid for 30 days, and ceremonies can be officiated by anyone who performs weddings, including clergy and mayors. As with marriages, civil unions will have to be witnessed by one additional adult.

    N.J. governor to sign bill sanctioning civil unions for gay couples, UT, 21.12.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-21-civilunions_x.htm

State Senator Scrutinized Over Ties to Investor

December 16, 2006
The New York Times
By MIKE McINTIRE

About seven years ago, the State Senate’s majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, met a wealthy investor from the Albany area, Jared E. Abbruzzese, through a mutual friend, and they quickly bonded over their shared affection for thoroughbred horses.

His love of horses inspired Mr. Abbruzzese to join a group of investors competing to operate the state’s thoroughbred horse racing tracks. And now Mr. Bruno, his friend and occasional companion at horse racing events, will play a central role in awarding that franchise.

In Albany, friendships between lawmakers and people with business before the state are hardly uncommon. But Mr. Bruno and Mr. Abbruzzese have developed a relationship that is unusually close even by Albany standards — one that state lobbying officials are now scrutinizing, though Mr. Bruno says no conflicts were involved.

Over the past four years, two of Mr. Abbruzzese’s companies have contributed more than $118,000 to a campaign committee controlled by Mr. Bruno. Mr. Abbruzzese’s wife bought property for $90,000 from a group involving Mr. Bruno. Mr. Bruno has also flown on Mr. Abbruzzese’s private jet at least half a dozen times. And in a February 2005 transaction that has not been previously reported, Mr. Bruno bought 2,000 shares in a small Texas securities brokerage in which Mr. Abbruzzese was intimately involved. Mr. Bruno says he invested in the firm, Tejas Inc., after discussing it with Mr. Abbruzzese.

The firm’s stock was not traded on any major exchanges and Mr. Abbruzzese’s own financial advisory company merged with Tejas several months later.

Over the same period, Mr. Bruno, the Legislature’s most powerful Republican, has been helpful to Mr. Abbruzzese. He has directed at least $500,000 in state money to Evident Technologies, a small, privately held nanotechnology firm that Mr. Abbruzzese financed. He was also instrumental in obtaining $2.5 million in state aid for a joint development project involving Evident and Russell Sage College in Troy, N.Y., last year.

A spokesman for Mr. Bruno, John McArdle, said there were no conflicts of interest in the two men’s relationship. He noted that Mr. Bruno ultimately lost money on the Tejas investment, although the stock’s price rose for at least two months after Mr. Bruno bought it.

He also said Mr. Bruno never talked to Mr. Abbruzzese about the state aid to Evident Technologies or about the purchase of property by Mr. Abbruzzese’s wife, Sherrie. The two men are friends who happen to share “a mutual love of horses,” he said.

“There’s no conflict there,” Mr. McArdle said.

Neither Mr. Abbruzzese nor his lawyer responded to numerous messages over the past week.

The Legislature — led by Mr. Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver — and Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer will decide who gets the horse racing franchise, and a group including Mr. Abbruzzese is one of three that are in the running. The franchise entails operating the Aqueduct, Belmont and Saratoga tracks, which take in a combined $2.7 billion in bets each year.

The state’s lobbying commission is investigating Mr. Bruno’s use of Mr. Abbruzzese’s Mitsubishi MU-300 business jet, trying to determine whether Mr. Abbruzzese violated state laws by allowing Mr. Bruno free or discounted use of the plane even as Mr. Abbruzzese’s group was lobbying on the racing franchise.

Aside from the issue of the plane rides, whether any of Mr. Bruno’s dealings with Mr. Abbruzzese potentially run afoul of state laws is open to interpretation.

One section of the ethics law exempts legislators from the specific prohibition on state officials making personal investments, like Mr. Bruno’s Tejas stock, that could pose a conflict. Mr. Bruno was not even required to disclose his ownership of the stock.

However, another section broadly prohibits state officials, including lawmakers, from accepting any gift worth more than $75. A stock tip could qualify as a gift, several legal experts said, if it could be assigned a value at the time it was given. Mr. Bruno bought his shares through a public offering of Tejas stock, directly from the underwriter, a relatively exclusive process not easily accessible by average investors.

While getting in early on a public offering, as Mr. Bruno did with Tejas, often requires knowing someone involved in it, such favoritism is common in investment banking and is generally not considered illegal.

Mr. McArdle said that although Mr. Bruno talked to Mr. Abbruzzese about buying Tejas stock, the conversation did not amount to a tip. Mr. McArdle said that the senator could not recall precisely how he first learned of the potential investment, but that he also talked to the chief executive of Tejas before deciding to buy the stock.

In any event, Mr. McArdle asserted, the issue is moot because Mr. Bruno lost $19,000 on the investment. For more than three months, however, his shares were worth as much as $10,000 more than he paid for them.

Some ethics experts contend that the value of an investment is irrelevant to whether there is a potential conflict.

“The motivation is the issue, not the result,” said Richard D. Emery, a Manhattan lawyer who served on the State Government Integrity Commission in the 1980s and is part of a panel advising Mr. Spitzer on government reforms.

David Grandeau, the executive director of the lobbying commission, declined to comment, as did Melissa Ryan, executive director of the Legislative Ethics Committee, a panel of lawmakers who review conflict-of-interest cases involving their peers.

The ties between Mr. Bruno and Mr. Abbruzzese run deeper than mutual business interests. The two men have been friends for about seven years, and each has owned horses.

For most of the 1990s, when Mr. Bruno was rising through the ranks in the Senate, Mr. Abbruzzese, 52, ran a communications company, CAI Wireless Systems, which he sold to WorldCom in 1999 for about $400 million. Since then, Mr. Abbruzzese has offered financial advisory and consulting services in the Albany area, where Mr. Bruno has worked to stimulate the growth of technology companies through legislative initiatives.

Mr. Bruno has been the driving force behind several state-financed investments in Evident Technologies, including grants in 2002 and 2004 totaling $500,000. (The firm has also received aid from the administration of George E. Pataki.) Evident, a maker of sophisticated materials used in optical devices, was founded in 2000 with financing arranged by Mr. Abbruzzese, and securities filings show that in 2004 his consulting firm owned stock in Evident valued at about $310,000.

Evident executives did not respond to requests for comment. Mr. McArdle said the state grants to Evident had nothing to do with Mr. Abbruzzese, and were intended to support a worthy local company that was trying to expand and add jobs. “What we’ve done with Evident is no different than what we’ve done countless times with other companies,” he said.

In November 2004, a limited liability company controlled by Mr. Abbruzzese’s wife bought an undeveloped plot of land in Rensselaer County for $90,000 from a partnership involving Mr. Bruno, according to county property records. Mr. McArdle said that the senator’s 25 percent interest in the partnership had been placed in a blind trust in 1992, and that he had “no involvement whatsoever” in any of its dealings after that, including the sale to Mrs. Abbruzzese.

A month later, Mr. Abbruzzese and others founded Friends of New York Racing. The group registered as a lobbying entity, and eventually produced a report contending that the state’s three thoroughbred racetracks, operated since 1955 by the nonprofit New York Racing Association, should be contracted to a private commercial enterprise.

As Friends of New York Racing was getting off the ground, Mr. Abbruzzese was busy with another, unrelated business venture — one where his interests would soon intersect with Mr. Bruno’s. This time it involved Tejas, a small brokerage in Austin, Tex., whose stock had once traded for as little as 63 cents and was held by only about 400 people at that time, in early 2005.

Mr. Abbruzzese’s company worked closely with Tejas on a joint project in 2004, and by early 2005 they had embarked on plans to merge, according to securities filings. The merger was publicly announced in early May; Mr. Abbruzzese was made vice chairman of Tejas and became one of its largest shareholders.

Although Tejas did not have a well-established market for its stock, it came to Mr. Bruno’s attention in early 2005. His decision to buy came just a few days after he flew to Washington on Mr. Abbruzzese’s private jet. Mr. McArdle said the trip was for political purposes, paid with campaign funds, and did not involve Mr. Bruno’s investment in Tejas.

Mr. Bruno paid the public offering price of $15.75 a share, and over the following weeks the stock rose as high as $20.90, before taking a long downward slide to end the year at about $6 a share. He sold his shares in December 2005 for a $19,000 loss, according to a trade confirmation statement his office provided.

A spokesman for Tejas said the company would not comment on its dealings with Mr. Abbruzzese or Mr. Bruno’s investment.

Because Mr. Bruno lost money on the stock, and liquidated it before the end of the year, he was not required to list it on the annual financial disclosure report he filed with the ethics committee. But in May 2005, an aide who was preparing his 2004 disclosure mistakenly included it, making it appear that he owned the stock in 2004, a year in which the value of Tejas shares skyrocketed almost 900 percent. After The New York Times raised questions about the stock, Mr. Bruno’s staff provided documentation showing he actually invested in 2005, and lost money.

Throughout 2005, as Mr. Bruno continued to hold his Tejas shares, he and Mr. Abbruzzese met often, according to records filed in State Supreme Court in Albany in connection with the lobbying inquiry. The documents include testimony from the former director of Friends of New York Racing, who said Mr. Abbruzzese invited him to chat with Mr. Bruno about the state racing franchise “during an informal visit by the senator to Mr. Abbruzzese’s home” in the spring of 2005. The former director, Timothy Smith, later referred to the meeting in a memorandum to the group’s board, saying it had been arranged by Mr. Bruno’s “close friend” Mr. Abbruzzese.

Friends of New York Racing disbanded this year, and many of its members, including Mr. Abbruzzese, re-emerged as investors in a new group, Empire Racing Associates, one of the three competing to operate the state’s horse racing system.

Empire Racing narrowly lost a round in the bidding process last month when the Ad Hoc Committee on the Future of Racing, created by Governor Pataki, issued a recommendation favoring a competitor, Excelsior Racing.

In his response to the committee’s findings, which are not binding, Mr. Bruno used a horse racing metaphor to emphasize the closeness of the outcome, calling it “a photo finish between the two top bidders.”

Danny Hakim contributed reporting.

    State Senator Scrutinized Over Ties to Investor, NYT, 16.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/nyregion/16bruno.html?hp&ex=1166331600&en=68cda0add7c9edd0&ei=5094&partner=homepage

In New Jersey, Gay Couples Ponder Nuances of Measure to Allow Civil Unions

December 16, 2006
The New York Times
By KAREEM FAHIM

HOBOKEN, N.J. Dec. 15 — Away from the loud political arguments over the New Jersey Legislature’s vote to establish civil unions for same-sex couples, gays and lesbians across the state have begun to grapple with the practicalities: What verb to use? Get unified?

After drinks at a bar here Thursday night, hours after the vote, Rosanna Durruthy, 44, said she and her partner would soon start planning the ceremony they had talked about for years. “This is great,” said Ms. Durruthy, a Hoboken resident who has lived with her partner for nine years. “Will we have the major event where we get the villa in Tuscany? We’re still discussing it.” (She favors the Amalfi coast.)

Ms. Durruthy celebrated the news amid laughter and a long embrace with her old friend Bill Carter, 37, who lives in Texas with his partner. Mr. Carter was happy for his friend and said he considered the law a collective leap forward, but added of his home state: “There are no rights there; sodomy just came off the books.”

New Jersey is the third state to give approval to civil unions; Massachusetts permits gay couples to marry but only if they live in the state. Since Vermont began allowing civil unions in 2000, between 250 and 400 New Jersey couples have gotten hitched there (along with about 200 New York couples a year). Connecticut’s civil union laws took effect in October 2005.

The 2000 Census found about 16,000 same-sex couples living together in New Jersey, though the Urban Institute, a research organization, says the true count is as much as 50 percent higher; nearly one-third of them are raising children.

In interviews with more than a dozen gays and lesbians over the past three days, many talked about following through on long deferred plans now that the law has been passed. Other couples welcomed the broader rights but said little would change, saying that their commitments did not need a government sanction. There was approval from single people as well, even if some had not followed the debate as closely as their friends who share children, homes or bank accounts.

The legislation does not spell out procedures for obtaining civil unions, but advocates for same-sex marriage and state officials said the process was likely to mirror that for marriage. In New Jersey, couples apply for a marriage license in the municipality where the bride lives, unless the bride lives out of state; such rules would most likely have to be tweaked.

After a 72-hour waiting period, set aside to make certain a couple wants to get married, a municipal registrar issues a marriage license. Weddings in New Jersey can be performed by mayors, many judges, village presidents and ministers.

Eric Kabel, who works for a nursing agency and lives in Rahway, said that he and his partner signed up for a domestic partnership in New Jersey the first day that a law passed in 2004 went into effect.

“Neither of us were real activists,” he said. “But we wanted them to see the number of people who signed up as partners.”

When the civil union law takes effect — 60 days after the governor’s expected signature — the couple will head to City Hall, Mr. Kabel said, adding, “I don’t care if the city clerk does it.”

But while they are eager to claim the rights and benefits provided by the new law, Mr. Kabel lamented that a heterosexual couple who met “five minutes ago” can get a marriage license, while he and his partner of 16 years cannot.

“We’re a suburban, boring couple, with a yard, a dog,” he said. “We’re friendly to our neighbors.”

Steve Mandeville and Victor Aluise, partners of 16 years who share a house in Ocean Grove, exchanged wedding bands years ago, in Sedona, Ariz.

“We were in a beautiful place, it was a beautiful day,” Mr. Mandeville recalled. “It doesn’t matter what you want to call it. If it will keep the heterosexual people happy, let’s just call it a union. Isn’t that what a marriage is anyhow?”

Mr. Aluise said the two had not yet decided if they would have another big ceremony, but they would wait until April 25 — the anniversary of their domestic partnership registration — to register for their union. “I’m elated, and I’m proud to be a New Jerseyan now,” he said.

Though advocates for civil rights for gay people vowed to keep pushing for same-sex marriage, Alan Fox, the manager of the bar in Hoboken where Mr. Carter and Ms. Durruthy had a drink, the Cage, said he had no desire for gays to win the right to marry.

Marriage, Mr. Fox said, had been for his parents (who eventually divorced). If he married, “it would be offensive to my people like my mother,” Mr. Fox said.

Jan Moore, 70, hailed the new law as good for young people. “They won’t be made to feel like second-class citizens, people who have to walk around and hide who they are or what they are,” she said in a telephone interview from her home in Ocean Grove.

Ms. Moore’s partner, a 77-year-old woman who refused to give her name, gave voice to the fears felt by an earlier generation. “I was in New York when the cops used to raid bars,” she said. “You had to show papers. They’d say, ‘Does your mother know who you are?’ ”

She also said she had no interest in marriage. “I’m an old Italian,” she said. She said when she was growing up “it was always a man and a woman.”

Ms. Moore, a great-grandmother, said she and her partner have been together for 36 years.

“We’ve climbed a mountain,” Ms. Moore said. “I didn’t think I would see this in my lifetime.”

Laura Mansnerus contributed reporting from Trenton.

    In New Jersey, Gay Couples Ponder Nuances of Measure to Allow Civil Unions, NYT, 16.12.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/nyregion/16gay.html

Massachusetts Governor Sues to Compel Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Amendment

November 25, 2006
The New York Times
By KATIE ZEZIMA

BOSTON, Nov. 24 — Gov. Mitt Romney filed a lawsuit Friday asking the state’s highest court to order the legislature to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage or to place it on the 2008 ballot if lawmakers do not take up the provision.

The legislature voted 109 to 87 on Nov. 9 to recess a constitutional convention before the measure was taken up, which appeared to kill it. The convention was recessed until Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative session.

More than 170,000 people have signed a petition asking the legislature to amend the state’s Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts is the only state that permits it.

Mr. Romney, a Republican who did not seek re-election but is considering running for president, announced plans to file the lawsuit at a rally of same-sex marriage opponents on Sunday. The next day he sent a letter to the 109 lawmakers who had voted to recess, saying they were “frustrating the democratic process and subverting the plain meaning of the Constitution” by refusing to vote.

The lawsuit, filed by Mr. Romney, acting as a private citizen, and 10 other opponents of same-sex marriage, said the legislature had a “legal duty to act” on citizen petitions but had relied on procedural devices to “avoid a vote and evade its constitutional duties.” The legislature recessed before voting on the measure two other times this session.

The suit named the Senate president, Robert E. Travaglini, saying he had “failed to carry out his ministerial duty to require final action” on the petition. A spokeswoman for Mr. Travaglini, a Democrat, could not be reached for comment.

The suit asks the Supreme Judicial Court to “step into the constitutional breach” and direct Secretary of State William F. Galvin, also named in the suit, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot if the legislature does not act.

Fifty of 200 legislators must vote in favor of the constitutional amendment in this session and in the next one for it to appear as a referendum on the 2008 ballot. Both sides have said the amendment has enough support to advance to the next session.

In a statement, Kris Mineau, the president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which circulated petitions for the amendment, applauded the lawsuit. Mr. Mineau said that the recess was a “deliberate effort by those in the legislature to kill the marriage amendment” and that the legislature had failed to “afford the citizens a fair up or down vote.”

Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which won the lawsuit that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage before the same court, called the lawsuit frivolous.

“I can’t see any way in which this lawsuit has any merit whatsoever,” Mr. Buseck said. “The bottom line is, the legislature acted in accordance with its rules and the Constitution and did the right thing to protect the now-declared constitutional rights of same-sex couples to marry. There’s no getting around that.”

Lawrence M. Friedman, a specialist on Massachusetts constitutional law at the New England School of Law, said the court must decide if the State Constitution requires the legislature to vote. Professor Friedman signed a brief supporting same-sex marriage in 2003 but has not been involved in the issue since then.

“This case is not about same-sex marriage,” he said. “This is a case, first, about what the legislature is required to do, and second, if there is anything the court can do about it.

“It’s not at all clear to me how this is something the court can remedy. It doesn’t seem likely to me the court will order the legislature to take a vote or subvert constitutional procedures and just put it on the ballot.”

    Massachusetts Governor Sues to Compel Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Amendment, NYT, 25.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/us/25marriage.html

Ky. Court Upholds Lethal Injection

November 22, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:00 p.m. ET
The New York Times

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- Kentucky's lethal injection method is constitutional, the state Supreme Court said in a ruling Wednesday that could clear the way for executions to resume.

Kentucky death row inmates Thomas Clyde Bowling, 52, and Ralph Baze, 49, challenged the state's method of execution in 2004, saying the drug formula causes inmates to feel pain and is therefore cruel and unusual punishment.

The state has not declared a moratorium on executions but had not scheduled any since the lawsuit was filed. Bowling and Baze have received several stays of execution because of the court challenge.

''We have moved the process forward and, at the appropriate time, will seek a warrant for execution from the Governor,'' Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo said in a news release Wednesday.

Affirming a lower court ruling issued after a lengthy trial last year, the Supreme Court said the judge in that case made no errors.

''It is not the role of this Court to investigate the political, moral, ethical, religious or personal views of those on each side of this issue. ... We are limited in deciding only whether the method defined by the Legislature and signed into law by the Executive, survives constitutional review,'' Justice Donald C. Wintersheimer wrote in the unanimous opinion, issued from Frankfort.

David Barron, the public defender for both Bowling and Baze, called the ruling disappointing, but said other inmates' challenges to lethal injection are pending. Barron said he will ask the high court for a rehearing and appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.

Bowling was sentenced to be executed for killing Edward and Tina Earley and shooting their 2-year-old son outside the couple's Lexington dry-cleaning business in 1990.

Baze was convicted of killing Powell County Sheriff Steve Bennett and Deputy Arthur Briscoe during an attempted arrest in 1992.

Kentucky, like many states, uses a four-drug combination that includes Valium, which is designed to relax the inmate; sodium thiopental, which is designed to render the inmate unconscious; and pancuronium bromide, also known as Pavulon, which paralyzes the inmate. The final drug injected, potassium chloride, causes a heart attack.

Kentucky, which has 39 death-row inmates, has executed two men since reinstating the death penalty in 1976, and only one by injection: Eddie Lee Harper, in 1999. Injection is the only method of execution used on inmates who have been condemned since 1998; those sentenced to death earlier can choose electrocution.

    Ky. Court Upholds Lethal Injection, NYT, 22.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Lethal-Injection-Kentucky.html

Texas Lawmakers Put New Focus on Illegal Immigration

November 16, 2006
The New York Times
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL

HOUSTON, Nov. 15 — In a sign of rising passions over immigration issues, Texas lawmakers prepared for the 2007 session this week by filing a flurry of bills that would deny public assistance and other benefits to the children of illegal immigrants, tax money transfers to Mexico and the rest of Latin America and sue the federal government for the costs of state border control.

At the same time, a Dallas suburb, Farmers Branch, became the first Texas municipality to enact measures fining landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, authorizing the police to seek certification to act on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security and declaring English the city’s official language.

Many of the bills are unlikely to become law, but, combined with the Farmers Branch action, they have raised questions about whether Texas, where almost a third of the population was listed as Hispanic in the 2000 census, is about to get caught up in the kinds of legal fights about illegal immigration that have occurred elsewhere.

“It’s awful,” said Brent A. Wilkes, the national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the nation’s largest and oldest Hispanic rights group. “Texas for a long time has avoided this anti-immigrant hysteria.”

But some Texas officials said the time had come for the state to crack down on illegal immigration because the federal government had chosen not to do so.

“Want to know what it’s all about?” asked State Representative Burt R. Solomons, a Republican from Carrollton, outside Dallas, who introduced a bill to deny state licenses to people without proof of legal residence. “Absolute frustration.”

“If they get a license or permit, they ought to be here legally,” Mr. Solomons said. “What’s wrong with that? I don’t think it’s draconian.”

Mr. Solomons also filed a resolution to put the House on record, as he put it, as “demanding the federal government do what they’re supposed to” to control the border with Mexico and to authorize the state attorney general to sue Washington to recoup the state’s costs.

Monday was the first day members of the Texas House and Senate, who convene every two years, could file bills for the coming session. At least 9 of the first 325 or so bills, as posted on the legislative Web site, dealt with immigration.

Perhaps the most sweeping, proposed by Representative Leo Berman, a Republican from Tyler, would deny state benefits, including welfare payments, food stamps, disability payments and public housing and unemployment assistance to the children of illegal immigrants. The children, if born in the United States, are American citizens.

An earlier version of the bill would also have denied the children schooling and health care, rights affirmed as basic constitutional guarantees by a divided United States Supreme Court in 1969. Mr. Berman said he removed those provisions to gain passage of the measure in Texas with the goal of leading to another Supreme Court review.

“We want to see if that law is still applicable today,” he said. “The environment is totally changed.”

Mr. Berman also proposed a bill that would impose an 8 percent tax on electronic money transfers from immigrant workers in the state to people in Mexico and Central and South America, although it is not clear whether federal law would allow it.

Another Republican representative, Dianne White Delisi, from Temple, introduced a bill to require state agencies to report the cost of services like hospital care provided to illegal immigrants. Ms. Delisi said some figures suggested a rise of 77 percent in unpaid hospital care in Harris County, which includes Houston, over the last three years. But, she said, “the bottom line in Texas is we don’t know.”

The housing ordinance in Farmers Branch, adopted on a 5-to-0 vote by the City Council, requires landlords to demand proof of legal residency from all renters, with violations punishable by fines of $500 per tenant for each day of violation. The preamble says the action was taken “in response to the widespread concern of future terrorist attacks following the events of Sept. 11, 2001.”

It prompted quick opposition from landlords who protested that they were ill-equipped to police the immigration status of their tenants, and from Hispanic activists who said they would challenge the measure in court.

On Tuesday, two other towns, Taneytown in central Maryland and Pahrump in southern Nevada, passed measures declaring English the official language. Hazleton, Pa., enacted a similar ordinance in July, but it has been held off pending a court challenge.

    Texas Lawmakers Put New Focus on Illegal Immigration, NYT, 16.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/us/16immig.html

Guns N Roses Cancels Show Over Booze Law

November 10, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:08 p.m. ET
The New York Times

LEWISTON, Maine (AP) -- Guns N' Roses canceled a performance in Portland, Maine this week after being told by state officials that the band could not drink on stage.

Inspectors from the state fire marshal's office gave the band the no-drinking order when they came to look over the pyrotechnics planned for Monday's scheduled concert at the Cumberland County Civic Center, said Stephen McCausland, spokesman for the Maine Public Safety Department.

McCausland said the band had wanted to drink beer, wine and Jagermeister while performing. A couple of hours after being told that would violate state law, Guns N' Roses canceled its concert, he said.

After the cancellation, a band spokesperson blamed fire marshals for ''making it impossible for the band to perform their show to the usual high standards that their fans deserve.'' The press release, however, did not give a specific reason for the pullout.

Band leader Axl Rose issued a statement through the Guns N' Roses Web site apologizing to fans in Maine.

''It was important for us to play there and it is a shame that what should have been a great night for all of us was not possible due to the actions of two people,'' said Rose, referring to the fire marshals.

''I agree with, and ultimately take responsibility for, the end decision not to jeopardize the safety of the fans, the crews, the bands and myself as a result of the methods of these particularly draconian authorities,'' Rose's statement said. ''We hope to find another way to play for you in the future.''

Jeff Austin, supervisor of liquor licensing and inspection for the state Department of Public Safety, said state law prohibits performers from drinking while on stage, and prohibits employees at establishments with liquor licenses from drinking on the job.

''It's been on the books for years,'' said Austin, adding that he talked to state inspectors Monday afternoon while they were at the civic center to read them the law.

Austin said he's issued citations for three or four administrative violations of the no-drinking law this year.

The Cumberland County Civic Center Web site said refunds for the Guns N' Roses concert would be issued at the point of purchase.

------

On the Net:

http://web.gunsnroses.com/ 

    Guns N Roses Cancels Show Over Booze Law, NYT, 10.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Music-Guns-N-Roses.html

South Dakotans Reject Abortion Measure

November 8, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 7:30 a.m. ET
The New York Times

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) -- South Dakota voters on Tuesday rejected the toughest abortion law in the land -- a measure that would have outlawed the procedure under almost any circumstances.

The Legislature passed the law last winter in an attempt to prompt a challenge aimed at getting the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Instead of filing a lawsuit, opponents gathered petition signatures to put the measure on the general election ballot for a statewide vote.

The measure drew money, volunteers and attention from national groups; combined spending by the two campaigns exceeded $4 million in a state with only about 750,000 people. Finance reports filed in the campaign's final week revealed that an unidentified donor had given at least $750,000 to help the ban's supporters.

The campaign turned quickly from the overall issue of abortion rights when opponents attacked the law as extreme, arguing that it goes too far because it would not allow abortions in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the life of a pregnant woman.

Supporters countered that the law would allow doctors to protect the lives of pregnant women with medical problems. They also argued that rape and incest victims would be protected by a provision that says nothing in the abortion ban would prevent women from getting emergency contraceptives up to the point a pregnancy could be determined.

The measure gave new hope to those who believe passionately that abortion must be stopped, said Leslee Unruh, leader of the campaign organization supporting the ban.

''They are energetic. They've waited a long time for a day like this to come, where they all come together and work to do something,'' Unruh said late in the campaign.

Jan Nicolay, a former state lawmaker who led the group opposing the measure, said she was surprised at the fervor the ban roused in those who believe in abortion rights.

''I think we probably lit a match and we got a spark going that I don't think people anticipated would happen,'' Nicolay said when her group succeeded in getting the law referred to a statewide vote.

The debate split not only the general public, but also the medical community. Ads run by both sides featured doctors giving their interpretations of the law.

Regardless of the election outcome, the battle is expected to continue. If voters approve the ban, the measure likely will be challenged in court. If the ban is rejected, lawmakers opposed to abortion could pass a less restrictive measure next year.

    South Dakotans Reject Abortion Measure, NYT, 8.11.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-ELN-South-Dakota-Abortion.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Man accused of having sex with the family dog

Posted 10/21/2006 11:54 PM ET
AP
USA Today

TACOMA, Wash. (AP) — A man accused of having sex with the family dog has been charged under the state's new animal cruelty law, which makes bestiality a felony, a prosecutor said.

Michael Patrick McPhail, 26, of nearby Spanaway, pleaded not guilty Thursday to one count of first-degree animal cruelty in Pierce County Superior Court.

Assistant Pierce County Prosecutor Karen Watson said McPhail was the first person in Pierce County to be charged with the new bestiality offense.

She said the dog was taken by animal control.

McPhail posted $20,000 bail on Friday.

Judge Katherine Stolz has set a trial date of Dec. 11.

McPhail's wife told investigators that she found her husband on their back porch Wednesday night having intercourse with their 4-year-old female pit bull terrier, the Pierce County sheriff's office report said. The dog was squealing and crying, according to charging papers.

The woman took photos with her cellphone and called the sheriff's office.

Calls to McPhail's public defender, David Katayama, were not immediately returned Friday.

The bestiality law, which took effect in June, was prompted by a case near Enumclaw in which a Seattle man died after having sex with a horse. Before the law was enacted, Washington was one of 14 states where bestiality had not been explicitly prohibited.

    Man accused of having sex with the family dog, UT, 21.10.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2006-10-21-bestiality-charge_x.htm

States Are Growing More Lenient in Allowing Felons to Vote

October 12, 2006
The New York Times
By ERIK ECKHOLM

Legislatures in 16 states have loosened voting restrictions on felons over the last decade, according to a new report, a trend hailed by some rights advocates as a step toward democratic principles and fairness, especially for black Americans.

Because of their high incarceration rate, blacks are most affected by the voting bans that vary widely among the states, with many barring current inmates and parolees from voting until they have fulfilled their sentences, and some barring felons for life.

In recent years, Iowa, Nebraska and New Mexico have repealed their lifetime bans on voting by people who have been convicted of felonies, and several other states made it easier for freed prisoners or those on probation to vote, according to the report, issued yesterday by the Sentencing Project, a liberal advocacy group in Washington.

The recent changes have restored voting rights to more than 600,000 individuals, the report said. But because the country’s prison population has continued to rise, a record number of Americans, 5.3 million, are still denied the vote because of criminal records, it concluded.

“It’s good news that many people who’d been disqualified from voting are being re-engaged as citizens,” said Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and a leader of the movement to smooth the re-entry of prisoners to society.

“I think people are realizing that the country had gone too far in marginalizing a large group of people who have been convicted of felonies,” Mr. Travis said. “This has had profound consequences for our democracy and the participation of minorities.”

But some conservatives remain philosophically opposed to any wholesale loosening of voting restrictions. “If you’re not willing to follow the law, then you shouldn’t claim the right to make the law for someone else,” said Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative advocacy group in Washington.

Mr. Clegg, who was a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, said that those convicted of felonies should be given the vote only case by case, when they have proved to be constructive members of society.

Some restrictions on voting date to the early years of the country or to the post-Civil-War period, while others were tightened during the “get tough on crime” era of the 1980’s.

By federal law, voter rules are mainly set by the states. As a result, even in presidential elections, former prisoners can vote in some states but not others.

Only two states, Maine and Vermont, have no restrictions, even permitting inmates to vote. At the other extreme, three states, Florida, Kentucky and Virginia, still have lifetime bans on voting by felons. Nine others bar selected groups of offenders for life.

New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, like most states, do not allow current inmates or parolees to vote.

In a ballot initiative in Rhode Island this November, voters will decide whether to restore voting rights to prisoners on parole or probation, who far outnumber inmates. Early polls show public support for the measure.

Advocates of change emphasize broad arguments about democratic process, but the racial disparities give the issue a special resonance and raise questions about the representation of minorities in politics.

In 2004, one in eight black men were unable to vote because of a felony conviction, the report said, a rate many times higher than that for other groups.

Felony convictions have left one in four black men barred from voting in five states: Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Virginia and Wyoming, said Ryan S. King, author of the report and a policy analyst at the Sentencing Project.

But Mr. Clegg argued that the voting restrictions were applied evenhandedly, and that just because they had a disproportionate impact on one group, that did not make them racially discriminatory.

Though data on felon voting patterns are murky, a large majority of former prisoners are believed to lean Democratic. Even with a low turnout rate, their participation could make a difference in close races, experts say. Florida’s rules, for example, might have been a factor in the 2000 presidential election.

In Texas in 1997, Gov. George W. Bush signed a law eliminating a two-year wait before prisoners ending their parole could vote.

    States Are Growing More Lenient in Allowing Felons to Vote, NYT, 12.10.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/us/12felons.html

California Court Upholds State’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

October 6, 2006
The New York Times
By JESSE McKINLEY

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 5 — In the latest turn to a long and winding legal fight over same-sex marriage, a California appeals court on Thursday upheld the state’s ban against it.

The 2-to-1 decision, which reversed a lower court’s finding that the ban violated the California Constitution, said the plaintiffs in the case were asking the courts “to recognize a new right,” a step it said only the Legislature or the voters could take.

“Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights,” said the decision, written by Justice William McGuiness, “especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage.”

Justice J. Anthony Kline dissented, taking issue in part with the majority’s contention that because of domestic partnership laws, same-sex couples had rights comparable to those of married heterosexuals.

Domestic partnership and marriage are inherently unequal, Justice Kline said.

Dennis Herrera, the city attorney for San Francisco, said that the decision was a disappointment but that the city and other plaintiffs would appeal to the California Supreme Court.

San Francisco threw one of the first punches in the gay-marriage battle in February 2004, when Mayor Gavin C. Newsom directed the city’s clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. The move was almost immediately challenged in court.

Those challenges were upheld in 2004 by the State Supreme Court, which said Mr. Newsom had overstepped his authority but which stopped short of ruling on the constitutionality of state marriage laws, including a 2000 ballot measure, Proposition 22, that defined marriage as the union of man and a woman.

A decision on the constitutionality of the laws was not long in coming, however. In April 2005, Judge Richard A. Kramer of San Francisco County Superior Court ruled that limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex impinged on a fundamental right to marry, and declared the ban unconstitutional.

Like previous decisions, Judge Kramer’s ruling was immediately appealed. It was this appeal that led to Thursday’s decision.

Groups opposed to gay marriage characterized the appellate court’s ruling as a “crushing defeat to the same-sex-marriage agenda.”

In a statement, Matthew D. Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which argued the case for an anti-gay-marriage group, said: “The marital union of a man and a woman uniquely fosters responsible procreation, contributes to the continuing well-being of men and women, to society, to children and to the state. Same-sex relationships by definition and nature cannot constitute marriage.”

The mood among supporters of a right to same-sex marriage, meanwhile, was still optimistic, despite a series of earlier legal setbacks around the nation, including defeats at the high-court level in New York and Washington State and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s veto of a bill, adopted by the Democratic-controlled Legislature, that would have lifted California’s ban.

Jon W. Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal, said the organization had always believed that the issue was bound for the State Supreme Court.

“Many of these cases around the country have been very close,” Mr. Davidson said. “It’s hard to know for sure what the California Supreme Court would do, but I think we would get a fair shake there.”

    California Court Upholds State’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage, NYT, 6.10.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/06/us/06gay.html

Court blocks Arizona voter ID law enforcement

Thu Oct 5, 2006 10:53 PM ET
Reuters



PHOENIX (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked an Arizona state law requiring voters to present identification at polling stations and proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an emergency motion by opponents of the law for an injunction to prevent the law's voter identification requirements from taking effect for the November 7 elections.

The ruling by the San Francisco-based court also denied enforcement of a measure requiring voters to produce proof of citizenship to register to vote. The deadline to register to vote in the election is next Monday.

The law became effective two years ago under Proposition 200, a measure passed by voters to prevent illegal immigrants from voting. It required people to produce proof of citizenship, such as a passport, to register to vote, and picture ID, such as a driver's license, or two pieces of nonphoto ID, in order to cast a ballot.

Last month, in a move also aimed at illegal immigrants, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill to require Americans to provide proof of U.S. citizenship in order to vote in federal elections.

Opponents of the Arizona law said it discriminated against minorities and the poor, who might not have funds to obtain the necessary proof of identification.

The Arizona Attorney General's Office said it would seek an immediate review of the ruling and would take it to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary in coming days.

Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer said the ruling could lead to "extreme confusion" on polling day.

"This is very alarming to have the Court of Appeals in San Francisco stay these voting measures as passed by the people of Arizona," Brewer said in a statement.

"The fact is we very successfully implemented identification at the polls during September's primary election without a hitch," added Brewer.

(Additional reporting by David Schwartz)

    Court blocks Arizona voter ID law enforcement, R, 5.10.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-10-06T025346Z_01_N05273558_RTRUKOC_0_US-COURT-VOTING.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-domesticNews-3

Wisconsin lawmaker urges arming teachers

Updated 10/5/2006 9:36 PM ET
AP
USA Today

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A state lawmaker, worried about a recent string of deadly school shootings, suggested arming teachers, principals and other school personnel as a safety measure and a deterrent.

It might not be politically correct, but it has worked effectively in other countries, Republican Rep. Frank Lasee said Wednesday.

"To make our schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the table," he said. "Israel and Thailand have well-trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin."

In Thailand, where officials have been waging a bloody fight with Muslim separatists for the last two years, some teachers carry weapons for self defense as they are viewed as part of the government. In Israel, teachers are not allowed to carry weapons in the school, but security guards at the entrances are armed.

Lasee said he planned to introduce legislation that would allow school personnel to carry concealed weapons. He stressed that it would hinge on school staff members getting strict training on the use of the weapons, and he acknowledged he would have to work around a federal law that bans guns on school grounds.

The director of school safety for Milwaukee Public Schools, Pete Pochowski, opposed the idea.

"Statistically, the safest place for a child to be is in school," Pochowski said. "We have problems in our schools, but not to the point where we need to arm our teachers and principals."

Last week, a 15-year-old Wisconsin student was arrested in the shooting death of Weston Schools Principal John Klang. The criminal complaint said the teen brought guns to school to confront students, teachers and the principal.

    Wisconsin lawmaker urges arming teachers, UT, 6.10.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-05-arming-teachers_x.htm

Series of Laws Toughen Animal Protection in California

October 2, 2006
The New York Times
By JESSE McKINLEY

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 1 — Of all the constituents Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger hoped to please in a recent marathon bout of bill signing, he only petted one. And he had four legs.

The object of the governor’s attention — not a voter, unfortunately — was a golden retriever named Tucker, who panted loudly as the governor patted his head.

“I’m going to sign a bill for you,” said the governor, beaming. “What do you say?”

The bill in question was just one of a series protecting animals and pets signed over the last two weeks by a governor who counts two dogs among his closest friends (a yellow Labrador named Spunky, and a white cockapoo that answers to Sarge).

Among the new laws is one forbidding the tethering of a dog unattended for more than three hours, one of the first in the country to set a rigid rule on the amount of time an animal can wait on a leash as a master runs errands.

Mr. Schwarzenegger also recently signed a bill that makes it a crime to leave animals unattended in vehicles in hot or cold weather, or without adequate ventilation, food or water. Violators of the law, which also allows the police to break windows and take animals away to safety, face fines and up to six months in jail.

And taking his lead from several neighboring states, the governor recently stiffened the penalties for those engaged in illegal animal fights like cockfighting, which animal rights advocates say is a common underground activity around the state.

While all of this no doubt pleases anyone with a tail, fur or a beak, it probably pleases the governor’s pollsters even more.

“It sends a signal to the moderate and swing voters that he’s a different kind of Republican,” said Mark Baldassare, the director of research at the Public Policy Institute of California. “And people involved in animal rights issues tend to be more left of center, so it again demonstrates that he’s politically flexible.”

It seems to be working. According to a Field Poll released Wednesday, Mr. Schwarzenegger holds a 10-point lead over his Democratic opponent, Phil Angelides, less than six weeks before Election Day.

The governor dominated the campaign spotlight last week, signing hundreds of new laws before Saturday’s deadline. He packed his schedule with a number of high-profile events, including Wednesday’s signing of a law curbing greenhouse emissions (with a satellite-linked appearance by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain) and a star-studded ceremony alongside George Clooney concerning pension divestment from Sudan.

But few of those issues draw anywhere near the kind of across-the-aisle support that pet-friendly laws can, animal rights advocates say.

“By and large, these are popular bipartisan issues,” said Michael Markarian, executive vice president of the Humane Society of the United States. “It doesn’t matter if you’re a hawk or a dove, you can care about animal welfare.”

They can also make for strange legislative bedfellows, like Senators Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Richard J. Durbin, the Democratic whip from Illinois, co-authors of a bill this year increasing oversight of so-called puppy mills.

Mr. Markarian said animal care was also politically popular lately because of Hurricane Katrina, during which many pet owners were forced by the authorities to leave their animals behind. In August, the Senate unanimously passed a bill requiring emergency agencies to draw up plans for pet evacuations, care and shelter, and on Sept. 20, the House of Representatives sent it on to President Bush by a vote of 349 to 24. Mr. Schwarzenegger signed a similar bill for California on Friday.

The state’s new cockfighting law, meanwhile, comes after several neighboring states passed tougher measures, driving the illegal fights into California, which had previously doled out only light sentences for offenders. Under the new law, a second conviction can be a felony, resulting in prison time or a $25,000 fine.

    Series of Laws Toughen Animal Protection in California, NYT, 2.10.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/us/politics/02pets.html?hp&ex=1159848000&en=269362460cb214a5&ei=5094&partner=homepage