History > 2007 > USA > Politics > States, Laws

Governors (II)

Mich. Court

Upholds Voter Photo ID Law

July 18, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:16 p.m. ET
The New York Times

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- A state law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls is constitutional, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The court's five Republicans voted to uphold the law while two Democrats dissented. The issue has fiercely divided Democrats and Republicans for a decade.

The law was passed in 1996 and renewed in 2005, but it never took effect because former Attorney General Frank Kelley, a Democrat, ruled it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right to vote.

Critics say the ID requirement is essentially a poll tax that would hit the poor, elderly, disabled and minorities hardest and keep them away from the polls. Supporters say it's needed to prevent election fraud.

The Michigan law requires voters to show photo ID to get a ballot, but it still allows those who don't have photo IDs to vote if they sign an affidavit swearing to their identity.

The high court's majority found Wednesday that the ID requirement isn't a poll tax because voters aren't required to incur the costs of an ID before voting.

Several states have faced legal battles over laws requiring voters to show photo IDs. Judges have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona and Indiana but struck down Missouri's. Last month, the Georgia Supreme Court threw out a challenge to that state's voter ID law but sidestepped a decision on whether the requirement was constitutional.

    Mich. Court Upholds Voter Photo ID Law, NYT, 18.7.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Voter-ID.html

Pennsylvania Governor Orders Partial State Shutdown

July 9, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:06 a.m. ET
The New York Times

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- Gov. Ed Rendell late Sunday ordered a range of state government services shut down and placed about a third of the state work force on indefinite unpaid furlough after frantic last-minute negotiations failed to break a budget stalemate.

A judge, however, ordered that the state's five slots parlors remain open, at least temporarily.

Rendell, appearing outside his Capitol office, said the shutdown would go forward but added that he was optimistic that he and legislators could come to an agreement within a day.

''Let me say to our hardworking and dedicated state employees, I'm sorry we're here. We worked as hard as we could today to get this done,'' Rendell said. But, he said, negotiations and serious consideration of his priorities, which he maintains must be passed along with a state spending plan, began too late.

''I sincerely hope that this will be a one-day furlough and I have reason for optimism,'' he said, but declined to discuss remaining areas of disagreement.

A partisan battle of wills between the Democratic governor and the Republicans who control the Senate has created a deadlock lasting eight days into the new fiscal year. With Rendell's order, 24,000 state workers not deemed critical to health and safety were furloughed without pay Monday.

Pennsylvanians will no longer be able to take driver's license tests and state-run museums will be shuttered. Highway maintenance and a range of permitting and licensing functions will be stopped or severely curtailed, and the lights illuminating the Capitol's dome were to be turned off.

A Commonwealth Court judge, however, halted the closure of slots parlors at least until a Tuesday hearing, said Doug Harbach, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. State Revenue Department workers who monitor the casinos' computers were among those ordered furloughed.

Critical services -- such as health care for the poor, state police patrols and prisons -- will be maintained. About 52,000 state workers will remain on the job and be paid on time.

Republicans said they doubted that the furloughs were a legal necessity and repeated complaints that Rendell has included other priorities in the budget talks. Key sticking points include raising the state's debt ceiling and an energy plan that Rendell has insisted the Legislature approve before he signs the budget, they said.

''We have a $650 million surplus in Pennsylvania,'' said Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, a Republican. ''There's absolutely no reason why we can't have a budget agreement. We could have had a budget earlier but for these ancillary issues.''

The centerpiece of Rendell's energy plan would place a surcharge on electricity use for a fund for alternative energy programs and electricity conservation. Republican legislators and some Democrats oppose the surcharge and accused the governor of holding state employees hostage to force them to approve it.

''I can't believe that a man who would call himself governor would do this to state employees,'' said Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, a Republican.

One labor leader, David Fillman, the executive director of Council 13 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said his union members, 14,000 of whom face furlough, should not have been caught in the middle of a political dispute.

''Disrupting the lives of my 14,000 members and this political wrangling is very disappointing,'' Fillman said. ''A lot of them live paycheck to paycheck, and even if it's a day's pay that they lose, it has an effect on their personal budgets.''

At Gifford Pinchot State Park in Lewisberry, 70-year-old retiree Janice Sorgen and her family were among those who will have to vacate the park's 10 cabins and 100 camping spots first thing Monday morning.

''To do it in this manner is ridiculous,'' said Sorgen, who drove 500 miles from Fort Wayne, Ind., for a family vacation and visit to the Gettysburg battlefield. ''They can just pay us for driving down here and driving back.''

A legal effort by state employees' unions to put furloughs on hold failed Saturday, but a hearing was scheduled for Monday.

As the clock ticked toward midnight, gamblers still trying their luck at Philadelphia Park Racetrack and Casino in Bensalem, just outside Philadelphia, called the showdown nothing more than politics.

''It's all grandstanding, and it's ridiculous,'' said Maryann Breen, playing a Wheel of Fortune machine. ''They're going to lose so many millions of dollars if they close the casinos, even for a day or two.''

    Pennsylvania Governor Orders Partial State Shutdown, NYT, 9.7.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Pennsylvania-Shutdown.html

Laws Require Flags to Be Born in USA

July 4, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:25 a.m. ET
The New York Times

ROSEMOUNT, Minn. (AP) -- What's red, white and blue -- and made in China? A move is on in state legislatures to ensure that the flags folks will be flying and buying this Independence Day were made on this fruited plain.

Minnesota has passed the strongest measure, a new law that goes into effect at year's end requiring every Old Glory sold in state stores to be domestically produced. Violations are a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

In Arizona, schools and public colleges were required starting July 1 to outfit every classroom from junior high up with a made-in-the-USA flag. Tennessee requires all U.S. flags bought via state contract to be made here, and similar bills are moving forward in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The Fourth of July is considered peak season for flag sales with millions of them lining parade routes and flying above back yard barbecues.

Most of the major domestic flag makers are privately held companies that don't release their sales figures, so it's difficult to gauge the inroads being made by foreign manufacturers.

The U.S. Census bureau estimates that $5.3 million worth of U.S. flags were imported from other countries in 2006, mostly from China. That figure has been steady over the past few years. The big exception was in 2001 when $51.7 million in U.S. flags were brought into the country, most on the heels of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Sandy Van Leiu, chairman of the Flag Manufacturers Association of America, said the imports are cause for concern even though U.S. companies still dominate the flag market.

''That door is going to keep opening,'' said Van Leiu, a sixth-generation executive at the family owned Annin & Co., a 160-year-old business that supplies retailers like Wal-Mart. ''It starts small, then it gets big. You're just opening Pandora's box.''

To help consumers identify the origin of their flags, the association created a certification program two years ago that bestows a seal-of-approval logo to flags made with domestic fibers and labor.

Whether Minnesota's law violates international trade agreements -- and whether anything would be done about it -- is an open question.

Under World Trade Organization standards, the U.S. government can't treat foreign products less favorably than those produced within its boundaries, said Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland and the former chief economist for the U.S. International Trade Commission. How the rules apply to states is debatable, he said.

Morici said a foreign business harmed by the law would have to get its government to take action against the U.S. government. Robert Litan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank, said while the likelihood of Minnesota's law sparking a dispute is slim, the symbolic message is hard to miss.

''It's symptomatic of an anti-foreign bias moving through the country right now. It would not surprise me if other states copied it,'' Litan said. ''It's hard to oppose politically.''

When the bill was debated this spring, some legislators argued it sent the wrong message to close Minnesota's borders to foreign-produced flags.

''That flag should be made throughout the world because it is our message to the world that there is hope for freedom and justice,'' Republican Rep. Dan Severson said at the time.

The law's sponsor, Democratic Rep. Tom Rukavina, said the flag deserves extra protection. To celebrate his legislative victory, he plans to hand out 1,000 miniature flags at Fourth of July parades in his district.

''The biggest honor that you can give the flag is that it be made by American workers in the United States of America,'' he said. ''Nothing is more embarrassing to me than a plastic flag made in China. This replica of freedom we so respect should be made in this country.''

The new law doesn't spell out a penalty for violators. In Minnesota, the default punishment for prohibited acts is a misdemeanor offense, carrying up to a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

------

On the Net:

http://www.fmaa-usa.com/ 

    Laws Require Flags to Be Born in USA, NYT, 4.7.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Foreign-Flags.html

Arizona Governor Signs Tough Bill on Hiring Illegal Immigrants

July 3, 2007
The New York Times
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

Expressing frustration with the lack of a federal immigration law overhaul, Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona signed a bill yesterday providing what are thought to be the toughest state sanctions in the country against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Ms. Napolitano, a Democrat, called the bill flawed and suggested that the Arizona Legislature reconvene to repair problems with it, but she nevertheless moved forward “because Congress has failed miserably,” she wrote in a statement.

The bill requires employers to verify the legal status of their employees. If they fail to do so, they risk having their business licenses suspended. A second offense could result in the “business death penalty,” a permanent revocation of the state business license, effectively preventing a business from operating in the state.

Ms. Napolitano said she was concerned, among other problems, that under the law hospitals and nursing homes could end up shuttered because of hiring one illegal immigrant. She also said the bill did not provide enough money for the state attorney general to investigate complaints.

Although federal law already makes it a crime to hire illegal workers, supporters of the Arizona bill have said enforcement is lax.

Ms. Napolitano sent a letter to Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the majority leader, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, saying Congressional inaction on immigration was forcing states to act.

Ms. Napolitano’s decision had been anxiously awaited in Arizona, the state where more people cross illegally into the United States than any other.

Last year, Ms. Napolitano vetoed an employer-sanctions bill, saying that its language was flawed and that it would not achieve its goals.

    Arizona Governor Signs Tough Bill on Hiring Illegal Immigrants, NYT, 3.7.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/us/03arizona.html

N.J. Transgender Law to Go Into Effect

June 16, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:21 p.m. ET
The New York Times

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) -- Starting Sunday, New Jersey joins eight other states in making it illegal for employers and landlords to discriminate against transgendered people.

The law, which sailed through the Legislature in December, has received little attention in a state that's gaining a reputation for being welcoming to lesbian, gay and transgendered people. Earlier this year, New Jersey began allowing same-sex couples to unite in civil unions.

Advocates hope the new law will lead to more acceptance and awareness of people who are born one gender but live as the opposite gender. Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center of Transgender Equality in Washington, said she expects more states to follow, including a handful in 2007 and 2008.

''It's really simply a reaction to there being more (transgender) people who are out,'' Keisling said. ''As more people transition, it becomes safer to transition.''

The law makes it illegal for a landlord to evict a tenant because of his or her gender status, and companies cannot refuse to hire people because they are transsexual, cross-dressers, asexual, of ambiguous gender or simply not traditionally feminine or masculine. The law also bans discrimination in credit, business contracts and public accommodations such as stores or restaurants.

Labor law posters at work places notifying workers of their rights will include the transgender protection. Violators could be subject to up to 90 days in jail or fines up to $500.

The first such state law was adopted in Minnesota in 1993. Rhode Island, New Mexico, California, Illinois, Maine, Hawaii, Washington and the District of Columbia have adopted similar measures.

By January, laws also will be in effect in Iowa, Vermont, Colorado and Oregon.

In New Jersey, legal protections have been in place since a 2001 state appeals court ruling that held it was unlawful to discriminate against a transsexual doctor.

Advocates say many employers and landlords and even transgendered people themselves did not know about that decision, known as Enriquez v. West Jersey Health Systems, or the protections it offers.

Despite the legal protections, transgendered people say discrimination happens too frequently.

Coy Gordon, who was born a man but has lived as a woman since high school nearly 30 years ago, said she believes she's been rejected for work because she is transgendered.

''To them (employers), I'm still a freak,'' said Gordon, 43, an unemployed counselor who lives in Jersey City.

Unable to get jobs, she said, transgendered women often have little choice but to turn to prostitution.

Jillian Todd Weiss, an assistant professor of law and society at Ramapo College in Mahwah, who is also a transsexual, said the law might make people treat transgendered people better, but it won't necessarily change attitudes or beliefs.

''It's very difficult to legislate away prejudice,'' she said.

New Jersey gay and transgendered rights leaders said passage of the transgender bill was as much a priority for them as the state's civil unions law, which took effect in February.

''I have never had an easier time lobbying than for this bill,'' said Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality, an advocacy group that pushed for the law.

------

On the Net:

National Center of Transgender Equality: http://www.nctequality.org/

Garden State Equality: http://www.gardenstateequality.org/

    N.J. Transgender Law to Go Into Effect, NYT, 16.6.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Transgender-Discrimination.html

Massachusetts Gay Marriage to Remain Legal

June 15, 2007
The New York Times
By PAM BELLUCK

BOSTON, June 14 — Same-sex marriage will continue to be legal in Massachusetts, after proponents in both houses won a pitched months-long battle on Thursday to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

“In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure,” Gov. Deval Patrick said after the legislature voted 151 to 45 against the amendment, which needed 50 favorable votes to come before voters in a referendum in November 2008.

The vote means that opponents would have to start from Square 1 to sponsor a new amendment, which could not get on the ballot before 2012. Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, although five states allow civil unions or the equivalent.

Thursday’s victory for same-sex marriage was not a foregone conclusion, especially after the amendment won first-round approval from the previous legislature in January, with 62 lawmakers supporting it.

As late as a couple of hours before the 1 p.m. vote on Thursday, advocates on both sides of the issue said they were not sure of the outcome. The eleventh-hour decisions of several legislators to vote against the amendment followed intensive lobbying by the leaders of the House and Senate and Governor Patrick, who, like most members of the legislature, is a Democrat.

“I think I am going to be doing a certain number of fund-raisers for districts, and I am happy to do that,” said Mr. Patrick, who said he had tried to persuade lawmakers not only that same-sex marriage should be allowed but also that a 2008 referendum would be divisive and distract from other important state issues.

About 8,500 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since the unions became legal in May 2004. In December 2005, opponents, led by the Massachusetts Family Institute, gathered a record 170,000 signatures for an amendment banning same-sex marriage, a measure that was supported by Mr. Patrick’s predecessor, Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who is now running for president.

Kris Mineau, president of the institute, did not indicate on Thursday whether opponents would start a new petition drive, but said, “We’re not going away.”

“We want to find out why votes switched and see what avenues are available to challenge those votes, perhaps in court,” Mr. Mineau said.

The vote reflected changes in the legislature, the election of Mr. Patrick, and lobbying by national and local gay rights groups.

“This was the focus of our national community,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “Frankly, a loss today would have been very demoralizing.”

It is difficult to know how support for same-sex marriage has changed since legalization because polls taken before and after have asked different questions. The most recent Massachusetts poll, in April 2007, found that 56 percent of those surveyed would oppose the amendment.

One legislator who switched his vote was Representative Paul Kujawski, Democrat of Uxbridge, saying meetings with gay and lesbian constituents convinced him that “I couldn’t take away the happiness those people have been able to enjoy.”

Mr. Kujawski, who said he grew up in a conservative Roman Catholic neighborhood and had not understood gay relationships, said, “So many people said, ‘I didn’t ask to be gay; I was born this way.’ ”

He added, “Our job is to help people who need help, and I feel the gay side of the issue needed more help than the other side.”

Senator Gale D. Candaras, a Democrat, voted against the amendment Thursday, although she had supported it as a state representative in January. Ms. Candaras said her vote reflected constituent views in her larger, more progressive Senate district and her fear of a vicious referendum campaign.

Most moving, she said, were older constituents who had changed their views after meeting gay men and lesbians. One woman had “asked me to put it on the ballot for a vote, but since then a lovely couple moved in,” Ms. Candaras said. “She said, ‘They help me with my lawn, and if there can’t be marriage in Massachusetts, they’ll leave and they can’t help me with my lawn.”

Unlike several previous constitutional conventions on same-sex marriage with impassioned soliloquies, Thursday’s session took barely 10 minutes. Afterward, supporters of same-sex marriage, many in tears, erupted in standing ovations.

Katie Zezima contributed reporting.

    Massachusetts Gay Marriage to Remain Legal, NYT, 15.6.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us/15gay.html

Connecticut's top court hears gay marriage case

Tue May 15, 2007
12:56AM EDT
Reuters
By Av Harris

HARTFORD, Connecticut (Reuters) - Eight gay and lesbian couples urged Connecticut's highest court on Monday to follow Massachusetts and legalize same-sex marriage, saying the state is violating their fundamental rights.

"Depriving same-sex couples of the word marriage is a way of depriving them of equality as couples and families," said Bennett Klein, an attorney at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which represents the couples and successfully sued for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2003.

Connecticut is one of three U.S. states allowing same-sex civil unions that grant nearly the same rights as marriage. It was the first state to authorize gay civil unions through a legislative act without a court order.

The eight couples sued the state in August 2004 after they were denied marriage licenses. Superior Court Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman dismissed the case in March 2006, saying the couples received equal rights when Connecticut legalized same-sex civil unions in 2005.

The case follows a string of setbacks for gay marriage advocates last year in state courts in New York, Nebraska, Washington and Georgia.

Supporters of the Connecticut couples say they are optimistic because the case is the first in a state which already allows same-sex civil unions. Such unions offer state-level rights and protections but not federal benefits.

"Marriage is not just a bundle of legal rights," Klein told the hearing. "It is a status that the state confers on people, and it's a status that has with it profound personal meaning to individuals."

The eight Connecticut couples have been together between 9 and 31 years. Combined, they are raising a total 14 children, according to court documents.

State attorney Jane Rosenberg argued the enactment of civil unions means there are no legal rights denied to gay and lesbian couples.

"We're talking about a word here," Rosenberg said.

"It was rational for the legislature to preserve the opposite sex definition of marriage, which has existed throughout history and which continues to represent the common understanding of marriage in most other countries and states in our union."

The state's Supreme Court may issue its decision by November, according to attorneys involved in the case.

Similar cases are pending in California, Iowa and Maryland. Twenty-six states have constitutional amendments barring gay marriage, while 19 other states, including Connecticut, have statutes limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriage has been a divisive political issue since 2003, when Massachusetts' highest court ruled it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, leading to the country's first same-sex marriages in May 2004.

Connecticut, Vermont and New Jersey allow civil unions. California, Maine, the District of Columbia and Hawaii offer gay couples some legal rights as partners.

    Connecticut's top court hears gay marriage case, R, 15.5.2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1432574520070515

New York Plan for DNA Data in Most Crimes

May 14, 2007
The New York Times
By PATRICK McGEEHAN

Gov. Eliot Spitzer is proposing a major expansion of New York’s database of DNA samples to include people convicted of most crimes, while making it easier for prisoners to use DNA to try to establish their innocence.

Currently, New York State collects DNA from those convicted of about half of all crimes, typically the most serious.

The governor’s proposal would order DNA taken from those found guilty of any misdemeanor, including minor drug offenses, harassment or unauthorized use of a credit card, according to a draft of his bill. It would not cover offenses considered violations, like disorderly conduct.

In expanding its database to include all felonies and misdemeanors, New York would be nearly alone, although a handful of states collect DNA from some defendants upon arrest, even before conviction.

Mr. Spitzer is also seeking mandatory sampling of all prisoners in the state, as well as all of those on parole, on probation or registered as sex offenders.

That expansion alone would add about 50,000 samples to the database, at a cost of about $1.75 million, his office said. It did not provide an estimate of the cost of taking DNA samples in all future convictions.

“This legislation will help us bring the guilty to justice and exonerate those who have been wrongly accused,” Mr. Spitzer said in a statement. He plans to introduce his bill this week.

The bill would make it easier for prisoners and defendants to obtain court orders to have their DNA tested against evidence collected in their cases and to have that evidence tested against the entire database of DNA, aides to the governor said.

It also would allow prisoners who have pleaded guilty to seek DNA testing that might prove them innocent, the aides said; some judges now decline such requests.

Police officials and prosecutors nationwide have trumpeted DNA collection as one of the most effective tools in law enforcement. New York’s database, for example, now contains almost 250,000 samples and has produced matches in almost 4,000 cases, according to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services.

At the same time, DNA has become a useful tool for defense lawyers whose clients proclaim their innocence long after their convictions.

According to the Innocence Project, a legal clinic affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University in Manhattan, DNA testing has led to the exoneration of 23 people in New York who had been convicted of crimes, and more than 200 nationwide.

By addressing concerns about access for the wrongly convicted, Mr. Spitzer may have a better chance of gaining support among state lawmakers for an expansion of DNA collection, said Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a Brooklyn Democrat who is chairman of the Codes Committee, which deals with criminal justice.

“I’ve always been in favor of the expansion of the database to all crimes, but I want these protections to be put in place so that there’s a balance between protecting the innocent as well as prosecuting the guilty,” Mr. Lentol said. “I think the governor is on the right track doing it this way.”

Mr. Lentol acknowledged that his support for DNA testing in all convictions was not in line with his colleagues in the Democratic majority in the Assembly, who have repeatedly blocked bills passed by the Republican-controlled State Senate that would have expanded DNA collection. The Senate passed such a bill again this month.

Charles Carrier, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, said he could not yet comment on Mr. Spitzer’s proposal.

He said that in the past, Assembly Democrats have been reluctant to approve wider DNA testing because of concerns about “the way evidence was cataloged and stored, handled and controlled and processed.”

Some civil liberties groups oppose broader collection of DNA samples, out of concerns about how they might be used beyond the justice system.

“Because DNA, unlike fingerprints, provides an enormous amount of personal information, burgeoning government DNA databases pose a serious threat to privacy,” said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “They must include strict protections to assure that DNA is collected and used only for legitimate law enforcement purposes, such as exonerating the innocent or convicting the guilty.”

John McArdle, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno, said that Mr. Bruno had not seen the governor’s bill and would not comment on it until he had.

But Mr. McArdle said that Mr. Bruno supported the expansion of DNA collection to the perpetrators of all crimes, as well as another proposal Mr. Spitzer has included in his bill: giving prosecutors up to five more years to bring charges in cases where DNA evidence has been collected but not yet matched to a particular person.

New York has had a DNA database since 2000. Originally, it included samples from people convicted of sex offenses and only certain felonies.

But it has been expanded twice in the last three years to include all felonies and some misdemeanors, aides to the governor said.

Still, only about 46 percent of people convicted of crimes in the state are required to submit to the collection of a DNA sample, which now is usually done by swabbing the inside of the mouth.

Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat in his first year as governor, is not the first political leader in the state to call for such an expansion. His predecessor, George E. Pataki, a Republican, pushed for an “all crimes” bill.

Last year, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a Republican, also campaigned for the testing of everyone who is convicted, saying that murderers and rapists also commit petty crimes and that mandatory DNA collection could lead to their convictions for the more serious offenses.

But Mr. Spitzer is wrapping his proposal for expanding the database together with ideas that are more likely to appeal to those who believe many defendants are wrongly convicted.

He is seeking to require that prosecutors notify the court if they learn that there may be DNA evidence that could exonerate a prisoner. Currently, state law does not obligate prosecutors to volunteer that information, a lawyer in the governor’s office said.

Mr. Spitzer’s proposal also calls for the creation of a state office that would be responsible for studying all cases that resulted in exonerations and looking for flaws in the system that led to those wrongful convictions. That office would not be an independent body, often referred to as an “innocence commission,” but a part of the Division of Criminal Justice Services.

Assemblyman Michael N. Gianaris, a Queens Democrat, is sponsoring a bill to create an “innocence commission,” which is part of a package of legislation relating to DNA testing that was introduced this month. The package includes a bill proposed by Mr. Lentol that would expand prisoners’ access to the DNA database.

Barry Scheck, the co-director of the Innocence Project, said that many of the people his organization had helped to exonerate would have been freed much sooner, or would not have been convicted at all, if the changes sought by Mr. Lentol and his colleagues had been in place.

Mr. Scheck and his co-director, Peter Neufeld, were not prepared to comment on Mr. Spitzer’s bill.

    New York Plan for DNA Data in Most Crimes, NYT, 14.5.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/nyregion/14dna.html?hp

Conn.'s Civil Unions Law Faces Challenge

May 14, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:09 a.m. ET
The New York Times

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Connecticut's civil unions law, the first in the nation passed without court intervention, faces a stern test in the state Supreme Court on Monday.

Eight gay and lesbian couples say the state's refusal to grant marriage licenses violates their constitutional rights and denies them the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

Anne Stanback, president of the group Love Makes a Family, and a handful of gay marriage supporters, were among the first to arrive at the Supreme Court on Monday morning.

''We got here early because we wanted to make sure we were part of the history,'' Stanback said.

She and her partner of 23 years have not had a civil union because they are waiting for full marriage rights.

A ruling in their favor could have nationwide implications for states that have adopted or are considering civil union-like legislation. Connecticut in 2005 passed a civil unions law, which state officials say gives same-sex couples the equality they seek.

Currently, only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry. Connecticut, Vermont, California, New Jersey, Maine and Washington have laws allowing either civil unions or domestic partnerships. Hawaii extends certain spousal rights to same-sex couples and cohabiting heterosexual pairs.

The Connecticut couples, who have been together between 10 and 32 years, say civil unions are inferior to marriage and violate their rights to equal protection and due process.

Married couples have federal rights related to taxes, Social Security beneficiary rules, veterans' benefits and other laws that people in civil unions don't have.

Because civil unions aren't recognized nationwide, other rights, such as the ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, disappear when couples cross state lines.

The Connecticut couples' claim was dismissed by a lower court last year when a judge said they received the equality they sought when Connecticut passed a same-sex civil unions law. The couples appealed.

The state Department of Public Health and the Madison town clerk's office were named as defendants in the case after denying marriage licenses to the couples based on state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's advice.

''Our basic argument is, the trial court correctly recognized that there is a rational basis for the state to use a different name for the same rights and benefits accorded same-sex couples,'' Blumenthal said. ''The rights and benefits are identical, whether the union is called a civil union or a marriage.''

A bill is pending in Connecticut's legislature to approve same-sex marriage, but leaders of the Judiciary Committee say they want to pull it from consideration this session because they do not believe enough lawmakers would vote to approve it.

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who signed the civil unions bill into law in 2005, has said she would veto a gay marriage bill. Rell has said she believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

Connecticut's Supreme Court will not rule immediately Monday after the arguments are presented. It is not expected to announce its decision until later this year.

A similar case is pending before California's high court.

Associated Press writer Susan Haigh in Hartford contributed to this report.

    Conn.'s Civil Unions Law Faces Challenge, NYT, 14.5.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gay-Marriage.html

Minnesota Lawmakers Pass Smoking Ban

May 12, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 7:13 a.m. ET
The New York Times

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) -- Minnesota would ban smoking in bars, restaurants and other establishments under a bill approved by the Legislature.

The bill passed the state House by an 81-48 vote early Saturday, hours after the state Senate approved it 43-21. It now heads to Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has said he will sign it.

Minnesota would become the 20th state to prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants. Violations would carry fines of up to $300 for smokers and business owners who allow smoking. The ban would start Oct. 1.

Supporters of the bill hailed its passage as a win for public health.

Minnesota broke ground nationally in 1975 with the Clean Indoor Air Act, which limited smoking to designated areas in public places and at public meetings.

''We had lost an edge in terms of leading on that issue and now we're back,'' said Mike Maguire of the American Cancer Society. ''This is where the country is going.''

But Rep. Bud Heidgerken, a Republican who runs Charlie's Cafe in Freeport, called the bill an overreach that will hurt businesses like his.

''I for one don't like you putting your nose in my business,'' he told backers. ''That's my air in that cafe, not yours. If you don't want to come, don't come.''

In 2000, Moose Lake became the first Minnesota city to prohibit smoking in restaurants. Six counties and nine cities followed with bans of their own, some more restrictive than others. Two more local bans kick in June 1.

Under the bill passed Saturday, local governments would be free to pass stricter anti-smoking ordinances, including restrictions on outdoor smoking.

    Minnesota Lawmakers Pass Smoking Ban, NYT, 12.5.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Smoking-Ban.html

Alaska OKs Natural Gas Pipeline Bill

May 12, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:13 a.m. ET
The New York Times

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- Both houses of the Alaska Legislature on Friday approved a bill establishing a path for a multibillion dollar natural gas project designed to tap a huge heating fuel supply and transport it to the rest of the country.

The bill, called the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act or AGIA, will now go to the Senate Finance Committee to work out slight differences in versions passed by the Senate and House.

Under AGIA, producers and independent pipeline companies can vie for rights to build the pipeline that lawmakers hope will ship trillions of cubic feet of North Slope natural gas to market.

The bill is designed to stimulate competition through inducements, but also has requirements that BP PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips opposed.

The three major oil companies had warned they would not submit a bid unless such stringent requirements were removed.

Newly elected Republican Gov. Sarah Palin held firm, saying this week if lawmakers watered down her bill, she'd veto it.

''This bill represents the direction the new governor wants to take in moving a natural gas pipeline forward,'' said Rep. Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski, who served as co-chair of the House Finance Committee.

Lawmakers say the next move belongs to oil and pipeline companies.

''There is risk in the project,'' said Sen. Charlie Huggins, R-Wasilla. ''It is a risk worth taking.''

Palin has long warned that the state and the nation can't afford to let the natural gas supplies -- estimated at about 35 trillion cubic feet on the North Slope -- sit untapped any longer.

The bill continues to put distance between Palin's ideas and a failed attempt last year to negotiate a deal with the North Slope producers by former Gov. Frank Murkowski.

Murkowski settled in principle with BP, Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips on fiscal terms for producing North Slope gas.

It did not guarantee a pipeline would get built, but the hope was it would enable producers to move forward with a pipeline from the North Slope through Canada and into the Midwest.

The line would ultimately have delivered 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day, which is about 7 percent of the current U.S. demand.

But state lawmakers felt the deal had too many giveaways for big firms, including locking in tax rates for several decades. The Legislature never voted on the deal.

The multibillion dollar pipeline has implications for North America's long-term energy supply for heating homes and businesses. It also is considered to be a potential boon to the state's economy, not unlike that of Prudhoe Bay's oil production at its peak.

    Alaska OKs Natural Gas Pipeline Bill, NYT, 12.5.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Alaska-Gas-Pipeline.html

Okla. Gov. Signs Immigration Reform Bill

May 9, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:49 a.m. ET
The New York Times

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Gov. Brad Henry signed an immigration bill Tuesday that tightens employment standards to prevent illegal immigrants from finding work.

Henry called the legislation, passed overwhelmingly by the House and Senate, a stopgap measure to deal with an illegal immigration problem that is the responsibility of the federal government.

''States can take some actions on their own, but until the U.S. Congress enacts a comprehensive, national immigration policy, citizens will see little progress on this issue,'' he said.

The measure requires state and local agencies to verify the citizenship and immigration status of applicants for state or local benefits.

It also requires public agencies starting Nov. 1 to use a program to screen Social Security numbers to make sure they are real and match up with the job applicant's name. Private companies must comply by July 1, 2008.

The measure would not affect emergency medical and humanitarian services, such as visits to hospital emergency rooms and enrollment in public schools, that are required by federal law.

More than 100,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to live in Oklahoma.

Immigrant groups said the measure is was a vain attempt to stop illegal immigration and can lead to discriminatory barriers to housing and jobs.

The groups are considering a challenge to the new law's constitutionality, saying that immigration policy is the domain of the federal government, not the state.

''It's going to take us back,'' said Ray Madrid, state director of the League of United Latin American Citizens. ''I'm sure there's going to be neighbors turning neighbors in.''

    Okla. Gov. Signs Immigration Reform Bill, NYT, 9.5.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Immigration-Oklahoma.html

States Ponder Laws

to Keep Web Predators From Children

May 6, 2007
The New York Times
By JENNIFER MEDINA

HARTFORD, May 4 — Nearly every American teenager, it seems, has a Web page displaying his or her life details. And nearly every parent has nightmares that someone might visit those pages, easily discovering where the children live and what they like.

It happened in Fairfield County in Connecticut in October 2005, when an F.B.I. task force arrested two men in unrelated cases who were suspected of trolling social-networking sites to lure young girls for sex. One of the predators, a 22-year-old man, molested an 11-year-old girl in her home while her parents slept upstairs. In the other case, a 39-year-old man met a 14-year-old girl at a mall and had her perform oral sex on him in his car.

It also happened in Youngsville, N.C., last June, when girls ages 12 and 13 were found at a swimming pool with a 21-year-old woman at 4 a.m. The girls told the police that they had met the woman through MySpace.com, where they had lied and said they were 17 and 18. The police charged the woman with two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The woman, who did not have a previous criminal record, said she had not been planning anything inappropriate.

[And just last week, a 27-year-old Texas man was charged in Michigan with criminal sexual conduct involving a 14-year-old girl he met on MySpace.]

Now, after years of exponential growth of such Web sites and dozens of high-profile cases of criminal activity stemming from them, politicians in a half-dozen states are pushing legislation aimed at protecting children by requiring sites like MySpace.com and Facebook.com to verify the age of every user and require parental permission for those under 18.

But while the proposals have earned praise from worried parents, those who run the sites and independent technology experts say they are little more than grandstanding and would be impossible to enforce.

Indeed, MySpace already requires that users be at least 14 to create profiles, and limits access to those belonging to anyone under 18, while Facebook requires that users be older than 13 and shows profiles only to other members in the same social network.

Neither set of rules has stopped children like those in North Carolina from lying about their ages or blocked adults from masquerading as teenagers.

“Everyone looking at this has good intentions at their core, but there are some solutions that sound like they are the easy silver bullet and there is just no such thing,” said Hemanshu Nigam, the chief security officer for MySpace, warning that the proposed restrictions could create a false sense of safety. “You’ll see teens who are going to get around it and probably end up in a place where it is more difficult to protect them.”

Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut attorney general, who has spearheaded the growing movement to crack down on the sites, frequently brushes off such concerns by arguing that “if we can put a man on the moon, we can verify someone’s age.”

“This is a basic issue of safety,” he said in a recent interview. “These kinds of Web sites have created this complete delusion that this is a private world that an outsider does not get into, but it is a total misnomer. Anyone can get in.”

Mr. Blumenthal and Roy Cooper, the North Carolina attorney general, both Democrats, started a national task force last year on the issue that now includes attorneys general from nearly every state. The initial focus was on pressuring MySpace to raise its minimum age for registration to 16 from 14, but when the company resisted, Mr. Blumenthal and others began introducing legislation to force its hand.

In Connecticut, the bill sailed through two committees and is awaiting a vote by the full legislature. In North Carolina, the legislature’s Judiciary Committee is scheduled to address the matter in the coming days. Similar proposals have been introduced by state lawmakers in New York and Georgia, while a legislator in Illinois has proposed blocking access to social-networking sites in public libraries and schools.

Fears about unsuspecting children being stalked by tech-savvy predators are as old as the Internet itself. But far more than their predecessors, chat rooms and bulletin boards, the social-networking sites often feature intimate details and pictures, including a child’s hometown and school, and can be easily seen by anyone, without the creator’s explicit permission.

Still, experts worry that the proposed restrictions would stymie overall participation, since requiring users to verify their age would give the sites access to a person’s true identity. Currently, users must enter an e-mail address and basic information like a birthday and a ZIP code, but there is nothing to stop people from making them up.

Detective Frank Dannahey, who specializes in Internet crimes for the Police Department in Rocky Hill, Conn., said that verification “of course, would be helpful,” but that it was not clear whether the proposed legislation would actually make children safer.

“It’s a quandary,” said Detective Dannahey, who has worked with both MySpace and Mr. Blumenthal over the years. “If you are a teenager, are you going to go ask your parents for permission, or are you just going to go around it and use another Web site, which might be less safe? The only way you will really know whether or not it will work is if it is done.”

None of the proposed bills specifically outline the way the sites should verify the age of users, but the politicians pushing them suggest they could hire private contractors to do so. Most models of identity verification on the Internet involve financial transactions, typically using a credit card. Several sites that sell cigarettes or alcohol use existing databases like those for state driver’s licenses to verify that customers are above the minimum legal age.

But Internet experts say verification would be exponentially more difficult for minors, who typically do not have government-issued or other easily verifiable forms of identification. It would also significantly increase costs for running the sites, which are now almost entirely automated.

“They don’t have driver’s licenses, or for that matter any public records useful for determining age, and present a tremendous challenge to accurately identify,” Jeff Schmidt, the chief executive of Authis, an information security company, wrote in a paper circulated to the attorneys general this spring. “We’re trying to match an identifier and attribute to someone we’ll never see and who is probably located thousands of miles away in another city, state or country.”

Despite the fears of parents — and the warnings of politicians — researchers say that many teenagers are already self-policing the sites.

According to a recent survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, more than half of all teenagers with an Internet profile somehow either limit access to their Web pages or leave out sensitive information like proper names and addresses.

Nearly half of those with public profiles, according to the survey released in March of more than 900 users ages 12 to 17, said they lied about the more telling details, and more than two-thirds of those who have been contacted by strangers said they ignored them.

“The good news is that most teens already have a pretty healthy sense of paranoia,” said Mary Madden, an author of the Pew report. “The teens who say they are using the network to make new friends that they only know online make up a fairly small portion of users.”

Adam D. Thierer, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation who has studied sexual predators on the Internet, said that while age verification is the “argument du jour,” research shows that limiting convicted sex offenders’ access to the Internet would be more effective. Several states, including New York, have enacted legislation requiring sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses with law enforcement; New Jersey has a similar proposal pending.

“It’s the same thing as saying to a kid, ‘You can’t hang out in video arcades, because someone might try to come and get you,’ ” Mr. Thierer said. “The better thing to do would be to stop the criminal from getting there. This worrying just creates a new kind of moral panic.”

But with parents packing forums on Internet safety and frequently wary of technology their children navigate better than they do, the proposals have met with relatively little opposition so far. Many argue that stopping even one predator would make regulations worth it.

Beyond the question of feasibility, opponents of the age-verification rules are concerned about unintended consequences, like limiting participation on blogs or other sites, since the legislation does not explicitly define “social-networking sites.”

In Connecticut, several political blogs have posted warnings that they could be shut down if the bill passes. On Wednesday, one blogger posted a petition against the legislation. Lawmakers, in turn, have written their own posts to assure Web-savvy politicos that they were weighing the potential minefields of regulating the Internet.

“While there is a real concern for children, there is also a concern that we don’t sweep in all kinds of other problems by trying to fix this one,” said State Senator Andrew J. McDonald, a Democrat who represents Stamford and Darien. Mr. McDonald was one of the four legislators, out of 39 who voted, to oppose the Connecticut proposal in one committee.

“I am afraid we are dealing with this by coming down with a sledgehammer,” he said, “where a small mallet would be more appropriate.”

    States Ponder Laws to Keep Web Predators From Children, NYT, 6.5.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/nyregion/06myspace.html

Virginia Changes Law Following Shootings

May 1, 2007
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:50 a.m. ET
The New York Times

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- The governor has closed a loophole in state law that allowed the Virginia Tech gunman to pass a weapons background check despite having mental health issues.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine signed an executive order Monday requiring that anyone ordered by a court to get mental health treatment be added to a state police database of people barred from buying guns.

The order, the first change in state policy resulting from the shootings, eliminates the distinction between inpatient and outpatient mental health care as long as it is ordered by a court.

The Virginia Tech gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, was judged mentally ill and a danger to himself by a court in 2005. He was ordered to attend outpatient counseling.

But because he was not committed to a mental hospital, he was never entered into the database that licensed gun dealers use to do instant background checks before any sale. People judged as mental defectives can't legally buy guns.

Cho, a 23-year-old Tech senior who killed himself as police stormed a classroom building, legally bought the guns he used to kill 32 Tech students and faculty on April 16.

The executive order does not apply to people who seek mental health care of their own will. After the report is added to Virginia's state police database, it becomes part of a federal database that gun dealers nationwide use.

Virginia already is the leading state in reporting mental health records, with more than 80,000 in the federal database. Twenty-eight states do not supply any records, either because they lack the technical ability or are barred by state privacy laws.

Had Kaine's order been in place a year ago, the background check could have flagged Cho when he tried to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. Cho did not disclose his mental health problems or the court-ordered outpatient treatment in a form he was required to complete before buying the guns.

''His lie on the form would have been caught,'' Kaine said.

But it would not have prevented Cho from acquiring guns by several other means that require no background check in Virginia, including buy-and-trade publications, individual transactions among gun collectors or hobbyists, and gun shows -- vast firearms bazaars where scores of people sell or swap firearms.

Legislation that would also subject firearms sales at gun shows to instant background checks is introduced annually in Virginia, and just as often it dies without reaching a floor vote in the General Assembly.

Kaine, a Democrat, has said that he expects new support for the legislation this year and that he would support it, as he has in the past.

Virginia Changes Law Following Shootings, NYT, 1.5.2007, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Virginia-Tech.html