Legislative Update: 5/20/08
Last week the House voted down the Governor’s newest attempt at a constitutional amendment 222-140. It was a horrible amendment and its defeat was a terrible blow against the Governor and the Speaker, who chose the amendment as the first time to take a public position on any issue. More on the substance of the amendment in the “Ugly” section below.
The House had very high attendance for the Wednesday session, but abysmally low attendance for the Thursday session. In fact, we spent most of the day below the 2/3rds quorum, which required a 2/3rds majority to act on any bill. At one point we even fell below the 50% attendance necessary to take any action at all so the Speaker instructed the Sergeant-at-Arms to gather some of the legislators who were in the antechamber and hallway and bring them to Representatives Hall. Toward the end of the day, the Speaker ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to bar the doors to prevent any legislator from leaving.
As for the bills:
HR 25: This House resolution would have urged Congress to fully implement the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The Democrats cowardly voted to “table” this resolution before we could even fully debate it. Even more upsetting is that it was a Republican who made the tabling motion…
SB 472: This bill is the Senate version of a previous bill imposing such severe regulations on the payday loan industry that it effectively bans payday loans. While there have been problems in the industry and a certain measure of regulation might be appropriate, but such a compromise was rejected by the House. When we ban a free market, we create a black market. There will still be a demand among the poorest among us for short-term, high interest loans. Who will fill that demand now? Answer: loan sharks.
SB 337: This bill creates a pointless hassle for homeschooling parents and it’s a step toward greater government control and regulation of homeschooling.
SB 374: This bill should be titled “The Bad Teacher Protection Act of 2008″ because it makes it extremely difficult for school districts to replace poorly performing teachers. It will also increase the expenses associated with the non-renewal of contracts. The biggest losers are the students and taxpayers.
SB 317: Another tobacco fee increase! This time, the Democrats are increasing the fees on the retailers (which translate into higher prices) rather than directly raising the tax on cigarettes.
SB 210: An unnecessary regulation of the plumbing industry.
CACR 34: Where to begin? While I support a constitutional amendment regarding education, this is the wrong one. It does nothing to refutes the Court’s activism — in fact, it writes the Claremont decision into the state constitution.
The amendment gives the authority to the state to target aid, so long as every community gets a “meaningful share” — a what? What’s a “meaningful share”? Some said it was between 25%-75% but who really knows? This sort of vague language is an opening for the Court to decide. (Remember, they defined “cherish” as the requirement to “define and fully fund an adequate education” so you can’t leave anything to their imagination!)
The amendment also states that an “adequate education” is that which prepares the student to become a “productive and contributing citizen” — huh? Some might argue that in today’s economy, a college degree is necessary to be a “productive and contributing citizen.” Others could plausibly argue that only an 8th grade education is necessary. Does someone really need to know calculus to be a productive and contributing citizen? For that matter, do they need art classes? Had we not defeated this bill, I’m sure the Court would have been happy to provide an answer.