Because the substance of HB 137 got amended onto HB 138, the latter has been added to the list of good bills.
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 26 with minor amendment passed House committee; HB 27 failed to pass the House; HB 47 was involuntarily deferred in House committee; HB 138 was made into substitute bill HB 897 and passed committee; HB 252 was involuntarily deferred in House committee; HB 511 passed the House; HB 765 with minor amendment passed the House; SB 1 with minor amendments passed the Senate; SB 2 passed the Senate; SB 34 with minor amendments passed the Senate; SB 37 with major amendments passed Senate committee; SB 186 with major amendments passed the Senate; SB 223 with minor amendments passed Senate committee.
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 142 was made into substitute bill HB 898 and passed House committee; HB 179 with minor amendments passed House committee; HB 243 with major amendments passed House committee; HB 457 with minor amendment passed House committee; HB 458 with minor amendment passed House committee; SB 199 with minor amendments passed Senate committee; SB 245 with minor amendments passed Senate committee; SB 256 with major amendments passed Senate committee; SB 259 with minor amendments passed the Senate; SB 277 with minor amendments passed Senate committee; SB 296 with minor amendment passed the Senate; SB 335 with minor amendments passed Senate committee.
SCORECARD
Total number of bills, House: 898; total number of bills, Senate: 349.
Total number of good bills, House: 33; total number of good bills, Senate: 18.
Total number of bad bills, House: 45; total number of bad bills, Senate: 22.
Total House good bills heard in House committee: 27; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 12.
Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 38; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 15.
Total House good bills passed by House committee: 10; total Senate good bills passed by Senate committee: 8.
Total House bad bills passed by House committee:11; total Senate bad bills passed by Senate committee: 8.
Total House good bills approved by House: 5; total Senate good bills approved by Senate: 6.
Total House bad bills approved by House: 4; total Senate bad bills approved by Senate: 4.
Total House good bills heard in House committee: 1; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 0.
Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 1; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 1.
Total House good bills approved by Senate committee: 1; total Senate good bills approved by House committee: 0
Total House bad bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House committee: 1
Total House good bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House: 0.
Total House bad bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House: 1.
Total House good bills going to governor: 0; total Senate good bills going to governor: 0.
Total House bad bills going to governor: 0; total Senate bad bills going to governor: 1.
Total House good bills signed by governor: 0; total Senate good bills signed by governor: 0.
Total House bad bills signed by governor: 0; total Senate bad bills signed by governor: 1.
Written by the author of the blog "Between The Lines," Louisiana State University Shreveport political science professor Jeffrey D. Sadow, this blog provides commentary on actions of the Louisiana Legislature during its sessions, and even a little in between them. Check daily when the Legislature meets to find out the good, the bad, and the ugly of its legislative process with special guest appearances by various state elected executives.
30 May 2009
27 May 2009
Committee action, May 27: HB 470, HCR 1, HB 194
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 470 by Rep. Neil Abramson would empower a commission to report pursuant to a constitutional convention. It would report for next year’s session that would occur prior to fall elections where delegates could be elected (one per House district), although some (18) would be appointed. If the commission concluded only minor changes were needed, the next session could call off the convention. The product itself would be voted on by the people. Abramson said the fiscal difficulties of the current year and an overall questioning about the proper revenue mix prompted his action.
House and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Rick Gallot invited questions but said then HCR 1 by Rep. Franklin Foil would be discussed, since it was a similar bill, and then the committee could decide how to proceed. Rep. Mert Smiley asked about cost, which he said could be several times the last one n 1974. Abramson said his bill was more about process, but allowed it might have to go to the Appropriations for its nontrivial fiscal action. Smiley wondered whether this plan needed judicial pre-clearance; Abramson said the similar plan of 1974 was challenged and upheld.
Foil cited similar concerns laying behind his proposal, but thought there were too many unanswered questions to go all the way to a convention for sure. HCR 1 would set up an 11-member commission to make a recommendation about whether there should be one, alternatives to that, and if one what should be part of it. Abramson said he thought his approach was better because it forced the Legislature to make a decision on the opportunity to form a promised product, rather than to empower a convention to meet with a set agenda.
Smiley asked about the flexibility in models for it. Foil argued his bill was better because it allowed more leeway that way, but Abramson said because few states had had a convention recently, many actually looked to Louisiana’s 1974 one as a model.
All sorts of local government associations registered opposition. After technical amendments were adopted onto HB 470, Gallot said they would deal first with HCR 1 with Gallot offering amendments taking the commission from HB 470 and making it the one for HCR 1, which was adopted without objection along with a technical amendment. Rep. Rosalind Jones thought having two members nominated by Tulane and Loyola universities were one too many, and offered an amendment that the Independent Schools and Small Colleges Board send one the representative. Gallot objected, and the amendment was withdrawn. He moved to report the bill, and there were no objections.
Back to HB 470, Abramson closed saying passing both bills would give maximum flexibility for options for the entire House. There was an objection, and the bill failed 7-7 with all support coming from Orleans and Jefferson legislators and Rep. Wayne Waddell.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 194 by Rep. Herbert Dixon would deal with providing access to voting registration when other unforeseen circumstances delay it. The bill, if something like this would happen, would allow any registrations submitted after the set deadline to be processed at the next available opportunity that was not a legal holiday and still count for the next election cycle even if the deadline had passed. It would allow state or parish executives (such as police jury presidents) to declare states of emergency to allow it to take affect. After some amendments cleared up some matters, Dixon moved favorably, and it passed without objection.
HB 470 by Rep. Neil Abramson would empower a commission to report pursuant to a constitutional convention. It would report for next year’s session that would occur prior to fall elections where delegates could be elected (one per House district), although some (18) would be appointed. If the commission concluded only minor changes were needed, the next session could call off the convention. The product itself would be voted on by the people. Abramson said the fiscal difficulties of the current year and an overall questioning about the proper revenue mix prompted his action.
House and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Rick Gallot invited questions but said then HCR 1 by Rep. Franklin Foil would be discussed, since it was a similar bill, and then the committee could decide how to proceed. Rep. Mert Smiley asked about cost, which he said could be several times the last one n 1974. Abramson said his bill was more about process, but allowed it might have to go to the Appropriations for its nontrivial fiscal action. Smiley wondered whether this plan needed judicial pre-clearance; Abramson said the similar plan of 1974 was challenged and upheld.
Foil cited similar concerns laying behind his proposal, but thought there were too many unanswered questions to go all the way to a convention for sure. HCR 1 would set up an 11-member commission to make a recommendation about whether there should be one, alternatives to that, and if one what should be part of it. Abramson said he thought his approach was better because it forced the Legislature to make a decision on the opportunity to form a promised product, rather than to empower a convention to meet with a set agenda.
Smiley asked about the flexibility in models for it. Foil argued his bill was better because it allowed more leeway that way, but Abramson said because few states had had a convention recently, many actually looked to Louisiana’s 1974 one as a model.
All sorts of local government associations registered opposition. After technical amendments were adopted onto HB 470, Gallot said they would deal first with HCR 1 with Gallot offering amendments taking the commission from HB 470 and making it the one for HCR 1, which was adopted without objection along with a technical amendment. Rep. Rosalind Jones thought having two members nominated by Tulane and Loyola universities were one too many, and offered an amendment that the Independent Schools and Small Colleges Board send one the representative. Gallot objected, and the amendment was withdrawn. He moved to report the bill, and there were no objections.
Back to HB 470, Abramson closed saying passing both bills would give maximum flexibility for options for the entire House. There was an objection, and the bill failed 7-7 with all support coming from Orleans and Jefferson legislators and Rep. Wayne Waddell.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 194 by Rep. Herbert Dixon would deal with providing access to voting registration when other unforeseen circumstances delay it. The bill, if something like this would happen, would allow any registrations submitted after the set deadline to be processed at the next available opportunity that was not a legal holiday and still count for the next election cycle even if the deadline had passed. It would allow state or parish executives (such as police jury presidents) to declare states of emergency to allow it to take affect. After some amendments cleared up some matters, Dixon moved favorably, and it passed without objection.
23 May 2009
Legislative regular session through May 23, 2009
Because it has turned malignant, HB 841 has been added to the list of bad bills.
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 340 with minor amendments passed the House; HB 511 with major amendments passed House committee; HB 765 with minor amendments passed House committee; HB 830 with minor amendment passed the House; HB 844 with major amendments passed House committee; SB 1 passed Senate committee; SB 2 passed Senate committee; SB 34 with minor amendments passed Senate committee; SB 186 with major amendments passed Senate committee; SB 195 passed the Senate.
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 387 was involuntarily deferred in House committee; HB 538 with minor amendments passed House committee; HB 612 passed the House; HB 705 with minor amendments failed to pass the House; HB 841 with life-altering amendments passed the House; SB 259 with minor amendments passed the Senate; SB 296 with major amendments passed Senate committee.
SCORECARD
Total number of bills, House: 895; total number of bills, Senate: 348.
Total number of good bills, House: 33; total number of good bills, Senate: 18.
Total number of bad bills, House: 45; total number of bad bills, Senate: 22.
Total House good bills heard in House committee: 24; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 11.
Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 36; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 11.
Total House good bills passed by House committee: 8; total Senate good bills passed by Senate committee: 5.
Total House bad bills passed by House committee: 7; total Senate bad bills passed by Senate committee: 4.
Total House good bills approved by House: 4; total Senate good bills approved by Senate: 2.
Total House bad bills approved by House: 4; total Senate bad bills approved by Senate: 2.
Total House good bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House committee: 0
Total House bad bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House committee: 1
Total House good bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House: 0.
Total House bad bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House: 1.
Total House good bills going to governor: 0; total Senate good bills going to governor: 0.
Total House bad bills going to governor: 0; total Senate bad bills going to governor: 1.
Total House good bills signed by governor: 0; total Senate good bills signed by governor: 0.
Total House bad bills signed by governor: 0; total Senate bad bills signed by governor: 1.
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 340 with minor amendments passed the House; HB 511 with major amendments passed House committee; HB 765 with minor amendments passed House committee; HB 830 with minor amendment passed the House; HB 844 with major amendments passed House committee; SB 1 passed Senate committee; SB 2 passed Senate committee; SB 34 with minor amendments passed Senate committee; SB 186 with major amendments passed Senate committee; SB 195 passed the Senate.
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 387 was involuntarily deferred in House committee; HB 538 with minor amendments passed House committee; HB 612 passed the House; HB 705 with minor amendments failed to pass the House; HB 841 with life-altering amendments passed the House; SB 259 with minor amendments passed the Senate; SB 296 with major amendments passed Senate committee.
SCORECARD
Total number of bills, House: 895; total number of bills, Senate: 348.
Total number of good bills, House: 33; total number of good bills, Senate: 18.
Total number of bad bills, House: 45; total number of bad bills, Senate: 22.
Total House good bills heard in House committee: 24; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 11.
Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 36; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 11.
Total House good bills passed by House committee: 8; total Senate good bills passed by Senate committee: 5.
Total House bad bills passed by House committee: 7; total Senate bad bills passed by Senate committee: 4.
Total House good bills approved by House: 4; total Senate good bills approved by Senate: 2.
Total House bad bills approved by House: 4; total Senate bad bills approved by Senate: 2.
Total House good bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House committee: 0
Total House bad bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House committee: 1
Total House good bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House: 0.
Total House bad bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House: 1.
Total House good bills going to governor: 0; total Senate good bills going to governor: 0.
Total House bad bills going to governor: 0; total Senate bad bills going to governor: 1.
Total House good bills signed by governor: 0; total Senate good bills signed by governor: 0.
Total House bad bills signed by governor: 0; total Senate bad bills signed by governor: 1.
19 May 2009
Committee action, May 19: HB 794, HB 776
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 794 by Speaker Jim Tucker would create a commission to review post-secondary education. Tucker told the House Education Committee that improvement was needed in delivery of services, and this commission could point these out. It would be comprised of Regents’ and elected officials’ appointees and would report early next year. He said delivery currently was not efficient, and anticipated the Regents could make some changes, and the Legislature would have to make some other. After approval of some minor amendments, Rep. Frank Hoffman asked whether recommendations could have school closures as part of that. Tucker said yes, but thought it much more likely to be rearrangement of assets.
The bill was approved without objection.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 776 by Rep. Wayne Waddell would increase the standard by which party primaries would be held for federal elections, by closing party primaries as one with 40,000 members (a major party) as opposed to the existing “recognized” party (1,000 members). Sec. of State Jay Dardenne told the House and Governmental Affairs Committee the bill would not undo the closed primary system was needed because small parties could have party primaries, and this would increase costs, run up costs in terms of voting machines, and make matters more complicated for election commissioners and voters. This would mean party primaries would only happen involving Republicans and Democrats.
Questions asked about the mechanics involved, and Dardenne and his staff explained the complicated process. The big problem was that the closing of primaries were conditional upon the parties, so multiple forms of ballots would have to be presented requiring more and larger machines depending upon and more complicated ways of setting the machines depending upon what parties have candidates and whether they are closed.
Rep. Mert Smiley wondered whether this bill could be hijacked. Dardenne and Waddell assured them they resisted this notion; Waddell said “I resent that,” the implication that it was a surreptitious attempt, and Smiley said it wasn’t his intent to cast aspersions. First Assistant Secretary Tom Schedler said this could happen to any bill so then no bills would be approved, and that Waddell would pull the bill if an unfriendly amendment got onto it, and that he and Dardenne would ask the governor to veto it if it got that far in that form. Schedler also said if all five current “recognized” parties had multiple congressional candidates across the state, it could cost as much as $38 million more.
Rep. Karen Peterson thought the question should be redefined, that this was a machine problem that could be fixed although it would cost money. Schedler agreed, but said it was a policy matter (the numerical standards) and if it wasn’t to the liking of the Legislature, they would live with it. Rep. Noble Ellington then suggested a deferral, in order to gain time to better understand the bill to reevaluate their positions saying he gained knowledge this day, and said Chairman Rick Gallot had committed to hearing it next week if that happened. Waddell agreed, and it was.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
It’s good to be no party at this time.
Rep. Dee Richard, during the HB 776 debate.
HB 794 by Speaker Jim Tucker would create a commission to review post-secondary education. Tucker told the House Education Committee that improvement was needed in delivery of services, and this commission could point these out. It would be comprised of Regents’ and elected officials’ appointees and would report early next year. He said delivery currently was not efficient, and anticipated the Regents could make some changes, and the Legislature would have to make some other. After approval of some minor amendments, Rep. Frank Hoffman asked whether recommendations could have school closures as part of that. Tucker said yes, but thought it much more likely to be rearrangement of assets.
The bill was approved without objection.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 776 by Rep. Wayne Waddell would increase the standard by which party primaries would be held for federal elections, by closing party primaries as one with 40,000 members (a major party) as opposed to the existing “recognized” party (1,000 members). Sec. of State Jay Dardenne told the House and Governmental Affairs Committee the bill would not undo the closed primary system was needed because small parties could have party primaries, and this would increase costs, run up costs in terms of voting machines, and make matters more complicated for election commissioners and voters. This would mean party primaries would only happen involving Republicans and Democrats.
Questions asked about the mechanics involved, and Dardenne and his staff explained the complicated process. The big problem was that the closing of primaries were conditional upon the parties, so multiple forms of ballots would have to be presented requiring more and larger machines depending upon and more complicated ways of setting the machines depending upon what parties have candidates and whether they are closed.
Rep. Mert Smiley wondered whether this bill could be hijacked. Dardenne and Waddell assured them they resisted this notion; Waddell said “I resent that,” the implication that it was a surreptitious attempt, and Smiley said it wasn’t his intent to cast aspersions. First Assistant Secretary Tom Schedler said this could happen to any bill so then no bills would be approved, and that Waddell would pull the bill if an unfriendly amendment got onto it, and that he and Dardenne would ask the governor to veto it if it got that far in that form. Schedler also said if all five current “recognized” parties had multiple congressional candidates across the state, it could cost as much as $38 million more.
Rep. Karen Peterson thought the question should be redefined, that this was a machine problem that could be fixed although it would cost money. Schedler agreed, but said it was a policy matter (the numerical standards) and if it wasn’t to the liking of the Legislature, they would live with it. Rep. Noble Ellington then suggested a deferral, in order to gain time to better understand the bill to reevaluate their positions saying he gained knowledge this day, and said Chairman Rick Gallot had committed to hearing it next week if that happened. Waddell agreed, and it was.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
It’s good to be no party at this time.
Rep. Dee Richard, during the HB 776 debate.
18 May 2009
Committee action, May 18: HB 72
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 72 by Rep. Greg Cromer would take certain activities performed in nursing homes and declare them as medical procedures. This places any claims of negligence outside of the Medical Malpractice Act and therefore adjudicated outside of its procedures in courts and payable through general liability insurance rather than malpractice, which often excludes these kinds of incidents. Without objection, a clarifying amendment was added.
Rep. Walker Hines wondered whether this would overburden Medical Review Boards, as well as questioned whether hygienic activities should be defined as medical. Louisiana Nursing Home Association Executive Director Joe Donchess did not think so, and said other jurisdictions define them this way. Rep. John Bel Edwards pointed out this bill had come around and failed many times in front of this, the Civil Law and Procedures, Committee and that maybe a better approach would be not to change the definition, but to change insurance law. Donchess argued that the law also designated other non-medical procedures as medical. But Edwards pointed out that many obvious cases of negligence could be shielded under this law.
Opponents argued the bill did not provide insurance, and that only by mandating insurance could this gap be covered. They said claims now would go under the Patients’ Compensation Fund designed to address medical claims, which they said the activities that would be incorporated under this bill were not medical activities. “These are plain old care, plain old dignity” cases argued opponent state Rep. Chris Roy, that under the bill would drive up costs through convening of review panels, deplete the Fund further whose unaccrued liabilities exceeded its funds, and delay the compensation process. They also argued it was overbroad because it included daily acts of personal living as medical. They said that the only nursing homes that would benefit from this bill were those with commercial liability insurance policies, which means it should be fixed through insurance changes.
Rep. Tom Willmott said medical complications can result from negligent acts. Roy said just because the cause may lead to medical complications, it does not make the cause medical in nature.
Proponents disputed whether delays would be incurred and whether the bill was overbroad. Cromer said this bill was a “consumer protection” bill. The bill passed 6-5.
HB 72 by Rep. Greg Cromer would take certain activities performed in nursing homes and declare them as medical procedures. This places any claims of negligence outside of the Medical Malpractice Act and therefore adjudicated outside of its procedures in courts and payable through general liability insurance rather than malpractice, which often excludes these kinds of incidents. Without objection, a clarifying amendment was added.
Rep. Walker Hines wondered whether this would overburden Medical Review Boards, as well as questioned whether hygienic activities should be defined as medical. Louisiana Nursing Home Association Executive Director Joe Donchess did not think so, and said other jurisdictions define them this way. Rep. John Bel Edwards pointed out this bill had come around and failed many times in front of this, the Civil Law and Procedures, Committee and that maybe a better approach would be not to change the definition, but to change insurance law. Donchess argued that the law also designated other non-medical procedures as medical. But Edwards pointed out that many obvious cases of negligence could be shielded under this law.
Opponents argued the bill did not provide insurance, and that only by mandating insurance could this gap be covered. They said claims now would go under the Patients’ Compensation Fund designed to address medical claims, which they said the activities that would be incorporated under this bill were not medical activities. “These are plain old care, plain old dignity” cases argued opponent state Rep. Chris Roy, that under the bill would drive up costs through convening of review panels, deplete the Fund further whose unaccrued liabilities exceeded its funds, and delay the compensation process. They also argued it was overbroad because it included daily acts of personal living as medical. They said that the only nursing homes that would benefit from this bill were those with commercial liability insurance policies, which means it should be fixed through insurance changes.
Rep. Tom Willmott said medical complications can result from negligent acts. Roy said just because the cause may lead to medical complications, it does not make the cause medical in nature.
Proponents disputed whether delays would be incurred and whether the bill was overbroad. Cromer said this bill was a “consumer protection” bill. The bill passed 6-5.
16 May 2009
Legislative regular session through May 16, 2009
Substitute bills are permitted until session’s end at the discretion of the presiding officer, so the total number of bills may creep up until then.
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 27 passed House committee; HB 60 with minor amendment passed House; HB 137 was involuntarily deferred in House committee; HB 148 with minor amendment passed House; HB 340 minor amendment passed House committee; SB 183 with major amendments passed Senate; SB 195 passed Senate committee.
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 156 was involuntarily deferred in House committee; HB 591 with minor amendment passed House; HB 612 with minor amendment passed House committee; HB 705 passed House committee; HB 855 with minor amendment passed House; SB 43 with minor amendment passed Senate committee, passed Senate; SB 283 was signed by the governor.
SCORECARD
Total number of bills, House: 892; total number of bills, Senate: 346.
Total number of good bills, House: 33; total number of good bills, Senate: 18.
Total number of bad bills, House: 44; total number of bad bills, Senate: 22.
Total House good bills heard in House committee: 15; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 6.
Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 18; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 6.
Total House good bills passed by House committee: 4; total Senate good bills passed by Senate committee: 1.
Total House bad bills passed by House committee: 5; total Senate bad bills passed by Senate committee: 2.
Total House good bills approved by House: 2; total Senate good bills approved by Senate: 1.
Total House bad bills approved by House: 2; total Senate bad bills approved by Senate: 2.
Total House good bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House committee: 0
Total House bad bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House committee: 1
Total House good bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House: 0.
Total House bad bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House: 1.
Total House good bills going to governor: 0; total Senate good bills going to governor: 0.
Total House bad bills going to governor: 0; total Senate bad bills going to governor: 1.
Total House good bills signed by governor: 0; total Senate good bills signed by governor: 0.
Total House bad bills signed by governor: 0; total Senate bad bills signed by governor: 1.
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 27 passed House committee; HB 60 with minor amendment passed House; HB 137 was involuntarily deferred in House committee; HB 148 with minor amendment passed House; HB 340 minor amendment passed House committee; SB 183 with major amendments passed Senate; SB 195 passed Senate committee.
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 156 was involuntarily deferred in House committee; HB 591 with minor amendment passed House; HB 612 with minor amendment passed House committee; HB 705 passed House committee; HB 855 with minor amendment passed House; SB 43 with minor amendment passed Senate committee, passed Senate; SB 283 was signed by the governor.
SCORECARD
Total number of bills, House: 892; total number of bills, Senate: 346.
Total number of good bills, House: 33; total number of good bills, Senate: 18.
Total number of bad bills, House: 44; total number of bad bills, Senate: 22.
Total House good bills heard in House committee: 15; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 6.
Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 18; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 6.
Total House good bills passed by House committee: 4; total Senate good bills passed by Senate committee: 1.
Total House bad bills passed by House committee: 5; total Senate bad bills passed by Senate committee: 2.
Total House good bills approved by House: 2; total Senate good bills approved by Senate: 1.
Total House bad bills approved by House: 2; total Senate bad bills approved by Senate: 2.
Total House good bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House committee: 0
Total House bad bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House committee: 1
Total House good bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House: 0.
Total House bad bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House: 1.
Total House good bills going to governor: 0; total Senate good bills going to governor: 0.
Total House bad bills going to governor: 0; total Senate bad bills going to governor: 1.
Total House good bills signed by governor: 0; total Senate good bills signed by governor: 0.
Total House bad bills signed by governor: 0; total Senate bad bills signed by governor: 1.
12 May 2009
Floor action, May 12: HB 461, HB 407, HB 591
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 461 by Rep. Elton Aubert would prevent credit card companies from setting up personal contracting of credit cards on college campuses to students. He said it would restrict only this avenue of solicitation, and was too much of a potential for abuse.
Rep. Hunter Greene asked why this limitation should be in place, as these students are of the age of majority for contracting purposes. We asked whether this should be a question of individual responsibility. Aubert agreed. Rep. Kirk Talbot said that getting credit in this fashion could pay off for the long run, building a credit history for responsible people, and Aubert agreed. Rep. Avon Honey said he had seen too many instance of students getting credit, then blowing it all and “paying $20 a week for the rest of their lives” to pay off the debt. Rep. Jeff Arnold said the bill needed clarification, dealing more with banking, and that it might be much more restrictive than at first glance. So, he argued for recommission to the Commerce Committee. Rep. Erich Ponti said this matter was one of money, since the university could get income from it by companies paying for the ability to use this forum for solicitations. Arnold assured this was not “a sneak attack” and said the bill would not allow setting up on campuses during sporting events. The motion succeeded 53-46.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 407 by Rep. Mert Smiley had a weird day. The bill would create additional disclosure of activities of boards and commissions such as on the Internet. Initially, it was quickly adopted. But later, Smiley asked that it be reconsidered because of a drafting error. So, the House unwound some of it, putting it in a position where it could then be tabled and redone next week. But then Rep. Cedric Richmond lauded the concept of transparency an offered an amendment to it dealing with campaign finance reform, which required ant appointer to a state board or office to reveal whether he had received contributions from the appointed, a measure opposed by the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration and many in the Legislature.. Speaker Jim Tucker was queried as to its germaneness, and ruled that it was not. It then was passed in the correct form 99-0.
DID YOU KNOW
HB 591 by Rep. Noble Ellington would carve an exception into ethics rules that would allow any amount spent on a legislator in conjunction with a regional or national meeting for food and drink. After an amendment requiring reporting of the amount, it passed 59-33. Jindal has promised a veto of this bill.
QUOTES OF THE DAY:
Now, now, this isn’t the People’s Court
Tucker, when debate began to get excitable.
I can’t tap into his brain, and mine doesn’t work any more.
Rep. Hollis Downs, referring to efforts by himself and the absent Rep. Brett Geymann on their experiences with legislation dealing with consensual sex between high school employees and students.
I would like to move my parking spot from the front to back. I think it’s going to happen anyway, and I would like to take credit for it.
Mr. LaBruzzo will swap with you.
Richmond and Tucker, after Richmond’s amendment offering; Rep. John LaBruzzo had gained recent notoriety for a bill that would require drug testing of recipients of welfare which was panned by many.
HB 461 by Rep. Elton Aubert would prevent credit card companies from setting up personal contracting of credit cards on college campuses to students. He said it would restrict only this avenue of solicitation, and was too much of a potential for abuse.
Rep. Hunter Greene asked why this limitation should be in place, as these students are of the age of majority for contracting purposes. We asked whether this should be a question of individual responsibility. Aubert agreed. Rep. Kirk Talbot said that getting credit in this fashion could pay off for the long run, building a credit history for responsible people, and Aubert agreed. Rep. Avon Honey said he had seen too many instance of students getting credit, then blowing it all and “paying $20 a week for the rest of their lives” to pay off the debt. Rep. Jeff Arnold said the bill needed clarification, dealing more with banking, and that it might be much more restrictive than at first glance. So, he argued for recommission to the Commerce Committee. Rep. Erich Ponti said this matter was one of money, since the university could get income from it by companies paying for the ability to use this forum for solicitations. Arnold assured this was not “a sneak attack” and said the bill would not allow setting up on campuses during sporting events. The motion succeeded 53-46.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 407 by Rep. Mert Smiley had a weird day. The bill would create additional disclosure of activities of boards and commissions such as on the Internet. Initially, it was quickly adopted. But later, Smiley asked that it be reconsidered because of a drafting error. So, the House unwound some of it, putting it in a position where it could then be tabled and redone next week. But then Rep. Cedric Richmond lauded the concept of transparency an offered an amendment to it dealing with campaign finance reform, which required ant appointer to a state board or office to reveal whether he had received contributions from the appointed, a measure opposed by the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration and many in the Legislature.. Speaker Jim Tucker was queried as to its germaneness, and ruled that it was not. It then was passed in the correct form 99-0.
DID YOU KNOW
HB 591 by Rep. Noble Ellington would carve an exception into ethics rules that would allow any amount spent on a legislator in conjunction with a regional or national meeting for food and drink. After an amendment requiring reporting of the amount, it passed 59-33. Jindal has promised a veto of this bill.
QUOTES OF THE DAY:
Now, now, this isn’t the People’s Court
Tucker, when debate began to get excitable.
I can’t tap into his brain, and mine doesn’t work any more.
Rep. Hollis Downs, referring to efforts by himself and the absent Rep. Brett Geymann on their experiences with legislation dealing with consensual sex between high school employees and students.
I would like to move my parking spot from the front to back. I think it’s going to happen anyway, and I would like to take credit for it.
Mr. LaBruzzo will swap with you.
Richmond and Tucker, after Richmond’s amendment offering; Rep. John LaBruzzo had gained recent notoriety for a bill that would require drug testing of recipients of welfare which was panned by many.
11 May 2009
Committee action, May 11: HB 340
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 340 by Rep. Cameron Henry would support religious liberty. He said by using the First Amendment’s exact language, he said courts had too much latitude by recent court rulings that changed the interpretive test from a “compelling” to “rational interest.” This he said weakened the original intent of Louisiana citizens who approved the 1974 Constitution, so this amendment now was needed. Witnesses pointed out many other states had changed their constitutions or laws to reaffirm the “compelling interest” test for religious exercise, whereas if a law had a general applicability, it would use the “rational interest” test. What is a “religion” is not changed
Amendments made some alterations to language, mainly replacing the “interfere with the free exercise” to noninterference of “religious belief,” and was adopted without objection. Rep. John Bel Edwards wanted to know how this would impact believers’ desires not to work on certain days. Witnesses said current standards in this area should not be changed by it. Acting Rep. Greg Ernst said he was “troubled” by the amendment language that changed from the First Amendment, but said he would consult with Rep. Neil Abramson, who originally had requested the amending, prior to the floor debate.
Amended, the bill passed without objection.
HB 340 by Rep. Cameron Henry would support religious liberty. He said by using the First Amendment’s exact language, he said courts had too much latitude by recent court rulings that changed the interpretive test from a “compelling” to “rational interest.” This he said weakened the original intent of Louisiana citizens who approved the 1974 Constitution, so this amendment now was needed. Witnesses pointed out many other states had changed their constitutions or laws to reaffirm the “compelling interest” test for religious exercise, whereas if a law had a general applicability, it would use the “rational interest” test. What is a “religion” is not changed
Amendments made some alterations to language, mainly replacing the “interfere with the free exercise” to noninterference of “religious belief,” and was adopted without objection. Rep. John Bel Edwards wanted to know how this would impact believers’ desires not to work on certain days. Witnesses said current standards in this area should not be changed by it. Acting Rep. Greg Ernst said he was “troubled” by the amendment language that changed from the First Amendment, but said he would consult with Rep. Neil Abramson, who originally had requested the amending, prior to the floor debate.
Amended, the bill passed without objection.
09 May 2009
Legislative regular session through May 9, 2009
Bill filing now has concluded, with some last additions …
THE GOOD: (similar to HB 77: SB 328.)
THE BAD: (similar bill to HB 142: HB 862, SB 330; similar bill to HB 31: HB 884; similar bill to HB 75: HB 889.) SB 335 by Sen. Lydia Jackson would reduce deductions that could be taken on state income tax based on federal income tax deductions.
And on to the week’s summary …
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 60 passed House committee; HB 148 passed House committee; SB 183 with minor amendments passed Senate committee
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 579 with minor amendments passed House committee; SB 283 passed House committee and the House.
SCORECARD
Total number of bills, House: 889; total number of bills, Senate: 346.
Total number of good bills, House: 33; total number of good bills, Senate: 18.
Total number of bad bills, House: 44; total number of bad bills, Senate: 22.
Total House good bills heard in House committee: 12; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 2.
Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 9; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 5.
Total House good bills passed by House committee: 3; total Senate good bills passed by Senate committee: 1.
Total House bad bills passed by House committee: 1; total Senate bad bills passed by Senate committee: 1.
Total House good bills approved by House: 0; total Senate good bills approved by Senate: 0.
Total House bad bills approved by House: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by Senate: 1.
Total House good bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House committee: 0
Total House bad bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House committee: 1
Total House good bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House: 0.
Total House bad bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House: 1.
THE GOOD: (similar to HB 77: SB 328.)
THE BAD: (similar bill to HB 142: HB 862, SB 330; similar bill to HB 31: HB 884; similar bill to HB 75: HB 889.) SB 335 by Sen. Lydia Jackson would reduce deductions that could be taken on state income tax based on federal income tax deductions.
And on to the week’s summary …
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 60 passed House committee; HB 148 passed House committee; SB 183 with minor amendments passed Senate committee
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 579 with minor amendments passed House committee; SB 283 passed House committee and the House.
SCORECARD
Total number of bills, House: 889; total number of bills, Senate: 346.
Total number of good bills, House: 33; total number of good bills, Senate: 18.
Total number of bad bills, House: 44; total number of bad bills, Senate: 22.
Total House good bills heard in House committee: 12; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 2.
Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 9; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 5.
Total House good bills passed by House committee: 3; total Senate good bills passed by Senate committee: 1.
Total House bad bills passed by House committee: 1; total Senate bad bills passed by Senate committee: 1.
Total House good bills approved by House: 0; total Senate good bills approved by Senate: 0.
Total House bad bills approved by House: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by Senate: 1.
Total House good bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House committee: 0
Total House bad bills approved by Senate committee: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House committee: 1
Total House good bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate good bills approved by House: 0.
Total House bad bills approved by Senate: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by House: 1.
06 May 2009
Committee action, May 6: SB 278, SB 205, SB 314
SB 278 by Sen. Jody Amedee would increase transparency for records in the governor’s office. Currently, basically the entire office is covered. He said to the Senate Government and Affairs Committee that only a few matters would be left exempt such as scheduling, executive deliberations, etc. – in general, work products. This confidentiality allows for more creative discussion and would reduce public confusion from “premature” ideas and lows for judging by decisions, not decision-making process.
Executive Counsel Jimmy Faircloth pointed out the blanket condition was created many years ago, flowing from the Constitution but made broader by statute. He said what was needed was a functional exemption that was based on the use of the document rather that who had them, and that this bill was a better representation of what the Constitution was interpreted to mean on the question of privilege. He said this would open up dramatically the amount of information discoverable from the governor’s office, and provides a judicial mechanism to appeal denials.
Sen. Lydia Jackson wanted to know whether there would be a definitive standard about what was “deliberative.” Faircloth said he couldn’t do that, so Jackson replied she thought therefore more control would be placed in the governor’s office. But Faircloth reminded her the line was clear now: no exceptions whatsoever to the blanket coverage. She also said the schedule should be an open record, but Faircloth said too many items for deliberative and security concerns would have to be redacted from it, and that no other state allowed unfettered access to the schedule. Jackson suggested putting more emphasis on a more-finite “work product” than “deliberative process.” He read some other states’ descriptions of the process which were not very definitive. Jackson insisted a records request was just for that, a record, and that there should be a definition of the process. Fairlcloth pointed out that other states did not have language based on process, only documents that was too narrow, and pointed out the concept was a widely-recognized standard judicially. She asked about an amendment that would try to more narrowly define the process, along the lines of Illinois, but he said they could not support it.
Carl Redman of the Louisiana Press Association argued that the wording was too vague and therefore would allow entities outside of the governor’s office, both in state government and not, could be covered under the bill. He also argued that the schedule needed more revelation because it should be known who could be influencing the governor. But Sen. Mike Walsworth said not every meeting with somebody had influence operating, and it could create a misleading impression that could have a chilling effect on the process. Redman said because of the state’s suspicious history and “the most powerful governor in the country” he wanted to err on the side of transparency. Faircloth said he would try to work on language concerning the staff – presumably on the floor.
The bill without amendment then was approved 4-2.
DID YOU KNOW?
SB 205 by Sen. Robert Adley also would address public records, along the lines of a bill dealt with the previous week in House committee by its tabling. After quick clarifying amendments were put on, Adley opined the previous bill had made matters worse and sketched a conspiracy theory about how the current administration was trying to keep greater transparency from coming. He claimed the previous bill had reintroduced all the previously covered agencies uncovered the previous year into exemption, put the power in the hands of the executive counsel to make these decisions and force the public into expensive appeals, and “devastated the public bid laws.” He said the alternative bills were not directed at the current administration, and his bill allowed sufficient exemptions that existed for other agencies currently in state government.
Sen. Edwin Murray asked about the focus of his bill. Adley said it was person-centered, mainly because it was too consuming to go at it otherwise. Faircloth disputed Adley’s conspiratorial conclusions and said the language was clear not to include back in agencies, but he would work on wordings on the other bill if needed to make it even clearer. He said this bill went too far, saying things such as e-mail messages to top aides would be totally open and would alter the process.
Adley closed by saying he worked for the people and ought to pass both bills out. It lost by the identical 4-2.
DID YOU KNOW
SB 314 by Adley would allow for reimposition of the blanket primary system for federal offices. He said the new closed primaries caused confusion and cost millions more, and said it caused rejection of the right to vote (presumably because Republicans did not allow non-party members to vote in the primary). He said he didn’t want to force parties to open up primaries, so this bill was the only way he could think to do it. He asked for amendments that would address previous constitutional concerns about elections dates to be adopted, and they were without objection.
Sen. Jack Donahue said he saw no violation of a right to vote when anybody excluded from a party primary could then vote in the subsequent general election. Walsworth received for clarification on costs -- $5.6 million for a statewide election, $1.8 million for a special – and budgeting for them. Sen. John Smith opined he wasn’t a big fan of parties and in Washington served only to embarrass each others, but said the old system affected seniority of members. Adley then told an entertaining story about how his wife was a Democrat and was allowed to vote for a Republican candidate in the primary but said they would find a make-up vote from a Republican, to illustrate confusion. First Assistant Secretary of State Tom Schedler expressed shock at this and said it would be addressed.
Adley said the bill would not hurt the GOP, that Lincoln took together disparate elements of other parties to win. Donahue pointed out that an extra election after the national election date was an extra cost. Adley also pointed a plurality now could elect leaders, although Donahue said in essence was moot because so many didn’t vote already. Schedler added that a current problem with now five recognized parties was that it could require more machines in a closed primary and would be more costly. Donahue pointed out that without closed primaries, it would deter party-building since there is no penalty for not being aligned with a party.
The bill was defeated 4-2.
QUOTES OF THE DAY:
Move favorable?
Amedee, as he sat down to begin presentation of his SB 278, the debate over which would last over 100 minutes.
I resemble that.
Chairman Bob Kostelka, when Amedee was using as an example judge’s deliberations that are best kept confidential; Kostelka was a former judge.
I know Bobby Jindal will soften his heart to the truth.
Adley, when predicting that he thought policy would go in the direction of his bill rather than Amedee’s.
If you can let bygones be bygones
Adley, after the defeat of his first bill before moving on to the next.
You may not be hurting the Republican Party, but your killing the Secretary of State.
Donahue, after Adley’s story.
Executive Counsel Jimmy Faircloth pointed out the blanket condition was created many years ago, flowing from the Constitution but made broader by statute. He said what was needed was a functional exemption that was based on the use of the document rather that who had them, and that this bill was a better representation of what the Constitution was interpreted to mean on the question of privilege. He said this would open up dramatically the amount of information discoverable from the governor’s office, and provides a judicial mechanism to appeal denials.
Sen. Lydia Jackson wanted to know whether there would be a definitive standard about what was “deliberative.” Faircloth said he couldn’t do that, so Jackson replied she thought therefore more control would be placed in the governor’s office. But Faircloth reminded her the line was clear now: no exceptions whatsoever to the blanket coverage. She also said the schedule should be an open record, but Faircloth said too many items for deliberative and security concerns would have to be redacted from it, and that no other state allowed unfettered access to the schedule. Jackson suggested putting more emphasis on a more-finite “work product” than “deliberative process.” He read some other states’ descriptions of the process which were not very definitive. Jackson insisted a records request was just for that, a record, and that there should be a definition of the process. Fairlcloth pointed out that other states did not have language based on process, only documents that was too narrow, and pointed out the concept was a widely-recognized standard judicially. She asked about an amendment that would try to more narrowly define the process, along the lines of Illinois, but he said they could not support it.
Carl Redman of the Louisiana Press Association argued that the wording was too vague and therefore would allow entities outside of the governor’s office, both in state government and not, could be covered under the bill. He also argued that the schedule needed more revelation because it should be known who could be influencing the governor. But Sen. Mike Walsworth said not every meeting with somebody had influence operating, and it could create a misleading impression that could have a chilling effect on the process. Redman said because of the state’s suspicious history and “the most powerful governor in the country” he wanted to err on the side of transparency. Faircloth said he would try to work on language concerning the staff – presumably on the floor.
The bill without amendment then was approved 4-2.
DID YOU KNOW?
SB 205 by Sen. Robert Adley also would address public records, along the lines of a bill dealt with the previous week in House committee by its tabling. After quick clarifying amendments were put on, Adley opined the previous bill had made matters worse and sketched a conspiracy theory about how the current administration was trying to keep greater transparency from coming. He claimed the previous bill had reintroduced all the previously covered agencies uncovered the previous year into exemption, put the power in the hands of the executive counsel to make these decisions and force the public into expensive appeals, and “devastated the public bid laws.” He said the alternative bills were not directed at the current administration, and his bill allowed sufficient exemptions that existed for other agencies currently in state government.
Sen. Edwin Murray asked about the focus of his bill. Adley said it was person-centered, mainly because it was too consuming to go at it otherwise. Faircloth disputed Adley’s conspiratorial conclusions and said the language was clear not to include back in agencies, but he would work on wordings on the other bill if needed to make it even clearer. He said this bill went too far, saying things such as e-mail messages to top aides would be totally open and would alter the process.
Adley closed by saying he worked for the people and ought to pass both bills out. It lost by the identical 4-2.
DID YOU KNOW
SB 314 by Adley would allow for reimposition of the blanket primary system for federal offices. He said the new closed primaries caused confusion and cost millions more, and said it caused rejection of the right to vote (presumably because Republicans did not allow non-party members to vote in the primary). He said he didn’t want to force parties to open up primaries, so this bill was the only way he could think to do it. He asked for amendments that would address previous constitutional concerns about elections dates to be adopted, and they were without objection.
Sen. Jack Donahue said he saw no violation of a right to vote when anybody excluded from a party primary could then vote in the subsequent general election. Walsworth received for clarification on costs -- $5.6 million for a statewide election, $1.8 million for a special – and budgeting for them. Sen. John Smith opined he wasn’t a big fan of parties and in Washington served only to embarrass each others, but said the old system affected seniority of members. Adley then told an entertaining story about how his wife was a Democrat and was allowed to vote for a Republican candidate in the primary but said they would find a make-up vote from a Republican, to illustrate confusion. First Assistant Secretary of State Tom Schedler expressed shock at this and said it would be addressed.
Adley said the bill would not hurt the GOP, that Lincoln took together disparate elements of other parties to win. Donahue pointed out that an extra election after the national election date was an extra cost. Adley also pointed a plurality now could elect leaders, although Donahue said in essence was moot because so many didn’t vote already. Schedler added that a current problem with now five recognized parties was that it could require more machines in a closed primary and would be more costly. Donahue pointed out that without closed primaries, it would deter party-building since there is no penalty for not being aligned with a party.
The bill was defeated 4-2.
QUOTES OF THE DAY:
Move favorable?
Amedee, as he sat down to begin presentation of his SB 278, the debate over which would last over 100 minutes.
I resemble that.
Chairman Bob Kostelka, when Amedee was using as an example judge’s deliberations that are best kept confidential; Kostelka was a former judge.
I know Bobby Jindal will soften his heart to the truth.
Adley, when predicting that he thought policy would go in the direction of his bill rather than Amedee’s.
If you can let bygones be bygones
Adley, after the defeat of his first bill before moving on to the next.
You may not be hurting the Republican Party, but your killing the Secretary of State.
Donahue, after Adley’s story.
02 May 2009
Legislative regular session through May 2, 2009
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 664 was involuntarily deferred by House committee; HB 830 passed House committee.
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: SB 283 passed Senate committee with minor amendments, passed Senate with minor amendments.
SCORECARD
Total number of bills, House: 859; total number of bills, Senate: 322.
Total number of good bills, House: 33; total number of good bills, Senate: 17.
Total number of bad bills, House: 42; total number of bad bills, Senate: 19.
Total House good bills heard in House committee: 3; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 0.
Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 4; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 1.
Total House good bills passed by House committee: 1; total Senate good bills passed by Senate committee: 0.
Total House bad bills passed by House committee: 0; total Senate bad bills passed by Senate committee: 1.
Total House good bills approved by House: 0; total Senate good bills approved by Senate: 0.
Total House bad bills approved by House: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by Senate: 1.
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: SB 283 passed Senate committee with minor amendments, passed Senate with minor amendments.
SCORECARD
Total number of bills, House: 859; total number of bills, Senate: 322.
Total number of good bills, House: 33; total number of good bills, Senate: 17.
Total number of bad bills, House: 42; total number of bad bills, Senate: 19.
Total House good bills heard in House committee: 3; total Senate good bills heard in Senate committee: 0.
Total House bad bills heard in House committee: 4; total Senate bad bills heard in Senate committee: 1.
Total House good bills passed by House committee: 1; total Senate good bills passed by Senate committee: 0.
Total House bad bills passed by House committee: 0; total Senate bad bills passed by Senate committee: 1.
Total House good bills approved by House: 0; total Senate good bills approved by Senate: 0.
Total House bad bills approved by House: 0; total Senate bad bills approved by Senate: 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)