Public transportation bill moves through state legislature
Alabama is one of only five states with no state funding for public transportation. A bipartisan pair of state legislators is hoping to soon change that. Birmingham-Democrat state Sen. Rodger Smitherman and Vestavia-Republican state Rep. Jack Williams have each sponsored legislation, SB85 and HB10 accordingly, that would create the Alabama Public Transportation Trust Fund to fund activities that increase public transportation options across the state. According to the proposed legislation, the fund would be maintained and administered by the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA). ADECA would make its decisions based off of recommendations made by a 13-member advisory committee. Alabama Arise — a statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition of congregations, organizations and individuals promoting public policies to improve the lives of low-income Alabamians — is one of the voices who has come out support of the legislation. The organization held a press conference at the State House on Tuesday, as part of their 2018 Legislative Day, advocating on the legislation’s behalf. “Alabama Arise has been working on this since the 1990s, when people were transitioning from welfare to work. That transportation aspect has been the hardest part,” said Kimble Forester, executive director of Alabama Arise. “This is one area where we have gone backwards. Public transportation is in the future.” The trust fund would be supported by state funds and would also allow the state to apply for federal public transportation grants. “The state loses out on millions of dollars of transportation dollars every day. We are supporting legislation this year by Senator Rodger Smitherman and Rep. Jack Williams,” added Alice Paris, chair of Alabama Arise’s legislative committee. The Senate voted 26-0 for Smitherman’s bill in late January. Meanwhile, Williams’ bill won overwhelming House committee approval earlier in the month and is now awaiting a full House vote.
Fantasy sports, gambling could be big business for state
A slate of bills aimed at loosening Alabama’s gambling laws and setting the state up to benefit from the lucrative gaming industry have been slowly winding their ways through the legislative chambers this Session, but none have gained any real traction in a Legislative Session marred in controversy over ill-fated budgets and sexually explicit recordings. Despite that, the bills keep coming, aimed at regulating untapped gaming revenues and opening the doors to a state lottery and even full-on casino gambling. The first high-profile lottery bill was announced only days before the start of the Legislative Session. Sen. Jim McClendon (R-Springville) and Rep. Alan Harper (R-Northport) introduced SB19 and HB13, respectively, that offer a constitutional amendment to allow a state lottery to be established. The bill makes no mention of how the proceeds from such a lottery would be spent, it only allows for residents to vote on whether a lottery should be operated in the state. Legislators would be tasked with figuring out how to set up and allocate the proceeds next year. The Harper-McClendon legislation has passed hurdles in their respective committees, but so far has not come up for discussion on either floor Rep. Craig Ford (D-Gadsden) has offered four bills aimed at establishing the Alabama Lottery Commission and distributing the proceeds from the operation. HB10 would establish the commission, as well as the Lottery Trust Fund where profits would be stashed to fund college scholarships for qualifying students. HB208 establishes the Alabama Gaming Commission, which would oversee pari-mutuel wagering at county-approved racetracks and levy taxes on some establishments. HB209 is the meat and potatoes of 10 and establishes all of the commissions, corporations and funds required to oversee the proposed state lottery and gaming endeavors. HB278 allows the governor to negotiate a compact with the Poarch Creek Indians, who are currently the only operation allowed to offer slot-machine gaming in the state. Like the Harper-McClendon bills, Ford’s bills have gone before their required committees but have gained no real traction. Sen. Trip Pittman (R-Daphne) has offered his own lottery bill, SB232, which would allow Alabama to participate in other multistate lotteries and compel the legislature to establish rules regarding the enterprise. Pittman’s legislation has gone before committee but has not yet come out on the other side. Rep. John Knight (D-Montgomery) has offered HB263, which would simply repeal Alabama’s prohibition on a state lottery. Knight’s legislation was directed to committee in February but, so far, has gone nowhere. And while lottery and pari-mutuel gambling has long been a centerpiece of Alabama’s political discourse, a newcomer has made its way into the fold. Two bills have been filed to regulate fantasy sports contests in the state, possibly setting the state up to be involved in what has quickly become a multibillion operation. SB114 from Sen. Paul Sanford (R-Huntsville) and HB56 from Rep. Connie Rowe (R-Jasper) would both establish regulatory rules regarding fantasy contests in the state. The bills would require contest operators to institute procedures for consumer protection, require audits of operators and provide penalties for those operating outside of the established regulations. Further, the bill makes the industry immune from being considered a gambling operation in the state. Both have seemingly stalled in committee. Despite the fact Alabama could benefit greatly from the revenue that these types of gaming operations would generate – Missouri is expecting to generate “several million” dollars off of fantasy contest regulation (an industry slated to rake in about $20 billion by 2020) and South Dakota has raised nearly $2.5 billion through its state lottery – state lawmakers appear poised to avoid a vote on the topic and let another year tick by with no good answers on how to generate much-needed funding. Being in the Bible Belt may be the biggest reason Alabamians have long opposed such gaming operations, but it doesn’t hurt that organizations that run gambling enterprises, such as the Poarch Creek Indians, have funneled money into anti-gambling candidates’ campaigns. The New York Times reported in 2014 that the group had covertly spent $350,000 to fund anti-gambling candidates. And that wasn’t the first time. In the late 1990’s, Christian Coalition Chairman Ralph Reed was caught up in a scandal with GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The duo funneled $1.3 million from the Choctaw Tribe to the Alabama Christian Coalition. The move was made to hide that the money had come from Choctaw gaming interests and used to fight video poker and a proposed lottery in the state.
State lottery, guns, wireless data bills coming to state Legislature
With the start of Alabama’s Legislative Session less than a week away, a slew of bills have been prefiled in the House of Representatives. Alabama Rep. Craig Ford (D-Etowah) has prefiled House Bill 10, which would establish an Alabama lottery to fund scholarships, an Alabama Lottery Corp. “to implement and to regulate” a state lottery, and would prohibit the operation of casinos. Proceeds from Ford’s lottery would go into a Lottery Trust Fund and be used to give scholarships to “qualifying students” to attend two- or four-year colleges within the state. The bill specifies that qualified students are those “who are A/B Honor Roll students.” Ford’s bill would also alter part of a constitutional amendment that prohibits the state Legislature to “authorize lotteries or gift enterprises for any purpose.” Rep. Mack Butler (R-Etowah), along with a number of House colleagues, has proposed a constitutional amendment, HB12, to allow persons with a concealed pistol permit to carry weapons on the campuses of public and private universities within the state. The bill also provides for universities to establish rules regarding the storage of such weapons in dormitories or other residential areas, the carrying of weapons on campus, and to prohibit carrying weapons in some cases, though complete prohibition would not be allowed. The law further provides immunity to universities “for damages arising from action or inaction under the requirements of the amendment.” Universities would be required to submit a report each year to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate detailing a description of the rules regarding campus carry and the rationale behind such rules. Butler noted than an additional bill, to be filed at the start of the session, will provide criminal penalties to universities that ban guns on campus. “The people overwhelmingly are embracing it,” Butler said. “It’s becoming crystal clear that the targets are these gun-free zones.” A bill prefiled by Rep. Tommy Hanes (R-Scottsboro) and others, HB2, would require wireless service providers to turn over location information to law enforcement agents in “an emergency situation involving a risk of death or serious bodily harm.” Also known as the Kelsey Smith Act, named for a woman killed in 2007 whose body was found after Verizon Wireless finally cooperated with law enforcement. The bill goes on to say that “law enforcement may monitor from any location in this State location information obtained from a wireless communications provider or device from anywhere the device is located regardless of jurisdiction.” Further, the bill states that “the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency shall obtain contact information from all wireless service providers authorized to do business in this state to facilitate a request from a law enforcement agency for call location information under this section. The bureau shall disseminate the contact information to each state and local law enforcement agency in this state.”
New law reverses controversial “innovator liability” high court ruling
Manufacturers of brand-name products cannot be held liable for the effects of generic versions they don’t make or sell, according to a law signed by Gov. Robert Bentley last week. Senate Bill 80 reverses a controversial product liability ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court. In Weeks v. Wyeth, the court ruled brand-name drug makers could be held liable for copycat versions of their products. The plaintiffs in Weeks sustained injuries due to long-term use of a generic version of the drug Reglan. Though Wyeth Pharmaceuticals neither made nor sold the version of Reglan that the plaintiffs ingested, the Alabama Supreme Court said that the company was responsible for its effects. At the time of the ruling, The Wall Street Journal editorial board criticized the court’s “bad judgment,” warning that it “contradicts the overwhelming trend in federal and state courts on innovator liability.” AL.com covered the original ruling and quoted Justice Michael Bolin’s opinion that the court’s decision was limited to the pharmaceutical industry: “Nothing in this opinion suggests that a plaintiff can sue Black & Decker for injuries caused by a power tool manufactured by Skil based on labeling or otherwise,” Bolin wrote. However, in a national report on court imbalances, the American Tort Reform Foundation called the Alabama court’s decision “irresponsible” and claimed it would “effectively force innovating companies to act as insurers for their generic competitors’ products by diverting vast sums from research and development and spending them instead on litigation.” The House and Senate passed companion legislation by an overwhelming margin: by respective votes of 88-7 and 32-9. Sen. Cam Ward sponsored Senate Bill 80; in an interview with The Associated Press, he said it would benefit not only pharmaceutical companies but all manufacturers in the state. Rep. Jack Williams, chair of the House Commerce and Small Business Committee, sponsored House Bill 110 and said, “This State Supreme Court ruling threatens Alabama’s ability to compete with other states in recruiting manufacturers in the automobile industry, the aerospace industry, the pharmaceutical industry and just about any other you can imagine.” Williams saidd, “When a company invents a product, it should not be liable if a third party replicates the product and is later sued by a consumer as a result.” The new law will go into effect this year.
