Federal school safety commission to meet in Montgomery
A federal commission on improving school safety will hold a listening session next week in Montgomery. The Federal Commission on School Safety will meet Tuesday at the Alabama Capitol. It is the fourth and final listening session organized by the group formed by President Donald Trump after the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Seventeen people were killed. The group will hold round table discussions with state and local agencies. There will also be a two-hour session for the public to express their views on how to improve school safety. People who want to speak must register in advance with the commission. Members of the public may also send written comments to safety@ed.gov. Listening sessions were held earlier in Kentucky, Washington D.C. and Wyoming. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
California enacts travel ban to Alabama, citing LGBTQ discrimination
Alabama is off-limits for state-funded visits from California, one of four states facing a travel ban because of recent “discriminatory legislation” affecting the LGBTQ community. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced Friday he is adding Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota and Texas to Assembly Bill AB 1887. Each state passed “discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people” in 2017. Enacted Jan. 1, 2017, AB 1887 prohibits state-sponsored or state-funded visits from California “state agencies, departments, boards, authorities and commissions, including an agency, department, board, authority, or commission of the University of California, the Board of Regents of the University of California, and the California State University.” “Our country has made great strides in dismantling prejudicial laws that have deprived too many of our fellow Americans of their precious rights,” Becerra said. “Sadly, that is not the case in all parts of our nation, even in the 21st century.” The four states join Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee. “While the California DOJ works to protect the rights of all our people, discriminatory laws in any part of our country send all of us several steps back,” Becerra said. “That’s why when California said we would not tolerate discrimination against LGBTQ members of our community, we meant it.” Becerra specified the reason each state made the list: Alabama: HB 24 was enacted May 2, 2017. HB 24 could prevent qualified prospective lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents from adopting or serving as foster parents. Kentucky: SB 17 was enacted March 16, 2017. SB 17 could allow student-run organizations in colleges and K-12 schools to discriminate against classmates based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. South Dakota: SB 149 was enacted March 10, 2017. SB 149 could prevent qualified lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender couples from adopting or serving as foster parents. Texas: HB 3859 was enacted June 15, 2017. HB 3859, allows foster care agencies to discriminate against children in foster care and potentially disqualify lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families from the state’s foster and adoption system. Despite the travel ban, the Sept. 9 Tuscaloosa home game of University of Alabama against Fresno State — officially known as California State University — Fresno — will go on as planned. In June 2015, Alabama agreed to pay Fresno State $1.4 million in a deal to play in Tuscaloosa. A Fresno State spokesman told AL.com Friday that the Bulldogs’ game with Alabama will not be impacted. AB 1887 exempts travel on contractual obligations made before Jan. 1, the date the bill was enacted.
Anxiety over GOP health plan for those with severe illnesses
Unease and uncertainty are settling over Americans with serious illnesses as Republicans move closer to dismantling Democratic former President Barack Obama‘s health care system. A New Orleans attorney with multiple sclerosis fears he’ll be forced to close his practice if he loses coverage, while a Philadelphia woman with asthma is looking at stockpiling inhalers. The Republican health care bill pushed through the House on Thursday leaves those with pre-existing conditions fearful of higher premiums and losing coverage altogether if the Affordable Care Act is replaced. The bill sets aside billions of dollars more to help people afford coverage, but experts say that money is unlikely to guarantee an affordable alternative for people now covered under a popular provision of the existing law that prevents insurers from rejecting them or charging higher rates based on their health. What happens to those with pre-existing conditions under the Republican plan remains unknown. Several people unsettled by the prospects expressed these concerns. ___ FORMER UTAH CHEF Jake Martinez said he’s worried about getting health insurance in the future because he has epilepsy, considered a pre-existing condition by insurers. For the last several years, he, his wife and their three children have settled into a comfortable place using health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. But now the Murray, Utah, residents are worried about what may happen with this new health care bill. “Today, it really kind of sunk in that not only are we not going to potentially have health care coverage but that it was done as a political win rather than a well-thought-out plan,” said Martinez, a 32-year-old former chef who’s studying social work. “That’s what stings about it.” ___ KENTUCKY ATTORNEY Shortly after being diagnosed with type I diabetes, Amanda Perkins learned about the perils of pre-existing conditions when she starting trying to buy health insurance. Now she worries that protections under the Affordable Care Act that made sure certain essential health benefits, like insulin prescriptions, could be eliminated. The new Republican plan would let some states allow insurers to charge higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, but only if those people had a lapse in insurance coverage. Supporters say those states would need to have programs in place to help people pay for expensive medical treatments, including high-risk pools. But Perkins said Kentucky’s previous high-risk pool had a 12-month waiting period and was too expensive for her. “I bought a house just a couple of months ago. Will it come down to me paying my mortgage payment or paying my health insurance so I don’t have a lapse in coverage?” said Perkins, an attorney for a small firm in Lexington, Kentucky. ___ KANSAS GRAPHIC DESIGNER Janella Williams has a rare neurological disorder that forces her to receive expensive IV drugs every seven weeks. Without it, she would not be able to walk. Williams, who owns her own graphic design company in Lawrence, Kansas, pays $480 under an Obamacare plan. It keeps her out-of-pocket maximum at $3,500 a year and provides her coverage despite her pre-existing condition. “I’m terrified of becoming disabled. If I’m being completely honest, I’ve thought of ending my life if it comes to that,” she said. High-risk pools run by the state are not the answer, she says. The Republican plan would also bring back lifetime caps on coverage, which Williams says she would meet after only her first IV treatment. She and her husband both work full time, but wouldn’t be able to afford the roughly $600,000 a year her treatments cost once the cap is met. “I have really lost my faith in humanity,” she said. “It’s terrible how little we care for the sick.” ___ NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL ADVISER John Thompson credits his survival in large part because he bought a family insurance policy through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. Thompson, of Greensboro, North Carolina, was laid off in 2013, lost his employer-backed insurance and diagnosed with cancer during the year he was unemployed. If the House proposal allowing insurers to make coverage for pre-existing conditions unaffordable takes hold, he fears his cancer history will make him uninsurable if he would lose his current job as a retirement financial adviser. “Like many of us here, whether you have asthma or a heart condition or diabetes or like me, cancer, any type of pre-existing condition, you go back to the way it was before, you give insurance companies carte blanche to do their underwriting and to exclude you,” Thompson said. ___ FLORIDA MOM Shelby Jehlen, of New Port Richey, Florida, was diagnosed six years ago with leukemia and says she wouldn’t be able to afford insurance if she lost her roughly $400 a month subsidy. Jehlen saves about $1,000 every three months to see her cancer doctor under her Obamacare plan, but still pays about $1,500 for the check-ups. She was forced to quit work because of all the X-rays and other chemicals she was exposed to daily as a veterinary assistant and now cuts corners, sacrificing phones and school activities for her two teen daughters, to afford the monthly premiums. The stress has caused her to struggle with depression and anxiety. “Absolutely, I’m scared. I’m worried I’m going to have to figure out what I’m going to do with all my side effects with my leukemia if they take this away from me,” she said. ___ PHILADELPHIA BUSINESSWOMAN Adrienne Standley has been preparing for the possibility of losing her insurance since President Donald Trump took office. Three days after the inauguration, she set up an appointment for a birth control implant so she would be covered for four years, no matter what happens. The 29-year-old operations director at a start-up apparel business in Philadelphia also has asthma and attention deficit disorder. “I’m looking at stockpiling, making sure I have an inhaler,” she said. “I’m pretty scared to lose coverage.” ___ NEW ORLEANS ATTORNEY John S. Williams says he’ll be forced to close his practice and find a job with a group insurance
Bernie Sanders’ campaign requests Kentucky vote recanvass
Bernie Sanders‘ presidential campaign requested a recanvass in Kentucky’s presidential primary Tuesday, where he trails by less than one-half of 1 percent of the vote. The Sanders campaign said it will ask the Kentucky secretary of state to have election officials review electronic voting machines and absentee ballots from last week’s primary in each of the state’s 120 counties. Sanders signed a letter Tuesday morning requesting a full and complete check and recanvass of the election results in Kentucky. “He’s in this until every last vote is counted and he’s fighting for every last delegate,” said Sanders’ spokesman Michael Briggs. Clinton holds a 1,924-vote lead over Sanders out of 454,573 votes cast. The Associated Press had not called the race, despite Clinton’s slight lead, in the event that Sanders might ask to recanvass the vote. A recanvass is not a recount but a review of the voting totals. It is unlikely to affect the final outcome but could affect the awarding of a single delegate still up for grabs. Sanders has vowed to amass as many delegates as possible in his lengthy primary fight against Clinton, where he trails the former secretary of state by 274 pledged delegates according to a count by The Associated Press. Clinton holds a substantial lead with party leaders and elected officials, called superdelegates, and is on track to clinch the nomination through the combination of pledged delegates and superdelegates after contests on June 7. Sanders can ask a judge to order a recount or an examination of individual ballots, but his campaign would have to pay for it. The deadline to request a recanvass is Tuesday at 4 p.m. Clinton and Sanders both picked up 27 delegates in Kentucky, and one remaining delegate will be allocated in the sixth congressional district, which includes Frankfort and Lexington. The delegate will be awarded based on final vote tallies and Clinton currently leads Sanders by a slim margin of about 500 votes in that district. The recanvass is conducted by the state at no cost to the campaign. A tip in the statewide vote in Sanders’ favor would not guarantee him that last delegate. But if a recanvass were to determine he actually received more votes than Clinton in the sixth congressional district, Sanders could earn the last remaining delegate that Clinton would otherwise receive. Earlier this year, Sanders could have pressed for a review of voting results in the leadoff Iowa caucuses and in Missouri’s primary. He narrowly lost both contests. But in those cases, he chose not to contest the results but pursue delegates later in the process. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Big spending expected for state legislative races in 2016
While the presidential campaign commands the public’s attention, political parties and financial contributors are quietly preparing for another less glitzy yet significant set of elections a year from now — battles to determine control of dozens of state legislative chambers. National Republican and Democratic groups have set record-high fundraising goals as they try to influence the outcome of 2016 state legislative races. Independent political committees appear likely to join the fray. With Congress frequently paralyzed by partisanship, legislative elections are gaining attention because states are the ones pushing change. In recent years, state legislatures have been addressing gun control, infrastructure, education standards, renewable energy, marijuana and transgender rights. The races also are critical to political parties because legislatures in most states are responsible for drawing the boundaries for congressional and state legislative districts. The party in charge can help ensure favorable districts — and thus potentially remain in power — for a decade to come. In the 2012 elections, for example, Democratic candidates for the U.S. House received about 1.4 million more votes than their Republican opponents, yet the GOP won a 33-seat majority in that chamber, partly because GOP-dominated state legislatures drew political maps to favor their party. While the next round of redistricting in 2021 may seem far away, it often takes several elections for parties to build a majority or chip away at one. That’s why some Democrats have described next year’s state legislative elections as vital if they are to begin reversing recent Republican gains. The GOP controls 69 of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers, its most ever. “We are definitely looking at all of this in a multicycle way,” said Missouri Democratic Party Chairman Roy Temple. “That’s something that Democrats — not just in Missouri, but nationally — have not been particularly very good at historically.” The Democrats’ attempt to roll back GOP supermajorities in the Missouri Legislature is expected to be countered by heavy Republican spending, after both parties combined to spend more than $6 million on legislative races two years ago. Winning just a handful of seats, Temple said, can make a difference in the redistricting process and, ultimately, in enacting or blocking new laws. Nationally, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee hopes to raise $20 million for the 2016 state legislative races, which would set a record for the group. An additional $20 million is expected to be spent by an affiliated super political action committee, Advantage 2020, which is focused on gaining Democratic state legislative majorities ahead of the next round of redistricting. The rival Republican State Leadership Committee has its own record fundraising goal of $40 million. The Republican and Democratic groups each are targeting more than two dozen state legislative chambers, including 19 listed as priorities by both parties. Republicans will be trying to flip Democratic-led House chambers in Colorado, Kentucky and Washington as well as Senate chambers in Iowa, Minnesota and New Mexico. Democrats will be trying to reverse Republican control of 13 chambers, including one-seat Senate margins in such states as Colorado, Nevada and Washington. In Illinois and Massachusetts, Republicans are hoping to cut into Democratic supermajorities that can override the vetoes of Republican governors. The Democrats’ Advantage 2020 PAC is hoping to chip away at Republican legislative majorities in a half-dozen states won at least once by President Barack Obama — Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The parties’ national efforts will be supplemented by state political parties and like-minded groups. Independent expenditures on state legislative races have been on the rise since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, which allowed unions and corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns. From 2010 to 2012, the total amount of independent expenditures on state legislative races shot up 75 percent to $94 million, according to data compiled by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, a Helena, Montana-based nonprofit. It is still compiling nationwide figures for the 2014 elections. Outside interest groups already were spending big in this fall’s legislative races in New Jersey and Virginia, a potential sign of things to come. The Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, spent at least $2.2 million to help two Democratic candidates in a battle for control of the closely divided Virginia state Senate. One candidate won while the other lost. The Republican State Leadership Committee also poured more than $1 million into the Virginia Senate races. All told, more than $43 million had been spent on Virginia state Senate races a week before the election, surpassing the high mark set four years earlier, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, which tracks campaign spending. The result was the status quo, with Republicans maintaining the same 21-19 majority they held before Tuesday’s elections. In New Jersey, outside groups spent at least $8.5 million on this year’s state Assembly elections. That was nearly five times what groups spent during the state’s last non-gubernatorial elections in 2011. Most of that money came from two Democratic-leaning groups, the General Majority PAC and Garden State Forward, a political arm of the New Jersey Education Association. Democrats gained several seats in Tuesday’s elections, achieving the party’s largest Assembly majority in almost four decades. Other groups already have been raising money with an eye on 2016. “You have what will be a highly contentious presidential election cycle,” said Matt Walter, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee. So the group set a record-high fundraising goal, he said, “to make sure we cut through the clutter and make sure that these state-level races get the attention that they deserve.”
High court same-sex marriage arguments to start Tuesday
Five lawyers will take turns at the U.S. Supreme Court lectern Tuesday for the highly anticipated and extended arguments over same-sex marriage. Among them are the Obama administration‘s top lawyer at the high court, with more than two dozen arguments behind him, and two lawyers making their first appearance before the justices. The cases come from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, all of which had their marriage bans upheld by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati. The justices will hear 2½ hours of arguments on these two questions: whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages from elsewhere. Civil rights lawyer Mary Bonauto, backed by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., will argue for the right to marry. Former Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch will defend the state laws. On the second question, Washington lawyer Douglas Hallward-Driemeier will urge the court to rule that states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. On the other side will be Joseph Whalen, Tennessee’s associate solicitor general. A look at the advocates: Bonauto has been called the Thurgood Marshall of the push for equal rights for gay and lesbian in the United States. She was the winning lawyer the first time a court granted same-sex couples the right to marry, in Massachusetts in 2003. She hopes her next argument is the last time same-sex marriage is tested in court. The 53-year-old has been at the forefront of the legal fight for gay rights, including same-sex marriage, for more than two decades. But it will be her first argument before the nation’s highest court. In her early days as the civil rights project director at the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, where she has worked for 25 years, Bonauto said she used to say no when same-sex couples asked her to take on their marriage cases in the courts. As recently as late 2012, Bonauto worried that the time was not yet right to ask the Supreme Court to settle the issue once and for all. But that time has now arrived, she said. “There’s no reason to tell these families they should be denied legal respect. It’s our hope that we soon will be able to secure that for people everywhere,” Bonauto said in a recent call with reporters. Bonauto received a MacArthur Foundation fellowship last year. She lives in Portland, Maine, with her wife, professor Jennifer Wriggins of the University of Maine’s law school, and their twin teenage daughters. • • • Bursch made a Supreme Court name for himself as Michigan’s solicitor general, arguing eight cases at the high court in a little more than two years. That record included the contentious dispute over the state’s voter-approved ban on the use of race in college admissions. He defended the ban and the justices sided with him last year. His performance during that argument was typical of his appearances before the court — unflappable in the face of sustained, and at times hostile, questioning from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Same-sex marriage opponents have pointed to Justice Anthony Kennedy‘s opinion in that case, which affirmed the power of voters to decide sensitive issues, as a key point in favor of the voter-approved gay-marriage bans now being challenged. Bursch, 42, now is in private practice at the Warner, Norcross and Judd law firm in Grand Rapids, Mich.. The firm said it is playing no role in Bursch’s argument in defense of state same-sex marriage bans. A graduate of the University of Minnesota law school and Western Michigan University, he was a law clerk to Judge James Loken of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. • • • Hallward-Driemeier cheerfully acknowledged that he would rather not have the court decide the issue he is going to argue — that states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. That’s because he would rather have the justices settle the larger issue of the right to marry. “We think there’s a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry and we think that pretty much ends the question” about recognition, Hallward-Driemeier said on a conference call with reporters. The Harvard Law School graduate is an experienced Supreme Court advocate with no previous ties to same-sex marriage cases. Tuesday’s argument will be his 16th at the high court. Hallward-Driemeier, 48, heads the appellate practice at Boston-based Ropes and Gray. He spent several years at the Justice Department and before that was a law clerk to Judge Amalya Kearse of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. He is a St. Louis-area native who graduated from DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind. He met his wife, the former Mary Hallward, when both were Rhodes Scholars at Oxford University in England. When they married, they combined their last names. • • • Verrilli is the most familiar face to the justices among the five lawyers they’ll hear from on Tuesday. He will follow Bonauto in support of a ruling forbidding states from limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman. Verrilli, 57, has spent nearly four years as President Barack Obama‘s solicitor general, arguing a half-dozen or so cases at the Supreme Court each year. Among them was the epic re-election campaign year fight over Obama’s health overhaul in 2012. The administration prevailed by a 5-4 vote on the basis of a secondary argument Verrilli made before the skeptical court. He was on the losing end of last year’s fight over whether corporations can express religious objections to avoid paying for contraceptives for women covered by employer health plans. Before joining the administration in 2009, Verrilli was a partner at the Washington firm of Jenner and Block. His Supreme Court work included advocating for the rights of death row inmates and representing telecommunications firms in cases with billions of dollars in the balance. A graduate of Yale University and Columbia Law School, Verrilli was a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. • • •
