|
215 Centennial Mall South, Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508-1813; 402-477-7517; nebrcc@neb.rr.com
|
|
Nebraska C C:
James R. Cunningham
NCC Statements & Current Issues
Medical Treatment Decision-making
USCCB
Capitol Correspondent: ********* PRO LIFE:State Director
Life Insight: Columns-2010
Program Models
Education:Associate Director of Education Issues
Parent Advocate 2009
|
Capitol Correspondent - NCC Column 2008Diocesan Newspaper columns by James R. Cunningham Most Recent: **************************
Capitol Correspondent for 12-19-08
Why State Involvement on Immigration?
Due to failures of the federal government to effectively enforce immigration
laws and of Congress to reform a system that is outmoded, inadequate, and
ill-suited to deal with the realities now driving immigration, local and state
governments can be under pressure from concerned and frustrated constituents to
do something about “illegal immigration.” (The ongoing public dialogue in
Fremont is probably Nebraska’s best example of this.) In his report, Senator
Ashford expresses concern about the possibility of “a patchwork of inconsistent
ordinances across the state” and concludes that a “responsible state wide
standard is the best option.”
The Judiciary Committee’s report is the result of Legislative Resolution 362,
adopted by the current Legislature just prior to the end of the 2008 regular
session. That action was a response to the fact that the committee considered
two bills and one substantive resolution in 2008, but did not advance any of the
three. This report, which was preceded by preparation of an excellent research brief entitled “Review of State and Local Approaches to Immigration Policy,” makes a worthwhile and meaningful contribution to reasoned dialogue about immigration in Nebraska. Accessible under “Reports” on the Legislature’s website, www.nebraskalegislature.gov, it is multi-faceted, thorough and coherent, although not entirely devoid of disconnects. One of its essential features is that many of its facts and analyses are embellished with comments quoted from a series of “facilitated discussions” with a variety of community leaders convened in five locations.
The stated intent of this process, unique for interim studies, was not just to
pose questions and collect answers, but to identify underlying attitudes,
beliefs and values.
Since it is generally acknowledged that the point of employment is where the
state has the greatest potential effect on the enforcement of federal
immigration law, look for that to be the general subject of legislation. In
fact, Senator Ashford reveals his own intentions: “I recommend serious
exploration into the potential for mandating electronic verification of
employment eligibility for all employers in our state and I intend to consider
such a proposal in the upcoming legislative session.”
The utility, accuracy and reliability of E-Verify are by no means beyond
question. What’s more, the report acknowledges that mandatory use of E-verify
would cause dislocation of workers out of the state—those who fail verification
tend to “disappear” according to the testimony of one city representative. This
could cause negative economic repercussions for communities.
Capitol Correspondent for 11-21-08
Saluting Senator
Kopplin
Capitol Correspondent for 11/07/08
Can it really be? The “election/campaign season” really is over? And the sign-makers, advertising agencies and media outlets are whistling a really merry tune all the way to the bank? And the citizens who exercised their right to vote have chosen new leadership at the top and also at some levels down the line? And the political pundits are already telling us what happened, why it happened and how it’s going to affect what’s going to happen from now until the next election? And the sun came up Nov. 5? An expression of gratitude is in order for the candidates for Congress and the State Legislature who showed interest in the Catholic segment of their would-be constituencies by responding to the Nebraska Catholic Conference candidate survey, the results of which were published in all three diocesan newspapers. The information on the views and positions of the candidates was collected and disseminated not only for the purpose of informing, but also for the purpose of encouraging “Faithful Citizenship” and political responsibility on the part of Catholic Nebraskans. But doing this also presumes a certain dimension of political responsibility on the part of candidates. Those who don’t respond in fact reveal something about their candidacies. *************** The biggest disappointment of this election, insofar as the Catholic Conference’s political responsibility project was concerned, was that Scott Kleeb, the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate, chose not to respond. Statewide, approximately 80,000 Nebraska households received a diocesan newspaper that was void of his responses to a range of issues. The same is true of the website on which all candidate responses were posted. *************** The theme of the quadrennial Call to Political Responsibility carried out by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was “Faithful Citizenship: A Matter of Conscience.” The program emphasized the importance of properly informing one’s conscience in the values of the Catholic faith, both as to their scope and priority, as part of preparing to vote. A valuable by-product of properly forming one’s conscience in relation to voting is that even if the candidate you vote for does not win you can still feel good about your vote and be confident that you acted in a morally sound, politically responsible manner. *************** During the now-completed election cycle, the personal lack of knowledge and understanding—perhaps as well a measure of arrogance compounded the matter—that some Catholic politicians put on public display regarding the Church’s teaching on abortion was embarrassing. More significantly, however, it gifted the U.S. Bishops with a remarkable opportunity to clarify and expound upon that teaching in a broad public forum. Numerous bishops adeptly took advantage of that opportunity. In particular, the response jointly issued September 9 by Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro Life Activities and Bishop William Lori, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, was masterful, but most of all instructive and helpful. It was inspiringly cogent and concise, and unlike what it was responding to, steeped in coherence. Its essence was a rock-solid refutation of the false claim that the beginning of human life is a “personal and private” matter of religious faith, which cannot be “imposed” on others. In part, the Bishops wrote “The Church recognizes that the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious. “The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin? When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment? While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception. The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact “The second is a moral question, with legal and political consequences: Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed? The Catholic Church’s answer is: Everybody. No human being should be treated as lacking human rights, and we have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not. This is not solely a Catholic teaching, but a principle of natural law accessible to all people of good will….Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into those who have moral value and those who do not and why their particular choice of where to draw the line can be sustained in a pluralistic society. Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.” *************** And finally….there are reports that the initial plan for bailing out financial institutions introduced by Treasury Secretary Paulson was three pages in length. By the time it made it through Congress and popped out as The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, it was 245 pages in length. Apparently the legislators identified a lot more complexities in the problem than the Secretary did. Capitol Correspondent for 10/10/08 “Safe Haven” Law: Bad or Brilliant? Within a few days after the Nebraska Legislature passed LB 157 earlier this year—on February 7, by a final vote of 43-1—I sent a memo off to the other 30 or so state Catholic conference directors informing them of what had taken place here. I reported that a so-called “safe haven” bill had passed in Nebraska and that depending upon whether Governor’s Heineman’s signature occurred before or after Governor Sarah Palin signed a pending, similar bill in Alaska, we would be either the last or next-to-last state to enact such a law. As factors played out, Governor Palin edged Governor Heineman slightly. Fifty out of 50; no big deal. In any event, of the bill that ended up being just two sentences, I wrote in my report to my counterparts: “It is either the most brilliant (safe haven) legislation in the land or the most bizarre and ridiculous. Perhaps Nebraska saved the best for last.” One element in understanding what has happened regarding Nebraska’s “safe haven” law, and the scrutiny and notoriety it is now receiving, is the wording of the bill as it was initially introduced, way back on January 8, 2007 by Senator Arnie Stuthman and, eventually, 17 co-sponsors. This was the first subsection of that introduced version: “If a parent voluntarily delivers a child to a firefighter or a hospital staff member who engages in the admission, care or treatment of patients, when such firefighter is at a fire station or such hospital staff member is at a hospital, the firefighter or hospital staff member shall, without a court order, take temporary physical custody of the child, if: (a) the child is seventy-two hours old or younger; and (b) the parent did not express an intent to return for the child.” The page-and-a-half bill went on to prescribe the steps to be followed by a firefighter or hospital staff member to protect the child and some subsequent duties of law enforcement and the state Department of Health and Human Services, including the duty of the agency to “file a petition pursuant to the Nebraska Juvenile Code to terminate parental rights.” Obviously, the original bill had a lot of gaps, loose ends and deficiencies, even though the intent of trying to prevent newborn infants from being abandoned in harmful conditions (e.g., dumpsters, public bathrooms) was commendable. With amendments designed to improve it, a five-member majority of the Judiciary Committee advanced the bill to the full Legislature. For one thing, they sought to add the concept that is key from public-policy and criminal justice perspectives—a provision oddly missing from the original bill—that is, immunity from prosecution for child abandonment for any parent who leaves a child with a designated “safe haven provider.” The committee majority also addressed the meaning of “child” for purposes of the legislation, recommending a maximum age of 30 days rather than 72 hours. LB 157 ran into lots of trouble on the floor of the Unicameral, not the least of which was opposition from Senator Ernie Chambers. Eventually, Senator Stuthman decided to carry his bill over to 2008. When LB 157 came back before the Legislature again, on January 16 of this year, it was still in big trouble, so much so that it appeared it would wither and fail; the same fate as that of three predecessor bills in prior years. The “breakthrough” came with agreement on an amendment principally assisted by Sen. Tom White and carried by Sen. Pete Pirsch. Senator Stuthman was anxious to get something passed. Senator Chambers stood down in his vigorous opposition and merely cast the lone vote against the bill. The “compromise” amendment became the bill. It was this and no more: “No person shall be prosecuted for any crime based solely upon the act of leaving a child in the custody of an employee on duty at a hospital licensed by the State of Nebraska. The hospital shall promptly contact appropriate authorities to take custody of the child.” That hardly seems adequate as a matter of law. One law professor has been quoted as follows: “Drafters will sometimes try to say as little as possible so they don’t create ambiguity; but drafters here succeeded in writing the law in such a limited fashion that the entire provision is ambiguous.” Yikes. One aspect that is obvious and has rightfully attracted a lot attention and concern is that the law lacks a definition of “child”. Presumably, “child” would have the same meaning as minor, i.e., a person under the age of 19. Also, immunity from prosecution is extended to any “person”, not just a parent, guardian or other relative. These provisions have prompted one national adoption expert to opine that the scope of Nebraska’s new law is so broad that it “circumvents every rational practice in child welfare”. What’s been the experience thus far? It is well-documented by news reports that since the law took effect July 18, 14 children have been dropped off at hospitals, including a 13-year-old girl, 15 and 11-year old boys, and nine children from one family, ranging in ages from 14 months to 17 years. Nebraska’s abandoned baby safe haven law has turned out to be an abandoned adolescent safe haven law. Its notoriety is national. I think I would make the same observation today as I did in February. Superficially, this law can be judged bizarre and ridiculous. But not too far below the surface, the law and its consequences, whether intended or unintended, are bringing stepped up attention to serious matters of child safety, overwhelmed parents, dysfunctional families and deficiencies in the child-welfare system. In and of itself this legislation seems anything but brilliant, but perhaps its brilliance is its potential as a precursor of better strategies and policies for protecting children and stabilizing families. Already, key legislators have indicated that this law, meaning its underlying subject matter, is going to be comprehensively reviewed in 2009. Capitol Correspondent for 09/12/08 The Conventions are Just the Prelims I suspect I was like a lot of Americans in that I paid some attention to the political conventions recently held in Denver and the Twin Cities. I tuned in and was attentive when something going on there motivated me to do so and be such. By no means was I a mouth-the-words-of-the-speech-maker kind of intense viewer. Besides, I was worn out from watching the Olympics. A lot of what governed the viewing at our household was the “battle” over which network would be that of choice. When I watched, with control of the remote firmly in my possession, I tended to jump around. That was actually a scouting and training exercise, so that I won’t waste time watching “minor league” coverage during the rest of the campaign season. The baseball reference is appropriate, because while purporting to watch the conventions I managed to grab more than a few peeks at whatever major league games I could find on the “off Broadway” channels. Of course what happens over the next eight weeks is going to be more informative and important than all that flashy stuff and hoopla was anyway. This year’s debates should really be something. Thereupon, of course, we can all become even more enthused, or more frustrated, listening to the post-debate analyses. Who won? Well, you’ll only know by what the pundits and commentators tell you, or so they presume. Look forward to, and plan accordingly for, the process that’s unfolding; it’s politically powerful, as well as entertaining. A few other random observations: Perhaps it was just me, not hearing what I was listening for, but there seemed to be little of substance said about the complex issues involved in the real mess of immigration policy and the failures to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. Too hot a potato, huh? High tech has certainly had its impact on the political conventions. But they still wave the signs. And, those hot-air descriptions the spokespersons give when they announce a state’s votes are still pretty hokey. How can one get in on the balloon and confetti concessions? Sharp dude that T. Boone Pickens, getting his wind and natural gas pitch in on the convention coverage. My richest acquaintance told me one time that you can accomplish remarkable things as long as you’re well-capitalized, which Pickens is of course. Enough. Better to give attention to more significant matters. Last month, in its informative and instructive “Life Issues Forum,” the Office of Pro Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), presented a startling account of a “Twilight Zone” type happening in Oregon. Oregon is the one state that has legalized physician-assisted suicide for residents who are terminally ill. It is also just a bit less notorious for having instituted the nation’s first form of rationing health care in its publicly funded medical-assistance program. Life Issues Forum documents the cases of an uninsured Oregon man battling prostate cancer and an uninsured Oregon woman battling lung cancer, both of whom applied to the state for help in purchasing their cancer-fighting drugs. The state’s response was a letter saying it would not cover the cost of the drugs, but it would cover the cost of physician-assisted suicide. Mary J. McClusky wrote a strong reaction on behalf of USCCB: “Physician-assisted suicide laws contribute to the overall devaluing of human life. Rather than recognizing the inestimable worth of every individual, they promote the erroneous idea that life is a commodity up for cost analysis by the state. These laws perpetuate the idea that instead of protecting our citizen’s right to life, government should encourage and facilitate the eradication of those deemed a financial burden to society. These stories reveal a zero sum mentality of rationing resources, instead of an attitude of abundance and generosity for our suffering brothers and sisters.” Oregon might soon be joined by a second state with legalized physician-assisted suicide. An initiative proposing such a policy is likely to be on the November ballot in Washington. And in California, legislation proposing mandatory, “comprehensive” counseling for patients with any type of terminal diagnosis has advanced to the Governor’s desk and has pro life advocates legitimately worried; the legislation has at least part of its origin in the “right to die” movement. A general question about the candidate’s attitude on legalizing physician-assisted suicide is included on the Nebraska Catholic Conference survey of all candidates for the Unicameral in the upcoming election. Responses to this and several other questions will be published in the Southern Nebraska Register on October 17. And finally…. One other musing on the political scene. I didn’t see or hear this, but I can sure imagine it: That smug, arrogant, obnoxious Olberman guy on one of the cable news networks, when reporting that the Alaska Governor/Republican Veep candidate was a point guard in high school basketball, probably would have a retort like this: “yeh, so; the real facts are this: she couldn’t go to her left.”
Capitol Correspondent for 08/29/08 Comments on the Olympics and NCC’s Questionnaires I suspect I was like a lot of Americans in that I paid casual attention to the summer Olympics. I tuned in occasionally and read accounts here and there. I was far from obsessed with what was happening; nonetheless I couldn’t resist checking the medal count regularly and with a modest sense of nationalist pride. Hey world, don’t mess with the big dog U.S., at least not in basketball and beach volleyball. There was a bit of mystery with these Olympics, in that China was the location. The media-created opportunities to learn more about that culture were worthwhile. And the reality that nations from every corner of the world came together there in a spirit of peaceful, spirited competition was inspiring and encouraging. The list of participating nations is remarkable, all 205, from China and the U.S. all the way through and including Benin, Kyrgystan, Mauritius and Burkina Faso. Since my definition of swimming is “staying alive in the water,” I probably lacked a true appreciation for the accomplishment of that guy (what’s his name?) who won fifty thousand gold medals or whatever it was (actually a total of eight). When one one-hundredth of a second is all that stands between tying a record and setting a record, well, that’s pretty amazing. Just a bit more so than one one-hundredth of a second being all that keeps a 41-year from winning an Olympic gold medal in a women’s swimming sprint. I can’t decide which is more amazing, the timing devices for those races or the camera angles they use to show the swimmers in the water and at the finish. While considering less time than the blink of an eyelash, only one one-thousandth of a second prevented the young woman hurdler from Canada, who competed in college for the University of Nebraska, from winning silver instead of bronze. I’m no expert, mind you, but I think the judges blew it a few times on some of those gymnastics and diving scores. I make that assertion during every Olympics. I hope they don’t ultimately prove that one or more of those Chinese female gymnasts were younger than the minimum age of 16. It’s one thing for our American girls to finish behind 16 year-olds, but behind 14-year olds? Yikes. Best observation by an Olympic commentator: that runners from the U.S. and Trinidad and Tobago ran outside their lanes (and were disqualified) in the 200-meter dash because they lost focus when they realized how far ahead the “Lightning Bolt” was. Someone would have to argue long and hard to convince me that BMX racing is a legitimate Olympic sport. Young daredevils riding little bicycles up and down over synthetic man-made hills would not impress the Ancient Greeks. Something learned from these Olympics: prima donnas spelled backwards is U-S-r-e-d-e-e-m-t-e-a-m. Oops, sorry, not prima donnas, superstars. Enough already. Best to take up something more appropriate. The Nebraska Catholic Conference’s candidate questionnaires for the upcoming General Election are now in circulation. A multi-issue questionnaire dealing with Federal issues was sent to all candidates for the open U.S. Senate seat and the three races for Nebraska’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. There are 10 Federal candidates in total, two for each of the three House races and four for the Senate race: a Democrat, a Republican, a Green Party candidate and a Nebraska Party candidate. A separate questionnaire dealing with state-based issues was sent to all candidates for the Nebraska Legislature. There are 47 such candidates, covering 26 districts. This is the year for electing, or re-electing, citizen-legislators for the odd-numbered of the 49 districts, with one exception. District 18 is also on the list, because the incumbent legislator, Senator Scott Lautenbaugh, was a Governor’s appointed replacement for a legislator who resigned before his term was completed. The second round of term limits means the number of seats without incumbents is relatively significant at 15. Nonetheless, that means there are 11 incumbent legislators seeking re-election. Five of those—Senators Gwen Howard (9), Chris Langemeier (23), Rich Pahls (31), Deb Fischer (43) and Abbie Cornett (45)--have no opponent. Responses to the Nebraska Catholic Conference questionnaires will be published in the three diocesan newspapers prior to the election. For federal or state districts that have any territory within the boundaries of the Archdiocese of Omaha, the candidates’ responses will be published in the October 17 edition of The Catholic Voice. The Southern Nebraska Register (Diocese of Lincoln) and the West Nebraska Register (Diocese of Grand Island) will publish the election feature in their October 24 editions. And finally…. When the Nebraska Supreme Court issued a ruling not long ago in a case involving the City of Omaha’s anti-smoking ordinance, Justice William Connolly, in his concurring opinion, penned a clever line. He concluded with this gem: “To sum up, the City’s exemptions [to the smoking ordinance] have sucked the air out of an otherwise constitutional ordinance.”
Capitol Correspondent for 08/22/08 Fremont Situation was Unnecessary, Lamentable While the fact that “no” votes prevailed over “yes” votes on the proposed immigration ordinance in the city of Fremont is praiseworthy and a relief, the matter as a whole was unfortunate and must be lamented. That’s an appropriate reaction to something that should not have happened in the first place. Controlling the nation’s borders, formulating policies that govern immigration and enforcing immigration laws are the domain and responsibility of the Federal government—the Congress, the Administration, segments of the bureaucracy. When policy makers in local communities, and at the state-level for that matter, attempt to take on such a role and intervene in that jurisdiction, they may create an outlet for some frustration, but little else of lasting public-policy value. Even the civics lesson is obscure. It’s an indisputable fact that there are immigrants within the borders of our country, including here in Nebraska, who are not authorized to be here. They do not have legal status. Wherever they are within U.S. borders, their presence is not lawful. Their numbers are not insubstantial. More than an indisputable fact, this is an economic, social and cultural reality of remarkable dimensions. The number typically cited is 12 million unauthorized immigrants nationwide, upwards from 35,000 here in Nebraska, although the rate of growth, if not the raw numbers, is probably dropping due to economic and social conditions that aren’t as attracting as they once were or might have been perceived. Another fact, no-less-relevant, is that the Federal government, most notably the legislative branch, has done a remarkably lousy job of dealing with this reality. Immigration law and policy reforms—doing at least something differently—whether comprehensive or piecemeal, are plagued by gridlock, apparently. And the regulatory and administrative processes are far from efficient and effective. It’s a mess; one that causes impatience, frustration, irritation, even anger, bitterness and worse. (Add apprehension, fear and persistent crisis and you begin to have an idea of the immigrants’ side of the ledger.) But the frustrating, irritating mess still does not justify stepping into Federal jurisdiction and attempting to use local policy measures to drive out the unauthorized immigrants. That’s just another mess, one that smacks of imprudence and suspect constitutionality. The proposed ordinance in Fremont would have required employers with city contracts, licenses, permits or loans to electronically verify every job applicant’s immigration status. That might not be particularly onerous, if the system was reasonably expedient and reliable, but that’s hardly the case. It is not abundantly clear that businesses should be made to endure these administrative impositions. The second prong of the proposed Fremont ordinance had to do with housing; moving even deeper into the realm of human rights. Every renter of living space in the community, regardless of nationality or background, would have been required to purchase an occupancy license, which could not be issued until immigration status was checked and verified by local police. Landlords would have faced a $100 fine for renting to someone without the license; presumably such a person would be an illegal immigrant. The idea and motive apparently boiled down to this: if an individual or family are blocked from having a place to live, at least a place that provides reasonable shelter, they won’t stay around; they will be forced to leave and the community will be protected. The mayor and the four council members who voted to reject this unjust, suspect policy acted responsibly and in the best overall interests of their community. Although hard feelings and frustration are likely to linger, perhaps there is some good to come out of the Fremont experience. It gave attention to compelling issues. It had informational and educational dimensions. It probably prompted some folks to think more deeply about the issues, perhaps even to examine their own attitudes in light of the realities. Perhaps it showed to some the vital need for patience and understanding. Perhaps it will cause some to become more politically engaged in pushing federal policy makers to talk less and do more in accomplishing immigration reforms. An individual who merits recognition in the Fremont matter is Father Owen Korte, pastor of St. Patrick parish in that community. He was thrust into an extremely difficult situation, confronting controversy and sensitivity in his role as the primary local representative of the Catholic Church. It was reported that Father Korte testified at the city council’s major hearing on the proposed ordinance and that was to his credit. The Church acknowledges the rights of nations to control their borders and does not condone unlawful entry or circumventions of immigration laws, but the Church defends the right to migrate and emphasizes the need for respect of every immigrant’s human dignity. The U.S. Bishops’ Conference advocates comprehensive immigration policy reform, including a window of opportunity for unauthorized immigrants already living in U.S. communities to earn permanent residency. Capitol Correspondent for 07/25/08 Accomplishments and Much Yet to Do on Behavioral Health It hardly seems possible that four years already have passed since the Nebraska Legislature passed major behavioral health reform legislation. In fact, it’s true. The centerpiece legislation, LB 1083, was passed by the Unicameral and approved by then-Governor Mike Johanns on the same day, April 14, 2004. On June 30 last past, without much fan fare, the “sun set” on the Nebraska Behavioral Health Oversight Commission. It was established under LB 1083 to coordinate and guide early-stage efforts along a significant, new course for Nebraska’s public-policy response to mental illness and addiction needs. For the most part it operated independently from the bureaucratic implementation of the reform law. Former state senator Jim Jensen of Omaha, who, as chairman of the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee at the time, was instrumental in steering the reform legislation through a difficult process, also served as chairman of the Oversight Commission. As it expired, he issued its final report. As one would expect, the final report on such a complex undertaking is a combination of accomplishments already achieved and concerns and encouragements for the future. The key element of the reform effort, which was publicly supported by the Nebraska Catholic Conference, was a shift of emphasis from state-provided inpatient services to community-based services. That shift has not been made without public-policy risk, especially the risk of coming up far too short in meeting the needs of Nebraskans who struggle to cope with mental illness and addictions. The commitment and resolve still seem to be in place. That’s important and necessary, because goals and duties of the reform legislation still need initiative, energy and sustained action. Nonetheless, in its final report, the Oversight Commission pointed out accomplishments, including that the number of people receiving community-based services for mental illness and substance abuse has increased by 30 percent and that only two percent of persons released from state psychiatric hospitals have not received care in the community. Also, the state has closed 251 adult behavioral health beds at the regional centers, and shifted at least $26 million into community-based services. Even more, nearly $25 million in private-sector funding has been raised for community care, most notably Lasting Hope Recovery Center, a 64-bed adult behavioral health center in Omaha. It was recently featured in an article in Catholic Health World magazine, a result of its ties to Alegent Health Bergan Mercy Medical Center. Got It Right Updating a previous item of interest…the headline says it all: “Congress again overrides farm bill veto.” That’s right; the “Farm Bill” was finally reauthorized on June 18. The House and Senate both voted to override the President’s veto of all 15 titles. After a clerical error and redo votes, The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 is now officially Public Law 110-246. It will expire in Fiscal Year 2012. Nebraska Understands The answer to an inquiry recently addressed in our office is, Yes, Nebraska does have a law that seeks to protect any infant born alive as the result of an abortion; what some callous thinkers refer to as a “botched abortion.” The inquiry apparently was prompted by the fact this issue has attracted some attention in assessments of the legislative records of the presidential candidates. Section 28-325 of the state statutes sets forth a legislative finding and declaration: “That it is in the interest of the people of the State of Nebraska that every precaution be taken to ensure the protection of every viable unborn child being aborted, and every precaution be taken to provide life-supportive procedures to ensure the unborn child its continued life after its abortion....” Section 28-331, the intentional and knowing violation of which is a Class IV felony, provides as follows: “When as the result of an abortion, a child is in the sound medical judgment of the attending physician, born alive then all reasonable steps, in accordance with the sound medical judgment of the attending physician, shall be employed to preserve the life of the child. For purposes of this section, born alive shall mean the complete expulsion or extraction of the child from the mother irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy and after such expulsion or extraction such child breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.” We are not aware of any prosecution that has taken place under this provision of the criminal code, but it is comforting to know that Nebraska lawmakers, in 1974, had the understanding, wisdom and foresight to enact it.
Capitol Correspondent for 06/27/08 Cemetery Inhabitants and Other Matters of Legislation With summer officially underway—goodness, almost the Fourth of July already—it seems like a good time to clear the desk of some notes and other nuggets of information accumulated during the first half of the year. We start with some items left over from the closing-out, second session of the 100th Nebraska Legislature. In every session, usually in the latter stages as time runs short, it’s fairly common that some bills that otherwise would wither on the vine, so to speak, are proposed and handled as amendments to bills already well on their way to enactment. Typically, each committee chairperson controls a bill that becomes a carrier for other measures relating to the same, general jurisdiction. For example, the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee this year used LB 928 to pick up a dozen other bills that originally had been referred to and given a public hearing by that committee. The Judiciary Committee’s carrier bill was LB 1014. Its original subject matter was jurisdictional issues involving courts, but it was expanded to take on provisions or portions of 11 other bills. Regarding education, LB 988 was a sweeping revision of the formula and process used to subsidize public school districts; by the time it was passed by the Legislature, it had taken on ideas from eight other bills. If nothing else, amending provisions of bills into other bills can make lobbyists stay alert and earn their fees. One of the most amusing bills of the 2008 session surely was LB 995, pertaining to the otherwise somber subject of cemeteries. The bill was rather mundane and insignificant overall, but Sen. Ernie Chambers spiced it up with an amendment like only he could do. In its original form, the bill tweaked some statutes that authorize the mayor and city councils of cities of less than 25,000 inhabitants, and also village boards, to levy a tax of up to five-and-two-tenths cents per one hundred dollars of taxable value on all taxable property in the jurisdiction. Such taxes constitute the local cemetery fund, which, until the enactment of LB 995, had to be used for “the general care, management, improvement, beautifying, and welfare of such cemetery.” As a result of Sen. Chambers’ amendment, regarding which no other senator objected or voiced a concern, the use of the local cemetery fund now will have to be used for “the general care, management, improvement, beautifying, and welfare of such cemetery and the inhabitants thereof.” Attention barbers, beauticians and cosmetologists: you might want to look into the possibility of obtaining an exclusive contract with your local government, to take care of beautifying the inhabitants of the local cemetery. Ah, just another way that Senator Chambers has left his mark. Probably the most incoherent bill enacted during the session was LB 279. It has something to do with redefining driver training schools to somehow encompass educational institutions. I’ve read that bill 10 times and still don’t have much of an idea of what it really does. Obviously, Sen. Chambers didn’t pay attention to it. Maybe you already knew this, but I sure didn’t, until I read LB 865. Under current law it is unlawful to trap any wildlife in any county road right-of-way. However, as soon as this newly enacted bill takes effect in mid-July, the ban will have an exception: the Game and Parks Commission will have authority to allow for trapping raptors in such a location. When is deception acceptable under law? LB 907 appears to have answered that question by establishing just such a circumstance. By virtue of its enactment, any limited liability company will soon be able to apply to the Secretary of State for authorization to use a name that is “deceptively similar” to one or more names of such a company or corporation already on record. Merely being similar might not be good enough to qualify; it has to be deceptively similar. Something to watch for in future legislative sessions, probably in 2009: legislation proposing to prohibit, or at least significantly regulate, delayed-deposit services businesses, or so-called payday lenders. These enterprises have the potential, it is contended, to exploit and prey upon desperate and low-income people and low-wage earners by means of high interest rates and other payback terms. Both Senators Amanda McGill and Danielle Nantkes introduced bills addressing this topic, LB 1144 and LB 868 respectively. Neither bill was enacted, but the issue appears to have gained some traction. And finally, a noteworthy headline left over from Nebraska’s Primary Election: “A former state senator aims to get back in the game.” Obviously the aim of former Senator Dave Newell wasn’t as good as it once was; he finished third in the primary, from which only the top two advance to November’s General Election.
Capitol Correspondent for 06/20/08 Story of Farm Bill Quirky, But Ultimately Significant For the last 17 months or so, I have been attempting to follow Congress’s “progress” toward reauthorizing The Farm Bill. It’s an every-five-years task for Federal lawmakers, which modifies policy and authorizes spending for a broad array of policies and programs related in some way to agriculture, including crop subsidies, food security, research, energy, conservation, trade and others. The last farm bill, that of 2002, expired last September, but five different short-term extensions were enacted to keep the 2007 re-authorization process alive. Had expiration taken effect, policies would have reverted back to the law as it existed in 1949, so reauthorization of the farm bill is a big deal, a major responsibility for Congress, with a lot at stake. By no means has this been an easily or quickly accomplished task, which is hardly possible in the politically-charged lawmaking environment. One scribe described it as “a long and tumultuous ride.” Agricultural columnist Alan Guebert offered an even richer description: “The longest, nastiest slugfest over farm policy that most well-callused Capitol Hill hands have seen.” Late last November, the Omaha World Herald editorialized as to the “shenanigans and maneuvers currently complicating the path toward a soundly structured and worthy farm bill.” As of the second first Friday of June 2008, the process was still underway, sort of. There was a new farm bill, sort of; H.R. 2419, “The Food and Energy Security Act of 2007.” But it was on the verge of being replaced by a more complete farm bill, H.R. 6124, “The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.” And, both were likely to have in common the characteristic of having been passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and then re-affirmed by decisive votes to override separate vetoes by the President. The end-game scenario begins with the House of Representatives passing its version of the legislation, followed by the Senate passing its version. These steps happened months ago. Of course the two bills had numerous, substantial differences, which were ironed out over the course of time by conferees from both houses, prompting the interim extensions of the 2002 legislation, but resulting in a Farm Bill Conference Report, H.R. 2419. Pick up the chronology a month ago. On May 14, the House of Representatives approved the Conference Report (H.R. 2419) on a vote of 318-106-11. Nebraska Representatives Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith, by the way, voted “Aye,” while Rep. Lee Terry voted “Nay.” On May 15, the Senate approved the Conference Report on a vote of 81-15-4. Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson voted “Aye,” while Senator Chuck Hagel voted “Nay.” On May 21, President Bush vetoed H.R. 2419. Later that same day, the House of Representatives overrode the President’s veto on a vote of 316-108-11, well in excess of the two-thirds required for an override. Reps. Fortenberry and Smith voted for the override; Rep. Terry voted against it. This is when the matter becomes a little quirkier and amusing. Here’s a newspaper headline from the next morning: “House override in doubt after farm bill foul-up.” Here’s another: “Missing pages send farm bill to Congress for another vote.” Uh oh. Here’s how what happened was described in a memo from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “In the afternoon, the Senate prepared to take the bill up for a vote to override the presidential veto, when an unexpected clerical error became clear. The text of the trade section (Title III), 34 pages dealing with international food aid and trade, were (sic) omitted from the bill sent to the President. The original bill, without the trade title, had to be voted on in the Senate to override the presidential veto on that bill (H.R. 2419).” That vote took place the next day, May 22, and it too decisively exceeded—82-13-5—the two-thirds minimum for overriding the veto. Senator Nelson voted for the override; Senator Hagel voted against it. On that same day, the House passed a “new” version of the farm bill, H.R. 6124, one with all 15 titles, not just 14. The tally was 306-110-19; not much slippage. On June 5, the Senate followed suit and passed the full-titled bill, 77-15-8. After that, another veto appeared all but absolutely certain, and so did a second-round of override voting in both houses. A new Farm Bill is a done deal for all intents and purposes. It consists of 673 pages and authorizes spending over five years (FY 2008-2012), of approximately $307 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The way the new farm bill finally got done is a story in and of itself, but one not nearly as important as the bill itself. Supporters acknowledge it’s not perfect, but maintain it has enough good provisions on balance, most notably that two-thirds of the spending authorization is for nutrition and domestic food assistance programs, to make it sound and acceptable. Opponents, such as Rep. Terry and Senator Hagel, as well as the White House, use terms such as “bloated” and “larded down with pork.” What’s more, what little reform there is in policy governing subsidy payments is insufficient and ineffective in the view of most opponents.
Capitol Correspondent for 05/08/08 Interim Studies Review, Set a Course for Legislation Even though the Nebraska Legislature is no longer in session, having adjourned sine die on April 17, the attention it gives to public policy is ongoing. The framework already is in place for addressing interim studies on a wide range of issues and concerns proposed for attention by legislators. The process started with the introduction of legislative resolutions in the days and weeks leading up to adjournment. Also prior to adjournment, the Legislature’s Executive Board referred each interim study resolution to the appropriate committee based upon subject matter jurisdiction. Thereupon, pursuant to rules of the Legislature, the chairperson of each committee was required to prioritize the resolutions referred to his or her committee and to report that prioritization to the Clerk of the Legislature. From this point, presuming a good deal of staff involvement, the committees will plan how to address the prioritized studies. Such plans may or may not include public hearings. Each committee must report on the disposition of its interim study resolutions no later than December 1. Most of these reports are intended to provide both findings and policy recommendations, which can, of course, evolve into future legislation. Following is a summary of just some of the interim studies that will be addressed in the months ahead. A complete rundown on all of these studies, about a hundred in total, is available at the Legislature’s website: www.nebraskalegislature.gov. LR 362 is the top priority for the Judiciary Committee. Its topic is a “hot” one: illegal immigration. Introduced by the committee’s chairman, Senator Brad Ashford of Omaha, its described purposes are to “develop a response to the issues surrounding the increasing population of undocumented persons in Nebraska” and to “identify pragmatic solutions to the problems facing Nebraskans as a result of illegal immigration.” Those are pretty broad and presumptive descriptions, but you get the idea. As for more specific issues to be examined, they are to include, but not be limited to the following areas of public policy: public benefits, law enforcement, employment, health care, identification, licensure, human trafficking, legal services, guest workers and educational opportunities for children of undocumented persons. LR 362 calls for consultation with Nebraska businesses, educational institutions, law enforcement agencies and faith-based organizations. The input of individual citizens also is expected to be accommodated and considered. Notice will be published of any public hearings that come to be scheduled. Continuing with its attention to the demise of Initiative 300, the Legislature’s Agriculture Committee is likely to devote a portion of its interim work to examining and identifying policies, programs, services and strategies “to encourage and support family farm proprietorship and models of agricultural production and marketing conducive to family farm scale of agricultural production in this state.” This is LR 335. It has been slotted second among the nine interim study resolutions referred to the committee. As for the policies, programs, services and strategies that LR 335 may address, here’s some of what’s listed: tax incentives and policies; programs of extension, research, and technical and financial assistance; cooperative formation; direct and local food marketing and development of specialty crops; credit and lending programs; farm succession and beginning farmer programs; and value-added processing, agro-tourism and other on-farm entrepreneurial activities. In a few instances, interim study resolutions call for two of the Legislature’s committees to jointly carry out the study. LR 307 is an example of this approach. It designates both the Health and Human Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee to examine Nebraska’s Aid to Dependent Children program, which, on a shared basis with the Federal government, provides cash assistance for the benefit of children in impoverished families. More specifically, the study calls upon the committees to examine whether administrative improvements might be made so that adults in ADC-eligible families might be allowed to participate in postsecondary education as their core work activity beyond 12 months. A joint study on this subject makes sense. The Health and Human Services Committee has policy jurisdiction when it comes to public assistance programs, while the Appropriations Committee is the first level for decisions about funding. It will be interesting to see how this resolution is handled. It has fourth priority among five interim studies referred to the Appropriations Committee and third among 16 resolutions prioritized by the Health and Human Services Committee. LR 303, introduced by Senator Rich Pahls of Omaha, calls upon the Health and Human Services Committee to examine the benefits of establishing a laboratory at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and the funding and sourcing thereof, to conduct research on umbilical cord blood and tissue. LR 303 is listed eighth among the 16 resolutions prioritized by the committee. Information about more of the interim study resolutions will be provided in future columns. Capitol Correspondent for 04/18/08 Like Its Predecessors, This Legislature Made History Each time the Nebraska Legislature convenes a session and brings about changes in public policy, it creates another modest amount of state history. The true and overall impact, however, is seldom immediate and typically won’t be fully understood and appreciated until some time has passed. For example, in their session concluded April 17, state legislators undoubtedly created history by deciding to move the Nebraska State Fair to Grand Island after decades in the Capital City. How will history ultimately describe and treat that decision, which will be linked, at least for the foreseeable future, with plans of the University of Nebraska to develop the “old” fairgrounds into an innovative research park? As for another example, how will history record and ultimately come to look upon this Legislature’s compromise decision to prohibit use of state governmental funds and facilities for embryo-destructive research and cloning, while leaving open the possibility of such activities occurring in Nebraska on a privately funded and facilitated basis? This Legislature also approved a substantial—some might say historic—overhaul of the State’s formula that funds governmental pre-K-12 education. Somewhat related to these changes is a legislatively reinforced policy on statewide assessment of student performance on state-designated academic standards for public schools. Another bill made further modifications to the bold and potentially historic initiatives organizing the public school districts of Metropolitan Omaha into a learning community. How will these substantive changes affect education over time? The history established by each Legislature is also about more than legislation and changes in public policy. It also is about those who participate directly in the process, most notably the legislators. Two aspects of this context come readily to mind: term limits and Senator Ernie Chambers. The 100th Legislature (2007-2008) was the second to be affected by the term-limits policy instituted by the voter majority that so changed the Nebraska Constitution in 2000. As a result, 15 of the currently serving legislators were not eligible to file for re-election this year. The Legislature exhibited remarkable resiliency and uniqueness after the first-round of term-limited turnover—21 positions—two years ago. No small part of that is attributable to the veteran legislators whose election cycle was not affected by the first round of term limits. But now they leave as well, making the second round an even more significant departure of institutional knowledge, more than 200 aggregated years worth. The Legislature that begins next January will be even more inexperienced overall. Among the 15 legislators now impacted by term limits is Senator Chambers. For him, it’s the end of 38 consecutive years and 57 legislative sessions (counting special sessions) in the Unicameral Legislature. The length of his tenure alone is enough to make Senator Chambers a historic figure, but that is secondary to the effect his persona, presence, intellect and rigor have had on the system. The likes of Terry Carpenter and Jerome Warner will make be making room on the dais of legislator icons for Senator Chambers. He will have his own chapter in Nebraska history. And legislators on their last day unanimously approved a resolution naming the Judiciary Committee hearing room after him. Something this Legislature didn’t get resolved in its recently concluded session was a response to nullification by Federal courts of that part of the Nebraska State Constitution that originated with Initiative 300 in 1982. It was a policy affecting production agriculture, which for a quarter century helped to maintain a competitively level playing field for family-based owner-operators in relation to investment-motivated, limited liability entities and to offset the economic and social pressures of vertical integration. After a Federal District Court judge struck down this part of the Nebraska Constitution, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals finalized the original amendment’s demise last May. Senator Cap Dierks of Ewing introduced and prioritized LB 1174 during the 2008 session, proposing to re-establish, as a matter of statue rather than constitutional amendment, most provisions of Initiative 300 that were not specifically targeted by the Courts’ rulings on Federal law standards. The measure, with a key amendment, was advanced to the full Legislature by its Agriculture Committee on a 6-1 vote. Nonetheless, when that key amendment failed to win approval, on a 20-27 vote, opposition to it having been vigorously led by the chairman of the committee that had advanced the bill and the amendment, Senator Dierks did a statesmanly thing at that late stage in the session and bracketed the bill from further consideration. While opponents of Initiative 300 can claim a legislative victory in this round of an ongoing debate, and some will assert that the one vote is itself a resolution of the issues, look for this matter to continue to percolate and to resurface again in 2009. In addition to Senator Dierks, other legislators to be commended for supporting the committee amendment on LB 1174 are the following: Senators Brad Ashford, Bill Avery, Ernie Chambers, Mark Christensen, Annette Dubas, Gwen Howard, Carol Hudkins, Russ Karpisek, Gail Kopplin, Lowen Kruse, Steve Lathrop, Vicki McDonald, Amanda McGill, Danielle Nantkes, John Nelson, Don Preister, DiAnna Schimek, John Synowiecki, Norm Wallman and Tom White. Capital Correspondent for 04/11/08 Opportunity Rejected on the Death Penalty Again this year, just as in 2007, the 100th Nebraska Legislature failed to take advantage of an opportunity to improve its criminal justice system and to save on what otherwise will be a substantial amount of economic cost. That’s our perspective on the outcome of last week’s voting in the Unicameral on legislation proposing to replace the death penalty with imprisonment for life without parole as the maximum sentence for first-degree murder. LB 1063 needed 25 “aye” votes to advance to the second stage of floor debate; it received only 20. Technically, because legislative bills get “three strikes” at advancing from the first stage of floor debate before they become indefinitely postponed, LB 1063 could be reconsidered, but the chances of that happening are slim and none. Last year, a similar bill at the equivalent stage received 24 affirmative votes. Attribute the difference, at least in part, to the intimidating politics of the issue. In Nebraska, whether realistic or not, it’s difficult for an elected official to oppose the death penalty. Legislators who voted to advance LB 1063 are to be commended. They were the following: Senators Ray Aguilar, Brad Ashford, Bill Avery, Ernie Chambers, Cap Dierks, Gwen Howard, Joel Johnson, Gail Kopplin, Loren Kruse, Steve Lathrop, Vickie McDonald, Amanda McGill, Danielle Nantkes, Dwite Pedersen, Don Preister, Ron Raikes, Kent Rogert, Diana Schimek, John Synowiecki and Norm Wallman. In addition to the political winds, chalk this rejected opportunity up to the overriding motive of some lawmakers to extract what they view as a full measure of retribution—perhaps “revenge” is the more apropos term—regarding those who are tried and convicted of the most aggravated murders. Politically speaking, some legislators offer this rationale as exactly what a substantial majority their constituents want. It is discouraging to realize that either a desire for revenge or blatant political expediency can be the motive for retaining a stressed-out policy, one that authorizes the state to kill human beings, especially when the modern, developed, technologically sophisticated age affecting the penal system makes it anything but absolutely necessary to kill in the name of justice, as a means of protection. As a matter of public policy, the death penalty is plagued by serious problems. There is the persistent problem of arbitrary and discriminatory application of the death sentence; some convicted of first-degree murder are sentenced to death while others are sentenced to prison terms. Often, socioeconomic and racial factors are implicated in these disparities. There is the problem consisting of wrongful convictions, irreversible error and the risk of executing innocent individuals. There is the problem of the paucity of credible evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to murder; according to the Death Penalty Information Center, the murder rate was 48 percent to 101 percent higher in death-penalty states than in non-death-penalty states between 1980 and 2000. Not the least of the problems that make the death penalty anything but a sound, effective public policy is its economic cost. Capital punishment is incredibly expensive, more so than life imprisonment. There is much evidence that the cost of the entire process from capital prosecution through to execution is at least double the cost of a non-capital prosecution plus the cost of life imprisonment. The ultimate irreversibility of the penalty of death dictates caution, which translates into a great deal of judicial process, which causes substantial costs upon substantial costs. As a matter of general conclusion, Nebraska, as a death penalty state—at least the shell of a death penalty state—has all the overshadowing and discrediting problems. What’s more, Nebraska has an additional “problem” as well. It has a statute that authorizes the death penalty, but no constitutionally valid means of carrying it out, as ruled by the Nebraska Supreme Court. In order to “fix” this problem, the Legislature and the Governor would have to enact a new, “more humane” method of executing convicted murderers, one they think would pass constitutional muster. The process needed to accomplish this “fix” will, in and of itself, involve considerable expense, but that will be modest compared to the expense of the new and re-vitalized legal challenges and appeals that inevitably will ensue. It is going to be a long time until Nebraska again carries out the death penalty; a whole lot of taxpayer funds, which could be used for more beneficial purposes, are going to be spent during that time. The overall problem is that the myriad of deficiencies that plague the death penalty consume not only financial resources, but human attention, energy and motivation as well. This lamentable situation stifles and sets up barriers to creatively initiated and sustained efforts to improve the overall criminal justice system and its penal-system component. This Legislature, not to ignore all that it will have accomplished when it concludes, could better have served the common good ultimately by replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole. Capitol Correspondent for 03/21/08 Long Hours for Legislature’s Workload The Nebraska Legislature’s 2008 session is three-fourths complete. Only 15 working days remain following a four-day, Easter weekend recess. The 60th and last day is scheduled for April 17. Some legislators, including the Speaker, who directs the agenda, at times refer to the Legislature’s “workload.” That description belies the notion that there are a certain number of bills that must be debated and enacted before the end of the session. With only 15 working days left and a lot of bills still pending, the “workload,” it could be said, is extensive and daunting. This notion is a bit misconstrued. There really isn’t much proposed legislation that has an absolute claim for attention. In fact, other than adjustments to the state budget, at the approaching midpoint in the fiscal Biennium, there is little else that the Legislature is truly obligated to do. Nonetheless, the Legislature functions to legislate and legislators naturally pursue a sense accomplishment. The number of bills enacted does not define accomplishment for a Legislature, nor should it, but it surely does influence the process. Given the notion of a substantial “workload,” the Legislature will typically operate for extended daily hours until its conclusion. Adjournment times during the week just ended were around 6 p.m. Beginning March 25, the Legislature is scheduled to meet until 8:30 p.m. or later on each of 12 of the remaining legislative days. In order to manage its “workload” over the final third of its session, the Legislature focuses on priority bills. Each of the 49 senators chose one priority bill. Each of 14 standing committees designated two priority bills. The Speaker exercised his prerogative for selecting 25 additional, less significant priorities. In total, that’s 102 legislative bills, a pretty substantial “workload” from that perspective. As of March 17, 16 senator priority bills and 10 committee priority bills were awaiting first-round floor debate (General File). A dozen other such bills were still held by the standing committee with jurisdiction. Sixteen priority bills were awaiting second-round floor debate (Select File); eight were awaiting final reading and a vote on the question of passage; two had floor debate, which resulted in bracketing, making a return to the agenda unlikely; two others failed to advance to the second stage and are likely finished for the session. Four priority bills already have been passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor. Just one priority bill, LB 963, which sought to do something about illegal immigration, was indefinitely postponed by the Judiciary Committee. Among the many priority bills still in line for floor debate, more than a few will spark intense debate. This is sure to be true of LB 1063, which proposes to repeal the death penalty and replace it with imprisonment for life without possibility of parole, subject only to the constitutional authority of the Board of Pardons to commute life sentences, and with mandatory order of restitution to the estates of murder victims. The Speaker has announced that floor debate on LB 1063 will begin March 25. There are unique factors at play that will make this debate quite intriguing. For one thing, it comes at a time when the state lacks a permissible means for carrying out the death penalty; the Nebraska Supreme Court having ruled that the sole method provided for by statute, electrocution, violates the State Constitution. If LB 1063 is not enacted, how long will it be until the Legislature considers establishing a new method of execution? The Speaker himself may have “let that cat out of the bag” when, in a much different context, he mentioned the possibility of a “special session” on this issue prior to the end of the year. Another intriguing factor tied to LB 1063 is that this is the final session for Senator Ernie Chambers, because of the term-limits provision voters added to the Nebraska Constitution. Throughout his 37 consecutive years in the Legislature, the Omaha lawmaker has consistently sponsored legislation to abolish the death penalty. Unquestionably, he would like to make that happen as a curtain closer. Another priority bill awaiting first-round floor debate also addresses public policy that has not been devoid of controversy. LB 1174 doesn’t propose to repeal a longstanding policy, but rather to restore one, albeit in a significantly revised form. The general subject matter of LB 1174 is “Initiative 300,” a citizenry-initiated amendment to the Nebraska Constitution adopted by voters in 1982. After nearly 25 years as state policy in the Constitution, these provisions, without the benefit of a trial, were struck down by a Federal district court as being in violation of provisions of the U.S. Constitution; that ruling was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeals. As a provision of Nebraska’s Constitution, Initiative 300 imposed restrictions on ownership of Nebraska farm and ranch land, and on engaging in farming and ranching, by non-family farm corporations. Its purpose and effect sought to maintain a level playing field for family-based agricultural owner-operators as they compete against unrelated investors desiring a corporate shield from personal-stakes liability. The goal and purpose of LB 1174 are to enact, as a matter of state statute, the principal concepts found in Initiative 300, in a form adjusted to avoid the fatal flaws cited by the Federal courts. This is no easy task; one made even more difficult by the vigor of opposition to the underlying concepts from those with profit as their foremost motivation. Capitol Correspondent for 03/14/08 Bills on Immigration Surface at State Level Immigration law and policy, including enforcement as well as entry and status determinations, are first and foremost responsibilities of the Federal Government. So why is it that Nebraska policy-makers want to become involved in these matters? On one hand there’s the political dynamic. Many voters want tougher action against immigrants who are not authorized to be in this country. Concerns about a broken system of entry control and tracking and processing non-citizens are troubling to many, as are concerns about the stress the influx of immigrants has on taxpayer-funded infrastructures, programs and services. For some, frustration has become a daily obsession, often infused by media commentators and talk shows and escalating to a level of stereotyping and hostility. On the other hand, the persistent failures of the Federal government to accomplish anything effective or meaningful have motivated elected officials at state and local levels, doers as they tend to be, to want to get something done about illegal immigration. They’re catching a wave of state involvement. In the currently running session of the Nebraska Legislature, five measures were introduced with connections to immigration policy. A look at a couple of these follows. LB 963, introduced on behalf of the Governor and endorsed by the State Attorney General, proposed to require verification of lawful presence in the U.S. in order to receive any federal, state or local “public benefit.” Exceptions were made for obvious situations, including emergency medical conditions, immunizations and disaster relief. Every applicant for any public benefit would be required to execute an affidavit attesting that he or she is a U. S. citizen or a qualified alien lawfully present in this country. The affidavit would trigger verification by the state local governmental entity using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program available through the U. S. Department of Homeland Security, or an equivalent program. The need for LB 963 is difficult to comprehend. Under Federal policy, most public benefits already require proof of lawful status and state agencies already routinely check for this in most contexts. Proof is sparse that unauthorized immigrants are utilizing public benefits to which they are not entitled. Nevertheless, proponents asserted a need for uniformity in order to prevent slipping through the cracks. LB 963 also proposed to repeal the two-year-old law that authorizes conditioned eligibility for in-state-tuition rates at the state’s public post-secondary educational institutions for undocumented residents. In order to be eligible, such an individual must have graduated from a high school in Nebraska, after having resided in this state with his or her parents for at least three prior years, and must certify that he or she will seek authorized status at the earliest opportunity. While the Governor and the Attorney General both testified in support of LB 963 at its public hearing in front of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, the President of the University of Nebraska, a member of the Board of Regents and the Chancellor of the State College System were among those testifying in opposition to the bill. They argued effectively that the educational opportunities under the in-state-tuition law should not be terminated, a view also expressed by the Nebraska Catholic Conference. LB 963 was reported indefinitely postponed by a five-member majority of the Judiciary Committee on March 7. It could be resurrected—only 19 working days remain in the session--but that would take 30 votes from among the 49 legislators. LB 1170 proposes, in essence, to “deputize” every Nebraska citizen as a private attorney general, with authority to sue any employer who “knowingly or recklessly recruited or employed illegal immigrants.” To be recovered as damages? Costs of providing public services, e.g., elementary and secondary education, health care, and public assistance, to all “illegal immigrants” and their families. “Qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hoc parte sequitur”; “he who sues for the king as well as for himself.” That English common law theory is apparently the concept behind LB 1170; although it’s not clear that the bill actually provides any recovery for the State when a citizen brings the action. As a matter of public policy, LB 1170 strikes us as a bad idea. In the emotionally intense, politically charged context of immigration, it has a sort of bounty-hunting element about it, even perhaps a sense of vigilantism. In a more practical vein, fears of being sued by any random citizen could cause employers to discriminate against job applicants on the bases of appearance, surname, race or ethnicity. And in closing…. Those stories a while back about Rick Majerus, the head basketball coach at Jesuit-operated St. Louis University, speaking out publicly in support of the choice women have under law to terminate the lives of their unborn children, were somewhat intriguing, but sadly so. Even as s a “media darling,” who’s adept at spinning a lot of lingo without saying much, Majerus no doubt has a core belief in the game he coaches. How then does he embrace the fact that millions upon millions of young Americans have been denied all opportunity to ever experience the joy, fun and values of basketball, perhaps even his coaching, because their mothers chose to end their lives prior to birth, a choice in which he believes? How does he reconcile, we wonder, his positive view toward the game of basketball and its values, with his negative view towards life itself?
|
Nebraska Catholic
Conference
