Spots and hurdles

It’s the same advice I got 26 years ago.

Pick your spots.

Don’t stick your nose and your voice into lots of issues. Become knowledgeable and respected on a few issues instead.

I had just been elected to the House of Delegates when a former committee chairman gave me this advice.

Today, a freshman delegate was about to participate in an informal gathering of members to discuss the legislation pending before us.

“If there’s one bill you feel comfortable talking about, do it,” I advised, “For most of the bills, just listen and learn.”

----

Many hurdles still to clear before reaching the Governor’s desk, but important steps along that way today on two issues.

Lilly Ledbetter got a favorable vote in subcommittee. Next stop the full committee, where positive action also likely.

The death penalty repeal bill won’t die in a Senate committee. It will be considered by the full body, according to news reports.

Governor O’Malley acknowledged yesterday that we’re two votes shy of the 24 votes needed. He will now use his persuasiveness, moral authority, and powers of the office as he meets with undecided senators.

In our strategy for repeal over the last 2+ years, the Governor’s efforts have always been crucial.

So we're entering the 7th inning, and as Earl Weaver would say when he maneuvered the other manager into bringing in a right-handed reliever so that he could pinch hit Terry Crowley: "The gun is loaded."

Facts of this case

What are the facts of this case?

Every law student lives in dread of being asked that question - by your professor, in front of your classmates.

A satisfactory answer doesn’t get you off the hook. You will then be asked what the court decided and most importantly, why it reached that outcome.

In preparation for the hearing tomorrow on my religious accommodation bill, I decided to read the leading Supreme Court decision on this issue, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. If someone asks me what the facts are in that case, I’ll know.

If I’m on my game, I won’t wait for someone to ask me that question. I’ll discuss it in my testimony instead.

Why? In Hardison, the Court held that an employee, whose Christian faith compelled him not to work on Saturday, his Sabbath, could be fired because his job “was essential, and on weekends he was the only available person on his shift to perform it.”

It will help make the point that passage of my legislation would not mean that the religious belief must be accommodated in every circumstance.

----

Nobody asked me the following questions. I posed them to myself at today’s Judiciary Committee hearing.

Can we comply with the federal law requiring that someone demonstrate a lawful status in the United States before obtaining a driver’s license and also provide a driver’s license to people who don’t have the required documentation - to avoid marginalizing immigrants and increasing the risks on our roads by having these individuals drive without a license or insurance?

Can we afford the extra cost of such a two-tier system?

Talking between the branches

How does the legislature communicate with the judiciary?

That’s not a theoretical question.

I’m working on two bills where it’s very important to express legislative intent.

What does “reasonable accommodation” mean? That’s the key phrase in my bill that would require an apartment owner or condominium association to make a “reasonable accommodation” for the religious practices of tenants or unit owners.

I didn’t make up this term. For 40 years, the courts have used it in deciding whether an employer has made a reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of its employees.

I want my bill to express the legislature’s intent that the courts are to apply the legal analysis that decided “reasonable accommodation” cases in the workplace to a residential setting.

A group of women wrestlers alleged that they had been treated differently than their male counterparts. Their lawsuit was thrown out because, like Lilly Ledbetter, they had not brought their suit within 180 days of the initial discriminatory act.

I’ve drafted language that expresses the legislature’s intent that we don’t want the same thing to happen in cases brought under Maryland’s civil rights laws.

As we were discussing this language today, one lawyer wrote me, “State judges, like federal judges, don't like to be told what to do.”

“Legislators are initial audience for this language” I responded. “So we need to provide some reassurances to them (We can't provide guarantees), that if they pass the bill, this is how we want it to be implemented.”

State of Mind

If you know you’re breaking the law, you’ve committed a crime.

Without that knowledge, it’s only a civil violation.

For certain provisions of our election law, I was reminded today, you can be found guilty of a criminal or civil violation, depending upon your state of mind.

My tutorial arose in an email exchange about the Voter’s Rights Protection Act.

My bill would add a new provision to the law, making it a crime to use a foreclosure list to challenge people’s right to vote because there has been a foreclosure at the address on their registration card.

That’s already illegal, I was informed the day before my bill hearing, because the only grounds on which to challenge a potential voter on Election Day is that person’s identity, not his or her address.

That makes using the foreclosure list a violation of the prohibition on influencing or attempting to influence “a voter’s decision whether to go to the polls to cast a vote” through the use of fraud. (My voting rights legislation in 2005 made that a crime – if done “willfully and knowingly,” but only a civil violation otherwise.)

While reviewing these provisions, I came across the language making it a felony to “vote or attempt to vote during the time that the person is rendered ineligible to vote” while on parole or probation after being convicted of a felony.

Informing people when they can register after they’ve been released from jail is the purpose of my House Bill 483.

“Why shouldn’t there be a civil alternative for those who are unaware of this prohibition?” I emailed.

“Do we treat dirty tricksters more leniently than we do ex-cons?” I later said to myself.

Not done yet

Jobs will be saved. Cuts won’t be made.

That was the Governor’s very good news message at a press conference yesterday to herald the impact of federal recovery/stimulus money on the state budget.

I believe that the stimulus package will accomplish two things.

* Repair the safety net for those of us who have lost their jobs because of the recession, while maintaining the incentives and requirements for seeking work in our welfare system; and

* Invest in our infrastructure and future – from repaving roads so people can get to work and to shop more efficiently to enhancing our ability to obtain energy from sources other than the oil kingdoms of the Middle East.

However, I have also heard from constituents who think that this spending will not stimulate our economy but will leave us further in debt instead.

It is essential, therefore, that we, as taxpayers, are able to find out how this money is spent and how many jobs it creates.

After the Obama administration pledged to put this information on a website, I urged state officials to provide this accountability and transparency as well.

They have agreed to do so.

Out of order

I thought this would happen.

My committee had just taken preliminary action on House Bill 45, Crimes - Tattooing, Branding, and Body Piercing - Parental Consent.

Someone could offer a floor amendment requiring parental consent before a minor could obtain an abortion, I commented to some of my colleagues last Friday.

My next step was to ask the Attorney General’s Office for advice.

Such an amendment would not violate the requirement in the Maryland constitution that a bill deal with a single subject, began the response.

However, when the abortion issue was raised in an amendment to a bill requiring parental consent before a minor could use a tanning bed, the Senate President ruled last year that it violated the Senate rules because it changed the purpose of the bill.

I shared that legal advice with appropriate delegates and staff.

Today, a floor amendment was offered to HB 45 that would require parental consent for “any invasive medical or surgical procedure.”

The Speaker ruled the amendment out of order because it changed the purpose of the bill.

In response to some of the comments made by supporters of the amendment, I rose to explain my vote.

“No one will be silenced and prevented from having a full hearing on this issue if this amendment is ruled out of order,” I declared. “Put in a bill and it will be considered by the appropriate committee, like any other piece of legislation.”

The Speaker’s ruling was upheld, 103-35.

Life, liberty or license

Someone who violates a criminal law can lose their life, their liberty, or their license.

While our Senate counterparts listened to Governor O’Malley testify for repeal of the death penalty, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on eight drunk driving bills.

The argument for tougher penalties: the state’s ability to protect the safety of the traveling public is limited by existing laws that permit the most frequent violators, repeat offenders and young drivers, to remain on the road.

The opposing view: people who lose their license may be unable to get to work or to transport other family members to important activities and events.

When we’re not depriving the accused of life or freedom, I err on the side of preventing harm to others.

Nonetheless, the devil is in the legislative details.

We may begin voting on these bills later this week.

Still counting

“It’s early,” I said.

Survey of state Senate finds narrow majority oppose repeal read the headline across the front page of today’s Baltimore Sun.

So I sought to calm the waters at the start of our weekly strategy meeting on death penalty repeal. I also noted that vote counts are fluid before the public hearing on a bill. It’s tomorrow in the Senate.

Prior to our discussion, I spoke to someone who had been the chief legislative officer (lobbyist) for a previous Governor. “When you held that job,” I asked him, “didn’t the Sun run a story mid-session saying that the Administration’s agenda was in deep trouble with the General Assembly?”

You are right and they were wrong, he replied. I had a similar conversation with another former chief legislative officer.

Later in the day, I told someone in the Governor’s Office that a story written days before the Special Session of 2007 would have said that there wasn’t enough support to pass a slots bill or tax increases. However, when the roll was called, the votes were there.

After I recounted that conversation to an Annapolis veteran, he made the valid point that how a legislator makes a decision on the death penalty is not the same as with slots.

We’re still counting.

----

“It’s the end of welfare reform.”

I didn’t say that. Joe Scarborough did on MSNBC this morning.

I checked with a bipartisan expert on the issue, Sheri Steisel of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Her response: “It's from the Heritage Foundation. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm2287.cfm) It's totally wrong. Ron Haskins, the leading Republican staffer on welfare reform, agrees that in an economic downturn, the federal government needs to increase spending to meet the case load demand.

"There is no change in work requirements or time limits on eligibility for cash assistance. Those are the key elements of the welfare reform Congress enacted in 1996. There’s no new entitlement.”

So much for transparency, accountability, and accuracy from the loyal opposition.

Sometimes the words sing

Today, I preached to the converted.

Governor O’Malley had already spoken to the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) ministers and congregants. Repeal of the death penalty was one of the issues he discussed.

Not an enviable position for me to be in on the program.

I quoted Nelson Mandela at the dedication of the new Constitutional Court of South Africa, "The last time I was in a court room, it was to learn whether I would be sentenced to death."

I said that the men on death row were far different from Mandela. “They have committed heinous acts. But, to paraphrase the Sermon on the Mount,” I continued, “we should judge our society by how it treats the least among us.”

Sometimes the words sing, and sometimes the audience listens to every word.

Today was one of those special occasions.

No notes

I try to practice what I preach.

“Don’t use notes when you’re testifying on a bill or making your oral argument,” I tell my law school students. “Know the issue well enough so that you don’t need notes as a crutch.”

I spoke without notes when I testified on my voting rights and Lilly Ledbetter legislation last week. What those bills would do and why we need them I can speak to with passion.

Not so with two bills dealing with wills that I introduced at the request of the Maryland State Bar Association. Estates and trust law was one of the many business-oriented classes that I didn’t take at law school.

So I made sure that a lawyer from the Bar Association would be sitting next to me to help me answer any questions that arose.

On Tuesday, I’ll be testifying on my bill to require that when an inmate makes a post-conviction claim of innocence, a judge must hold a hearing on the merits.

I met with attorneys from the Office of the Public Defender last week. They told me that such a claim would not be heard today if filed after a certain time period, and I practiced the arguments I would make.

My pre-testimony testimony left me with a better understanding of the issue. But I still want an attorney sitting next to me at the witness table.

Orioles Fantasy Camp – Reverse Elrod and Mr. February

When we arrived at the baseball complex, my taxi driver asked, “Are you a trainer?”

“No,” I replied, “I’m a catcher.”

Over the next four days, I tagged two runners out at the plate.

The second time, I caught a one-hop relay throw from shallow right field from former Oriole pitcher Dave Johnson, turned, and made the tag.

Then I took the ball out of my glove to show the umpire that the runner’s slide had not jarred it loose. But I did it so quickly that the other bench yelped that I had made the tag with my glove while the ball was in my hand.

I may be relaxed behind home plate, but I don’t catch throws from the outfield with my bare hand.

The ump correctly signaled "Out." A reverse Elrod!

The economy and the Orioles’ 11 consecutive losing seasons made this the smallest Fantasy Camp I’ve attended. There were enough players for only four teams, compared to 12 teams at my first camp 15 years ago.

So our post-season contest on Sunday morning for the Division 2 title would determine which team finished third in a four-team league.

After batting .200 in the six-game regular season, I singled to right with two out in the seventh, driving in a run that put us ahead, 7-5. By my next trip to the plate, leading off the bottom of the ninth, the score was tied.

I walked on five pitches. After a station-to-station trip around the bases, I scored the game-winning run on a single up the middle.

On this day, I was Mr. February.

----

Two Yankee Stadium stories from the former Orioles at the camp:

With Dave Winfield batting in the eighth inning, Rick Dempsey signaled fastball to starter Mike Flanagan, who shook him off. Dempsey again put down one finger. Flanny threw a fastball that Winfield deposited in the upper deck.

The next day, the busts of the Yankee greats on the monuments in left center were still upturned towards the flight of Winfield's ball.

In his first appearance at Yankee Stadium, pitcher Bill Swaggerty got signaled into the game from the bullpen by Earl Weaver. Swags hops into the pick-up truck that transports the pitcher to the dugout, but the driver doesn't move.

He finally says, "You should roll up your window unless you want to get wet."

On the drive in, they're pelted by cokes and beers.

If you can soak them there, you can soak them anywhere…

An e-mail for Lilly

“When your employer decides to discriminate against you, he or she does not send you an email.”

That’s how I began my testimony on the Lilly Ledbetter bill.

The Supreme Court said that the law required you to sue within 180 days of the first illegal act, whether or not you knew or should have known that your rights had been violated.

The Congress, recognizing the realities of the workplace, decided that you can obtain back pay and other relief for violations that occurred up to two years before you file a complaint.

Twelve months ago, when I first spoke before this committee, I was probably the only legislator in the room who knew who Lilly Ledbetter was. Not this time around.

A bill signing at the White House has done wonders for her name recognition.

And the hearing today appeared to do well for the prospects of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009.

Come back blue back

I haven’t lost one in 27 years, but I had my doubts this morning.

To introduce a bill, a member must take it to the House Clerk’s office. One copy of your proposed legislation is stapled to a sheet of blue paper. It’s called the blue back.

Two days ago, I took a blue back to that office, but this morning it was not on the list of bills I’ve introduced on the General Assembly’s web site.

Did I not take it there? Had I lost it?

We called the Clerk’s Office. They said they’d look for it. My aides anxiously awaited a return call.

One traumatic half hour later, a staffer came up to me on the House floor.

“Your blue back affects the Maryland Health and Higher Educational Facilities Authority,” he told me. “It’s been so long since we had a bill dealing with the Authority, we’re not sure what committee to send it to. That’s why it’s not on your list.”

“The last bill was probably mine,” I replied. “The very first legislation I introduced – 26 years ago, dealt with the Authority because Loyola College wanted to buy an apartment building, finance it with the Authority, and convert it to student housing, displacing my constituents.”

“That bill went to the Appropriations Committee,” I concluded.

Thirty minutes later, so had this year’s.

----

“Your written statement mentions dirty tricks performed by Republicans but not any by Democrats,” complained a Republican delegate after I had testified on my Voter’s Rights Protection Act.

“I have a left leaning Google,” I replied.

Afterwards, I kicked myself for not giving a less humorous but politically accurate response.

So when I saw my colleague in the hallway, I told him, “It’s only the Republicans who are trying to suppress the vote in minority communities.”

Some other intrigue

The Second Amendment Sisters were absent.

Mayor Dixon was testifying on her bill to increase the amount of prison time served for the illegal possession of a regulated firearm.

But where was the opposition?

One thing I’ve learned during my five years on the Judiciary Committee: the Second Amendment Sisters and other gun owners have far more passion and stamina than the advocates for gun control.

Since the Mayor’s bill had been before us last year, I checked the witness list. No one opposed the bill that time either.

I guess it didn’t pass because of some other intrigue.

----

I got an answer from the Attorney General’s Office to my Ledbetter question, and it’s favorable.

It is my view that the courts are not bound by the holding in Ledbetter in interpreting Maryland laws, but they have frequently looked to federal law in interpreting the State’s employment discrimination laws, and they could do so in this context.

Devious minds and technology

Two of my most important bills this session will have public hearings this week.

The Voter’s Rights Protection Act passed the House last year but not the Senate. The opposite was the case for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act.

Preparing for this week’s testimony, however, entails a lot more than just changing the date on last year’s testimony.

Devious minds and technology produce new types of dirty tricks designed to prevent people from voting.

Last November, the Michigan Republican Party tried to prevent every one from voting whose home had been foreclosed – if they lived in a certain suburb of Detroit.

I added a provision to my voting rights bill that would prohibit using an “unverified match list” in this manner unless there is a “signature, photograph or unique identifying number” ensuring that the same individual is on the voter rolls and the foreclosure list.

I left a voice mail this afternoon with someone who has decades of experience in housing and neighborhood preservation, asking if he could testify on Wednesday about the many instances where people live in their homes for a significant period of time after they are foreclosed and remain eligible to vote from that address.

Why do we need this bill?

That’s the question a bill sponsor must always answer.

Why do we need a Lilly Ledbetter law in Maryland if President Obama has already signed the undoing the Supreme Court decision that prevented her from recovering from her employer for giving her male co-workers a higher salary?

I asked the Attorney General’s Office if Maryland courts are likely to rule that the restrictive Supreme Court standard still applies if we don’t revise our law to reflect the changes the Congress has made.

I expect to have the answer before Thursday’s hearing.

Visualizing an Issue

I always try to have a witness who can personalize the issue my bill addresses.

This person will benefit from the legislation or has been harmed by the situation I’m trying to correct.

It’s far more effective than my speaking in abstract terms about the problem.

Today I realized I have a bill I can visualize.

I met with a woman whose landlord has prohibited her and others from having a sukkah outside her apartment. In observance of the harvest festival, Jews eat their meals in a sukkah.

They’re don’t inconvenience any other tenant and cost the property owner nothing.

Photos of these sukkahs will help tell the story at the hearing on my bill to require a landlord to make reasonable accommodation for tenants’ religious expression.

Time Has Come

Sometimes your bill may be an idea whose time has come.

Governor O’Malley will deliver remarks at the Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference this Friday.

At the first meeting of the Middle Class Task Force, the focus will be on “green jobs, those jobs that pay well, can’t be outsourced and will help us move toward a cleaner, more self-sufficient energy future,” said its chairman, Vice President Biden.

Tomorrow, I will be meeting with Executive Branch officials and environmental advocates about my legislation, House Bill 268 - Welfare to Work - Job Skills Enhancement Program - Green Jobs.

My goal: create a consensus in support of my bill.