I was reminded today that we don’t act on a bill unless it is before us. Literally.
“There is no more work at the desk,” the Speaker said at the conclusion of this morning’s session. Nothing unusual about that.
For the full House to take action on a bill, a folder containing a hard copy of the bill and any amendments to it must be on the Chief Clerk’s desk, right in front of the Speaker’s rostrum.
One time, a bill of mine failed because my chairman couldn’t retrieve it from the Clerk’s Office and bring it to the chamber before midnight on the last night of the session.
I didn’t lose a bill today, but for a while no one knew where the folder was.
The green jobs bill was referred to two committees. Appropriations acted favorably on it Saturday, but Economic Matters had not taken it up.
The reason: the bill folder could not be found. This morning, my staff helped find it.
Economic Matters will vote on it tomorrow – when the bill will be before it.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Magic Number
Who knows eight?
Eight lights of Hanukkah will be the answer at the Passover seder next week.
On this Crossover Monday, eight bills of mine are alive and must be worked in the Senate to become law.
When the Voter’s Rights Protection Act was on 2nd reader today, no questions were asked and no amendments were offered. My peace treaty with the Republicans is holding. However, no action so far on the Senate crossfile.
On the state police spying legislation, the differences between the House and Senate versions should be easily resolved. Ditto on my bills dealing with newly discovered evidence of innocence and the weight given to an adult’s disability at a custody hearing.
The green jobs bill didn’t make it to the floor today. Assuming it passes the House later this week, I’ll need to get it out of the Senate Rules Committee. The Jim McKay Maryland Resolution is still in the House Rules Committee, but the odds are very good that it will be on track for passage in time.
Legislation providing incentives for state employees who propose ideas that save money and clarifying who must be consulted if human remains are disinterred should not be controversial.
But I’ll take nothing for granted.
Eight lights of Hanukkah will be the answer at the Passover seder next week.
On this Crossover Monday, eight bills of mine are alive and must be worked in the Senate to become law.
When the Voter’s Rights Protection Act was on 2nd reader today, no questions were asked and no amendments were offered. My peace treaty with the Republicans is holding. However, no action so far on the Senate crossfile.
On the state police spying legislation, the differences between the House and Senate versions should be easily resolved. Ditto on my bills dealing with newly discovered evidence of innocence and the weight given to an adult’s disability at a custody hearing.
The green jobs bill didn’t make it to the floor today. Assuming it passes the House later this week, I’ll need to get it out of the Senate Rules Committee. The Jim McKay Maryland Resolution is still in the House Rules Committee, but the odds are very good that it will be on track for passage in time.
Legislation providing incentives for state employees who propose ideas that save money and clarifying who must be consulted if human remains are disinterred should not be controversial.
But I’ll take nothing for granted.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Not too late
It was late Friday night, but it felt like early Saturday morning.
The second floor session of the day had lasted four hours. Bills on early voting and driver’s licenses for undocumented residents had prompted many amendments and much debate.
But the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Resources had two bills to vote on. One was my green jobs bill.
The chair, a co-sponsor of the legislation, called the meeting to order. The discussion was brief, and the favorable vote was unanimous.
It was 9:54 p.m.
The second floor session of the day had lasted four hours. Bills on early voting and driver’s licenses for undocumented residents had prompted many amendments and much debate.
But the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Resources had two bills to vote on. One was my green jobs bill.
The chair, a co-sponsor of the legislation, called the meeting to order. The discussion was brief, and the favorable vote was unanimous.
It was 9:54 p.m.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Hard work, real results
There is life after the death penalty – for several of my bills.
Today, the following took place:
The Lilly Ledbetter fair pay bill got a favorable report from the Health and Government Operations Committee.
The Voter’s Rights Protection Act got a favorable vote from the Election Law Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.
My legislation to prevent a judge from considering a person’s disability in a custody proceeding, unless there is a specific finding that the disability causes a condition which is detrimental to the best interest of the child, got a favorable report from the Judiciary Committee.
The bill to prevent the police from infiltrating organizations that are exercising their First Amendment rights when protesting government policy passed the House unanimously. I was the floor leader for this legislation.
Finally, my proposal to allow an inmate to present to a judge newly discovered evidence of innocence got preliminary approval from the full House.
Much still to be done to get these bills enacted, but as my campaign slogan once said:
Hard work, real results.
Today, the following took place:
The Lilly Ledbetter fair pay bill got a favorable report from the Health and Government Operations Committee.
The Voter’s Rights Protection Act got a favorable vote from the Election Law Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.
My legislation to prevent a judge from considering a person’s disability in a custody proceeding, unless there is a specific finding that the disability causes a condition which is detrimental to the best interest of the child, got a favorable report from the Judiciary Committee.
The bill to prevent the police from infiltrating organizations that are exercising their First Amendment rights when protesting government policy passed the House unanimously. I was the floor leader for this legislation.
Finally, my proposal to allow an inmate to present to a judge newly discovered evidence of innocence got preliminary approval from the full House.
Much still to be done to get these bills enacted, but as my campaign slogan once said:
Hard work, real results.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
87-52
I knew we had the votes.
Today’s death penalty debate began with an amendment that would permit a death sentence for murdering a prison guard or officer, without having to meet the new standards for evidence in the Senate bill. It failed, 61-75, a closer margin than the vote on any of yesterday’s amendments.
Our margins grew on the five amendments that followed.
Then the Speaker called for the vote. As delegates rose to explain their vote, I did my eyeball count of the green/yes votes on the electronic tally board.
85 green.
I initially decided not to speak. We had the votes.
More members rose to speak, in greater numbers than on any other bill that I can recall over the years.
I changed my mind and was one of the last people recognized by the Speaker.
“The death penalty is fatally flawed – for many reasons. The bill before us is also flawed. However, it would significantly reduce the risk of the State of Maryland executing an innocent person. I urge a green vote.”
The final tally was 87-52.
Today’s death penalty debate began with an amendment that would permit a death sentence for murdering a prison guard or officer, without having to meet the new standards for evidence in the Senate bill. It failed, 61-75, a closer margin than the vote on any of yesterday’s amendments.
Our margins grew on the five amendments that followed.
Then the Speaker called for the vote. As delegates rose to explain their vote, I did my eyeball count of the green/yes votes on the electronic tally board.
85 green.
I initially decided not to speak. We had the votes.
More members rose to speak, in greater numbers than on any other bill that I can recall over the years.
I changed my mind and was one of the last people recognized by the Speaker.
“The death penalty is fatally flawed – for many reasons. The bill before us is also flawed. However, it would significantly reduce the risk of the State of Maryland executing an innocent person. I urge a green vote.”
The final tally was 87-52.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
One step from final passage
We’re only one step away.
This morning, the Republicans offered seven amendments to the death penalty reform bill. Each one failed. The closest vote was 59-79.
Additional amendments will be offered when the bill is before us on third reader and final passage tomorrow morning.
There is no sure thing in Annapolis - or any legislature, until they take the roll call.
So late this afternoon, we’re making sure we have some delegates prepared to speak for the bill tomorrow. Even if we have the votes in the chamber, we’re speaking to the world outside.
But if we had a minimum of 79 votes today, we’ll have the necessary 71 tomorrow.
----
The death penalty is not my only bill still alive.
I didn’t learn until today that a certain person has concerns about my green jobs bill. I sent this individual an email:
As the sponsor of HB 268, I would appreciate hearing from you directly about your concerns regarding this bill. I will be in my office tomorrow from 8-9 am.
This morning, the Republicans offered seven amendments to the death penalty reform bill. Each one failed. The closest vote was 59-79.
Additional amendments will be offered when the bill is before us on third reader and final passage tomorrow morning.
There is no sure thing in Annapolis - or any legislature, until they take the roll call.
So late this afternoon, we’re making sure we have some delegates prepared to speak for the bill tomorrow. Even if we have the votes in the chamber, we’re speaking to the world outside.
But if we had a minimum of 79 votes today, we’ll have the necessary 71 tomorrow.
----
The death penalty is not my only bill still alive.
I didn’t learn until today that a certain person has concerns about my green jobs bill. I sent this individual an email:
As the sponsor of HB 268, I would appreciate hearing from you directly about your concerns regarding this bill. I will be in my office tomorrow from 8-9 am.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Not at cross purposes
A crossfile can help you crossover week.
If a Senator agrees to introduce an identical version of my bill, it’s called a crossfile.
If my legislation passes the House of Delegates and crosses over to the Senate by the close of business next Monday, it is guaranteed a public hearing there during the last two weeks of the session.
So this is crossover week. Hundreds of bills, included some of the most important ones this session, will be debated and voted on by next Monday evening. “It’s the biggest week of the year,” one veteran legislator said today.
My green jobs bill had a very good hearing in the Appropriations Committee two weeks ago. Unfortunately, Delegate Mary-Dulany James, my co-sponsor and chair of the subcommittee that will consider my bill, was absent for the hearing and several days following because her mother passed away.
However, Senator Delores Kelley had agreed to introduce a crossfile. Her bill got a favorable hearing in the Finance Committee, where she serves.
It will be voted on by that committee this week.
I’ll wait for the Senate crossfile to crossover – hopefully, before I ask Del. James to act on my bill.
If a Senator agrees to introduce an identical version of my bill, it’s called a crossfile.
If my legislation passes the House of Delegates and crosses over to the Senate by the close of business next Monday, it is guaranteed a public hearing there during the last two weeks of the session.
So this is crossover week. Hundreds of bills, included some of the most important ones this session, will be debated and voted on by next Monday evening. “It’s the biggest week of the year,” one veteran legislator said today.
My green jobs bill had a very good hearing in the Appropriations Committee two weeks ago. Unfortunately, Delegate Mary-Dulany James, my co-sponsor and chair of the subcommittee that will consider my bill, was absent for the hearing and several days following because her mother passed away.
However, Senator Delores Kelley had agreed to introduce a crossfile. Her bill got a favorable hearing in the Finance Committee, where she serves.
It will be voted on by that committee this week.
I’ll wait for the Senate crossfile to crossover – hopefully, before I ask Del. James to act on my bill.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Sitting in place
It was our second meeting of the afternoon on the death penalty bill, which will be debated by the full House tomorrow.
We were reviewing our vote count. Who would vote for the bill and who would oppose all amendments?
We decided to ask six members to speak to the first three amendments, to build momentum for the rejection of all.
For our whip system during the debate, we divided the House floor into groups of four to six members, who sat near each other and had pledged to oppose all amendments.
“Where members sit on the floor seems to be random,” said one of the people around the table.
“Nothing in Annapolis is random,” I replied.
We were reviewing our vote count. Who would vote for the bill and who would oppose all amendments?
We decided to ask six members to speak to the first three amendments, to build momentum for the rejection of all.
For our whip system during the debate, we divided the House floor into groups of four to six members, who sat near each other and had pledged to oppose all amendments.
“Where members sit on the floor seems to be random,” said one of the people around the table.
“Nothing in Annapolis is random,” I replied.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The party line
“The orders came down from above.”
We were voting on the death penalty legislation in committee. One of my Republican colleagues was implying yet again that Democrats were meekly following the Governor’s orders to oppose all amendments.
He said it once too often.
Another member of the committee objected; then I did.
“The advocates and I independently decided that the Senate bill was the best that we could achieve,” I calmly but pointedly stated. “The Governor did not lobby any of us.”
----
Earlier Friday, I had another insight into the Republicans’ philosophy.
I sponsored House Bill 482, which would clarify who must be notified if someone’s remains are moved – within a cemetery or to another location.
After we reached agreement on amendments among all of the affected parties – cemetery owners, religious groups, and state regulators, the bill sailed through my committee.
It passed the House, 128-7, but then quite a few Republicans rose to change their vote from green (yes) to red (no).
“Is it a sponsor problem?” I emailed someone.
Dumbfounded, I asked a Republican delegate what was happening.
The bill would establish the priority among family members for arranging a reinternment. At the top of the list: a surviving spouse or domestic partner.
Earlier in the week, the Republicans had offered a floor amendment to move a domestic partner to the bottom of the list. It failed, 33-98.
Twenty one members rose to change their vote to “no” .
We were voting on the death penalty legislation in committee. One of my Republican colleagues was implying yet again that Democrats were meekly following the Governor’s orders to oppose all amendments.
He said it once too often.
Another member of the committee objected; then I did.
“The advocates and I independently decided that the Senate bill was the best that we could achieve,” I calmly but pointedly stated. “The Governor did not lobby any of us.”
----
Earlier Friday, I had another insight into the Republicans’ philosophy.
I sponsored House Bill 482, which would clarify who must be notified if someone’s remains are moved – within a cemetery or to another location.
After we reached agreement on amendments among all of the affected parties – cemetery owners, religious groups, and state regulators, the bill sailed through my committee.
It passed the House, 128-7, but then quite a few Republicans rose to change their vote from green (yes) to red (no).
“Is it a sponsor problem?” I emailed someone.
Dumbfounded, I asked a Republican delegate what was happening.
The bill would establish the priority among family members for arranging a reinternment. At the top of the list: a surviving spouse or domestic partner.
Earlier in the week, the Republicans had offered a floor amendment to move a domestic partner to the bottom of the list. It failed, 33-98.
Twenty one members rose to change their vote to “no” .
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Core values
For me, these are core values.
My life’s work is in a legislative body, where the majority rules. If you can count to 71 in the House and 24 in the Senate, you win.
But the First Amendment provides that the majority does not prevail when fundamental rights are violated.
The constitutional protection of freedom of the press does not prohibit a court from requiring a reporter to reveal a source, the Supreme Court has ruled. Nonetheless, the legislature can provide such protections by statute.
Similarly, the Court has held that the government can burden an individual’s exercise of his or her religious beliefs if there is a rational basis for a law of general applicability. Here as well, the legislature can enact additional protections, and the Congress has.
What prompts this discussion of constitutional law?
After the hearing concluded on my reporter’s shield bill yesterday, I learned that my religious accommodation bill had failed, 8-2.
Fundamentally, we were unable to persuade a majority of the members of the subcommittee that the exercise of religious belief – whether it’s a Shabbat elevator or a Hindu wall covering, is worthy of special consideration.
My life’s work is in a legislative body, where the majority rules. If you can count to 71 in the House and 24 in the Senate, you win.
But the First Amendment provides that the majority does not prevail when fundamental rights are violated.
The constitutional protection of freedom of the press does not prohibit a court from requiring a reporter to reveal a source, the Supreme Court has ruled. Nonetheless, the legislature can provide such protections by statute.
Similarly, the Court has held that the government can burden an individual’s exercise of his or her religious beliefs if there is a rational basis for a law of general applicability. Here as well, the legislature can enact additional protections, and the Congress has.
What prompts this discussion of constitutional law?
After the hearing concluded on my reporter’s shield bill yesterday, I learned that my religious accommodation bill had failed, 8-2.
Fundamentally, we were unable to persuade a majority of the members of the subcommittee that the exercise of religious belief – whether it’s a Shabbat elevator or a Hindu wall covering, is worthy of special consideration.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Defining bloggers
For a handful of my older colleagues, a laptop is a foreign object.
Of course, many younger delegates are far more adept at using the Internet than I am.
So I brought my laptop to the witness table to make this point: A growing number of people get their news from this machine, not from a newspaper delivered to their door or the tv set in their living room.
Maryland was the first state to enact a shield law, which protects a reporter, in certain circumstances, from being compelled by a court to disclose the source for a story.
My legislation would amend that law to include bloggers, using a definition from a bill pending in Congress.
Most of the questions dealt with how “blogger” should be defined, not whether or not someone who communicates over the Internet should receive this protection.
That’s a definite improvement over the reception I got five years ago.
Nonetheless, this is a bill that won’t pass until next year, at best. After the hearing, my witnesses and I agreed to meet this summer to discuss a revised definition.
We’ll invite one of the delegates who raised questions today about that language.
Of course, many younger delegates are far more adept at using the Internet than I am.
So I brought my laptop to the witness table to make this point: A growing number of people get their news from this machine, not from a newspaper delivered to their door or the tv set in their living room.
Maryland was the first state to enact a shield law, which protects a reporter, in certain circumstances, from being compelled by a court to disclose the source for a story.
My legislation would amend that law to include bloggers, using a definition from a bill pending in Congress.
Most of the questions dealt with how “blogger” should be defined, not whether or not someone who communicates over the Internet should receive this protection.
That’s a definite improvement over the reception I got five years ago.
Nonetheless, this is a bill that won’t pass until next year, at best. After the hearing, my witnesses and I agreed to meet this summer to discuss a revised definition.
We’ll invite one of the delegates who raised questions today about that language.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
2,000 hours and 10 seconds
“Do you think that spending 2,000 hours on one death penalty case is a worthwhile use of Professor Millemann’s time?”
I posed that question to Scott Shellenberger, the Baltimore County State’s Attorney and a leading supporter of the death penalty.
In my testimony, I had again made the point that the extraordinary amount of time spent litigating and legislating death penalty cases could be put to far better use on other criminal justice issues that prevent crime and make people safer where they live, where they work, and where they play.
Following me to the witness table, Prof. Millemann noted the time he had spent handling the appeals after his client’s court trial. Hence my question.
Mr. Shellenberger paused for at least 10 seconds before responding.
“No one in my office has ever spent that much time prosecuting a capital case,” he responded, in part.
He did not answer my question. I don’t think he could.
----
My LBJ-style vote count of the Judiciary Committee on the death penalty has gone very well.
But after today’s hearing, I put a new roll call list in my breast pocket.
I’m going to take the count again. Just to be sure.
I posed that question to Scott Shellenberger, the Baltimore County State’s Attorney and a leading supporter of the death penalty.
In my testimony, I had again made the point that the extraordinary amount of time spent litigating and legislating death penalty cases could be put to far better use on other criminal justice issues that prevent crime and make people safer where they live, where they work, and where they play.
Following me to the witness table, Prof. Millemann noted the time he had spent handling the appeals after his client’s court trial. Hence my question.
Mr. Shellenberger paused for at least 10 seconds before responding.
“No one in my office has ever spent that much time prosecuting a capital case,” he responded, in part.
He did not answer my question. I don’t think he could.
----
My LBJ-style vote count of the Judiciary Committee on the death penalty has gone very well.
But after today’s hearing, I put a new roll call list in my breast pocket.
I’m going to take the count again. Just to be sure.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Science and counting
I may not be good at science, but I do know the chemistry of the legislature.
Governor O’Malley budgeted $18.4 million for stem cell research. Our staff has recommended a drastic reduction – to only $5 million.
I thought this would send the wrong signal to the scientific community about Maryland’s commitment to this research specifically and the biotechnology sector generally.
So I asked that the Stem Cell Research Commission send me a one-pager on the benefits of the state’s funding this research.
When I give this memo to members of the relevant Appropriations subcommittee, here’s how I boil down their argument.
* This is stimulus money for the biotech sector in the short term
* Significant federal $$ are not coming soon
* A cut of this size would jeopardize MD’s leadership in this area of research in the long term
----
I began testifying on my resolution for the Jim McKay Maryland Million, the annual day of racing for horses sired by stallions standing in the state, by saying:
“If you’re as old as I am, you remember watching Wide World of Sports on a black-and-white tv.
“But I’m sure that everyone on this committee heard Jim McKay say, ‘They’re all gone,’ when he informed the world of the fate of the Israeli hostages at the Munich Olympics.”
Afterwards, one of the committee members came up to me and said, “I wasn’t born until 1973, the year after Munich.”
I may not have known his age, but I hope I have his vote.
Governor O’Malley budgeted $18.4 million for stem cell research. Our staff has recommended a drastic reduction – to only $5 million.
I thought this would send the wrong signal to the scientific community about Maryland’s commitment to this research specifically and the biotechnology sector generally.
So I asked that the Stem Cell Research Commission send me a one-pager on the benefits of the state’s funding this research.
When I give this memo to members of the relevant Appropriations subcommittee, here’s how I boil down their argument.
* This is stimulus money for the biotech sector in the short term
* Significant federal $$ are not coming soon
* A cut of this size would jeopardize MD’s leadership in this area of research in the long term
----
I began testifying on my resolution for the Jim McKay Maryland Million, the annual day of racing for horses sired by stallions standing in the state, by saying:
“If you’re as old as I am, you remember watching Wide World of Sports on a black-and-white tv.
“But I’m sure that everyone on this committee heard Jim McKay say, ‘They’re all gone,’ when he informed the world of the fate of the Israeli hostages at the Munich Olympics.”
Afterwards, one of the committee members came up to me and said, “I wasn’t born until 1973, the year after Munich.”
I may not have known his age, but I hope I have his vote.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Not extinct
I go to lots of functions and community meetings.
But none with the anticipation and sense of history that I brought to the dedication of the Ohr Hamizrach synagogue.
For 2700 years, there was a Jewish community in Persia/Iran. The Iranian revolution of 1979 prompted an exodus.
The late Rabbi Herman Neuberger was instrumental in bringing (sometimes smuggling) people to freedom. Thus, Baltimore has one of a handful of Iranian Jewish communities in this country.
Today, their synagogue on Park Heights Avenue was dedicated.
“We always have a beautiful shul in Iran,” a rabbi told the congregation.
The exterior is striking – pinkish stone with Oriental/Iranian design work and six-pointed Jewish stars..
By contrast, the first synagogue built in Baltimore, on Lloyd Street in East Baltimore in 1845, has no outward indication of its use.
Perhaps my ancestors attended similar ceremonies when the German and Russian Jewish communities reached a similar critical mass.
As a rabbi said today: “This is a public proclamation that a tribe of the Jewish people has not become extinct.”
But none with the anticipation and sense of history that I brought to the dedication of the Ohr Hamizrach synagogue.
For 2700 years, there was a Jewish community in Persia/Iran. The Iranian revolution of 1979 prompted an exodus.
The late Rabbi Herman Neuberger was instrumental in bringing (sometimes smuggling) people to freedom. Thus, Baltimore has one of a handful of Iranian Jewish communities in this country.
Today, their synagogue on Park Heights Avenue was dedicated.
“We always have a beautiful shul in Iran,” a rabbi told the congregation.
The exterior is striking – pinkish stone with Oriental/Iranian design work and six-pointed Jewish stars..
By contrast, the first synagogue built in Baltimore, on Lloyd Street in East Baltimore in 1845, has no outward indication of its use.
Perhaps my ancestors attended similar ceremonies when the German and Russian Jewish communities reached a similar critical mass.
As a rabbi said today: “This is a public proclamation that a tribe of the Jewish people has not become extinct.”
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Channel surfing
I must have been channeling Yogi.
The Sun reporter asked me if the Judiciary Committee would act favorably on both my death penalty repeal bill and the Senate’s amended version.
It was a question I had never been asked before.
Her article today ended with my response:
Rosenberg, however, predicted only the Senate plan would survive. "You don't send out two conflicting bills," he said, "even if you can."
Now it’s time to channel LBJ.
As Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson would carry the roll call listing of the Senators in his breast pocket. When he had a member’s commitment to vote for a bill, he would mark it down.
I’ll do that now with the Judiciary Committee, to confirm who will vote for the Senate bill and oppose all amendments. Assuming we have the 12 votes necessary, I’ll do the same with the full House of Delegates.
Until I’ve counted to 71.
The Sun reporter asked me if the Judiciary Committee would act favorably on both my death penalty repeal bill and the Senate’s amended version.
It was a question I had never been asked before.
Her article today ended with my response:
Rosenberg, however, predicted only the Senate plan would survive. "You don't send out two conflicting bills," he said, "even if you can."
Now it’s time to channel LBJ.
As Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson would carry the roll call listing of the Senators in his breast pocket. When he had a member’s commitment to vote for a bill, he would mark it down.
I’ll do that now with the Judiciary Committee, to confirm who will vote for the Senate bill and oppose all amendments. Assuming we have the 12 votes necessary, I’ll do the same with the full House of Delegates.
Until I’ve counted to 71.
Friday, March 13, 2009
The death penalty and keeping people safe
I issued the following statement on the death penalty this afternoon.
I continue to believe that Maryland should end capital punishment. The Civiletti Commission, on which I served, identified significant problems in how the death penalty is applied in our state. The Commission concluded that these problems can not be fixed.
The possibility of the State of Maryland’s executing an innocent person is one of those flaws. Over the last 35 years, there have been 1,125 executions and 130 exonerations of innocent persons nationwide from death row
I have concluded that the likelihood of executing an innocent person will be significantly reduced by the enactment of the amended version of Senate Bill 279. This legislation would place important new restrictions on the types of cases in which prosecutors can seek the death penalty.
I applaud Governor O’Malley and Senator Gladden for their courageous leadership on this issue. If we are not to end the death penalty, Senators Zirkin and Brochin are to be commended for the amendments that they offered.
Several years ago, I concluded that we should repeal the death penalty. The reason underlying my decision: the time and money spent litigating and legislating on this issue should be put to far better use.
Keeping people safe where they live, work, and play is one of the primary obligations of government. The resources diverted to the death penalty diminish our capacity to fulfill that requirement.
The money spent on death penalty cases could be used instead to target career offenders, protect at-risk children, and identify youthful offenders who are on the road to becoming murderers.
In the years ahead, I am confident that the General Assembly will revisit the other issues raised in the Civiletti Commission report, such as racial and jurisdictional disparities in how the death penalty is applied and the detrimental impact it has on the lives of victims’ families.
For now, I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting the Senate bill and opposing any amendments.
I continue to believe that Maryland should end capital punishment. The Civiletti Commission, on which I served, identified significant problems in how the death penalty is applied in our state. The Commission concluded that these problems can not be fixed.
The possibility of the State of Maryland’s executing an innocent person is one of those flaws. Over the last 35 years, there have been 1,125 executions and 130 exonerations of innocent persons nationwide from death row
I have concluded that the likelihood of executing an innocent person will be significantly reduced by the enactment of the amended version of Senate Bill 279. This legislation would place important new restrictions on the types of cases in which prosecutors can seek the death penalty.
I applaud Governor O’Malley and Senator Gladden for their courageous leadership on this issue. If we are not to end the death penalty, Senators Zirkin and Brochin are to be commended for the amendments that they offered.
Several years ago, I concluded that we should repeal the death penalty. The reason underlying my decision: the time and money spent litigating and legislating on this issue should be put to far better use.
Keeping people safe where they live, work, and play is one of the primary obligations of government. The resources diverted to the death penalty diminish our capacity to fulfill that requirement.
The money spent on death penalty cases could be used instead to target career offenders, protect at-risk children, and identify youthful offenders who are on the road to becoming murderers.
In the years ahead, I am confident that the General Assembly will revisit the other issues raised in the Civiletti Commission report, such as racial and jurisdictional disparities in how the death penalty is applied and the detrimental impact it has on the lives of victims’ families.
For now, I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting the Senate bill and opposing any amendments.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
An armistice on Lilly
Today, I negotiated an armistice on Lilly Ledbetter.
An armistice is a cessation of hostilities. It is not a peace treaty.
As I’ve written before, my bill would make Maryland’s civil rights law on equal pay identical to the federal legislation that President Obama signed into law.
The Senate version of this measure was debated in that body this week. Senator Jamie Raskin, the bill’s sponsor, told me about his discussions with the Republican leader.
I made two suggestions.
First, don’t accept any changes that affect the most important part of the bill. Workers in Maryland must be treated the same as they are under the federal law. That goal was accomplished.
Second, if you reach agreement with the Senate Republicans, they should ask their House colleagues to accept these amendments as well and seek no other changes to the bill.
They don’t have to vote for the bill. We’re just asking that they don’t delay or prevent its passage by proposing any further amendments.
I decided to take matters into my own hands. I spoke to one House Republican leader, then another. My version of shuttle diplomacy.
I am pleased to report that an armistice is at hand.
An armistice is a cessation of hostilities. It is not a peace treaty.
As I’ve written before, my bill would make Maryland’s civil rights law on equal pay identical to the federal legislation that President Obama signed into law.
The Senate version of this measure was debated in that body this week. Senator Jamie Raskin, the bill’s sponsor, told me about his discussions with the Republican leader.
I made two suggestions.
First, don’t accept any changes that affect the most important part of the bill. Workers in Maryland must be treated the same as they are under the federal law. That goal was accomplished.
Second, if you reach agreement with the Senate Republicans, they should ask their House colleagues to accept these amendments as well and seek no other changes to the bill.
They don’t have to vote for the bill. We’re just asking that they don’t delay or prevent its passage by proposing any further amendments.
I decided to take matters into my own hands. I spoke to one House Republican leader, then another. My version of shuttle diplomacy.
I am pleased to report that an armistice is at hand.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
All relationships are local, some are longstanding
I get great professional and personal satisfaction from working on bills that deal with major public policy issues.
In this session alone, I’ve got death penalty, voting rights, and religious accommodation.
But I also get pleasure from helping a constituent resolve a problem with the bureaucracy or the law. Even more so when that person is someone I’ve known since elementary school.
Herman Berlin is an auto parts wholesaler. He runs a family business. Over the last 60 years, Baltimore Auto Parts has done significant business with state agencies.
Then a contract with Autozone put the brakes on the requests for quotes from Herman and other small businesses in Maryland.
Last summer, he came to me for help. I asked the legislature’s reference library for assistance.
The state had signed an intergovernmental cooperative purchasing agreement (ICPA) with Autozone. However, once the state decides to enter into an ICPA, it does not allow any other businesses to submit a bid.
House Bill 1203 would change that. Potential competitors would be given 21 days to submit their bid.
“It’s a question of fairness,” I told the Health and Government Operations Committee today.
The chairman of the subcommittee that will consider my bill said, “These bids need to be competitive.”
The request from the chairman of the full committee to the witness from the state agency that handles these contracts was simple and direct: “Attend the next meeting of that subcommittee.”
It was very clear that the committee wants to change the law.
Afterwards, I said to Herman Berlin: “That was a good hearing!”
In this session alone, I’ve got death penalty, voting rights, and religious accommodation.
But I also get pleasure from helping a constituent resolve a problem with the bureaucracy or the law. Even more so when that person is someone I’ve known since elementary school.
Herman Berlin is an auto parts wholesaler. He runs a family business. Over the last 60 years, Baltimore Auto Parts has done significant business with state agencies.
Then a contract with Autozone put the brakes on the requests for quotes from Herman and other small businesses in Maryland.
Last summer, he came to me for help. I asked the legislature’s reference library for assistance.
The state had signed an intergovernmental cooperative purchasing agreement (ICPA) with Autozone. However, once the state decides to enter into an ICPA, it does not allow any other businesses to submit a bid.
House Bill 1203 would change that. Potential competitors would be given 21 days to submit their bid.
“It’s a question of fairness,” I told the Health and Government Operations Committee today.
The chairman of the subcommittee that will consider my bill said, “These bids need to be competitive.”
The request from the chairman of the full committee to the witness from the state agency that handles these contracts was simple and direct: “Attend the next meeting of that subcommittee.”
It was very clear that the committee wants to change the law.
Afterwards, I said to Herman Berlin: “That was a good hearing!”
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Public and Private and Action
Lots of questions from committee members at my green jobs bill hearing.
I took that as a sign of interest, until my GOP friends started asking why we were singling out former and current recipients of cash assistance for job training.
“The heart of welfare reform is providing incentives for people to join the work force,” I stated. “This bill builds on the legislation we passed a decade ago.”
----
I received the legal memo on whether a court is likely to require accommodation of those hypothetical religious practices in a multi-family dwelling.
Not to use a legal term, it’s common sense. You don’t make exceptions for a religious practice that violates a law, such as those dealing with treatment of animals or fire hazards.
The subcommittee is supposed to consider the bill tomorrow. My staff hand delivered the memo to members’ offices. I added a handwritten note - not to sway anyone’s vote but to get their attention.
---
Lilly Ledbetter is moving in both houses – favorable subcommittee action on the House bill and floor debate on the Senate version. Both have been amended but in different ways.
I’ve offered advice on how to allay Republicans’ concerns and then reach agreement between the two houses on identical language.
I took that as a sign of interest, until my GOP friends started asking why we were singling out former and current recipients of cash assistance for job training.
“The heart of welfare reform is providing incentives for people to join the work force,” I stated. “This bill builds on the legislation we passed a decade ago.”
----
I received the legal memo on whether a court is likely to require accommodation of those hypothetical religious practices in a multi-family dwelling.
Not to use a legal term, it’s common sense. You don’t make exceptions for a religious practice that violates a law, such as those dealing with treatment of animals or fire hazards.
The subcommittee is supposed to consider the bill tomorrow. My staff hand delivered the memo to members’ offices. I added a handwritten note - not to sway anyone’s vote but to get their attention.
---
Lilly Ledbetter is moving in both houses – favorable subcommittee action on the House bill and floor debate on the Senate version. Both have been amended but in different ways.
I’ve offered advice on how to allay Republicans’ concerns and then reach agreement between the two houses on identical language.
Zero is a good number
Mine is not the only green jobs legislation introduced this session.
I learned last week that the other bill died because its projected cost was “just under $600 million.”
To avoid the same fate, I wrote our fiscal staff:
“It is my intention that HB 268 be funded with either existing resources or federal stimulus money. If the fiscal note writer believes that this is not the case, please let me know so that I can draft an amendment to that effect.”
I won’t have to contact the Amendment Office. I was told that the fiscal note for my bill is zero.
My email didn’t make it so, but it’s better to ask than to be surprised.
----
I ended Monday at dinner with Sister Helen Prejean.
I haven’t read her autobiography or seen the movie, Dead Man Walking.
So I listened to try to learn what motivated her opposition to the death penalty.
There are two factors: the class bias of the justice system, especially in her home state of Louisiana, and an execution’s degrading effect on humanity – for both the prisoner and those who carry out his death.
I learned last week that the other bill died because its projected cost was “just under $600 million.”
To avoid the same fate, I wrote our fiscal staff:
“It is my intention that HB 268 be funded with either existing resources or federal stimulus money. If the fiscal note writer believes that this is not the case, please let me know so that I can draft an amendment to that effect.”
I won’t have to contact the Amendment Office. I was told that the fiscal note for my bill is zero.
My email didn’t make it so, but it’s better to ask than to be surprised.
----
I ended Monday at dinner with Sister Helen Prejean.
I haven’t read her autobiography or seen the movie, Dead Man Walking.
So I listened to try to learn what motivated her opposition to the death penalty.
There are two factors: the class bias of the justice system, especially in her home state of Louisiana, and an execution’s degrading effect on humanity – for both the prisoner and those who carry out his death.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Spotting the walkers
We didn’t need Plan B.
For the second week in a row, we lacked enough members for a quorum of the Baltimore City delegation on Friday morning.
My bill making paint manufacturers liable for knowingly marketing their poisonous product was on the voting list.
I was certain that several of my colleagues were taking a walk: the opponents of my legislation had asked them not to come to the meeting so that we couldn’t take a vote on the bill.
My Plan B: If we didn’t get a quorum, the chairman of the delegation could convene a meeting immediately after Monday’s floor session. The first item on the agenda would be my bill.
If anyone took a walk, they would be spotted.
However, nearly an hour after the scheduled start of Friday’s meeting, we had a quorum. The vote for m y bill was unanimous.
----
Later in the day, a delegate from another part of the state paid me a visit.
He wanted to talk to me about a bill of his that was in the Judiciary Committee. As we spoke, in the front of my mind was the fact that one of my bills was in his subcommittee.
I gave him advice but didn’t make a commitment.
On Saturday, the New York Times had an article about another issue of interest to my colleague. I asked a friend in the bureaucracy for an update on how Maryland was handling this matter.
I’ll share it with the delegate.
For the second week in a row, we lacked enough members for a quorum of the Baltimore City delegation on Friday morning.
My bill making paint manufacturers liable for knowingly marketing their poisonous product was on the voting list.
I was certain that several of my colleagues were taking a walk: the opponents of my legislation had asked them not to come to the meeting so that we couldn’t take a vote on the bill.
My Plan B: If we didn’t get a quorum, the chairman of the delegation could convene a meeting immediately after Monday’s floor session. The first item on the agenda would be my bill.
If anyone took a walk, they would be spotted.
However, nearly an hour after the scheduled start of Friday’s meeting, we had a quorum. The vote for m y bill was unanimous.
----
Later in the day, a delegate from another part of the state paid me a visit.
He wanted to talk to me about a bill of his that was in the Judiciary Committee. As we spoke, in the front of my mind was the fact that one of my bills was in his subcommittee.
I gave him advice but didn’t make a commitment.
On Saturday, the New York Times had an article about another issue of interest to my colleague. I asked a friend in the bureaucracy for an update on how Maryland was handling this matter.
I’ll share it with the delegate.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Not a hypothetical question
Law students and legislators dread hypotheticals.
In the classroom, a professor will change the facts of the case and ask you if the court should reach the same result.
In Annapolis, committee members will think of not so likely situations that could sink your bill.
At the bill hearings on my religious accommodation legislation and at subsequent subcommittee work sessions, legislators have asked how various hypothetical requests for religious accommodation would be resolved if the bill were to become law.
Walking to my office this morning, I ran into Delegate Steve Lafferty, one of the co-sponsors of the bill. He told me about some of the hypotheticals his colleagues were discussing.
What if a resident belongs to a satanic cult and, as part of the devil worship, wanted to have a confined fire?
What if it is a practice of withcraft (and whatever goes along with that practice)?
I decided we needed a legal analysis of how the courts would handle these situations.
A recurring theme for my week.
In the classroom, a professor will change the facts of the case and ask you if the court should reach the same result.
In Annapolis, committee members will think of not so likely situations that could sink your bill.
At the bill hearings on my religious accommodation legislation and at subsequent subcommittee work sessions, legislators have asked how various hypothetical requests for religious accommodation would be resolved if the bill were to become law.
Walking to my office this morning, I ran into Delegate Steve Lafferty, one of the co-sponsors of the bill. He told me about some of the hypotheticals his colleagues were discussing.
What if a resident belongs to a satanic cult and, as part of the devil worship, wanted to have a confined fire?
What if it is a practice of withcraft (and whatever goes along with that practice)?
I decided we needed a legal analysis of how the courts would handle these situations.
A recurring theme for my week.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Minor changes, Major effect
I’m a firm believer in incremental progress, but not this time.
If the House passes the Senate’s death penalty bill, without adopting any further amendments, it will go to the Governor for his signature.
These minor changes would have a major political effect.
Legislation ending the death penalty in Maryland would not get to the floor of the Senate or the House for another decade.
The thinking would be: let’s see what effect these changes have upon the system before we again debate whether to eliminate it.
This afternoon, I spoke to several of the House co-sponsors of the repeal bill. All of them agreed that we should still pass it – unamended.
I’ve also asked for research on court decisions that demonstrate the inadequacy of the evidentiary changes in the Senate bill.
----
I promised that I’d share with you my response to the personal attack on me in the Washington Examiner. Here it is:
Dear Editors:
Deception was the hallmark of the lead paint industry throughout most of the 20th century – when it marketed and sold its poisonous product to families, knowing full well of the dangers of lead pigment to children. Legislation in Annapolis that would finally hold the lead industry responsible for its conduct prompted an equally misleading column by Marta Mossburg.
House Bill 1156 seeks to end both the cycle of poisoning of Baltimore’s children and taxpayer subsidies of treatment for the preventable disease caused by the lead-paint industry’s pollution. It would allow for market share liability, based on evidence in a court of law as to each manufacturer’s share of the lead paint market. This is a recognized legal concept to apportion responsibility for wrongdoing.
The facts are clear: lead paint continues to poison thousands of innocent children every year, causing life-long, irreversible brain and nervous system damage. Medical and hospital costs associated with lead poisoning can reach more than $700,000 over a lifetime of a child.
Baltimore City has the highest lead poisoning and=2 0exposure rate in the state. The bill simply provides poisoned Baltimore City children the opportunity to hold the lead industry responsible for the damage it has knowingly caused.
Perhaps your columnist was deceived by the team of high-priced, lead paint lobbyists and publicists who have lined up to defeat my bill and protect the profits the lead paint industry made through its campaign to poison generations of children.
Ms. Mossburg compares innocent, lead paint poisoned children to gamblers and overeaters. A child doesn’t ask to be lead poisoned.
Good business policy does not encourage poisoning of children, nor does it encourage gambling, alcohol or any other addictions. As it has for more than a century, the lead paint industry has yet again shown the lengths to which it will go to avoid being held financially responsible for its wrongdoings.
If the House passes the Senate’s death penalty bill, without adopting any further amendments, it will go to the Governor for his signature.
These minor changes would have a major political effect.
Legislation ending the death penalty in Maryland would not get to the floor of the Senate or the House for another decade.
The thinking would be: let’s see what effect these changes have upon the system before we again debate whether to eliminate it.
This afternoon, I spoke to several of the House co-sponsors of the repeal bill. All of them agreed that we should still pass it – unamended.
I’ve also asked for research on court decisions that demonstrate the inadequacy of the evidentiary changes in the Senate bill.
----
I promised that I’d share with you my response to the personal attack on me in the Washington Examiner. Here it is:
Dear Editors:
Deception was the hallmark of the lead paint industry throughout most of the 20th century – when it marketed and sold its poisonous product to families, knowing full well of the dangers of lead pigment to children. Legislation in Annapolis that would finally hold the lead industry responsible for its conduct prompted an equally misleading column by Marta Mossburg.
House Bill 1156 seeks to end both the cycle of poisoning of Baltimore’s children and taxpayer subsidies of treatment for the preventable disease caused by the lead-paint industry’s pollution. It would allow for market share liability, based on evidence in a court of law as to each manufacturer’s share of the lead paint market. This is a recognized legal concept to apportion responsibility for wrongdoing.
The facts are clear: lead paint continues to poison thousands of innocent children every year, causing life-long, irreversible brain and nervous system damage. Medical and hospital costs associated with lead poisoning can reach more than $700,000 over a lifetime of a child.
Baltimore City has the highest lead poisoning and=2 0exposure rate in the state. The bill simply provides poisoned Baltimore City children the opportunity to hold the lead industry responsible for the damage it has knowingly caused.
Perhaps your columnist was deceived by the team of high-priced, lead paint lobbyists and publicists who have lined up to defeat my bill and protect the profits the lead paint industry made through its campaign to poison generations of children.
Ms. Mossburg compares innocent, lead paint poisoned children to gamblers and overeaters. A child doesn’t ask to be lead poisoned.
Good business policy does not encourage poisoning of children, nor does it encourage gambling, alcohol or any other addictions. As it has for more than a century, the lead paint industry has yet again shown the lengths to which it will go to avoid being held financially responsible for its wrongdoings.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Death Penalty Revived
I’ve never been on such an emotional roller coaster.
Last night, I thought the death penalty repeal bill was dead.
Senators whom we had always counted as solid votes for the bill were not going to vote for the motion that would bring the legislation to the floor for debate.
I ran into one of them in the State House. The problem: we shouldn’t give special treatment to repeal of the death penalty when issues of great concern to this Senator were languishing in committee.
I let the Governor’s office know of the Senator’s concern.
The evening ended on a better note. The Senator at our table got a cell phone call from the Governor at 9:30. No vote was being taken for granted.
This morning, I resolved not to follow the Senate debate on the web. The bad news would travel fast enough.
So I was very pleasantly surprised when someone told me that we had narrowly prevailed on the procedural motion.
The bill would be considered by the full Senate!!
But the debate this afternoon soon turned sour.
Two amendments were adopted that would allow executions if certain evidentiary conditions were met.
One was “a video-taped voluntary interrogation and confession of the defendant to the murder.” But what took place before the video was turned on?
I am certain that death penalty sentences that meet this standard have been overturned on legal grounds or because serious doubts were later raised about the guilt of the defendant as he sat on death row.
Last night, I thought the death penalty repeal bill was dead.
Senators whom we had always counted as solid votes for the bill were not going to vote for the motion that would bring the legislation to the floor for debate.
I ran into one of them in the State House. The problem: we shouldn’t give special treatment to repeal of the death penalty when issues of great concern to this Senator were languishing in committee.
I let the Governor’s office know of the Senator’s concern.
The evening ended on a better note. The Senator at our table got a cell phone call from the Governor at 9:30. No vote was being taken for granted.
This morning, I resolved not to follow the Senate debate on the web. The bad news would travel fast enough.
So I was very pleasantly surprised when someone told me that we had narrowly prevailed on the procedural motion.
The bill would be considered by the full Senate!!
But the debate this afternoon soon turned sour.
Two amendments were adopted that would allow executions if certain evidentiary conditions were met.
One was “a video-taped voluntary interrogation and confession of the defendant to the murder.” But what took place before the video was turned on?
I am certain that death penalty sentences that meet this standard have been overturned on legal grounds or because serious doubts were later raised about the guilt of the defendant as he sat on death row.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Snow Jobs
You can get a lot done when it snows…
If you drive to Annapolis before the snow starts and spend the afternoon in your office pecking away at your laptop, with no phone calls or other distractions, provided you don’t read the Sunday NY Times until 5 pm.
If the snow stops in time on Monday for people to make it to your meetings to discuss…
* Your bill requiring the state to inform people that they are eligible to vote after serving their prison sentence and successfully meeting the conditions of their parole and probation. We agreed on how this could be done, without having to enact my legislation; and
* Your bill clarifying when and if a notice must be published if human remains or cremations are moved within a cemetery or outside its boundaries. With bureaucrats, the cemetery industry, and religious groups at the table or participating by conference call, we reached agreement. This time, we need to pass my bill and amend the existing law.
----
My first state senator was Rosalie Silber Abrams. She died this past Friday. I spoke about her on the House floor tonight.
In her second year in the House, Rosalie introduced and passed House Bill 273, which authorized the Governor to develop a mechanism for Comprehensive Health Planning.
“That legislation is the foundation for Maryland’s all-payer hospital system,” I stated. That system means that all patients pay the same rate, whether they have private insurance, are Medicaid eligible, or are uninsured.
If you drive to Annapolis before the snow starts and spend the afternoon in your office pecking away at your laptop, with no phone calls or other distractions, provided you don’t read the Sunday NY Times until 5 pm.
If the snow stops in time on Monday for people to make it to your meetings to discuss…
* Your bill requiring the state to inform people that they are eligible to vote after serving their prison sentence and successfully meeting the conditions of their parole and probation. We agreed on how this could be done, without having to enact my legislation; and
* Your bill clarifying when and if a notice must be published if human remains or cremations are moved within a cemetery or outside its boundaries. With bureaucrats, the cemetery industry, and religious groups at the table or participating by conference call, we reached agreement. This time, we need to pass my bill and amend the existing law.
----
My first state senator was Rosalie Silber Abrams. She died this past Friday. I spoke about her on the House floor tonight.
In her second year in the House, Rosalie introduced and passed House Bill 273, which authorized the Governor to develop a mechanism for Comprehensive Health Planning.
“That legislation is the foundation for Maryland’s all-payer hospital system,” I stated. That system means that all patients pay the same rate, whether they have private insurance, are Medicaid eligible, or are uninsured.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Reasonable accommodations, unreasonable attacks
So I was feeling pretty good about myself.
I had just finished my testimony early Thursday evening on the religious accommodation bill.
No notes, no stumbles, and I had made all the points I wanted to make.
Or so I thought.
The first question from a member of the committee was: “Last year, when you testified on this legislation, it was all about installing an elevator in an apartment building. What happened?”
“You’re right,” I replied. “This bill would assist individuals who need an elevator that would stop on every floor so that residents don’t have to violate the prohibition on working on the Sabbath by pushing a button on the elevator.
“More generally, it would require dwelling owners to make reasonable accommodations for residents of all faiths who are seeking to follow their religious beliefs.”
----
I got angry when I read this op-ed in The Washington Examiner the next morning.
Del. Samuel “Sandy” Rosenberg is like one of those people who walk around with iPod earphones and can’t hear what’s going on in the real world. How else can he be so deaf to the economy tanking around him?
Last year, The Baltimore Examiner ran an equally nasty editorial criticizing me for sponsoring similar legislation to make paint manufacturers liable for poisoning young children.
Del. Rosenberg must drop HB1241. Only his trial lawyer benefactors, his campaign coffers and those of his fellow Judiciary Committee members will gain from it.
Thousands of children have been poisoned by lead paint, and its manufacturers knew that it was harmful. Instead of compensating their victims, they blame the messenger.
Last year, the lead lobbyist for the paint industry promised me that there would be no more personal attacks directed at me. I guess that commitment applied only to The Baltimore Examiner, which ceased publication a few weeks ago.
I am drafting my reply to this latest piece of garbage, which I will share with you. The full text of the op-ed is at http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/marta-mossburg/Trial-lawyers-lining-up-at-the-state-trough-40386217.html.
I had just finished my testimony early Thursday evening on the religious accommodation bill.
No notes, no stumbles, and I had made all the points I wanted to make.
Or so I thought.
The first question from a member of the committee was: “Last year, when you testified on this legislation, it was all about installing an elevator in an apartment building. What happened?”
“You’re right,” I replied. “This bill would assist individuals who need an elevator that would stop on every floor so that residents don’t have to violate the prohibition on working on the Sabbath by pushing a button on the elevator.
“More generally, it would require dwelling owners to make reasonable accommodations for residents of all faiths who are seeking to follow their religious beliefs.”
----
I got angry when I read this op-ed in The Washington Examiner the next morning.
Del. Samuel “Sandy” Rosenberg is like one of those people who walk around with iPod earphones and can’t hear what’s going on in the real world. How else can he be so deaf to the economy tanking around him?
Last year, The Baltimore Examiner ran an equally nasty editorial criticizing me for sponsoring similar legislation to make paint manufacturers liable for poisoning young children.
Del. Rosenberg must drop HB1241. Only his trial lawyer benefactors, his campaign coffers and those of his fellow Judiciary Committee members will gain from it.
Thousands of children have been poisoned by lead paint, and its manufacturers knew that it was harmful. Instead of compensating their victims, they blame the messenger.
Last year, the lead lobbyist for the paint industry promised me that there would be no more personal attacks directed at me. I guess that commitment applied only to The Baltimore Examiner, which ceased publication a few weeks ago.
I am drafting my reply to this latest piece of garbage, which I will share with you. The full text of the op-ed is at http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/marta-mossburg/Trial-lawyers-lining-up-at-the-state-trough-40386217.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)