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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

Never done before

Tomorrow, I will do something I’ve never done before.

On the same day that a bill is signed into law by the President of the United States, I will introduce legislation to make Maryland law identical to that new federal statute.

Congress just enacted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, overturning a much criticized Supreme Court case that erected a major hurdle for employees seeking to challenge unlawful pay discrimination based on gender, race, age and disability.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Lilly Ledbetter - and all other employees subject to pay discrimination, must file a claim within 180 days of an employer's original action treating them unfairly. This was the case even if the employee continued to receive smaller paychecks or the employee did not discover the discriminatory treatment until months or years after the first violation.

Justice Ginsburg, reading her dissent from the bench, declared:

“Each and every pay decision she [Ledbetter] did not immediately challenge wiped the slate clean. Consideration may not be given to the cumulative effect of a series of decisions that, together, set her pay well below that of every male area manager.”

I was not at the Supreme Court that day, but I have heard Justice Ginsburg discuss gender discrimination in the workplace.

I was a student in her law school class on Sex Discrimination and the Law.