“Did you have to ask me that?”
I had asked my Democratic colleague, “Will you vote against the two death penalty bills in our committee?”
“I’m not taking anybody’s vote for granted,” I replied.
We will send a strong message if every committee member who opposes capital punishment votes against legislation that would expand the death penalty.
Shortly before this conversation took place on the House floor, I had a chance conversation with a lobbyist who asked me about my bill dealing with education requirements for funeral directors.
The bill had sailed through the House, without any opposition. It will have a public hearing in the Senate next week.
“I’ll check with someone who alerted me to a problem on a similar bill several years ago,” I replied. “I won’t take it for granted that the bill will pass.”
Showing posts with label death penalty repeal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label death penalty repeal. Show all posts
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Thursday, February 18 – Counting to twelve and to four
It’s an unusual position for me to be in.
I’m a liberal. I think government is a force for good. I try to pass bills.
Not this time.
I want to kill any legislation that would make it easier for the state to execute someone.
Last year, when we wanted to pass a bill repealing the death penalty, we had to count to twelve. That’s a majority of the members of the Judiciary Committee.
This, year, the other side has to count to twelve.
We’re working to make sure they can’t.
----
I was worried I would refer to the 4th Amendment.
The bill did not require a search warrant.
It required that employers allow their workers to use their leave time to observe the Sabbath.
So I began my testimony by saying: “The 4th Commandment says, ‘Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.’ Our civil rights laws say that an employer must reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs.”
I’m a liberal. I think government is a force for good. I try to pass bills.
Not this time.
I want to kill any legislation that would make it easier for the state to execute someone.
Last year, when we wanted to pass a bill repealing the death penalty, we had to count to twelve. That’s a majority of the members of the Judiciary Committee.
This, year, the other side has to count to twelve.
We’re working to make sure they can’t.
----
I was worried I would refer to the 4th Amendment.
The bill did not require a search warrant.
It required that employers allow their workers to use their leave time to observe the Sabbath.
So I began my testimony by saying: “The 4th Commandment says, ‘Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.’ Our civil rights laws say that an employer must reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs.”
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Thursday, January 14 - 12 Votes
“Do we have 12 votes?”
That’s the question I asked at our death penalty strategy meeting.
One of our lobbyists had begun describing the commitments she had received from Judiciary Committee members over the last 24 hours.
But then the discussion strayed off course.
“We need to know if we have a committee majority – 12 votes,” I stated, “or if that’s the case for those who want to modify last year’s bill.”
Everything else we do depends on that.
That’s the question I asked at our death penalty strategy meeting.
One of our lobbyists had begun describing the commitments she had received from Judiciary Committee members over the last 24 hours.
But then the discussion strayed off course.
“We need to know if we have a committee majority – 12 votes,” I stated, “or if that’s the case for those who want to modify last year’s bill.”
Everything else we do depends on that.
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.
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” .
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)