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."
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Facts of this case
What are the facts of this case?
Every law student lives in dread of being asked that question - by your professor, in front of your classmates.
A satisfactory answer doesn’t get you off the hook. You will then be asked what the court decided and most importantly, why it reached that outcome.
In preparation for the hearing tomorrow on my religious accommodation bill, I decided to read the leading Supreme Court decision on this issue, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. If someone asks me what the facts are in that case, I’ll know.
If I’m on my game, I won’t wait for someone to ask me that question. I’ll discuss it in my testimony instead.
Why? In Hardison, the Court held that an employee, whose Christian faith compelled him not to work on Saturday, his Sabbath, could be fired because his job “was essential, and on weekends he was the only available person on his shift to perform it.”
It will help make the point that passage of my legislation would not mean that the religious belief must be accommodated in every circumstance.
----
Nobody asked me the following questions. I posed them to myself at today’s Judiciary Committee hearing.
Can we comply with the federal law requiring that someone demonstrate a lawful status in the United States before obtaining a driver’s license and also provide a driver’s license to people who don’t have the required documentation - to avoid marginalizing immigrants and increasing the risks on our roads by having these individuals drive without a license or insurance?
Can we afford the extra cost of such a two-tier system?
Every law student lives in dread of being asked that question - by your professor, in front of your classmates.
A satisfactory answer doesn’t get you off the hook. You will then be asked what the court decided and most importantly, why it reached that outcome.
In preparation for the hearing tomorrow on my religious accommodation bill, I decided to read the leading Supreme Court decision on this issue, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. If someone asks me what the facts are in that case, I’ll know.
If I’m on my game, I won’t wait for someone to ask me that question. I’ll discuss it in my testimony instead.
Why? In Hardison, the Court held that an employee, whose Christian faith compelled him not to work on Saturday, his Sabbath, could be fired because his job “was essential, and on weekends he was the only available person on his shift to perform it.”
It will help make the point that passage of my legislation would not mean that the religious belief must be accommodated in every circumstance.
----
Nobody asked me the following questions. I posed them to myself at today’s Judiciary Committee hearing.
Can we comply with the federal law requiring that someone demonstrate a lawful status in the United States before obtaining a driver’s license and also provide a driver’s license to people who don’t have the required documentation - to avoid marginalizing immigrants and increasing the risks on our roads by having these individuals drive without a license or insurance?
Can we afford the extra cost of such a two-tier system?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Talking between the branches
How does the legislature communicate with the judiciary?
That’s not a theoretical question.
I’m working on two bills where it’s very important to express legislative intent.
What does “reasonable accommodation” mean? That’s the key phrase in my bill that would require an apartment owner or condominium association to make a “reasonable accommodation” for the religious practices of tenants or unit owners.
I didn’t make up this term. For 40 years, the courts have used it in deciding whether an employer has made a reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of its employees.
I want my bill to express the legislature’s intent that the courts are to apply the legal analysis that decided “reasonable accommodation” cases in the workplace to a residential setting.
A group of women wrestlers alleged that they had been treated differently than their male counterparts. Their lawsuit was thrown out because, like Lilly Ledbetter, they had not brought their suit within 180 days of the initial discriminatory act.
I’ve drafted language that expresses the legislature’s intent that we don’t want the same thing to happen in cases brought under Maryland’s civil rights laws.
As we were discussing this language today, one lawyer wrote me, “State judges, like federal judges, don't like to be told what to do.”
“Legislators are initial audience for this language” I responded. “So we need to provide some reassurances to them (We can't provide guarantees), that if they pass the bill, this is how we want it to be implemented.”
That’s not a theoretical question.
I’m working on two bills where it’s very important to express legislative intent.
What does “reasonable accommodation” mean? That’s the key phrase in my bill that would require an apartment owner or condominium association to make a “reasonable accommodation” for the religious practices of tenants or unit owners.
I didn’t make up this term. For 40 years, the courts have used it in deciding whether an employer has made a reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of its employees.
I want my bill to express the legislature’s intent that the courts are to apply the legal analysis that decided “reasonable accommodation” cases in the workplace to a residential setting.
A group of women wrestlers alleged that they had been treated differently than their male counterparts. Their lawsuit was thrown out because, like Lilly Ledbetter, they had not brought their suit within 180 days of the initial discriminatory act.
I’ve drafted language that expresses the legislature’s intent that we don’t want the same thing to happen in cases brought under Maryland’s civil rights laws.
As we were discussing this language today, one lawyer wrote me, “State judges, like federal judges, don't like to be told what to do.”
“Legislators are initial audience for this language” I responded. “So we need to provide some reassurances to them (We can't provide guarantees), that if they pass the bill, this is how we want it to be implemented.”
State of Mind
If you know you’re breaking the law, you’ve committed a crime.
Without that knowledge, it’s only a civil violation.
For certain provisions of our election law, I was reminded today, you can be found guilty of a criminal or civil violation, depending upon your state of mind.
My tutorial arose in an email exchange about the Voter’s Rights Protection Act.
My bill would add a new provision to the law, making it a crime to use a foreclosure list to challenge people’s right to vote because there has been a foreclosure at the address on their registration card.
That’s already illegal, I was informed the day before my bill hearing, because the only grounds on which to challenge a potential voter on Election Day is that person’s identity, not his or her address.
That makes using the foreclosure list a violation of the prohibition on influencing or attempting to influence “a voter’s decision whether to go to the polls to cast a vote” through the use of fraud. (My voting rights legislation in 2005 made that a crime – if done “willfully and knowingly,” but only a civil violation otherwise.)
While reviewing these provisions, I came across the language making it a felony to “vote or attempt to vote during the time that the person is rendered ineligible to vote” while on parole or probation after being convicted of a felony.
Informing people when they can register after they’ve been released from jail is the purpose of my House Bill 483.
“Why shouldn’t there be a civil alternative for those who are unaware of this prohibition?” I emailed.
“Do we treat dirty tricksters more leniently than we do ex-cons?” I later said to myself.
Without that knowledge, it’s only a civil violation.
For certain provisions of our election law, I was reminded today, you can be found guilty of a criminal or civil violation, depending upon your state of mind.
My tutorial arose in an email exchange about the Voter’s Rights Protection Act.
My bill would add a new provision to the law, making it a crime to use a foreclosure list to challenge people’s right to vote because there has been a foreclosure at the address on their registration card.
That’s already illegal, I was informed the day before my bill hearing, because the only grounds on which to challenge a potential voter on Election Day is that person’s identity, not his or her address.
That makes using the foreclosure list a violation of the prohibition on influencing or attempting to influence “a voter’s decision whether to go to the polls to cast a vote” through the use of fraud. (My voting rights legislation in 2005 made that a crime – if done “willfully and knowingly,” but only a civil violation otherwise.)
While reviewing these provisions, I came across the language making it a felony to “vote or attempt to vote during the time that the person is rendered ineligible to vote” while on parole or probation after being convicted of a felony.
Informing people when they can register after they’ve been released from jail is the purpose of my House Bill 483.
“Why shouldn’t there be a civil alternative for those who are unaware of this prohibition?” I emailed.
“Do we treat dirty tricksters more leniently than we do ex-cons?” I later said to myself.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Not done yet
Jobs will be saved. Cuts won’t be made.
That was the Governor’s very good news message at a press conference yesterday to herald the impact of federal recovery/stimulus money on the state budget.
I believe that the stimulus package will accomplish two things.
* Repair the safety net for those of us who have lost their jobs because of the recession, while maintaining the incentives and requirements for seeking work in our welfare system; and
* Invest in our infrastructure and future – from repaving roads so people can get to work and to shop more efficiently to enhancing our ability to obtain energy from sources other than the oil kingdoms of the Middle East.
However, I have also heard from constituents who think that this spending will not stimulate our economy but will leave us further in debt instead.
It is essential, therefore, that we, as taxpayers, are able to find out how this money is spent and how many jobs it creates.
After the Obama administration pledged to put this information on a website, I urged state officials to provide this accountability and transparency as well.
They have agreed to do so.
That was the Governor’s very good news message at a press conference yesterday to herald the impact of federal recovery/stimulus money on the state budget.
I believe that the stimulus package will accomplish two things.
* Repair the safety net for those of us who have lost their jobs because of the recession, while maintaining the incentives and requirements for seeking work in our welfare system; and
* Invest in our infrastructure and future – from repaving roads so people can get to work and to shop more efficiently to enhancing our ability to obtain energy from sources other than the oil kingdoms of the Middle East.
However, I have also heard from constituents who think that this spending will not stimulate our economy but will leave us further in debt instead.
It is essential, therefore, that we, as taxpayers, are able to find out how this money is spent and how many jobs it creates.
After the Obama administration pledged to put this information on a website, I urged state officials to provide this accountability and transparency as well.
They have agreed to do so.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Out of order
I thought this would happen.
My committee had just taken preliminary action on House Bill 45, Crimes - Tattooing, Branding, and Body Piercing - Parental Consent.
Someone could offer a floor amendment requiring parental consent before a minor could obtain an abortion, I commented to some of my colleagues last Friday.
My next step was to ask the Attorney General’s Office for advice.
Such an amendment would not violate the requirement in the Maryland constitution that a bill deal with a single subject, began the response.
However, when the abortion issue was raised in an amendment to a bill requiring parental consent before a minor could use a tanning bed, the Senate President ruled last year that it violated the Senate rules because it changed the purpose of the bill.
I shared that legal advice with appropriate delegates and staff.
Today, a floor amendment was offered to HB 45 that would require parental consent for “any invasive medical or surgical procedure.”
The Speaker ruled the amendment out of order because it changed the purpose of the bill.
In response to some of the comments made by supporters of the amendment, I rose to explain my vote.
“No one will be silenced and prevented from having a full hearing on this issue if this amendment is ruled out of order,” I declared. “Put in a bill and it will be considered by the appropriate committee, like any other piece of legislation.”
The Speaker’s ruling was upheld, 103-35.
My committee had just taken preliminary action on House Bill 45, Crimes - Tattooing, Branding, and Body Piercing - Parental Consent.
Someone could offer a floor amendment requiring parental consent before a minor could obtain an abortion, I commented to some of my colleagues last Friday.
My next step was to ask the Attorney General’s Office for advice.
Such an amendment would not violate the requirement in the Maryland constitution that a bill deal with a single subject, began the response.
However, when the abortion issue was raised in an amendment to a bill requiring parental consent before a minor could use a tanning bed, the Senate President ruled last year that it violated the Senate rules because it changed the purpose of the bill.
I shared that legal advice with appropriate delegates and staff.
Today, a floor amendment was offered to HB 45 that would require parental consent for “any invasive medical or surgical procedure.”
The Speaker ruled the amendment out of order because it changed the purpose of the bill.
In response to some of the comments made by supporters of the amendment, I rose to explain my vote.
“No one will be silenced and prevented from having a full hearing on this issue if this amendment is ruled out of order,” I declared. “Put in a bill and it will be considered by the appropriate committee, like any other piece of legislation.”
The Speaker’s ruling was upheld, 103-35.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Life, liberty or license
Someone who violates a criminal law can lose their life, their liberty, or their license.
While our Senate counterparts listened to Governor O’Malley testify for repeal of the death penalty, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on eight drunk driving bills.
The argument for tougher penalties: the state’s ability to protect the safety of the traveling public is limited by existing laws that permit the most frequent violators, repeat offenders and young drivers, to remain on the road.
The opposing view: people who lose their license may be unable to get to work or to transport other family members to important activities and events.
When we’re not depriving the accused of life or freedom, I err on the side of preventing harm to others.
Nonetheless, the devil is in the legislative details.
We may begin voting on these bills later this week.
While our Senate counterparts listened to Governor O’Malley testify for repeal of the death penalty, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on eight drunk driving bills.
The argument for tougher penalties: the state’s ability to protect the safety of the traveling public is limited by existing laws that permit the most frequent violators, repeat offenders and young drivers, to remain on the road.
The opposing view: people who lose their license may be unable to get to work or to transport other family members to important activities and events.
When we’re not depriving the accused of life or freedom, I err on the side of preventing harm to others.
Nonetheless, the devil is in the legislative details.
We may begin voting on these bills later this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)