State Rep. Larry Metz, R-Eustis (Pic by Meredith Geddings, via myfloridahouse.gov)

A Florida House judiciary committee passed a bill today that would outlaw the use of “foreign law” in family court cases. The measure, and past incarnations of it, have been touted by right-wing activists as an attempt to “stop the spread of Sharia in Florida.”

The bill also happens to be a piece of model legislation written by anti-Islam leader David Yerushalmi. A similar bill was introduced last session by the same lawmakers behind this year’s version: state Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, and Rep. Larry Metz, R-Eustis. Florida has been a hotbed of anti-Islam/Sharia activism for years.

The bill would regulate the “application of foreign law in certain cases,” which members and speakers opposed to the measure say is not a problem that Florida now faces. A representative of the Family Law section of the Florida Bar pointed out that the bill is a “solution for a problem that does not exist.” She said there are already laws in place that safeguard against the intervention of laws that do not apply.

State Rep. Elaine Schwartz, D-Hollywood, asked Metz for examples of foreign law being used in Florida. Metz said he could not think of any specific cases but was rather hoping to pass the bill as a preventive.

Ron Bilbao, who spoke on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, told members that the bill is “unnecessary.”

He also dismissed claims that foreign law are “somehow infecting the legal system” in Florida. Bilbao said that the ACLU of Florida believes the measure would be ”a law with unintended consequences.”

U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., speaks at a Bradenton town hall event (source: buchanan.house.gov)

A stipulated order and consent judgment in Federal Election Commission investigation into a former business partner of Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota, was filed yesterday, a sign that the case may be nearing its end. According to the filing, Buchanan’s onetime business partner, Sam Kazran, must pay $5,000 for “a non-knowing and non-willful violation of” an ethics rule against knowingly helping or assisting any person in making a campaign contribution in the name of another.

As first reported by The Florida Independent, the FEC charged that Kazran and the dealership violated campaign laws by using funds from the company “to reimburse [dealership] employees, Kazran’s business partners, their family members and Kazran’s relatives for $67,900 in contributions to Buchanan’s 2006 and 2008 Congressional campaigns.”

The FEC also argued that Kazran violated contribution limits. During the 2006 election cycle, Hyundai of North Jacksonville contributed $49,500 to Vern Buchanan for Congress, in excess of the $2,100 per-election limit in effect for that cycle. During the 2008 election cycle, $18,400 of dealership funds went to Buchanan’s campaign, in excess of the $2,300 per-election limit for that cycle.

Though the campaign reimbursements occurred on Buchanan’s watch (he was, at the time, the majority owner of the dealership), it was Kazran who was slapped with a nearly $68,000 fine in June 2011.

Yesterday’s consent order lays out Kazran’s arguments that Buchanan “had a commanding knowledge of election laws far superior to that of” Kazran and it was “only without knowing that any laws may have been unintentionally violated,” that Kazran instructed his employees to donate to the Buchanan campaigns, with the promise of reimbursements.

According to the filing, the FEC has consented to enter a judgment against Kazran for “a non-knowing and non-willful violation of” a rule against knowingly helping or assisting any person in making a contribution in the name of another. The consent order stipulates that Kazran must satisfy that judgment by paying a total of $5,000 to the FEC by March 31. If he fails to pay the penalty on time, “the Court will enter a final judgment against [him] for $20,000,” less any sums already paid.

The court also asks that the FEC “release [Kazran] from any and all claims and cause of action that were the subject of this action or that relate directly or indirectly to the facts and circumstances that were the subject of this action,” other than those for which he must pay the $5,000 fine.

The order also stipulates that Kazran “specifically reserves all rights and remedies he may have against Congressman Buchanan or his related entities; provided, however, that Defendant hereby waives and releases Plaintiff from any claims or causes of action Defendant may have against Plaintiff that relate directly or indirectly to this action.”

In other words, Kazran retains his right to sue Buchanan, if he releases the FEC from any claims related to the campaign reimbursements.

According to a report obtained by TPM Muckraker in December 2011, the FEC at times doubted the credibility of Buchanan, even though the commission eventually chose not to fine him for the violations that occurred on his watch. In its report, the FEC concluded that the evidence in the case “comes close to supporting a finding that it is more likely than not that” Buchanan violated the law, but that there were “significant concerns regarding the credibility” of Kazran.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has released a statement in regards to yesterday’s filing:

“Yesterday, Buchanan’s former business partner was fined for breaking federal law when he took part in this illegal campaign finance scheme at Buchanan-owned dealerships. The Federal Election Commission has made clear that Buchanan ‘more likely than not’ violated federal law, the House Ethics Committee continues to investigate him and the Department of Justice is continuing to investigate Buchanan’s involvement in this ‘extensive and ongoing scheme’ to reimburse employees,” said Stephanie Formas of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

At least one government watchdog group says it intends to file a campaign finance complaint against the Minnesota Family Council and Minnesota for Marriage because the groups allegedly failed to report donors to the ballot campaign. And other groups have vowed to urge Minnesota officials to launch an investigation.

In late-January, groups in support of and opposed to the anti-gay-marriage amendment were required to file reports of the contributions they received and money spent in 2011 on the ballot measure. Those disclosure forms show that Minnesota for Marriage and its allies raised $1.2 million to pass the marriage amendment but only disclosed seven individual donors. Minnesota for Marriage also received large sums of money from several organizations that make up its coalition: Minnesota Family Council, National Organization for Marriage, and the Minnesota Catholic Conference. Those three groups disclosed zero donors related to the amendment.

In contrast, Minnesotans United for All Families, the coalition opposed to the amendment, disclosed close to 750 donors while raising roughly the same amount.

Common Cause Minnesota, an organization that advocates open and accountable government, acknowledged to The American Independent that it was putting together a complaint against the Minnesota Family Council and its political fund, the Minnesota Family Council Marriage Protection Fund, as well as Minnesota for Marriage for “failing to abide by Minnesota’s disclosure laws.” Its director, Mike Dean, did not discuss specifics but said the complaint would be filed by the end of the week.

At issue are emails that solicited donations for the marriage amendment and the funds that passed from MFC to Minnesota for Marriage.

The Minnesota Family Council is a 501(c)4 nonprofit and has been the prime mover behind the amendment in Minnesota since 2003. In order to spend and raise money to pass the amendment, it created a political fund, the Minnesota Family Council Marriage Protection Fund. Such funds are a common way for nonprofits in Minnesota to track contributions and spending and report them to the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. The board doesn’t require such funds to be set up, only that organizations that spend more than $5,000 to promote or defeat a ballot question register with the board.

Minnesota for Marriage, a coalition consisting of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the Minnesota Catholic Conference, and the Minnesota Family Council, is also registered with the board.

MFC’s fund raised $346,994.05 and then gave Minnesota for Marriage $226,000.

Minnesota for Marriage also reported that it had raised money from only seven individual donors. About $2,100 came from those seven donors and another $1986.50 came from un-itemized donations of under $100, which do not require disclosure under state law.

The anomalous reporting raised the ire of opponents who are alleging possible violations.

“Anti-gay groups are either breaking Minnesota law or they have run one of the least successful general fundraising campaigns in history,” Kevin Nix of the Human Rights Campaign wrote in special report the group put out on the campaign finance issues in Minnesota. “For eight months, Minnesota for Marriage has regularly solicited contributions for the ballot measure through its website as well as multiple e-mails that have been obtained by the Human Rights Campaign, with barely $4,000 in total contributions to show for it.”

Emails (PDF) sent out by the Minnesota Family Council asked supporters to donate money to Minnesota for Marriage. They were sent out several times a month between May and the end of 2011.

One such email read, “This is the time of year when many people make year-end gifts to their favorite organizations – like Minnesota For Marriage. Please don’t forget to make a generous year-end donation to help us pass the Marriage Protection Amendment in 2012. We can’t do it without your financial support. You can make a secure online contribution” by clicking on a link to Minnesota for Marriage.

While the emails asked for money for Minnesota for Marriage, they were paid for and sent out by the Minnesota Family Council. The footer on the emails read, “Prepared and paid for by the Minnesota Family Council Marriage Protection Fund, 2855 Anthony Lane S, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55418, in support of the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.”

The two groups, Minnesota for Marriage and Minnesota Family Council, are very close. MFC’s CEO, John Helmberger is also the chair of Minnesota for Marriage, and the two groups share a communications director, Chuck Darrell.

HRC’s Nix asserted that any donations that were received from those emails should have been disclosed.

“The Minnesota requirements are straightforward,” Nix continued. “[M]oney given in response to solicitations that include a request to support a ballot measure campaign… must be disclosed. If the donor contributes more than $100 to the effort, the name and address of the donor along with his or her employer must be listed on the next campaign finance filing.”

Minnesota for Marriage did not respond to a request for comment about the pending complaint.

Did these groups abide by the state’s policies? According to Prof. David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University and an expert in campaign finance laws, that decision will be up to the campaign finance board.

Schultz said that Minnesota disclosure rules are fairly lax, but without seeing a complaint, he wasn’t willing to offer specifics.

“I think our disclosure laws are horrible. We have a failing grade across the board,” he said.

“The disclosure board’s decisions and guidance lately have not been overwhelmingly in favor of transparency,” Schultz added.

In addition to Minnesota for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council, the Human Rights Campaign has also called for an investigation into the National Organization for Marriage.

That group raised $280,000 in Minnesota in 2011 but disclosed zero donors.

Campaign finance experts told the American Independent earlier this month that Minnesota’s lax disclosure laws may have made it easy for NOM to legally hide all of its Minnesota donors from public view.

UT Austin Tower

The debate surrounding higher education in Texas has affected the state’s colleges in different ways, and now it appears that the faculty at the University of Texas (UT) System colleges are the focus of a new reform. A move to change the way professor tenure is reviewed–supported by the administration–received mixed reviews from the faculty members who helped develop it.

Earlier this month the UT System Board of Regents approved a policy change aimed at creating additional accountability for tenured faculty members on the system’s campuses. Under the new guidelines the performance reviews that tenured system faculty receive have been modified to take place on a more frequent basis and to be more in depth.

There are now two types of reviews. Faculty will be reviewed on a yearly basis, and they will also receive “comprehensive reviews” at least every six years. In addition, faculty will be given one of four ratings as opposed to the previous pass or fail system. The ratings include exceeds expectation, meets expectation, does not meet expectation and unsatisfactory.

If faculty members receive two consecutive “unsatisfactory” reviews, a comprehensive review can be initiated. The new policy is designed to make it easier to reward professors with exemplary performance and to dismiss those with unsatisfactory performance.

In interviews with the Texas Independent, faculty members from around the system expressed a variety of viewpoints on both the policy change and how it was developed. Some faculty members are fully supportive of the policy change, some are ambivalent and others are admittedly opposed.

“I’ve been opposed to the change in the policy since the beginning,” said Alan Friedman, a faculty member at UT-Austin. “There’s no question that the most immediate impact will be that these changes will be both demanding and burdensome. Faculty will have to spend more time evaluating each other and this will impede productivity.”

Friedman laid out the case that the policy would create more bureaucracy. “More people will need to be involved, a great deal more effort and time will be involved in original post tenure review,” said Friedman, who helped create the previous policy on faculty performance reviews 10 years ago. He sees the new policy as something very different from what was created then. “This is a radical departure,” said Friedman. “It fundamentally alters the process and potential outcome.”

“This is a refinement of the old rule. The old rule, in my opinion, was rather vague,” said Daniel Formanowicz, a faculty member at UT-Arlington. Formanowicz supports the new policy, and disagreed with the characterization that it would be burdensome, and said that it strengthens the review process.  “The old rule didn’t really allow us to recognize everyone. The new rule allows us to recognize people based on their performance. I think it gives us more protection. It gives us more peer review. I think it protects us better. It gives us room for faculty development.”

Formanowicz thinks that the only situation that actually calls for more work on the part of faculty is if someone does not meet expectations. “The only time this brings in any more work at all is if a professor asks for peer reviews,” said Formanowicz.

Developing the policy change

Early last year, the UT System Faculty Advisory Committee (SFAC) began working on the language of a new policy to govern tenured faculty reviews. The SFAC is typically made up of two faculty members from each system campus and one alternate, and includes an executive committee.

UT System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa had contacted the SFAC executive committee to inform them that the Regents were interested in a change in policy. A task force was formed with four members of SFAC. This committee worked with the interim Vice Chancellor Pedro Reyes and Executive Vice Chancellor David Prior to develop a task force draft. That draft was issued to the entire faculty advisory committee.

During a September meeting, the new proposal from the task force was presented to SFAC members, and was highly criticized. Formanowicz, a former chair of the SFAC executive committee, told the Texas Independent that the specific proposals within the draft were never actually discussed. “When it got to the meeting, we never actually considered the draft,” said Formanowicz. “There was a lot of discussion about changes to the draft, and after the meeting there was an alternative draft that was circulated via email.”

The new alternative draft was circulated among the members of SFAC, and eventually an email vote was taken with the majority supporting the alternative draft. Some faculty members have contended that during that September meeting there was a lack of transparency with how the task force developed the original draft, and that there was a misunderstanding of what policy suggestions were contained within the draft.

At a January meeting of SFAC, faculty members had to make a choice between supporting the original draft and the alternative draft. It was at this meeting that Cigarroa reportedly made the case for supporting the original draft. However, his message was perceived very differently by various faculty members.

Friedman told the Texas Independent that Cigarroa forced the faculty to rescind the vote by threatening something worse. Friedman said that Cigarroa “made it clear that if the faculty didn’t support the administration’s proposal that something much worse would be implemented down the line.”

“The chancellor never said that,” said Formanowicz, who contested Friedman’s version of events. “He never threatened the faculty. He said that he thought the first task force draft was better.”

According to the UT System Office, Chancellor Cigarroa was not available for comment on this story due to his travel schedule.

Derek Catsam, faculty member at UT Permian Basin, told the Texas Independent that Cigorroa made the case for a unified faculty in support of the original draft. “I think that Cigarroa legitimately has the long term interests of the faculty in mind,” said Catsam. “With that said, it was made clear to us that a unified front had to be put forward and that unified front had to come in the form of the plan that the chancellor had put forward.”

The members of SFAC eventually did vote for the original draft supported by Cigarroa, by a count of 26-3. A member of the SFAC who wished not to be identified said that Cigarroa supported the policy that he could sell to the regents. “He knows what we’re dealing with as far as the regents. He is a good politician, and he knows that politics is the art of the possible. If you’re involved in faculty governance you can’t be a bad loser, we all want to have a voice in shared governance.”

Putting the policy into practice

Each of the System campuses is now charged with implementing the new policy, and on several campuses the change is well underway. Each campus is required to draft an implementation document, which will typically be reviewed by faculty and approved by the administration. Most faculty members said they believe implementation of the new policy would take place in full during fall semester of 2012.

Murray Leaf, a faculty member at UT-Dallas, told the Texas Independent that at UT-Dallas one of the main challenges is the annual review. “That’s what we’ve been working on,” said Leaf. “We’ve got a process that we’re working on. We just had a discussion in the faculty senate on the possible problems in the policy. “

In a broader context, the policy change is part of an ongoing debate surrounding higher education in Texas. The policy changes affecting tenured faculty are among the goals of those promoting reform to the higher education system and calling for more accountability. “The obvious question of accountability is to whom,” said Leaf. “Our first job is to be accountable to our profession and then our accountability to the public is that we are being professional. The question is what kind of information does the public need to have to know how we are doing our jobs, and that would be how well we are teaching and how productive we are.”

“There is a lot of concern about where things are going in general in Texas,” said Formanowicz. ”There is a reason why the state legislature formed a joint House and Senate committee. I think that there are some outside forces that have been prominent in the media, for example the Texas Public Policy Foundation, who have not exactly been accurate in what they are saying. They get a little bit of data and misconstrue and cherry pick the things that are going to fit their argument.” Formanowicz also says that faculty on the Austin campus have been unfairly targeted, and that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of tenure. “It is not a lifetime contract,” said Formanowicz.

These centers use various methods to attract women facing unplanned pregnancies, such as offering free pregnancy tests, locating next to abortion clinics, advertising for abortion services, and intercepting online searches for abortion on the Web.

But an emerging trend is for states to push women through these centers’ doors as part of new legislation that increases waiting times and mandates pre-abortion ultrasounds, something CPCs increasingly offer.

Last year, South Dakota passed a controversial anti-abortion law requiring women to visit anti-abortion pregnancy centers for counseling before they can receive an abortion. A federal judge blocked the law — which also mandated a 72-hour waiting period –after Planned Parenthood sued the state on the grounds that the law created an unconstitutional burden on a woman’s right to an abortion. On Wednesday, a state Senate committee is scheduled to hear a revised version of the bill, which still requires women to seek counseling at anti-abortion pregnancy centers but demands that the counselors be licensed.

Another anti-abortion law in Texas, which recently went into effect after surviving the majority of legal challenges lodged against it, provides women wanting to have an abortion with a list of state-sanctioned places to obtain a sonogram, a list that includes crisis pregnancy centers.

South Dakota and Texas are just two states where CPCs are slowly gaining more political power, taxpayer funding, and legitimacy from lawmakers. And with the growing movement of state legislatures adopting abortion laws that require women to first undergo an ultrasound, it is likely that these centers will begin to play an even bigger role in a woman’s unplanned pregnancy.

‘Pregnancy Resource Center Month’

In the U.S., there are approximately 4,000 crisis pregnancy centers, the bulk of which are affiliated with one of three CPC networks: Heartbeat International, Care Net, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. Each has ties to political organizations that have lobbied for anti-abortion legislation.

A legislative trend sweeping the country is the enactment of resolutions that “honor” crisis pregnancy centers. Last month, the Florida Legislature passed a bill that declared January “Pregnancy Resource Center Month” and commended “the compassionate work of the volunteers and staff at Florida’s pregnancy resource centers.” Ohio’s legislature passed similar legislation last month.

Several states passed pro-CPC resolutions last year, including Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Oklahoma passed a pro-CPC resolution in 2010.

In these resolutions, much of the language was lifted straight from model legislation (PDF) developed by Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion policy group based in Washington, D.C. AUL’s resolution calls for recognizing services these centers have provided to citizens for free – services like baby supplies, referrals for public services and anti-abortion counseling. But a key provision, which has generally made it into the states’ version of these resolutions, is:

That the [Legislature] disapproves of the actions of any national, state, or local groups attempting to prevent pregnancy care centers from effectively serving women and men facing unplanned pregnancies.

This provision subtly refers to efforts at national, state and local levels to regulate crisis pregnancy centers, in response to allegations that these centers sometimes mislead women about what services they offer and provide them with misinformation about abortion, pregnancy, and contraception.

For instance, in Washington state, legislation was introduced last year that would require CPCs to be explicit about what services they do and don’t offer. It would also prohibit these centers from withholding medical records, such as pregnancy test results, from clients. The bill text was partially influenced by a report (PDF) co-authored by women’s rights group Legal Voice and the policy arm of the Northwest Planned Parenthood affiliate. Undercover investigators documented evidence of CPCs withholding medical records. According to the report: “Care Net in Gig Harbor and Tacoma provided volunteers with paperwork stating that it had the right under RCW 70.02.090 to withhold a person’s medical records if the center reasonably believes the information will be used to obtain an abortion. Care Net in Puyallup provided paperwork stating that it would be ‘illegal’ for a patient to use medical records generated by Care Net for the purpose of ‘abortion or abortion-related services.’”

These measures have generally been unsuccessful. Ordinances requiring CPCs to post signage stating that they do not offer abortion services were overturned in Baltimore and New York. And a federal bill that would authorize the Federal Trade Commission to fine organizations that falsely advertise as resources for abortion services has been reintroduced into Congress every year since 2007 with little movement. A similar bill passed in San Francisco last year but is being challenged in federal court.

Another provision in AUL’s pro-CPC resolution model, which is featured in Ohio’s bill, could serve as a portal for crisis pregnancy centers to obtain public money:

That we encourage the Congress of the United States and other federal and state government agencies to grant pregnancy resource centers assistance for medical equipment and abstinence education in a manner that does not compromise the mission or religious integrity of these organizations.

It is a state version of a federal bill regularly reintroduced by U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), which would authorize the Department of Health and Human Services to allocate money for ultrasound equipment to tax-exempt organizations that provide free medical services to pregnant women – a classification that applies to most CPCs.

An (ultra)sound strategy

With more states mandating that women obtain sonograms sometimes 24 hours before a scheduled abortion, going to a crisis pregnancy center that will do the ultrasound for free is an attractive option, especially for women on a tight budget.

Speaking at a pro-life conference hosted by the D.C.-based Family Research Council last month, Karen Snuffer, the executive director of a group of Virginia-based pregnancy resource centers affiliated with Care Net, said her centers serve more than 17,000 women and their families annually and “provide $1.1 million in free goods and services, including 2,900 ultrasounds, free of charge, by medical professionals.”

“Like centers all around the country, Care Net PRCs represent hope to these women and their families, and we do that because we have access to many resources within the community,” Snuffer said.

An FRC study (PDF) of 1,969 crisis pregnancy centers in the U.S., found that in 2010, about 230,000 ultrasounds were performed – at no or very little charge to the client – at 1,000 centers, for an estimated total cost savings of $57.5 million. (To get this statistic, FRC estimated each ultrasound at $250.)

Founded in 1993, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates was the first CPC network to promote ultrasounds in crisis pregnancy centers; ultrasounds were seen as a new, persuasive tool to talk women out of abortions. Additionally, centers that offered ultrasound services could now be considered medical centers, giving CPCs more legitimacy. Then, in 2004, Focus on the Family started the Option Ultrasound Program, which – in tandem with a medical consultant from NIFLA – provides funding grants to pregnancy centers to obtain ultrasound machines and convert their centers to medical-style clinics.

Gov. Rick Scott (Pic via flgov.com)

A bill allowing state agencies to randomly drug test their employees, which was unexpectedly resurrected in the Florida House last week, has the support of Gov. Rick Scott.

Scott was a strong supporter of the state’s last attempt to drug test public employees. That bill, however, landed state officials in court and has been on hold since June 2011. A court in Miami will hear the case this week.

Last week, the newest bill allowing state agencies to randomly drug test their employees failed. However, after the vote, the bill was resurrected through a procedural move by state Rep. Dorothy Hukill, R-Port Orange. It will now continue to move through the Legislature. There is a vote in a House budget committee already scheduled for this afternoon.

During a state Senate governmental oversight and accountability meeting earlier this month, state Sen. Jack Latvala, R- St. Petersburg, mentioned that the bill had strong support from the governor’s office.

Latvala told committee members, “I appreciate Sen. [Alan] Hays and the governor’s office approaching me on this issue.”

A spokesperson tells The Florida Independent today that they governor’s office “is still interested” in the bill and “has met with legislators … to inform them of our position.”

Pamela Burch-Fort, who spoke on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida last week, pleaded with lawmakers to reconsider the bill, or at least postpone voting on it until after the court rules on last year’s drug testing law. She said the bill is similar to the bill that was already halted.

“It is unconstitutional,” Burch-Fort said of the bill. “It violates the Fourth Amendment [and] subjects state employee to suspicionless drug testing.”

During the last committee stop for the bill, where it failed and then was reconsidered, both Democrats and Republican members voiced their concern over the bill’s cost and constitutionality.

“I moved to Colorado to change the party from within,” said Michael Carr, a Log Cabin Republican and a party precinct captain in Colorado. “I think it’s important for Republicans to look at this issue with a cold calculating eye. … [Opinions] are advancing very quickly on homosexuality, civil unions, even gay marriage.

“As a severe Republican partisan, I want the party to be around for a while,” he continued. “I want it to be the party to challenge big government and big spending, and if the party continues to take up this sort of hateful bigoted mantra, I fear the party is going to lose young people, who will identify as independents, and we’ll have less troops on the ground come election time.”

Senate Bill 2, introduced last year by state Sen. Pat Steadman (D-Denver), would grant straight and gay couples in Colorado the right to form state-recognized unions that would bestow many of the legal protections and responsibilities now granted only to married couples. Couples entering into a civil union could share insurance and pension benefits and make medical and inheritance decisions for one another, for example. They would also be able to adopt children more easily and be bound to pay alimony and child support should their relationships dissolve. Even though some of those rights are available to non-married couples now, they come with hefty legal price tags and unique hurdles like home inspection visits from state workers. The bill was defeated by one vote last year in a Republican-majority House committee determined to keep it off the House floor, where supporters believe it would have passed in a full chamber vote.

The fusty and the brash

Mario Nicolais, a major Republican Party figure in Colorado and an attorney at Hackstaff Law Group, the conservative politics firm where intensely Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler was partner, directed his remarks almost entirely at Kevin Lundberg, a Republican Committee member and outspoken traditional marriage defender.

“I’m the spokesman for Coloradans for Freedom,” Nicolais said to open his testimony, referring to the group of high-profile state Republicans who have banded together this year to support civil unions. “I am a radically partisan Republican … and I am here to say that conservative principles unequivocally support civil unions. I think that’s something necessary for this committee to hear and the people of this state to hear. There are many conservatives who believe this. … We don’t think it’s a gay-rights issue. We think it’s an equal-rights issue. … We think personal liberty and individual freedom rights are at stake and those are twin pillars of conservative thought.”

Looking up at Lundberg, who was seated in the elevated “bench” of the Old Supreme Court Chamber where the hearing was held, Nicolais pressed a point saturated with culture-war references, casting images of gay family life into the air through a Republican lens and, in doing so, bending sterotypical Colorado conservative views to the shaking point.

“Civil unions are good conservative public policy,” Nicolais said. “They promote monogamous relationships. They promote families. They promote caring for children. You can’t go to a Republican caucus or stump speech without hearing those values espoused over and over and over again. It is Republican red meat, and I [repeat it] all the time myself.”

Sniffing heresy, Lundberg asked if Nicolais should then be counted among those who believe the “one-man, one-woman” defintion of marriage voted into the state constitution in 2006 is “inappropriate public policy.”

“No, that [assertion] is categorically wrong,” Nicolais said. “Most of our group differentiates very much between marriage and civil unions. … We praise this bill because it recognizes [Colorado's Amendment 43]. The idea that an institution as old and as important as marriage would be reliant on the government for any sort of protection is antithetical to conservative thought. … [This bill concerns] a relationship between two committed people and their government, and we think that is entirely appropriate. The question of gay marriage should be reserved for another day.”

“I respectfully disagree that we’re talking about marriage as a different thing,” Lundberg said. “What are the differences except for the name? It sounds to me that what you’re arguing for is a very different form of that marriage relationship, [one] that is antithetical to what the Colorado Constitution defines as between one man and one woman exclusively.”

“Marriage is something bigger,” said Nicolais with Steadman sitting silently next to him and the four Democratic committee members eyeing the exchange from the right side of the bench. “What we’re talking about here is the relationship between two people and their government. That is it. That is what civil unions are.

“But marriage is different,” he continued. “It is between two people, between their families their communities, their churches, their gods, all things conservatives don’t think the government should be a part of… Many supporters [of Coloradans for Freedom] differ on these questions. Many of our supporters are in favor of gay mariage. Many believe the state should get out of the marriage business. There’s a divide there. What we all agree on is that, when it comes to this very limited tie – the relationship between the government and two people who have committed themselves to each other and to a life together – we think that that should be equal because we believe in equal rights. … Equal rights and civil rights are what we argue for as conservatives.”

“I find it remarkable that you draw a parallel with civil rights issues of past decades and yet resist any comparison of civil unions to marriage as having a similar [likely societal impact],” Lundberg said. “Your arguments are that this is a conservative principle. If that’s the case, then the conservative people of Colorado would agree with you, and that [scenario] is a very far stretch by my experience of public policy. I submit you are a remarkable exception to the rule.”

Democratic Committee Chair Morgan Carroll then looked from Lundberg to Nicolais, as did the 200 people who filled the chamber gallery. “Mr. Nicolais, do you want to respond?” she asked.

“I will, briefly, just to say that Coloradans for Freedom, we wanted to add our conservative voices to the conservative voices out there,” Nicolais responded. “It’s not just cut and dried that conservatives oppose civil unions. It’s simply not true.”

Freedom, families, religion

Pat Steadman in conversation with reporters after the hearing (COLORADO INDEPENDENT/John Tomasic)

Troy Ard, openly gay chairman of the state’s College Republicans, also called into question opposition to the bill on ideological grounds. He suggested opposition was not consistent with conservative views of limited government that dominate on other controversial topics like gun control and taxes and so the position raises the specter that there are other less attractive factors driving it.

“I must wholeheartedely disagree with those who can believe that sound government is limited government and that personal liberty is one of the most important doctrines of our federalist society but then at the same time believe that government should be involved in picking and choosing which American couples can live together and enjoy government recogniiton,” he said.

Republican Committee member Ellen Roberts was one of three Senate Republicans, all women, who supported the bill last year. She voted in favor of this year’s bill, and her questions for witnesses over the course of the hearing were designed to shore up confidence among conservatives. Mostly she sought to underline the vital and presently absent protections the bill provides for the children of gay couples and the safeguards for religious liberty the bill includes.

Roberts pushed back, for example, against Cahleen Hagerty, a spokesperson for Colorado Catholic Charities, who testified that the bill “could jeopardize” her organization’s placing children with adoptive families.

Roberts asked for specifics on how Catholic Charities might be affected and then read out specific language in the bill meant to address the very issue.

“This article shall not be interpreted to require a child placement agency to place a child for adoption with a couple that has entered into a civil union pursuant to this article.”

Hagerty said she had only meant to “draw a parallel” to civil union laws passed in other states. “We’re worried about the future,” she said.

Capitol corridors and chambers

The political landscape in Colorado has changed dramatically since last year’s debate over civil unions. Gay rights have expanded in states across the country. The leaders of the Armed Forces are lifting the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning open gay military service. The Obama administration has said it believes the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstittional and has ceased defending it from court challenges. Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in California has been ruled against twice. Reputable public-opinion polls have consistently found large majorities of Americans in favor of greater relationship equality, including in Colorado. And after last year’s Democratic Party redistricting victory, Colorado Republicans face a much more difficult election terrain this year than they have faced in decades.

Acknowledging these developments, Democrat Steadman told The Colorado Independent that, nevertheless, the back-channel conversation around the bill, the kind of nitty gritty negotiations in corridors that can translate to key votes in chambers, hasn’t really changed this year, at least not yet. Indeed, after five-plus hours of hearing testimony, Steadman wore the set face of a distance runner, eyes on the horizon, as determined to continue the fight for the bill as he is to see and state clearly the challenges littering its route to the governor’s desk.

Republican Roberts, however, had a different take. With a hesitant smile, she told The Colorado Independent that she thought that in the last year the conversation has been broadened on the right in Colorado.

“Coloradans for Freedom is part of that,” she said. “Republicans are united by common ground on ideas about economic opportunity and also about equal rights. Abe Lincoln was a Republican, and I think some of the ideas that drove Lincoln have been lost in the intervening years. Seeing this as a family issue is important. Supporting this doesn’t make you a RINO. I think a lot of Republicans hadn’t thought about civil unions in that way – that gay couples take their kids to the doctor, to karate, do all the family things. I think more Republicans are recognizing these are people just trying to have a normal family life. We’re evolving. Maybe this time we’ll see this bill as less about sexual preference and more about families.”

In her closing remarks, before voting in favor of the bill, Roberts directly addressed the two main issues Lundberg cited in voting against it.

“This is a slippery slope to same-sex marriage,” he said.

In fact, Lundberg never really argued against the bill itself. He said he thought it was really a gay marriage bill, not a civil unions bill and that, even though the the bill as written may not infringe upon the state’s “one-man, one-woman” definition of marriage, once on the books, the bill could be reworked to do so.

“This bill is a stepping stone,” he said. “I see this as a deep problem in regard to the [constitution] we were sworn to uphold.”

Roberts said the bill caefully defines civil unions and respects the constitution.

“I return to the 20 years I spent as an estate-planning attorney where I dealt with same-sex couples who were raising children,” Roberts said. “There’s a difference between marriage and civil unions, and the biggest thing [this] bill does is sustain the family unit. I don’t agree this is marriage. … Yes, statutes might change. But you could say that about every one of our statutes.”

Banner image:  Flickr/Matthew Yau

The Florida Family Policy Council, one of the most influential anti-gay rights and anti-abortion groups in the state, is joining the chorus of opposition to a school prayer bill quickly making its way through the Florida Legislature.

The bill, which would allow K-12 students to pray during all school events, has already been denounced by groups such as the ACLU of Florida and the Anti-Defamation League. Those groups have warned that the bill is unconstitutional and would insert the state into even more costly litigation. More recently, however, the Liberty Counsel — a conservative Christian legal group — has also said it would urge House members to defeat the bill.

Matthew Staver, the founder of the Liberty Counsel, told the Palm Beach Post last week, that he is ”an advocate of student speech, but this bill will run into constitutional problems and I don’t think it’s right to make school districts litigate this issue again — and they will have to.”

The Anti-Defamation League announced today that yet another religious advocacy group, which also traditionally does not ”share the same views with ADL on issues of religion in the public schools,” is opposed to the school prayer bill “because it is likely unconstitutional.”

The league said in a statement that:

According to Florida Family Policy Council’s February 17^th Insider’s Report:

“…Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel who is also Dean of the Law School at Liberty University and one of the leading Religious Liberty experts in the country has recently come forth and publicly opposed the bill and asked the legislature to defeat it. Our own President and General Counsel John Stemberger has many of the same concerns. Both these lawyers believe the bill has major constitutional problems and is likely to get struck down under the current case law and only after many years and legal expenses has been invested trying to defend it.”

“When advocacy groups as divergent as ADL, ACLU, Florida Family Policy Council and Liberty Counsel all agree that the bill is unconstitutional – the legislation must be inherently flawed,” the Anti-Defamation League’s David Barkey said in a statement today. ”Therefore we urge the Judiciary Committee to oppose this unwise measure and save taxpayers the completely unnecessary litigation expenses that will undoubtedly be incurred should CS–SB 98 become law.”

The bill has already passed in the Senate. The bill’s Senate sponsor, state. Sen. Gary Siplin, D-Orlando, is currently working to get the bill through the House.

A bill that would require anyone with a drug-related felony conviction in his or her history to complete rehab before receiving cash assistance or food stamps from the state passed a third Florida House committee today.

The proposal, which was filed by state Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Lecanto, would disqualify anyone with a drug-related felony conviction from receiving public cash assistance or food assistance unless the applicant has “satisfactorily completed a treatment program or regimen for drug addiction or drug abuse.” Current law does not require that treatment be completed in Florida, although federal law allows states to do so.

If someone where denied benefits because of this new law, sponsors say that someone else would be assigned to receive and pay out the funds on their behalf. However, state Rep. Mark Pafford, D-West Palm Beach, pointed out that those individuals could include other types of criminals.

Pafford also called the bill “mean-spirited” because it “assumes all poor people have a problem,” and specifically someone who was convicted of a drug crime in the past. He also said that the bill would impact people reentering the workforce.

Proponents of the bill on the committee claimed it would be a way to address drug abuse problems.

Smith said in one of the last committee stops for this bill that his legislation is meant to force “societal change” and alter the public’s “attitude towards drugs.” He said today that the bill is a way for the state to say, “We help those who help themselves.”

State Rep. Tom Goodson, R-Titusville, filed the House version of the bill, which passed a first committee vote in early December, and a second vote in a House subcommittee in early January.

On Monday, the Senate committee approved an amendment to the bill that, according to Simmons, “provides a uniform statewide solution to the issue of non-payment of wages to an employee.”

The chair of the committee — state Sen. Anitere Flores, R-Miami — introduced a handwritten amendment that would exempt Miami-Dade County’s wage theft program from the Simmons’ bill. Simmons initially opposed Flores’ amendment “because it allows Miami-Dade to create a judicial system,” but quickly accepted the change.

Flores added that the committee “will work with the sponsor to get it withdrawn from the committee,” and ended the meeting.

The Miami Herald reported that “while the bill’s failure in Monday’s committee meeting dealt it a major blow, Miami-Dade’s wage theft prevention program is not yet in the clear. There’s a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality, and procedural moves could allow the bill to skip the normal committee process and advance straight to the floor for a full vote.”

Jeanette Smith of the Florida Wage Theft Task Force attended the committee meeting and tells The Florida Independent that if the bill is withdrawn, “it can move forward to its final committee, which is [the] Government Oversight committee.”

Smith added that Simmons’ amendment allows local government to create a type of conciliatory function, which is part of Miami-Dade’s wage theft ordinance. “But that is all it could do,” she says, “and other than that the only thing anybody could do was go to court.”

The Simmons amendment also states that a worker must notify the employer in writing of the “employee’s intent to initiate a claim” of wage theft, and that the claim “shall be tried before the court and not before a jury.”

The Miami-Dade County anti-wage theft ordinance has a resolution process for wage theft claims outside of the court system. Supporters of the measure say it can help prevent employers from cheating workers out of pay they are owed by allowing workers to make claims without having to hire a lawyer.

Opponents of Simmons’ bill have also pointed out that filing a claim in court can take up to eight to 10 months and cost anywhere from $80 to $330, “which is nowhere near a reality for a struggling low-wage earner.”