Sunday, March 16, 2025

“Pretty Heartless” – Public Testimony on Budget

Public testimony days are never easy, but this session’s Senate Finance committee hearing on HB 1 was particularly torturous, as Louisiana’s lawmakers annually transform citizens into beggars. This time, instead of merely asking for funding for more waivers, the yellow-shirted disabilities advocates were literally pleading for their lives. “What am I going to do? Who will help me survive?” asked wheelchair-bound Travis Stafford from St. Tammany Parish. “I have a spinal cord injury,” said Jamie Duplechine of Lafayette, who is also in a wheelchair. “If you pass this budget as is, I would lose my job, my home, and my life.” The budget, as it came over from the House, cuts $538-million state dollars from the Department of Health, which – when coupled with the federal matching funds – results in an overall reduction of $1.8-billion in health care funding. Overall, an estimated 45,000 residents – disabled children, adults, and the elderly – will lose services. Pediatric Day Care, for children with disabilities and chronic medical needs, is being eliminated completely. “My daughter Avery has a rare form of epilepsy,” Abby Benjamin of Monroe told the committee. “Right now, she gets nursing care, occupational, physical and speech therapy, each day while my husband and I both work. This budget completely eliminates the Pediatric Day Care program, which helps my daughter and 795 other fragile children in this state.” Sen. Regina Barrow (D-Baton Rouge), tears running down her face in empathy with those crying as they voiced their fears, said, “I want to apologize that you have to go through this again.” In addition to eliminating Pediatric Daycare, the Louisiana Department of Health plans to cope with the funding reductions by capping income eligibility for many waiver services at the bare minimum allowed under federal law: $750 per month. The administration announced it’s preparing to send out notices to 37,000 current Medicaid recipients on Thursday, advising them the eligibility process is changing, severely reducing the amount of income they are allowed to receive to retain their Medicaid benefits. Among those being notified are those in group homes, as well as approximately 17,000 nursing home residents. The argument from Republican House members had been “Nursing home residents won’t be put out on the street. That’s an exaggeration. There’s an appeals process, and residents will get to stay where they are during their appeals. By then, we’ll have ‘found’ more money.” Sen. Barrow asked Mark Berger with the Nursing Home Association, “What happens if – God forbid – we don’t fund the Long Term Care program?” “We are required to provide a ‘safe and orderly discharge’,” Berger said. “But there is no other place for them to go. So if we can’t safely discharge them, legally our only option is to close down our businesses.” “How many people does Louisiana’s nursing home industry employ?” asked Sen. Greg Tarver (D-Shreveport). “Twenty-six thousand,” Berger replied. “This sounds like mass chaos,” Sen. Barrow remarked. “This is unconscionable!” “It makes us look pretty heartless,” Senate Finance chairman Eric LaFleur said. Indeed. “The people you’re hearing from are being forced to imagine how their lives will be harmed on July 1,” Jeannie Donovan, health policy analyst with the Louisiana Budget Project said. “Other states have similar budget issues. Are we the only one taking these extreme measures?” Sen. Barrow asked Donovan. “Louisiana is not unique in having fiscal stresses, but when the chickens come home to roost, other states have reversed course and changed their tax structure,” Donovan said. “I don’t think any state has cut health care services as deeply as what is currently proposed in HB 1. This budget cannot be fixed without restoring or replacing some of the revenue that expires July 1, therefore I urge you not to pass a budget, but wait until you have another chance to replace expiring revenue.” But since that has not yet happened, Louisiana health officials must proceed as if it won’t, and let the federal Centers for Medicaid Services know what could be coming. LDH Undersecretary Jeff Reynolds testified later in the day, “We have already started talking to CMS about the impending cuts to Medicaid programs. The feds are sort of aghast that this is what we are considering.” Republicans on the Finance Committee, conveniently ignoring the fact that their party peers in the House perpetrated this scheme, criticized LDH for instilling fear in nursing home residents by sending out the required notifications. “I don’t see how in good conscience you can do that to these older folks,” Sen. Bodi White (R- Baton Rouge) said. “The program reductions require mass mailings to comply with federal law,” Reynolds replied. “It is not to scare anybody.” Sen. Sharon Hewitt, who was outed by this publication last week for posting a deceptively edited video from another committee hearing, doubled-down on her conviction that rampant Medicaid fraud is what’s causing the fiscal problems, rather than the loss of “temporary” tax revenues. “I am very concerned about the letters you are sending out,” Hewitt told Reynolds. “Your time would be better spent making sure people applying for Medicaid are not doing so fraudulently, and saving money there, rather than kicking grandma and grandpa out of the nursing home.” Yet for folks like Jamie Duplechine, still unable to ascend the Capitol steps, it’s not about holding to some ideologized concept of somehow finding savings. It’s about not losing her life.

Leadership and the Lack Thereof

Louisiana’s House and Senate are each taking a three-day weekend, with many hoping that the extra day away from the Capitol will help curtail the crankiness that’s become more conspicuous in committees and floor debates this past week. Many members are blaming the churlishness on “legislative fatigue”, citing the back-to-back-to-back sessions of this term as the cause. After all, the old proverb says, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” But the quickened pace of this session, in an apparent effort to end early and get to another special session, is also amplifying the acrimony, much of which was left unresolved following the ignominious end to this year’s earlier special session. In the most recent edition of LA Politics Weekly, Jeremy Alford and Sarah Gamard took an extended look at the fussiness factors, and surveying 32 of 144 lawmakers about the current state of affairs. The more rabid Republicans in the House blame the governor, his scheduling of seemingly unending sessions, and his “demand” that they pick up the pace. Many of that same group also tout the cohesiveness of their particular coalition. House Democrats, on the other hand, point squarely at the “partisan political games” being played out. Senate members point at the House as the source of the dissonance, while House members from both sides of the aisle agree that it’s never been this bad. Rep. Sam Jones (D-Franklin) succinctly describes it as “ineffectual churning”, and Governor John Bel Edwards has a similar view. “It almost appears that the members of the House are allowed to meander around and float with the wind, and just settle wherever they want to settle. And if you have the votes necessary to pass a bill, then you have them, and if you don’t, you don’t,” the governor says. “The problem with that is you don’t end up successful on things that require an awful lot of courage – the hard decisions. You’ve got to have leadership.” Rep. Barry Ivey (R-Central) agrees. “There is no vision,” Ivey says. “Nobody is talking about what we want Louisiana to look like five, ten, twenty years from now. Frankly, nobody is looking past the next election.” Ivey, who describes himself as a conservative, is one of the handful of more moderate House Republicans – who don’t view “compromise” as a dirty word. He’s been participating in meetings of the “Middle Caucus” this session, in addition to Republican Caucus gatherings. He concurs that the main thing is lack of leadership. But while he reserves his deepest disgruntlement for House leadership, he isn’t shy to say that Gov. Edwards shares part of the blame. “I understand the governor has felt he needed to take a hands-off approach, but I really wish he would spell out a vision for the state’s future – beyond just generally asking us to fix the fiscal problems,” Ivey says. As the first person ever to move directly from Louisiana’s House to the Governor’s mansion, John Bel Edwards has been critical of the House, though he has consistently exhibited a reverence for the Legislature as an institution, and for the separation of powers between his branch and theirs. “I do love the legislature as an institution, and as a branch of government,” Edwards said, in an exclusive interview with the Bayou Brief. “I love the legislators individually, but I’m very frustrated because the big challenges that we face can only be resolved successfully by getting a two-thirds majority of the legislature to agree to a single approach. And there has been – in my estimation – a real absence of leadership in the House of Representatives, in the sense that you don’t have that one central figure – and it’s got to be the Speaker – who is charting the course, and pulling people together, and pushing people to get in line so that we can move forward.” Yet in the House there are three leaders: Speaker Taylor Barras, GOP Caucus leader Lance Harris, and Appropriations chairman Cameron Henry. Harris, described as “a bully” by Democrats and more than a few Republicans, only has the authority to “push” members of his own party to “get in line”, as the governor phrased it. Henry failed to win the speakership in January 2016, as too many members were turned off by his peremptory attitude. He has not softened in the past two years, and it’s generally conceded that Henry is the one who is “charting the course”, rather than Barras. Everybody likes Taylor Barras. It’s why he was picked as the compromise candidate for Speaker in 2016 – courteous, innocuous – he was the inoffensive choice. Barras, while a gentleman, has proven himself to be a “bless-your-heart” gentleman. And as all Southern ladies know, “Bless your heart” doesn’t always mean what it seems. “I’ll let you in on a little secret – I like Taylor. I’ve known him for ten years. He’s a good man – he’s a decent man,” Gov. Edwards says. “I think, however, he runs into a little resistance. And then he decides to abandon what it is he told me he was going to do. It’s not that he is being dishonest. I think he is being honest — he just hasn’t been able to hold the line, and that makes it very difficult.” The full House is becoming increasingly disorderly, with the Speaker being ineffectual at holding the line against the unruliness. More often than not, female members cannot be heard when they present their bills or ask questions of presenters, as the male majority carries on in conversational knots throughout the House, drowning out the ladies’ voices with their din. Republicans talk over Democrats at the microphone, with rare admonishment from the Speaker being directed at those who were encroached upon, rather than the interrupter. A heated exchange between Rep. Blake Miguez (R-New Iberia) and Rep. Barbara Norton (D-Shreveport) over Miguez’ bill to allow concealed-carry permit holders to bring their guns into schools was a case in point. Norton was trying to ask questions, and Miguez kept talking over her, elaborating on his answer unnecessarily, purposely drowning her out. It kept up for nearly five minutes, and even the Speaker had a tough time getting himself heard over Miguez. “Members,” Barras said, using his parental voice. “They’re there to enforce the law,” Miguez kept talking. “Members!” Barras raised his voice, “Let’s agree…” “To protect and serve,” Miguez continued. “Just a minute. Just a minute!” the Speaker shouted to be heard. “I need y’all to ASK a question, and I need the other one to answer the question – completely – before you ask another question. Please listen to the response, and then we’ll go to the next question,” he said, looking directly at Rep. Norton. Thursday, during the Q & A for Rep. Tony Bacala’s (R-Prairieville) bill to try an ferret out Medicaid fraud — which became anathema to Black Caucus members during the February special session — House Democratic Caucus chair Robert Johnson pointed out the bill was purely targeting the poor. The Speaker called, “Time,” on Johnson, who asked for an extension. When Bacala said, “No,” the Speaker laughed, causing Johnson to point at the dais and shout, “That said VOLUMES!” And when it comes to the concept of early adjournment of the regular session in order to expeditiously start a special session to fill the budget holes, Barras is crawfishing again. It had been publicly stated by the governor and Senate President John Alario that they were aiming at adjourning the regular session around May 14th, with a special session to commence immediately after. Yet once the House sent the budget bill to the Senate, the Speaker began suggesting May 18th instead – with the special session starting May 20th. This past week he started backing up some more. “It will depend on how fast we get our House bills back from the Senate,” Barras said when he spoke with reporters this past Monday evening. “We want the Senate to send the budget bill back, but we’re also waiting to see what happens with the Harrah’s bill (HB 553), and the Uber/Lyft bill (HB 749).” He is the author of both of those measures. The fate of the Harrah’s bill – granting a 30-year, no-bid contract extension for the current operator of the New Orleans land-based casino – became extremely uncertain with last weekend’s revelation by The Advocate’s Tyler Bridges that a Las Vegas real estate company has a five-year option – filed last October – to acquire Harrah’s New Orleans, Atlantic City, and Laughlin, Nevada, casinos. A Senate committee which had been scheduled to hear the Harrah’s bill this past Tuesday removed it from their calendar, pending more information. Thursday, nola.com’s Julia O’Donoghue tweeted she’d asked the Speaker for an update on progress toward early adjournment: “Speaker Barras told me he has not talked this week to @LouisianaGov or Alario about possibility of special session or the budget.” In my conversation with the governor, I had asked Edwards to explain his philosophy of “leadership”, based on his West Point training and military service. “You know, we had entire courses on leadership,” he said. “And what I think best exemplifies real leadership is someone who is willing to lead from the front, and by example. I’m talking about the things that are dangerous – the things that are hard. “Most importantly, you’re trained to make timely decisions. You want to have as much information as possible, but if you wait until you have all the information you want, in many cases it’s too late for the decision to have any real impact. And so, you have to try to gauge just when you have enough information to make a good decision. Because what they teach you is ‘a good decision timely made is much better than a perfect decision that comes too late’.” With clinic closure and layoff notices already being delivered by the public-private hospital partners, with high school students graduating not knowing if TOPS will be available for them to start college in 3 months, with nursing home residents facing eviction in less than 60 days, with parents of profoundly disabled children fearing the loss of home help that enables them to live, the trio of House leaders cling to their “wait and see” scheme. Harris, who spoke to the Baton Rouge Press Club last Monday, made it clear they will hold out against any revenue-raising as long as — and as completely as — possible. “We need to keep from extracting more money from our citizens and their families,” he insisted. “The most practical way is to deal with only the revenue we have at this time, and figure out exactly what the holes are. That’s real numbers. “After all, we were all told last August that the fiscal cliff was $1.5-billion. By January it was down to one-billion dollars, and now it’s only $485-million, according to our Appropriations chairman’s calculations,” he concluded, implying it could drop even further if they just wait a bit longer. That last number — the $485-million – is markedly smaller than the one officially adopted by the official Revenue Estimating Conference forecast on April 18, which was $648-million. Neither Harris nor Henry have been able to satisfactorily explain how their number got to be so much smaller. They just keep preaching it as gospel. And speaking of the REC, it’s this reporter’s expectation that House leadership will continue to back away from early adjournment until after the REC’s next meeting, the end of this month – in hopes the fiscal cliff will magically melt away. Yet as public testimony on the budget in Senate Finance Monday will illustrate, the fear citizens have isn’t going to magically melt away. And when the full House convenes Monday afternoon, the disgruntlement isn’t going to disappear. One avenue of action is available. Change the Speaker, and with him the dynamics of dysfunction. As the governor said, “A good decision timely made is much better than a perfect decision that comes too late.”

Reviewing the Saints 2018 Draft

As tantalizingly close as I came to some correct predictions, I want to get something out of the way first, regarding draft philosophy, and why I was disappointed in the Saints’ approach this year. My fundamental philosophy regarding the draft is twofold:
  • The purpose of the draft is to build the foundation of your team, not merely to plug immediate holes;
  • Even first-round picks bust a significant amount of the time (around 50 percent), so a strategy geared toward picking more often, rather than targeting a small number of players, tends to be more successful.
After last year’s great draft, where the Saints had six top-100 picks and hit four immediate starters and future stars, and two other players with strong potential to be the same, I was hoping the Saints would take a similar approach and look toward building a strong foundation for the long term. Instead, they did the exact opposite. The Saints traded their pick at #27 and next year’s first-round pick to Green Bay to move up to #14 and select UTSA defensive end Marcus Davenport. Now, no one will remember this if Marcus Davenport ends up being great. The problem is, he has to be to justify this move. Rather than continue to build the foundation of the team, the Saints decided to act like they were one player away from winning a championship, and mortgaged the future substantially to find that player. Again, if Davenport ends up being a stud pass-rusher, and they win a Super Bowl, no one will have cared about the risk. But I remember when Johnathan Sullivan and Sedrick Ellis were supposed to be sure things. It’s an extremely risky move, especially considering how rare it is for a pass rusher to come in as a rookie and immediately make a substantial impact. Since the NFL started tracking sacks in 1982, 32 rookies have notched ten sacks or more in their rookie season. This includes a mix of Hall of Famers and future Hall of Famers (Dwight Freeney, Julius Peppers, and Terrell Suggs are some examples of the latter), and athletic freaks whose careers were derailed for one reason or another (Jevon Kearse’s due to injury, Aldon Smith’s due to alcohol). Davenport will have to pay similar dividends right away for the Saints to get value out of this trade. Fortunately, Aldon Smith actually makes an interesting comparison point here. Davenport has a similar physical build and similar athletic testing– Davenport is a little more explosive, while Smith has longer arms. But I read an interesting analysis online (I can’t remember where to credit the person, unfortunately) that Aldon Smith found great success in San Francisco’s 3-4 by working alongside Justin Smith, whose size and athleticism tied up enough blockers for Aldon Smith to work around the edge quickly. The Saints, of course, have one of the league’s premier large defensive ends in Cameron Jordan, the best 290-pound edge rusher not named “completely healthy J.J. Watt,” and the Saints could use more 3-4 looks on passing downs and have Davenport play a similar role next to Jordan, at least until he develops a more complete skill set. (I can see a 3-4 front– probably more accurately described as a Wade Phillips-style 5-2– with Sheldon Rankins at the other end, David Onyemata as the nose tackle– a more explosive and better pass-rusher than Tyeler Davison– and Alex Okafor or Trey Hendrickson as the other edge player.) Fortunately, Davenport doesn’t seem to come with any of the character or off-field questions Aldon Smith did; he simply has to live up to his potential on the field. It’s a risky move– particularly from my perspective, given how I ranked the pass rushers in this draft– but if it works, a devastating pass rush would fill the last serious need the Saints have to build a championship roster. Pass rusher is the second most important position on a team after quarterback, at least– this isn’t a case where the Saints, who have traded up far too often in the Mickey Loomis era, did so for a position of lower priority like running back. Personally, I would’ve rather stayed put and taken Boston College defensive end Harold Landry, who fell all the way to #41, where Tennessee traded up to select him. Apparently Landry had medical concerns after playing 2017 through injury; on talent and production, though, he could’ve easily gone as high as #14, if not higher. (It does feel a little bittersweet that in my mock draft I suggested both that the Saints might take an edge rusher or that they might trade up to #14 and select a quarterback… only for them to trade up to #14 and select an edge rusher, and one I have concerns about after seeing him struggle during Senior Bowl practices, although he did much better in the game itself.) With that analysis out of the way, let’s look at the Saints’ other selections. Round 3, Pick 91: Tre’Quan Smith, WR, UCF I mocked a receiver to the Saints here, although I expected to see Penn State’s DaeSean Hamilton. I had them graded almost exactly the same on my final board, though (Hamilton at #84; Smith at #85). Testing indicates Smith is less explosive out of his breaks than Hamilton, although he’s more explosive off the line, and taller and with significantly longer arms and bigger hands. Smith was used largely as a deep threat at UCF, averaging nearly 20 yards a catch; while his top line speed isn’t mind-boggling (4.49 40 time), it’s fast enough, when combined with his explosiveness and length, to make him a viable deep threat in the NFL, productive and reliable. He’s an intriguing addition to what’s suddenly become a crowded wide receiver room. He’s also notable as a solid blocker; given that players like Devery Henderson and Robert Meachem were able to carve out decent roles for the Saints from only being able to run deep and block, Smith seems like a player who could be a better version of those two, a more well-rounded and productive receiver. He’ll stretch the field along with Ted Ginn, and if Ginn ever loses his speed or moves on, Smith should take on a larger role. Round 4, Pick 127: Rick Leonard, OT, Florida State ThIs one was a real head-scratcher for me, especially with several prospects I thought were great value still on the board, such as Josh Sweat and Shaquem Griffin. Leonard is a former defensive lineman who moved to right tackle in 2016, starting the full 2017 season. Leonard struggled in his actual game film, but the Saints obviously see some kind of upside on talent, believing they can coach him up. They’ll have to; Leonard was seen by most evaluators as an undraftable talent, although Leonard’s agent claims other teams were inquiring about selecting him in the fifth round. Leonard came in to Florida State only weighing 255 pounds, so he has not only grown quite a bit since then, but it’s likely he still has some growing to do. The upside here is a long-term third tackle a la Zach Strief, and a potential starting right tackle if Terron Armstead never gets healthy and the team decides to move on, slotting Ryan Ramczyk at left tackle. We’ll see. Round 5, Pick 164: Natrell Jamerson, S, Wisconsin I didn’t know much about Jamerson before the draft, but my research indicates that he’s a versatile defensive back who played multiple positions at Wisconsin and contributed on special teams. The Saints’ defensive back roster is deep, so it’s not likely he’ll make much of an impact as a rookie, but he could be a special teams standout while eventually turning into a sort of third safety or nickel back, perhaps in the Rafael Bush role, or in what the team hoped for Vonn Bell if he doesn’t work out. Upon review, he seems like a solid selection. Round 6, Pick 189: Kamrin Moore, CB, Boston College Another player I didn’t know much about, whose projection seems to be as a nickel or dime back, adding more depth to a cornerback unit that has some uncertainty after Marshon Lattimore, Ken Crawley, and Patrick Robinson. Moore should also be a special teams player right away. Round 6, Pick 201: Boston Scott, RB, Louisiana Tech Scott is a smaller, quicker running back whose physical profile and speed immediately invites comparisons to Darren Sproles. It’s not clear where he’ll start out right away, as Alvin Kamara seems to be firmly entrenched as the satellite back the Saints are looking for, but I imagine he’ll both be a special teams contributor and work his way into the passing game; the Saints have so frequently used three running backs in the past that I’m sure there will be a role for him– and I have confidence in Scott given the Saints’ success at finding diamonds in the rough at running back in the Sean Payton era. Round 7, Pick 245: Will Clapp, C, LSU The Saints will need to find a center once Max Unger starts to hit his decline, and if Clapp’s injuries are a thing of the past, he can potentially develop into that long-term replacement. Even if that upside is down the road and not to be reached, Clapp still has potential to be a guy who can back up multiple positions on the offensive line and perhaps even fill in as a starter for a couple of years while the Saints look for a better long-term option. (Think of Brian de la Puente.) Next time: I don’t know, honestly, with May being a slow month for football news, but we may begin to take some looks at various positional units on the team and training camp battles, or we may take reader requests and questions.

Barefoot, Pregnant, and In Her Office

One thing is for certain: you can’t say the Good Ol’ Boys club in the Louisiana Legislature doesn’t have balls. On the same day Tom Schedler resigned as Secretary of State, resulting from a lawsuit filed claiming years of sexual harassment, the leader of the House GOP Caucus argued for passage of a law to punish the state’s female Health Secretary for – in effect – not being at lawmakers’ beck and call. And less than 24 hours later, a state senator argued that women should not have the right to make decisions regarding their own bodies. Tom Schedler’s resignation came Tuesday, following several months of calls for him to step down. In February, long-time employee Dawn Ross sued the state and Schedler personally for harassment. Schedler publicly denied the accusation, calling it “a consensual sexual relationship”, while Ross has insisted his advances were always unwelcome. The governor and other politicians called for his resignation, but it wasn’t until the Advocate published copies of emails and messages acquired through a public records request that both of Louisiana’s Republican U.S. Senators, Kennedy and Cassidy, also issued statements saying Schedler should resign. Tuesday afternoon, while the Capitol was still buzzing about the Secretary of State’s exit, Rep. Lance Harris (R-Alexandria) brought his HB 849 to the House floor for a vote. It would prohibit state department heads from engaging in any paid outside activities, while requiring them to work a minimum of 40 hours per week. The bill did not apply to statewide elected officials who head state departments, however – only to those appointed as agency heads. One of the last bills to be filed for this session, the measure would have imposed a $5000 dollar-per-day fine on any department chief that violated that law. Though the House GOP caucus chair would smirk when asked, it was generally understood to be taking aim at Dr. Rebeka Gee, head of the state Health Department. Living and frequently working in New Orleans – where more than half of her department’s employees are stationed – Gee also spends a half day or so every other month practicing medicine at University Hospital in New Orleans, keeping her skills and licensing active. Her overall busy schedule kept her from appearing every time the Appropriations committee discussed her department’s budget, prompting complaints by Republican committee members, who suggested publicly that she was not doing her job by not showing up every time they thought she should. Harris serves on that committee. “I think the taxpayers expect these folks running these large departments to devote 100% of their effort to running that department,” Harris told the full House. “They make a huge salary to run an agency, overseeing billions of taxpayer dollars.” Rep. Chad Brown (D-Plaquemine) asked, “Why does this bill only address appointed department heads? Statewide elected officials are also part of the executive branch, and are department heads. Why aren’t they included?” “Because I didn’t include them,” Harris answered. “The Attorney General heads the Department of Justice. He has multiple agencies under him, with multi-million dollar budgets,” Brown remarked. “Why are we not demanding the same accountability for him?” “Because we can demand accountability as voters, and we can vote them out of office,” Harris replied. “Help me to understand the difference between political appointees and others, since all of them are paid by tax dollars,” Rep. Denise Marcelle (D-Baton Rouge) said. “Which departments does your bill include?” “Let me look that up, Harris said, and gestured for House staff members to bring him the list. “And while we’re waiting, tell me: Do you think Dr. Gee is doing a good job?” Marcelle pointedly asked. “Uhhh, well…uhhh…I don’t know what her performance benchmarks are,” Harris prevaricated. “Okay, what if I offered an amendment to include all department heads in your bill?” Marcelle asked. “I don’t want that included,” Harris said, sounding rather petulant. Rep. Dustin Miller (D-Opelousas) wanted to know about another department head. “When DOTD Secretary Dr. Shawn Wilson is in north Louisiana, or in Washington, D.C., how do we know when – or even that – he is working?” “We have to trust an executive on his level to be doing his job,” Harris replied. “What about trust when it comes to Dr. Gee, then?” Miller aked. Harris chuckled awkwardly, then said, ”Some think this is targeting her. We just want to make sure that every appointed department head, overseeing these huge budgets, is doing their job.” “Virtually everything in this bill is already in law, but it’s clear this is an attack on Dr. Gee,” said Rep. Sam Jones (D-Franklin), as he urged a no vote on the bill. “She is a doctor, a wife, a mother, and she has overseen the most successful Medicaid expansion in the country. But Dr. Gee is a woman, and there’s something in this bill that smacks of misogyny. Yet I don’t know if there’s a guy in here – to borrow a locker room phrase – that could carry her jock strap.” Rep. Nancy Landry (R-Lafayette), clearly irritated, made a motion to call the question. But the motion failed. Rep. Rob Shadoin (R-Ruston) then offered an amendment. “Members of the People’s House, this debate got me thinking: why should we limit this to appointed department heads? We have 21 state departments. All of them should be included.” That amendment was adopted, and then Harris closed on the bill. “This is a good government bill,” he insisted. People expect those running our multi-million, multi-billion dollar departments to work full time at that job.” On a vote of 45-40, the bill failed to pass. Harris did put it on the list for reconsideration, so if he can twist enough arms on a day when the full complement of House members (105) is in attendance, it could be voted on again. (For the past couple of weeks, there have daily been between ten and twenty-five absences of House members from floor sessions.) Wednesday morning, the House Criminal Justice Committee took up SB 181, a 15-week ban on all abortions, proposed by Sen. John Milkovich (D-Shreveport). “I want to outlaw all abortions,” Milkovich told the committee. “But until then, this will save the lives of hundreds of babies that are now being killed in the abortion mills of Louisiana.” “What about saving the life of the mother?” Rep. Denise Marcelle asked. “This bill does not recognize any exceptions after 15 weeks,” Milkovich replied. “When a doctor has to choose between saving the baby or the mother, are you saying we should save the baby and let the mother die?” she asked. “Basically,” Milkovich answered. “You know the abortion industry has injected this argument into this whole debate, and the reality is, we don’t know if something like that would happen. We don’t know that the mother would die. We do know that abortion kills babies, however.” Ben Clapper with Louisiana Right to Life tried to soften the harsh absolutism of Milkovich’s statement, by saying, “Current law says in case of a medical emergency that clearly means the death or risk of death of the woman, the physician can act – but must make an effort to save the life of the baby.” Clapper was not referring to current law, however. He was speaking of Louisiana’s “trigger” law, passed in 2006 in case the U.S. Supreme Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade. It prohibits all abortions, except to save the mother’s life. That “prospective” law also establishes criminal penalties for anyone who performs or aids an abortion – 10 years at hard labor and a $100,000 fine. Also testifying for the bill was the operator of a crisis pregnancy center. These facilities provide the state-required pre-abortion ultrasounds – for a fee – and under the guise of “pregnancy counseling”, staffers bombard clients with guilt-inducing rhetoric. Wayne Gravois, medical director of the Pregnancy Problem Center in Baton Rouge, gave committee members a sample of what they tell women during those ultrasounds. “Look, it’s a baby, fully-formed. It yawns, it smiles, it grimaces, it moves away from the ultrasound probe,” he said. “The baby feels – no question. What’s the right thing to do?” There was testimony in opposition, as well. Ellie Schilling, the attorney who has been fighting Louisiana’s ever more restrictive abortion laws in court, reminded the panel that every ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a pre-viability prohibition against abortion is unconstitutional, and that 15 weeks is well below the earliest chance of survival outside the womb. Alana Carstens, a third-year medical student, told the committee a fetus cannot feel pain before about 24 weeks gestation. “The cortex isn’t developed until then,” she said. “Fifteen weeks it too early to diagnose fetal abnormalities, which aren’t seen on ultrasounds before the 18th week. This bill would force medical providers to withhold vital care until the woman’s life IS threatened.” Amy Irvin with the New Orleans Abortion Fund agreed, saying, “This bill is especially cruel, as it withholds vital healthcare for women after the 15th week of pregnancy. It ignores federal law, while stripping women of their rights to bodily autonomy. Whether you like it or not, women are citizens, and they have rights, but still you continue to relentlessly shame them and judge them through laws like this one, putting political ideology over sensible public health policies. Louisiana deserves better from you lawmakers. And remember – women vote.” Rep. Barbara Carpenter (D-Baton Rouge) had a blunt question for Sen. Milkovich: “Do you believe that women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies?” “The answer is no,” Milkovich said, “Not when it comes to babies. ‘Thou shalt not kill’.” “People take a position on what they believe in, and you obviously believe in this, Sen. Milkovich,” remarked Rep. Royce Duplessis (D-New Orleans). “Yet I can’t help observing that everybody who spoke in favor of this bill was a man. And everyone who spoke against it was a woman. Those who are advocating for this bill will never have to suffer its effects, for they can never be pregnant.” Yet on a committee vote of 9-8, the bill was sent to the full House – where, as we know, ‘boys will be boys” – especially the good ol’ boys. What Sam Jones said.

Pretending to Be Poor? Go to Jail

Attorney General Jeff Landry may not have put in a personal appearance in the Senate Finance Committee Monday, but his fingerprints were all over a plan to lock up more of the state’s impoverished citizens. “This bill creates the crime of government benefits fraud, making it a crime to provide false information in order to receive government benefits,” Rep. Sherman Mack (R-Albany) said, as he introduced HB 88. “Tell me where we’re going with this,” Sen. Wesley Bishop (D-New Orleans) asked Mack. “Whether it’s the intention or not, this will have a disproportionate effect on the elderly, poor, and disabled folks.” “This is the Attorney General’s bill. It is targeted to those who do not qualify for the benefits, and who intentionally put things on the application they knew to be false, in order to receive the benefits,” Mack responded. “The purpose is to prosecute people. We are currently prohibited from doing straight up recipient fraud,” explained Ellison Travis, an attorney with the AG’s Medicaid Fraud Unit. “It’s targeted at people who are pretending to be poor.” “Why would somebody pretend to be poor?” Bishop asked, clearly appalled by the assertion. “In order to obtain the benefits,” Travis replied, matter-of-factly. “We get tips. People call in and say because of their relationship with someone, they know their income, and they know they’re on Medicaid.” “So you get an anonymous call, saying that so-and-so is trying to defraud the government. And based on that tip, you want to bring criminal charges against an already economically-disadvantaged individual?” Bishop asked. “How do they come up with enough money to ward off the government?” “I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that those are the people being targeted,” Travis insisted. “This is targeting people who do have money – more money than would make them eligible for Medicaid. It’s not the poor people.” Bishop then turned back to Mack, asking, “Were any of these concerns expressed to you prior to filing the bill?” “None of them were expressed to me before filing the bill, and to be honest, none were expressed to me either on the House floor or in my committee,” said Mack, who chairs the House Criminal Justice Committee. And again he reiterated, “It is the Attorney General’s bill.” “In the seven years that you have served on the House Criminal justice Committee, has the Attorney General ever brought you a bill to take the same action against corporations, as opposed to individuals?” Bishop asked. “He has not,” Mack admitted. “How many people do you anticipate prosecuting next year, based on your knowledge right now?” Senate Finance chairman Eric LaFleur asked. “As it is right now, we are prohibited from doing this,” Travis stated. “Our Medicaid Fraud Unit cannot accept these cases, because our federal grant prohibits us from investigating straight-up recipient fraud. We can only investigate recipient fraud when they are colluding with a provider.” That’s not just a part of the grant that funds the AG’s Medicaid fraud unit: it’s basic federal law, which states: “The investigation and prosecution of cases of suspected recipient fraud not involving suspected conspiracy with a provider is prohibited.” And just as the Bayou Brief’s Lamar White has previously reported, the Attorney General’s office is not reluctant to play fast and loose with grant requirements. Despite being prohibited from going after recipients for fraud– something Jeff Landry has described as “being handcuffed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services” — the Attorney General has been running ads online and on radio, urging people to report Medicaid recipient fraud. Presumably, they are being paid for out of his Medicaid Fraud Unit’s budget, which is funded by the federal grant that specifically prohibits such activity. Still, Sen. LaFleur was somewhat taken aback by the testimony from the AG’s office. “You don’t go after this kind of fraud?” LaFleur asked. “Current law requires us to refer cases like this to the local district attorney,”Travis explained. “He can prosecute the individuals for theft. But when someone applies for Medicaid, they get put into one of the managed care organizations, and the state is paying basically about $4800 per year for their healthcare coverage. They’re not getting cash. They’re not getting money. And unless they access more services, it may be difficult to convince a judge that that individual has taken something of value, and that it amounts to theft. “Still, they have this coverage. It’s there, but they may never use it. The application, however, is fraudulent, and this would allow us to prosecute,” Travis insisted. “I’m concerned that this is a very broad-based bill that captures everybody that commits fraud. It is not income-based, or solely Medicaid,” LaFleur said. “The last paragraph of the bill says ‘any record, voucher, payment, money or thing of value, good, service, right or privilege provided or administered by a state government entity’. That’s a very wide net to cast.” Sen. Greg Tarver (D-Shreveport) had concerns, as well. “Are you planning on putting grandma in prison?” he asked. “You know, somebody 80 years old, the total amount is $600 in fraud? Won’t it cost more to prosecute than what they owe? And is it realistic to send them to prison for five years?” “We’re not just talking about getting money back,” Travis replied. “We’re talking about deterrence. The cost of prosecuting doesn’t outweigh the benefit of deterring this type of behavior.” “I agree that we don’t want to lock Grandma up,” said Sen. Sharon Hewitt (R-Slidell), “but we need more tools in the toolbox to get a handle on Medicaid, especially with our budget issues.” Ultimately, the committee voted to return the bill to “the stack”, where they have placed all other bills carrying fiscal notes that indicate increased costs to the state. It isn’t dead. In fact, it could come back up for a vote as soon as next week.

Louisiana Politics Imitates Looney Toons

Lately, it appears that state politics is a live-action version of the old Warner Brothers cartoons we watched on Saturday morning. For example, the Wile E. Coyotes of House GOP leadership keep luring the state’s citizen Road Runners ever closer to the edge of the fiscal cliff. And the recent revelation of texts of the actual communications Secretary of State Tom Schedler sent to his executive secretary, who is now suing him for sexual harassment, make him look a lot like Pepe’ Le Pew. It could be funny – if it wasn’t real life. Early Thursday morning, a full cast of cartoon characters showed up for the State Bond Commission meeting. It all began when U.S. Senator and former Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy – in the role of Spike the Bulldog – got his knickers in a knot over Citigroup and Bank of America announcing new policies for their business clients who deal in guns. “Our friends at Citigroup and Bank of America apparently aren’t busy enough with their banking business; they have decided that they are going to set policy for the second amendment,” Kennedy said during a congressional hearing on April 13. And for the next ten days it was all he talked about on Twitter. Current state Treasurer John Schroder – playing Chester the Terrier – paid attention, of course. After all, he has made it clear that, “Anything you say, Spike, ‘cuz you and me is pals. Spike is my hero.” He then summoned the Bond Commission and representatives of the two banking institutions to a 7:30 a.m. meeting. “I want to discuss the corporate firearms policy recently adopted by Citigroup and Bank of America. It looks like these 2 companies have decided to quit doing business with people who don’t comply with what Citigroug and B of A think the laws on selling and owning firearms should be,” Schroder announced. “ I’ve been troubled to read and see the policies, and I asked the Attorney General last week and the two banks to be here today so we can have an open discussion on this issue.” Ron Davis with Bank of America apologized for his CEO’s inavailability on such short notice, and said he would refer any questions to the bank’s public policy group in Dallas. Michael Hole, with Citigroup, was more expansive, reading a statement on the policy enacted by his employer. “On March 22, Citigroup announced a new policy for our retail customers who retail firearms. One, they must perform background checks. Two, they don’t sell to anyone under 21. And three, they don’t sell bumpstocks or high-capacity magazines. If Citigroup’s clients don’t choose to comply, we will work with them to transition their business to another financial institution,” Hole explained. “We respect individual second amendment rights. This policy applies standards for our interactions with business clients of our firm.” Then Yosemite Sam, a.k.a. Rep. Blake Miguez (who originally ran for the legislature on his “fame” from having appeared as a competitor on the History Channel program “Top Shot”), unholstered his verbal guns. “Will you answer questions?” Miguez asked, and then immediately started firing. “When did you decide to get into policy-making business instead of the banking business? Are you aware Louisiana passed a constitutional amendment in 2012, requiring strict scrutiny of any attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights? Your policies restrict 18 to 20 year-olds from buying guns, but you support sending these young people to war, and then say they can’t come home and defend their families?” “We appreciate your concerns…” Hole began, but Miguez wasn’t finished. “I am very concerned, because your policies infringe on the rights of the citizens of Louisiana and their families, and their right to the 2nd Amendment. How much money did you guys take in the bailout of 2008? It was billions! All of it tax dollars, including tax dollars paid by the citizens of Louisiana. For all our generosity to you, why do you look down on the citizens of this state? Why insult them by infringing on their 2nd amendment rights? “A national article I read said you are transitioning away from gun-related businesses,” Miguez continued. “I just think we should repay the courtesy and start transitioning business away from Citibank and B of A, because if you can’t do business with the law-abiding citizens in the state of Louisiana, why should the state of Louisiana do business with you?” Enter Elmer Fudd. “It’s offensive to me that Bank of America and Citigroup think they can engage in public policy decisions. Is it American to just decide arbitrarily who we sell guns to and who we don’t? Why isn’t this ‘fassism’ at its best?” Attorney General Jeff Landry began his screed (and we presume he meant “fascism”).“’Fassism’ is when you take the industries of a country and you turn it into oppressive policies, and that’s what this is! Who made Bank of America and Citigroup the social police? “Do y’all do any business with automobile dealerships? With any pharmaceutical manufacturers?” Landry continued on his rant. ”Opioids are killing 60-thousand people a year! Automobiles kill 37-thousand! You sell a car to anybody – you don’t have to be 18. And yet cars kill three times as many people as guns!“ (Wait a minute. Isn’t the mantra “guns don’t kill people”?) Foghorn Leghorn put in a cameo then, as portrayed by Senate President John Alario. “Will it be our policy when we get a letter from a congressman to hold special meetings like this? I’m concerned, with all the things we’ve got going on during the session,” Alario inquired. “It’s a different thing if a contract with them is on the agenda. But if every time a congressman sends us a letter, we gotta have a meeting. I get a little concerned about scheduling my time.” “Senator Alario, just for the record, you know, when Senator Kennedy sent that letter to me, my first question was to the Attorney General – hey, are we violating Louisiana law?” Schroder responded. “That’s what I want to know. The Senator brought it up and I thought it was my duty to look into it.” “Now, we do have a contract coming up in June, and I have a resolution,’ the Treasurer continued. “I asked my executive counsel, in conjunction with the Attorney General, to draft this resolution, as I am troubled by the policies of these big banks.” As members each perused a copy of the resolution, Senate Finance Committee chairman Eric LaFleur attempted (as Bugs Bunny often does) to bring some logic to bear on the discussion. “I know we all have personal opinions on the second amendment, but this language about ‘discriminating against citizens based on their lawful exercise of their constitutional rights’? You’re going to capture all kinds of things in that net, I would think,” LaFleur observed. “If a company is exercising their first amendment right, as protected by the U.S. Supreme Court, how to you balance – how do you reconcile – those two?” “The companies are private parties who have taken private party action, but government does not have to condone that,” the Treasurer’s executive counsel, Thomas Enright, replied. “This would simply put a question in the solicitation, and they can answer it, ‘No, we do not discriminate against the citizens of the state of Louisiana,’ and that would satisfy the question.” Alario chimed in again, “It says ‘otherwise unlawfully discriminate.’ Does that mean they’ll have to evaluate for race, religion, and sex discrimination, as well?” The undercurrent to LaFleur’s and Alario’s comments was, of course, the Attorney General’s battle with Governor John Bel Edwards over the governor’s executive order prohibiting discrimination by any company seeking a state contract. Landry took the governor to court over it all, asking repeatedly to be declared the supreme legal authority of the sate. That didn’t happen, but the state Supreme Court decided last month not to grant a hearing on the dispute over Edwards’ executive order, prohibiting discrimination based on “gender identity’. Sadly, Landry didn’t see the inherent hypocrisy in protecting rights for some, and not for others, as he started tazzing over reluctance to move forward with the resolution. “First of all, let me say it’s amazing we’re having this conversation in this state. I didn’t know our 2nd amendment rights are up for sale, or there’s a price on them!” Landry harangued commission members. “This is a very simple question: do we as the state of Louisiana want to do business if these companies are discriminating against our citizens? All we’re saying is if you want to engage in this particular policy, we as a state don’t want to do business with you! “I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and if Citigroup and ‘BO-FA’ want the business that bad, tell them to change their policy!” Landry wound up. (And yes, he did pronounce “B of A”, as Bank of America is familiarly called, as “Bo-Fa”.) “I agree with the AG’s statement,” Miguez said, approvingly. “I think we need to take a stand today to say that we support the 2nd amendment. At the appropriate time I’d like to move forward with the resolution. I think the citizens back home expect us to support their rights.” Senator Jay Luneau objected, saying, “My concern is that we’re inviting litigation which would use up very scarce resources and put us in a position where these projects get delayed. I suggest we deal with this later.” “I move that we move forward with this resolution,” Landry insisted. “I would like to make a substitute motion, to amend this resolution,” said the governor’s executive counsel, Matthew Block. “I was wondering when you were going to say something,” Schroder said, snidely. “We’re discussing a very important issue, not just relating to the 2nd amendment, but to the fiscal policy of this state,” Block explained. “This has language, frankly, that is open to wide variation of interpretation. This has not been thought through as to how this is handled mechanically, and I suggest we remove parts of this resolution.” You know that cartoon scene where everybody gets in a squiggled tangle? Yep, that’s what happened next, over – of all things – the next procedural step. “We have a motion and a second,” Schroder, the Bond Commission chairman said. “Take a roll call vote on it…as is.” “No, we have to vote on the substitute first,” LaFleur said. “Normally, parliamentary issues are decided by the senior legal representative on the commission, which would be the Attorney General,” Enright refereed. “We vote on this motion. If it fails, we can take up yours after,” Landry told Block. “Mr. Chairman,” Alario said directly to Schroder, “it has been customary that when you have an original motion, there is opportunity to offer a substitute. That is what it says in Robert’s Rules of Order. I know the AG is new to this commission — I believe this is the first meeting he has attended, but you know, Mr. Chairman, the first amendment is very important, too.” “The motion was made. A second was made. We vote on that,“ Landry contended. “Afterwise, if then he wants to offer a motion to substitute that, he can — after that.” “Mr. Attorney General, you can’t rewrite parliamentary procedure!” Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne said, with annoyance. “When somebody makes a substitute motion, you vote on the substitute motion first. Then, if it fails, you vote on the main motion. I mean, this is Parliamentary Procedure 101 – legislative procedure 101. If there’s a substitute motion on the floor, you vote on it first.” “You can do it like I said, under Robert’s Rules of Order, and that how we’re going to do this,” the AG insisted. “That sounds more like Landry’s Rules of Order,” Alario commented, not quite under his breath. At this point, Schroder has found himself in a real dilemma. Does he conduct the meeting according to proper procedure, or does he allow Landry’s ideological farce – which Schroder has aided and abetted up till now – play out according to the AG’s self-serving and erroneous version of the rules? Schroder leans back in his chair, takes a deep breath, and then beckons his counsel forward, with a single finger. “I’m going to take a second, because I know how I’ve done this for ten years in the legislature,” Schroder says to those assembled. “And I want some clarification.” While he conferred with his lawyer, there was more than a little snickering behind hands in the audience, while Landry’s face flushed a deep pink. “Okay, we have a lot of customs in this building, and I wanted to make sure I was accurate in…um…” Schroder said, clearly discomfited by the glare he was getting from Landry. Looking down, instead of at the panel, he continued, “So we had a motion, and a substitute motion. Would you clarify that substitute, Mr. Block?” The governor’s counsel suggested they remove the part of the resolution prohibiting companies with these policies from consideration, and simply turn it into an inquiry about such policies, to be included as a factor in the overall evaluation of bond bids. “I want to object to that,” Landry said. “That just clouds the issue. We can make our statement today.” A roll call vote was taken, with House members on the Bond Commission (all Republicans) aligning with the AG and the Treasurer. Senate members, the representatives of other statewide elected officials, as well as members of the administration voted for removing the prohibition, so the substitute motion carried the day. When all was said and done, Gov. John Bel Edwards issued a statement:“The State Bond Commission meeting was an ugly display of political posturing that could have jeopardized a massive infrastructure plan for the state of Louisiana.” We doubt we’ll be hearing Porky Pig’s immortal words — “That’s all, folks!” — anytime soon.

Unmasking the Motives

It’s a frequent occurrence during legislative sessions – lawmakers and others offering opinions and testimony about bills try to “thread the needle” by couching their objections in terms that mask the real reasons for their opposition. Sometimes it works. Other times it results in big reveals of those ulterior motives. Wednesday, in the House Criminal Justice Committee, the results were not one, but two spectacular unmaskings. When Senator J.P. Morrell (D-New Orleans) brought his anti-bestiality bill (SB 236) up on the Senate floor, he tweeted about the floor notes sent out by the Louisiana Family Forum, urging a “no” vote on the legislation. Although ten senators complied with that Christian-advocacy group’s request, the bill retained sufficient support (25 yea votes) to head over to the House. It came up in the lower chamber’s Criminal Justice committee Wednesday. And LFF’s executive director Gene Mills spoke against it. “We are compelled to caution and committed to defending our faith,” Mills began. “We oppose striking Louisiana’s bestiality clause from its place in the current statute, where it has been state law for generations. We oppose changing the crimes against nature law because we need to preserve Louisiana’s current statute intact, which spells out community standards of morality.” Part of SB 236 strikes the language “or with an animal” from the state’s original “crimes against nature” statute, as part of setting up a new statute specific to bestiality. Rep. Valarie Hodges (R-Denham Springs) offered an amendment to keep the original law intact, saying she feared there might be “unintended consequences” resulting from the new law. “It says those convicted of bestiality are thereafter prohibited from contact with live or dead animals,” Hodges said, reading from the text of the bill. “But we have no vegan jails to house these offenders.” Morrell answered Hodges, even as he pointed out Mills’ ill-concealed motive for opposing the bill – fear that removing the animal language from the crimes against nature law is a prelude to repealing it in its entirety. Mills has previously been unequivocal in his condemnation of homosexuality. “Our current bestiality law is in an unconstitutional statute, literally tied to the sodomy law struck down by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas,” Morrell told the committee. “I am removing bestiality from the unconstitutional statute and giving it its own statute – much more expansive, much more detailed. Some individuals want dual bestiality laws on the books, but I will not agree to not delete the previous one. If we create a new armed robbery law, we don’t keep the old one on the books while we test drive it.” Hodges’ amendment failed, and the bill itself was reported favorably – without a single committee member objecting. Morrell’s SB 243, a proposed constitutional amendment to do away with non-unanimous jury verdicts in Louisiana, stripped away the masks (and hoods and sheets) that often obscure Louisiana’s profound institutionalized racism. “In our lifetime, we will never have as good an opportunity to repeal a 138-year-old law that dates back to Jim Crow days,” explained former Grant Parish district attorney Ed Tarpley. “This seeks to restore the full protection of trial by jury in Louisiana, something that was the law in this state from its founding in 1803 until 1880, when whites regained control of state government in the aftermath of the Civil War and Reconstruction.” Rep. Joe Marino (I-Gretna) added that Louisiana currently has a three-tiered jury system: “For less serious felonies, we require unanimous jury verdicts – six out of six. For capital punishment cases, we require unanimity from 12 of 12 jurors. But for cases in between — major felonies carrying penalties up to and including life in prison – not so much. We only require 10 of 12 to agree.” Rep. Ted James (D-Baton Rouge) made an early motion to report the bill favorably “at the appropriate time”. He was joined, somewhat surprisingly, by the committee chairman Sherman Mack (R-Albany) “You beat me to it,” Mack said. But there was opposition, as two district attorneys from western Louisiana came to the witness table to make their objections known. “You hear a lot about this being a vestige of slavery,” Calcasieu Parish DA John DeRosier said. “No doubt that is true, but it is what it is, and that was 138 years ago. We have had three constitutional conventions since then, one as recently as 1974, and they did not change this. They left it alone. The issue here is not about the way something started. Should we not have driven Volkswagens in the 60s, if we held to concept that they were ordered, designed and manufactured by Adolph Hitler? I don’t think so. “Whenever you get ready to vote on this, just remember – one person on a jury can mess up the whole process. That is a fact. That is reality.” DeRosier was followed by Don Burkett, who has served as the Sabine Parish DA since 1985. “I’m going to address the white elephant in the room, straight up,” Burkett said. “Up front, I’m not a racist: I have fought racism all my life. I may be the only person in this room that put a white man on death row for killing an African-American. I prosecute criminals. They come in all flavors. I’ve tried hundreds of cases and know how difficult it is to get unanimous verdicts. Please don’t confuse unanimity with ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.” Rep. Ted James was livid. “Mr. DeRosier, I am so utterly offended for you to start your comments and say ‘I know that this was rooted in slavery, but it is what it is’. I wish you would look at me while I’m speaking with you, because I think I deserve that kind of respect. You know, we take a lot in here, and a lot of things don’t offend me because I have tough skin. “But for you to admit that this started in slavery and say that ‘it is what it is’? I think you need to think about that, long and hard. You are elected to represent everybody, and I hope the people that elected you are listening because if they aren’t, I’m going to make sure that they know what you said today. I’m going to promise you that! I just cannot believe… “And you!“ James then turned to Burkett. “You want a trophy because you prosecuted one white man for killing a black? You know, that proved the point!” That sparked applause from some committee members and more than a few of the audience. “I want to know why the DA’s Association hasn’t taken an official position on this bill,” Rep Nick Muscarello (R-Hammond) then said. “Are you aware why they haven’t done so?” “Yes, sir,” Burkett replied. “We as an organization never take positions when we have one or two members, three of four that are opposed. When we don’t have 100%, we don’t take a position.” “So, the DA’s Association did not take a position because y’all couldn’t get a unanimous decision, is that what you’re saying?” Rep. Denise Marcelle (D-Baton Rouge) asked pointedly. She was rewarded by nearly unanimous laughter and applause, as well as the decidedly uncomfortable expressions on the very red faces of DeRosier and Burkett. Once the chuckles subsided, Rep. Royce Duplessis (D-New Orleans) commented, “This law obviously has a huge racial component. I’ve not heard there’s one good reason to keep it, other than that the purpose it serves is to make your job easier.” And after noting that there were 164 cards submitted in support of the bill, Chairman Mack called on Senator Morrell to close. “Under the current system, allowing 10-2 verdicts, I would argue that one sixth of a jury differing in opinion is the definition of ‘reasonable doubt’,” Morrell said. “You shouldn’t get to benefit from something that was born in racism — in hate – not when our country is founded on liberty, and unanimous juries are the protection of that liberty. We seldom have the chance to make history. I ask for your favorable report.” There was no objection, but there was applause.

Seven-Round New Orleans Saints Mock Draft

In two days, the draft will begin, and all the mystery and intrigue surrounding what teams might do will give way to the drama of what will actually happen. The Saints are in a spot where, as a team that was a serious contender last year and that doesn’t seem to have any pressing needs, might well just let wait and take whoever grades as the top player regardless of position. On the other hand, the team still has a few identified need areas, and while it’s not worth reaching for a prospect at any of them, I still suspect they’ll try to add some talent at those positions during the draft. Some transactional updates first: The Saints signed Brandon Coleman from his restricted free agent tender to a one-year, $1 million deal. In addition, the team declined to match Willie Snead’s two-year offer sheet from Baltimore; Snead is now a Raven. It looks like the receivers on roster next year will be Michael Thomas, Ted Ginn, Cameron Meredith, Brandon Coleman, Tommylee Lewis, and Austin Carr. This, of course, doesn’t mean the Saints won’t draft a receiver, but it looks like most of the team’s roles there are fairly set, barring an injury or something like Meredith being unable to return to form. Recent reports also indicate that Meredith is recovering well and may be healthy enough to get some practice reps in at the June minicamp, a positive sign for his ability to contribute in 2018 fully. Now, with two days until the draft, let’s take a look at one possible draft scenario. Here’s your seven-round mock draft, with a few alternate possibilities at each selection. ROUND 1, PICK 27 Josh Sweat, EDGE, Florida State In a press conference Tuesday, Sean Payton identified three remaining areas of need: Tight end, sixth offensive lineman, and “pressure player,” a reference to needing more pass rush– but not specific as to whether he wanted an exterior or interior pass rusher. Given the flexibility of someone like Sheldon Rankins, who lined up at end at times in 2017, and the potential breakout seasons for players like David Onyemata and Trey Hendrickson, I don’t think it matters specifically where he gets that additional help, as long as the team gets players who get after the quarterback. Sweat is not a name I’ve heard linked here, but I like his athleticism, ability to turn the corner, and variety of moves, even though he wasn’t always asked to rush the passer at Florida State. He could be a more effective rusher in the NFL than he was in college, if he lands on a team willing to turn him loose. This might even be a high projection for him, based on what I’m seeing else where. I’d say someone like UTSA’s Marcus Davenport is more likely, but there’s a solid chance he’s gone before the Saints’ selection. Alternate Possibilities:  DL Maurice Hurst, Michigan, or Taven Bryan, Florida— As mentioned, Payton is interested in pass-rushing pressure and less concerned at what position on the defensive line it comes from. Hurst was considered the top interior penetrator, although rumors are that he’s slipping on team’s boards, as a heart condition (which eventually checked out) prevented him from most workouts. Bryan is a tremendous athlete with an outstanding first step but not much idea of what to do after that. Still, though, that raw disruption is a rare trait, and if it can be harnessed, the upside is an interior sack-master capable of making multiple Pro Bowls. (Stanford’s Harrison Phillips, perhaps the only player to get the best of guard Quenton Nelson, widely considered the best non-QB in the draft, is also a possibility along the defensive line.) C/G Frank Ragnow, Arkansas – As Ragnow’s athletic testing measured out as among the tops at his position, matching his tape, he started moving up on media boards, as teams began to make their interest known. Ragnow would be a great sixth offensive lineman for this year (the team does have Jermon Bushrod for that role this year, but at Bushrod’s age, it’s clear they need to take precautions and build for the future). Center is Ragnow’s natural position, but he should project to guard well. Max Unger is 32, and the team will need a long-term replacement for him by 2020 at the latest; he can also fill in at either guard position, and both Larry Warford and Andrus Peat missed time last year. (Peat also moved to left tackle at times when Terron Armstead was hurt, though it’s not clear if that arrangement will continue.) WHAT IF THE SAINTS TARGET A QUARTERBACK? Despite the rumors of certain players (particularly Lamar Jackson and Josh Rosen) sliding in the draft, it’s unlikely they’ll slide all the way to 27. It might take a big move to get a quarterback, so if they go this route, I’m predicting something like this… TRADE: New Orleans sends #27 and their 2019 1st-round pick to Green Bay for the #14 pick, and selects Lamar Jackson, QB, Louisville Given the costs of trading up for quarterbacks last year, this seems reasonable. (The Chiefs gave up their #27 pick, their 2018 first, and a third-round pick to move to #10 for Patrick Mahomes; the Texans gave up the #25 pick and their 2018 first to move up to #12 for Deshaun Watson.) Arizona picks at 15, and if there’s still a top-5 QB on the board, there’s a strong chance they take that player. Green Bay is supposedly most interested in one of the top three defensive backs– Minkah Fitzpatrick, Derwin James, or Denzel Ward– and likely would be willing to trade down if none were available, a strong possibility. This trade seems like it has a realistic chance of happening– unless the Patriots also have interest in Jackson; their ability to offer two first-round picks this year might mean they can outbid the Saints. Jackson and Rosen are currently projected as the two quarterbacks most likely to slide; both would do so for specious reasons and I think they’re the two best prospects in the draft, so it would make sense if they ended up on perennially strong, functional franchises. ROUND 3, PICK 91 DaeSean Hamilton, WR, Penn State While the addition of Cameron Meredith answers some questions on the receiver crew, Michael Thomas could still use a long-term running mate. Hamilton is a potentially underrated receiver in this class who shows a lot of high-end traits on film, though his college production didn’t live up to that potential. Alternate Possibilities: Martinas Rankin, OL, Mississippi State; Kemoko Turay, EDGE, Rutgers; Jaylen Samuels, TE/RB, North Carolina State; Genard Avery, LB, Memphis ROUND 4, PICK 127 Shaquem Griffin, LB, UCF – I’m skeptical he’ll last this long myself after his workouts showed many of the same traits on film, but Griffin, twin brother of Seattle cornerback Shaquill Griffin, was born with only one hand, and that alone might be enough to make teams wary of taking him. New Orleans is always looking to add athleticism to their linebacker crew, and Griffin would be a major boost there and another potential long-term starter. Alternate Possibilities: Marcell Frazier, EDGE, Missouri; Kameron Kelly, CB/S, San Diego State; Foley Fatukasi, DL, Connecticut ROUND 5, PICK 147 (from Miami for Stephone Anthony) Troy Fumagalli, TE, Wisconsin – Another identified need area addressed. Alternate Possibilities: Tegray Scales, LB, Indiana; Bradley Bozeman, C/G, Alabama; Mike White, QB, Western Kentucky ROUND 5, PICK 164 Riley Ferguson, QB, Memphis – A developmental player from a productive offense. Alternate Possibilities: Lowell Lotulelei, DL, Utah; Durham Smythe, TE, Notre Dame; Keke Coutee, WR, Texas Tech ROUND 6, PICK 189 (from Arizona for Adrian Peterson) Kevin Toliver, CB, LSU – These late picks will primarily be used for depth and special teams, assuming the team doesn’t trade them to move up elsewhere. Alternate Possibilities: Ade Aruna, EDGE, Tulane; Kurt Benkert, QB, Virginia; Alex Cappa, OL, Humboldt State ROUND 6, PICK 201 Jordan Wilkins, RB, Ole Miss Alternate Possibilities: Tyrone Crowder, G, Clemson; Byron Pringle, WR, Kansas State; Azeem Victor, LB, Washington ROUND 7, PICK 245 Siran Neal, S, Jacksonville State Alternate Possibilities: Coleman Shelton, C, Washington; Christian LaCouture, DL, LSU; Ja’Von Roiland-Jones, LB, Arkansas State

Halftime Report

We’re just past the halfway point of the regular session, with 43 of the 85 days complete. Only three of the nearly 1500 bills filed have made it to the governor’s desk. The partisan divides seem deeper than ever, and each chamber is complaining about the other’s work ethic. The Senate seems to be on track toward early adjournment, in accord with the governor’s wish for a swifter start for another special session, while the House is giving increasing indications that they’re not inclined to rush toward conclusion. The full Senate has managed to debate and vote on several House bills, but the full House isn’t scheduled to debate the first of Senate-originated measures until Thursday. Senate Finance chairman Eric LaFleur has indicated he’s inclined to run out the clock, by sitting on the House-passed budget bill to help force a do-over in a special session, although Republican members of his committee said Sunday that they fear that would leave the state budgetless, in the face of House intractability. Senate President John Alario continues to focus on clock-management, urging the upper chamber to keep up their pace in accord with the plan to end the regular session by mid-May. However, as reported by the Times Picayune’s (nola.com) Julia O’Donoghue, House Speaker Taylor Barras is now backing further away from the early adjournment plan, saying “he thought a special session probably would occur, but mostly because the governor wants to call one. But he didn’t think the Senate was necessarily moving fast enough to start that special session in the middle of May.” And for the past two days, the full House has halted their floor debates, adjourning right around 5 p.m. None of this should come as any surprise to Bayou Brief readers, since we predicted – even before the regular session started – that this was part of the House leadership’s playbook. Bills that rollback provisions of last year’s criminal justice reforms continue to advance, as lawmakers succumb to pressure from district attorneys and judges, who have had second thoughts about shortening probation and parole, even as deeper budget cuts tighten the fiscal noose on the Department of Corrections. Undoubtedly many of them also fear next year’s voters in state elections will look askance at the lightening of penalties for non-violent violations of “law and order”. Despite the steady drop in the oil and gas industry’s contributions to Louisiana’s revenue streams over the past several years, with the downturn in prices, drilling activity and fossil fuel-related jobs, industry desires continue to dominate lawmakers – especially when legislators can be drawn offside by bills baited with the boogeymen of “terrorists”. One such measure is HB 727, which would designate pipelines as “critical infrastructure”, and prohibit trespassing on pipeline routes, calling it “unauthorized entry” and making it a criminal offense. The official reason given is fear of “domestic terrorists”. “This was influenced by what happened at Standing Rock in North Dakota,” acknowledged the bill’s primary author, Rep. Major Thibaut (D-New Roads), effectively admitting the purpose is to quash protests over the Bayou Bridge pipeline, now under construction across 163 miles of south Louisiana. Thibaut was accompanied by the general counsel for the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association “I am one of the property owners forced to surrender right-of-way for this pipeline,” Pat Trahan of Lafayette Parish told a Senate committee Tuesday. “Not one of the vehicles currently working on the pipeline on my property has a Louisiana license plate. They start work before 7 a.m., and my neighbors call the police on us for the disturbance. Meanwhile, I allow protesters to come onto my property, and now – today, in fact – the pipeline people are trying to have the police arrest them, even though I have given them permission to be there.” Despite more than a dozen testifying in opposition to the bill – including the director of the Loyola Law Clinic, who called the bill “over broad” and cautioned it will produce “considerable exposure to the state through challenges to its constitutionality” – the committee advanced the House-approved measure to the full Senate. Flagging plays by raising questions of constitutionality continues to do little to dissuade Louisiana lawmakers from advancing bills – especially those that concern abortion – so, lawmakers have turned to the abortion restriction playbook in an effort to put some points on the scoreboard. SB 181, a ban on all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, was approved by the full Senate, 31-3 on Tuesday. There was a nod to the constitutionality question – or more precisely, to the cost of the inevitable court battles over the constitutionality question – in the form of an amendment added by Sen. Danny Martiny (R- Metairie). “This amendment says the 15-week ban will only go into effect after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rules on Mississippi’s 15-week ban,” Martiny explained. The bill’s author, Sen. John Milkovich (D-Shreveport) objected. “We need to put this into effect right now. It will save some babies!” insisted Milkovich, who has developed a reputation for petulance among his fellow senators. “And even if it saves only one baby from being killed by the brutal torture of abortion, the cost of going to court will be worth it!” The amendment was adopted, and the measure heads now to the House. No halftime report would be complete without looking at the star players, and thus far, the quarterback of querulousness has to be Rep. Tony Bacala (R-Prairieville). The retired sheriff’s deputy is certainly confident at calling out the play numbers, even when those numbers don’t add up to scoring as he’d expected. “It’s simple math,” Bacala said Tuesday in House Appropriations, as he tried to argue that his team’s budget scheme really didn’t mean a loss for healthcare, despite what the scoreboard said. “We budgeted $100-million for an LDH program last year, and they only spent $80-million. So when we budget $90-million for that this year, it’s not really a cut at all!” “Could you go over that again?” asked committee chairman Cameron Henry. “Look, LDH had a $13.6-billion budget last year, but the real number we need to look at is $13-billion. If we continue at the current rate we are today, appropriating $12-billion gives you 11 months of operating cash,” he said during the House Appropriations committee meeting Tuesday. “You can continue all services at their current levels for 11 months, so you don’t need to send out letters telling nursing home residents they have 90 days to find another place to live.” “That is not accurate,” Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne informed him. “It is not 11 months – it’s not enough to even get through six months, because you did not fund long-term care at all. And you did not fund the public-private hospital partners anywhere close to what is contractually required.” “I just think we have to decide if we’re for the public-private partner system or not,” Bacala said., going off on that tangent. “It’s not a matter of being ‘for’ or ‘against’. It’s the system we have,” Dardenne responded. “But if it’s the wrong thing, should we keep it?” Bacala asked. “We have to keep it,” Dardenne told him. “We cannot recreate the Charity Hospital system, nor can we do without public hospitals at all. “I just don’t like that we keep being told we can’t change it,” Bacala replied. That’s a fair summary at this point. They’re playing the game, but nobody likes it.

Chief Justice: A Scolding, And Food for Thought

It was a wonder any House members could take their seats Monday afternoon, following Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Bernette Johnson’s biennial address to the joint session of the Legislature. You see, she gave them an ass-chewing. Justice Johnson was civil in her tone and words, but there was no doubt the House had earned her disapproval, as she gave them a thorough scolding over their tight-fisted approach to budgeting in general– and the Judicial branch’s budget, in particular. “We are cognizant of today’s budgetary challenges and competing priorities. And let me stress to you that we do not deem ourselves immune from the financial difficulties facing our state. Our budget was not created in a vacuum or without regard for the needs of other government entities,” Justice Johnson said. “Under our tripartite constitutional system of government, you, the Legislature, are charged with funding all three co-equal branches. Adequate funding of the judicial branch of government is your legislative responsibility, and is critical to ensuring an independent Judiciary,” she continued. “It enables the state Judiciary to fulfill its constitutionally mandated duties to apply the laws you have written, and to ensure access to justice for all.” Last Thursday, the House failed to pass the judicial budget – HB 698. The lower chamber managed to advance the unwieldy and insufficient state (executive) budget – HB 1 – to the Senate. And House members passed the legislative budget, HB 751, by a vote of 89-11. Yet the judicial budget, originally requested for $180-million, had been cut by the House Appropriations Committee to $164-million — $7-million under the current year’s appropriation of $171-million. And last Thursday, that budget bill could not muster the 53 votes needed for passage,  so the Chief Justice let her displeasure be known. “We asked for $180-million. It reflects years of belt-tightening, delayed filling of personnel vacancies, renegotiated contracts with vendors, restricted use of outside consultants,” Justice Johnson told the legislature. “We have been good stewards of the public fisc, effectively and efficiently operating a co-equal branch of government.” House leadership did show they were not entirely tone-deaf to either the Chief Justice’s words or the fact that she had brought the entire complement of the state’s highest court with her. Following her address, they reconsidered the Judicial budget bill, and this time it passed, 84-1. However, no additional funding was added, leaving the state court system funded at $164-million next year. While the lecture on legislative obligations and the rapid response to remedy the reproach was eminently satisfying, it wasn’t the sole content of the Chief Justice’s address. Earlier in the day, House Appropriations had approved the bill calling for a limited Constitutional Convention in 2020. Chief Justice Johnson suggested they might consider revamping the organization of, and funding streams for, the entire Louisiana judiciary, as well. “Louisiana is among the minority of states in our nation with a non-unified court system. Rather than using state funds to fully fund our Judiciary, we push much of that obligation off onto local governmental entities. Those, in turn, pass much of that unfunded mandate onto civil litigants and criminal defendants in the form of court costs, fees, and fines. Funding a court system through the use of court costs paid by users of the justice systems presents many challenges that we as a state government need to confront,” Justice Johnson stated. She went on to explain that court costs are authorized in a piecemeal fashion, requiring legislation to change them, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. There’s no uniformity to the fees or costs, and not even a complete listing of what those fees and costs are – nor any way to centrally account for how and when they’re collected. Citing a number of federal lawsuits pending over the way the state funds its criminal justice system, Justice Johnson said, “I believe it is time for us in Louisiana to begin thinking about the toll that this type of funding mechanism takes on our justice system. Is it financially prudent and morally responsible to fund a co-equal branch of government on the backs of a few who are often the poorest and least fortunate members of our society? We simply cannot continue locking up indigents because they are too poor to pay fines for crimes often committed because of systemic poverty. Either we reform the system ourselves, or we risk having it reformed on the pain of a federal judgment or consent decree.” Johnson said she was not immune to the irony of asking for a change to court organization and funding at the same time deep budget cuts had become necessary. But by unifying the courts into a single system, it would enable development of a fixed and predictable annual budget for the judicial branch. It would also eliminate the perceived injustice of having a “user-pay system.” “Some of you may think it is fair and reasonable to ask those who use our justice system to pay their share. But let us be candid: innocence, though presumed by our system, is currently bad for our bottom line,” Justice Johnson said. “Would you have faith in the system if you knew that every single actor in the criminal justice system – including the judge and your court-appointed lawyer – relied upon a steady stream of guilty pleas and verdicts to fund their offices? Would you doubt your ability to get justice?” Senate President John Alario, in thanking the Chief Justice for her remarks, said, “You have planted a seed. It’s going to take a lot of water – and a lot of fertilizer – to nurture it until it is ready for harvest. But I believe you have given us great food for thought.”