Only a month before Baton Rouge Police Officer Blane Salamoni, a white man, shot and killed Alton Sterling, Louisiana became the very first state in the country to enact a so-called Blue Lives Matter law, which treats crimes committed against police officers as “hate crimes.” There’s good reason people were critical of the law’s intention at the time (it made national headlines), and nearly two years after Sterling’s death, there’s good reason to believe a law treating police officers as if they are victims of the same type of institutional discrimination faced by racial and ethnic minorities only exacerbates distrust and empowers racist police officers to act with impunity.
Although the entire country had already seen and been shocked by a cell phone recording of the shooting, the newly-released footage left very little room for interpretation: Officer Salamoni, whose mother and father were both well-regarded career Baton Rouge police officers, arrived in a violent rage and almost immediately threatened to shoot Sterling (who appeared to be intoxicated, confused, but generally compliant). Salamoni dramatically escalated a situation that his partner, Officer Lake, seemed to essentially have under control. And then he shot Sterling, six times, dead.
If you haven’t already seen the footage from Salamoni’s body cam, you should, but please be cautioned, it is extremely disturbing:
Sterling was armed himself at the time, and for the past two years, that has been held up by some as the justification for Officer Salamoni’s actions. Salamoni subsequently told investigators he was fearful Sterling would use the weapon, which was concealed in his pocket and never brandished at all, against him and bystanders, but the body cam footage incontrovertibly proves that to be preposterous.
Salamoni, as others have pointed out, called Alton Sterling everything except for the n-word; his hatred was visceral.
“I’ll shoot you in your fucking head,” he shouted at Sterling, only seconds after arriving, and then, within a flash of an instant, he took the man’s life.
John Delgado, a lawyer who lobbies on behalf of the Baton Rouge Union of Police, which Salamoni’s father once led as the organization’s president, argued that the officer’s explicit and violent language was a common tactic and a part of standard police training. “I do not believe you will interview a single police officer who will tell you they weren’t trained to speak just like that,” Delgado told The Advocate.
It’s complete nonsense.
This wasn’t a justified killing by a law enforcement professional; it was a hate crime, caught on camera.
While it’s absolutely undeniable that law enforcement officers are too frequently targeted by people driven by a generalized antipathy toward police, usually motivated by a megalomaniacal quest for vigilante justice (later the same year, five police officers were killed in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge), the law has always allowed for prosecutors to seek enhanced sentences and penalties against those found guilty of a crime against the police.
The banner of Blue Lives Matter was, of course, a direct reaction to the growing Black Lives Matter movement, which was itself a reaction to the systemic failure of the justice system to prosecute and convict officers who unnecessarily and sometimes cavalierly killed African-Americans accused of petty, inconsequential crimes. Those who championed the law acted as if they were merely motivated by their respect for the law enforcement community, a respect shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans (and which made the bill nearly impossible for legislators to criticize without appearing as anti-police), but the truth is the law was a cynical political weapon proposed by a right-wing white conservative as a way of refuting the legitimacy of Black Lives Matter. It earned him national attention for at least one news cycle, so his mission was accomplished.
It’s critical to place Blue Lives Matter in the correct context and to understand the definition of what constitutes a hate crime, a category that, under the law, has never applied to people based on their chosen profession. Hate crime laws are supposed to punish people for targeting someone because of something they can’t change about themselves, like race or ethnicity; the entire body of law originates from the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Louisiana’s Blue Lives Matter has only been used once. After a drunk man was arrested for disturbing the peace at a Bourbon Street hotel in New Orleans, he cursed out responding officers, employing a string of sexist and racist slurs. And yet, even the Anti-Defamation League came to this man’s defense, arguing, among other things, that hate crime laws should only be used when they attach to an underlying crime. That is, if this man had assaulted an African-American officer while shouting racial epithets, that could constitute enhanced sentencing as a hate crime.
That night in July of 2016, as Sterling lay on the ground, dying, Officer Blane Salamoni kept calling him a “motherfucker” repeatedly.
On Friday, Salamoni finally lost his job, but because of a federal Justice Department led by a man who, years ago, was rejected for a federal judgeship because of his questionable history of racism and a Louisiana state Attorney General who didn’t really bother even pretending to conduct an investigation, Blane Salamoni is still a free man, free to continue his career in law enforcement with any agency in the country willing to hire him.
Last night, on the eve of Good Friday, former President Bill Clinton made an extended and unannounced visit to Alexandria, where he attended a performance of the Pentecostals of Alexandria’s (or, as it’s known in the community, the PoA) passion play “Above All.” His visit was completely unknown by the local media in Alexandria, who, as of the time of publication, have yet to report the story and were not present before or after yesterday’s event.
With the exception of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who lived in Alexandria for a few weeks during World War II while he oversaw the Louisiana Maneuvers exercises, no other American president has spent as much time in the city of approximately 49,000, and no president has visited Alexandria on more occasions than Clinton has.
This was at least Clinton’s sixth trip to Alexandria and at least the fourth time he has attended the PoA’s passion play, which, in an earlier iteration, was known as “Messiah.” (The national press often misreported that Clinton attended performances of Handel’s “Messiah;” the PoA’s version, however, was entirely their own creation).
It is not an ordinary church play. “Messiah” and now “Above All” feature a cast and crew of nearly 500 people; there are live animals, pyrotechnics, and elaborate sets. It’s an enormously expensive production, and tickets sell out faster than almost any other concert or play in the state. Between 15,000 to 20,000 attend the show each year.
Although former President Clinton counts several people in the Alexandria area as friends, most of whom have known him since he was governor of neighboring Arkansas, he continues to return to Central Louisiana because of his close relationship with Anthony and Mickey Mangun, the husband and wife duo who have presided over the Pentecostals of Alexandria for more than three decades.
President Clinton arrives with Rev. Anthony Mangun at the Pentecostals of Alexandria. March 29, 2018 (Source: Facebook)
Rev. Anthony Mangun is the church’s senior pastor, after taking over from his father G.A., who had turned a small church into one of the nation’s largest and who remained an active presence until his death in 2010. He first met Clinton in 1977 at a Christian camp meeting in Arkansas. Mangun’s wife Mickey sang at both of Clinton’s inaugurations and at the dedication of his library in Little Rock, and like her husband, her connection to the former president was also forged in the so-called Natural State. For many years, her father, Rev. James Lumpkin, was Arkansas’ most prominent Pentecostal leader.
As president, Clinton attended two performances of “Messiah,” in 1996, during a visit in which he officially handed over the former England Air Force Base to the newly-created and locally-controlled England Authority, and in 2000, where he surprised the traveling press pool by taking the church’s stage and confessing, for the very first time in public and in emotional, impromptu remarks, that he had feared he could have been removed from office during the Lewinsky scandal. During the scandal, Anthony Mangun was widely reported to have been one of the president’s closest “spiritual advisers” and to have visited the White House on at least one occasion to counsel Clinton.
(Clinton also attended a performance of “Messiah” during his final term as governor of Arkansas, along with his wife, Secretary Hillary Clinton, and their daughter Chelsea).
Yesterday, incidentally, was not the only time the media in Central Louisiana failed to report on a visit by Clinton. On a summer weekend during his second term, the president somehow managed to play an entire round of golf at the Alexandria Golf and Country Club without being noticed by the local press (if there was a traveling press pool with him, no one thought that particular round of golf merited national reporting). He was noticed by at least one person in town, my late father, who happened to be playing golf that same afternoon and who met the Commander-in-Chief at the turn.
Rev. Anthony Mangun and former President Bill Clinton in Alexandria, Louisiana. March 29, 2018. (Source: Facebook)
House committees were hopping Wednesday and Thursday, taking testimony on as many bills as possible before the three-day Easter weekend.
Several bills taken up Wednesday had compassionate results, in keeping with the spirit of the season.
HB 627 by Rep. Rodney Lyons (D-Harvey) would permit medical marijuana prescriptions for children suffering from autism-related seizures.
Head of the Louisiana chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. John Vanchierre, argued we don’t know if it’s safe.
“Allowing medical marijuana to be used, without FDA standards in place, is not appropriate,” Vanchierre said. “Some kids are more prone to seizures if they have medical marijuana.”
But Dr. James Smith, a Baton Rouge cardiologist, disagreed.
“Cannabis is a safe medicine,” he explained. “Last year, 900 people died from acetominophen (Tylenol). None have ever died from cannabis.”
The bill advanced to the full House, 9-4.
HB 284, by Rep. Pat Smith (D-Baton Rouge) would prohibit the practice of effectively shaming school children unable to pay for school lunches. Last year, Louisiana schools denied 439 meals.
The bill requires schools to serve the standard meal to children – rather than a simple cheese sandwich — even if their parents are in arrears on paying for those meals. It also bans the practice of excluding kids from school activities due to the unpaid bill. Collection efforts would be made administratively.
The House Education Committee voted 7-4 to advance the measure for a full House vote.
Schoolkids aren’t the only ones who will get to continue eating. HB 128 by Rep. Jay Morris (R-West Monroe) was aimed at SNAP (food stamp) recipients – though to be perfectly accurate, it was aimed more at restricting the power of the governor and his administration.
The bill would require the legislature to approve any waiver requested of federal work requirements for able-bodied adults who do not have dependents. These waivers have been requested – and granted – for years, providing food stamps for the long-term unemployed and those who are awaiting decisions on their disability claims. (They can’t work because they’re disabled, but have not yet been officially designated disabled.)
The bill further required the Department of Children and Family Services (which administers the federally funded SNAP program) to start assigning those individuals to work programs, which would cost that department an additional $5-million per year. Objections to this fiscal note, more than the mean-spiritedness behind the bill, ultimately persuaded the bill’s author to voluntarily withdraw it from further consideration.
In addition, House Insurance committee members advanced three bills brought by Rep. Julie Stokes (R-Kenner), to require medical insurers to cover the tests and procedures needed for the diagnosis of and recovery from breast cancer – as well as subsequent testing for recurrence.
Stokes was diagnosed last summer, and dropped out of the Treasurer’s race last fall because of it. She is cancer-free now, but it has been a grueling battle.
On Thursday, it was back to business, as usual. Equal pay opponents doubled-down on victim blaming when HB 251 – requiring those seeking state contracts to comply with the same law that covers state workers — came up in the House Labor committee Thursday.
Rene Amar with the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI) told the committee Louisiana’s worst-in-the-nation wage gap is primarily because women choose to work in jobs that pay less.
“The husband goes to work for the refineries, making $100,000 a year. The wife chooses to be a schoolteacher, making $45,000 a year,” Amar said. “It’s about the professions we choose.”
Additionally, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) state director Dawn Starns said the bill shouldn’t pass because, “Employers are here to create jobs. They don’t want to live in constant fear of being sued. And, as we all know, Louisiana is ranked #7 in the nation for being a ‘judicial hellhole’.”
That gave Rep. Blake Miguez (R- Erath) an opening to take the “blame-game” in another direction.
“You know, when I’m driving in my district, or over here to Baton Rouge, all I see are billboards for trial attorneys. They can afford to put up these billboards, but small businesses can’t even afford a receptionist! Trial attorneys are the problem!”
Despite the author’s (Rep. Joe Bouie, D-New Orleans) impassioned argument to “Let this bill be debated on the House floor, and represent the interests of our women constituents, not just the interests of the business community,” one of the two women on House Labor moved to kill the bill. Rep. Beryl Amedee (R-Houma), joined by Rep. Dodie Horton (R-Haughton) and the seven male Republicans on the committee prevailed over the four Democrats who wished to advance the bill.
Similarly, Rep. Bouie’s HB 192, to establish a state minimum wage of $15.00 per hour, was killed by the same committee, on a straight party-line vote.
A measure which had been deflecting a lot of social media attention from the bills addressing the more comprehensive problem of low pay in Louisiana fared quite differently in the House Agriculture Committee Thursday. HB 561, by Rep. Julie Emerson (R-Carencro) would do away with the licensing requirement for florists.
The law, established in 1950, was intended to provide a layer of protection from spreading insects and pests to Louisiana’s agricultural crops, according to state Ag Commissioner Mike Strain. The law currently requires applicants to pass a written exam, though until 2010, those seeking to arrange flowers also had to pass a 4-hour long practical exam, as well. Louisiana is the only state to mandate florists be licensed.
The crucial question was asked by Rep. Gene Reynolds (D-Minden): “Does arranging flowers pose any threat to public health or safety?”
Supported by LABI, Americans for Prosperity, and the Governor’s Office, the bill advanced to the full House on an 8-6 vote. There, it will join another Emerson measure, HCR 7, to regarding licensing for hair braiders.
When lawmakers return to work Monday, the full House will consider Rep. Nancy Landry’s (R-Lafayette) bill to increase the criminal penalties for hazing, as well as Rep. Pat Smith’s bill to assist in early childhood education for students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Then Tuesday, they’ll debate and vote on Rep. Sherman Mack’s (R-Albany) bill to roll back some of the probation provisions from 2016’s criminal justice reforms.
What were you wearing?
Shorts and a tank top. In my own home, on a Saturday night in late July. My husband was working late that night, doing inventory. Our three kids were already in bed, when there was a knock at the door. When I answered it, the man – reeking of alcohol – forced his way in and attacked. I said “No!” over and over, but I also remember thinking, “I can withstand anything, as long as he doesn’t get to the children.”
He was caught. We went to court, and he got three years, because they couldn’t prove “intent.” He claimed he was too intoxicated to remember the incident at all.
#MeToo
While the issue of equal pay isn’t traumatically or criminally comparable to rape or sexual assault, the issues of “intent” and the response of victim-blaming both came into play during the Senate floor debate on J.P. Morrell’s SB 117.
The bill would have required companies entering into contracts with the state to abide by Louisiana’s current “Equal Pay for Women Act,” enacted in 2013. It is limited to protecting women who work full time (40 hours per week) in the public sector, i.e., state and local governmental employees.
“This bill seeks to expand that requirement to contracts, since we have privatized so many public functions,” Sen. J.P. Morrell (D-New Orleans) explained. “Equal pay will follow the public dollars.”
Business and industry, of course, opposes it. Their narrative has been “It’s not needed because we already have federal and state wage discrimination laws.” But that 1997 Louisiana law has a large loophole in it – intent.
Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law prohibits employers with 20 or more employees from intentionally discriminating in the compensation of any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, pregnancy (including childbirth and related medical conditions), sickle- cell trait, or protected genetic information.
“The inclusion of the word ‘intentionally’ puts the burden on the employee to prove some nefarious purpose,” Morrell explained. “Say you inherit the company from your dad, and he always paid his female employees less. You continue the practice, but your employees have no way to redress the situation, because there’s no way to prove your ‘intent’.”
“What if we removed the word ‘intentional’ from that law?” asked Sen. Jack Donahue (R-Mandeville).
“That’d be great! You want to file that bill, Senator Donahue? I’ll support it!” Morrell replied with a big grin. “What we’re trying to do here, though, is just make sure that companies choosing to contract for taxpayer dollars pay their men and women employees fairly.”
And then, Sen. Sharon Hewitt got up, and spoke about what she had been wearing.
“It was my first job on a drilling rig. I was wearing my brand-new red coveralls, neatly pressed with a sharp crease down the leg; new boots, hard hat. We landed on the platform, and I went looking for the guy in charge. Of course, he was the biggest, baddest, burliest guy there – sleeves torn out of his grease-stained coverall. “I walked over, stuck out my hand, and said, ‘Hi, I’m Sharon, your new engineer’.
“He stuck his hands in his pockets and said, ‘There’s two problems in the oil business. The first is O-rings. The second is women’.”
But, Hewitt said, she couldn’t support this bill.
“We keep hearing women in Louisiana only make 66 cents on the dollar, compared to men. That’s not for the same job – that’s median pay. What we need to close the gender pay gap is more women in traditional male jobs, in STEM careers. We need them to get educated in science, technology, engineering and math.”
In other words, women aren’t trying hard enough for the better-paying jobs. Victim-blaming.
“I am embarrassed to be a citizen of Louisiana after hearing that,” Sen. Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) said. “Senator Hewitt, we do understand that this is a male-dominated world, but we five women in this body don’t have to argue every day to be paid the same $16,500 our 34 male colleagues receive for doing this job.
“Over 50-percent of this state’s population are women, and while 34 of us aren’t, we each promised to represent our constituents equally,” Peterson admonished. “Are the women of this state worth protecting? Are your wives, daughters, sisters, granddaughters worth protecting? Do you want them to hear – like Sharon did – the words of that man in the red jumpsuit? If you don’t use the power that we have with law to change policy, we won’t advance.
“Today is the day of reckoning. You’re with the women, or you’re not,” she concluded.
Morrell gave his closing argument for passage of the bill.
“There is a reason we don’t have Fortune 500 and tech companies here: it’s the perception that we are behind the times,” Morrell advised. “Other states have equal pay laws. They don’t have to piecemeal these protections.
“Public contracts are public dollars. Equal pay in Louisiana is something the vast majority of citizens believe is a ‘no-brainer’. I ask for favorable passage.”
The vote was 18 yeas, 20 nays, with Sen. Hewitt and Sen. Beth Mizell both voting against.
SB 149, which would prohibit employers from terminating employees just because they asked about or talked about their pay, failed 15-23.
SB 162, which would establish a state minimum wage of $8.00 per hour, beginning January 1, 2019, and increase that to $8.50 per hour, starting in 2020, likewise failed, 17-21.
Will the voters of Louisiana just “lie back and enjoy it”?
Attorney General Jeff Landry began his report on the Alton Sterling shooting by whining to the assembled reporters about the U.S. Department of Justice.
“Once the USDOJ took the lead role, we reached out to find out about our access to their investigation, and were told we would have no access until they were done,” Landry said. “They sidelined us.”
He had further complaints, noting that even after the U.S. Attorney unveiled his report on May 3, 2017, the AG’s office wasn’t given the materials from the investigation until June 1. And then he spent nearly a full minute of his press conference bleating about the time required for “inventorying, sorting, reviewing, and analyzing” what they received.
Landry then went into “play-by-play” mode, giving a detailed rundown of the events of July 5, 2016, beginning with the complaint call about a threats from a man selling CDs in front of the Triple S Store.
“At approximately 12:16 a.m., Alton Sterling is seen in front of the Triple S Store apparently selling bootlegged CDs,” Landry states.
Use of the term “bootlegged” is the first major indication where this report is going, and Landry doesn’t disappoint.
He tells the story with a clear affinity for the officers’ point of view, emphasizing “continuous resistance” from Sterling. He even states that Sterling, who was lying on the ground with Baton Rouge Police Officer Blane Salamoni astride him, was “resisting” by rolling onto his side after Salamoni fired three shots into his chest – which justified Salamoni firing three more shots into Sterling’s back, killing him.
“Officers Lake and Salamoni attempted a lawful arrest with probable cause. Alton Sterling resisted lawful commands. Their actions were reasonable and justifiable under Louisiana law,” Landry stated.
But he also clearly relished revealing results from Sterling’s autopsy report, which showed he had cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana in his system. And the AG’s report makes particular note of a police report on a similar incident with Sterling, from 2009, saying “this incident mirrors what occurred on July 5, 2016, in all but the outcome.”
But Landry himself mirrors the USDOJ decision in the case last year, stating, “The Louisiana Department of Justice cannot proceed with a prosecution of either officer, because the standard of proof for any criminal charge is ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’.”
Landry, however, did not take the case to a grand jury, which merely requires “probable cause.” Why not do that? Here’s what he said.
“Before a prosecutor can bring a case before a grand jury, he must determine whether he has sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, upon a fair and thorough review of the evidence and applicable law. Furthermore, pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct, I am required to refrain from prosecuting a charge that I know is not supported by probable cause. Therefore, the State cannot bring this matter before a Grand Jury to seek a Bill of Indictment, nor can it bring any other criminal charges by Bill of Information.”
In other words, Louisiana’s Attorney General has determined himself to be both judge and jury for this case.
Landry left the press conference without taking any questions.
State Rep. Denise Marcelle’s district includes the Triple S Store, where Sterling was killed, though she was denied admittance to the Attorney General’s office, where the press conference took place.
“Words can’t describe how disappointed I am in the Attorney General for not doing his job,” she stated. “I’m saddened for this family, but also for this community. I think this community deserves better.”
Fellow Baton Rouge delegation and Legislative Black Caucus members also weighed in on Landry’s decision.
“I’m disappointed,” said Rep. Ted James, who is also a defense lawyer. “It’s like the U.S. Attorney and Jeff Landry reviewed two totally different cases.”
“It’s basically what I expected he was going to say, though I’m extremely disappointed he waited all this time to say it,” remarked Rep. Pat Smith.
“You know, legislators wrote him a letter. He didn’t respond,” Marcelle commented further. “And now the question becomes, ‘Who is he accountable to?’”
He is accountable to the voters, which is exactly what Chris Stewart, attorney for the Sterling family, said.
“It takes courage to hold political office. It takes courage to be a prosecutor. It takes courage to fight for justice. And we didn’t see that in this situation. He’s not seeking justice because he didn’t even take it to a grand jury.
“This is a very biased report, with statements written in favor of the offending officers.
“The repercussions are not getting upset, not getting violent. This was a political decision. In order to respond, we will hold you politically accountable.
“The Attorney General said, ‘I don’t think we could have got a prosecution.’ But it’s not about winning a case. It’s about standing up for justice and taking action and dealing with the results. If you lose, you lose, but don’t take the easy way out. The repercussions will be you will not have this job in the future. We will vote you out.”
Guillotine, anyone?
Two days after thousands of student-led citizens of Louisiana – and millions across the nation – held the “March for Our Lives”, demanding stricter gun laws in the wake of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas school shootings in Parkland, Florida, a Louisiana Senate committee took up two bills filed in response to that tragedy. Both were prime examples of legislative disconnect.
The first bill, SB 178 by Sen. Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe) would allow students to carry bulletproof backpacks to school.
“Our kids need to know they can protect themselves,” Walsworth explained, “And this allows parents to protect their kids.”
The backpacks, which cost between $100 and $300 each, are a 180-degree turnaround from previous law, and rules imposed by many school districts. In the aftermath of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, districts began requiring students to carry clear backpacks, which can be purchased for $10-$20. And in 2014, the legislature passed a law prohibiting the wearing of body armor on school property.
“Do we want to do this? No,” Walsworth said of his bill. “We don’t want to think our kids are in danger. But in Florida, in what’s regarded as a very safe neighborhood, that didn’t save 17 children. This will allow parents to protect their child.”
The bill was advanced to the full Senate, without objection.
Next up was SB 406 by Sen. Neil Riser. It would let school principals recruit volunteer security for their schools – retired teachers or former military or law enforcement personnel who have concealed carry permits.
“Deadly force requires deadly force,” Riser said. “Now, with schools being ‘gun-free zones’, there’s nothing stopping these individuals. We have to be able to protect our kids from these domestic terrorists!”
Sen. Fred Mills (R-Parks) asked about the numerous statements and advisories from law enforcement, cautioning that responding to an active shooter requires consistent and frequent training.
“Do you think someone should have to have active shooter training before they fire to defend themselves? You have a right to protect your life with deadly force,” Riser replied. “Someone who has been in the military or law enforcement should meet the criteria. A veteran has been trained in active combat.”
The NRA, the Louisiana Shooting Association, and the Louisiana Family Forum filed cards in support of the measure.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police, Louisiana Association of Educators, United Way of Acadiana, Louisiana Partnership for Children and Families, and many others filed cards in opposition.
Sen. Troy Carter (D-New Orleans) moved to defer the bill, over its author’s objections.
“Thank you for trying to do what you think in your heart is right. Respectfully, I disagree,” Carter told Riser. “Numerous studies show past experience is not enough, and that proficiency declines without regular training. What does that translate to? Friendly fire kills innocent bystanders. This isn’t the answer.”
“Think about what we have right now – nuthin’,” Riser remonstrated. “Nuthin’.”
The bill was killed, on a vote of 4-3.
In another Senate committee, J.P. Morrell (D-New Orleans) was attempting to update the state’s marriage and family laws.
“Recommended by the Louisiana Law Institute, SB 98 changes marriage and family law, removing gender language to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges,” Morrell explained. “It simply changes the wording to ‘spouses’ from ‘husband and wife’, and from ‘mother and father’ to ‘parents’.”
But the executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum, Rev. Gene Mills, was having none of it.
“What this bill does is redefine marriage, changes it from being between a man and a woman to being between two natural persons,” Mills said. “SB 98 creates a collision course between the First Amendment and its guaranteed right of religious liberty, and Obergefell‘s created right of sexual license.
“In 2004, more than 609-thousand Louisiana voters went to the polls – 78% of our voting public – and clearly expressed their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. Enforcing a law because of a Supreme Court decision should not diminish Louisiana’s appropriate use of its definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Louisiana law reflects an expression that is the will of this state and its voting population, and I think it’s important that we continue to echo that, as a useful educational and historical state perspective. Louisiana law should reflect Louisiana values, not a definition that’s imposed by a judicial body from Elsewhere, U.S.A.”
Sen. Jay Luneau (D-Alexandria), an attorney, disagreed with the reverend’s version of the law.
“Mr. Mills, I don’t agree with you on your interpretations of what the Supreme Court’s decision said. And I can tell you that what I believe to be some of the brightest legal minds in the state of Louisiana, that serve on the Law Institute, feel totally contrary to what you’re sitting here telling us today.
“I would remind you of ‘Render unto Caesar’. You know, we live in this country and we’re part of this country and we have to abide by the decisions of the Court, whether we agree with them or not,” Luneau said.
“Senator, I respect that perspective. But I do disagree – both with you and the Law Institute on this. It’s not the first time,” Mills replied. “I remind you, the Supreme Court has reversed itself more than 200 times. I further remind you, with regard to the pro-life issue, we expect something similar. We have a stated position that Louisiana stands for a respect for life perspective, in hopes that one day there may be a different Court. And that 5-4 opinion in the case of Obergefell may not always be the lasting opinion or the final decision.”
“We also have to be fiscally responsible with our very limited resources here in the state of Louisiana,” Luneau responded. “We literally spent millions of dollars defending a couple of those pro-life cases, and we lost both of them. We can’t afford to do that anymore. I happen to agree with many of your beliefs, and we share that particular one in common, but you know what? When those kids are born, we have – as Christians – a responsibility to take care of them. But it’s difficult when we have the financial straits we have now. And if we keep going to court and fighting these issues we’re going to lose on, we aren’t being responsible – to those kids or to our citizens.”
Morrell waded back into the fray.
“Ladies and gentlemen, to be completely honest, I expected opposition. I did not expect this kind of opposition. You cannot selectively decide which Supreme Court cases you like and you don’t.
“I’ll give you a great example: I’m not a big fan of Citizen United: not a big fan of Hobby Lobby. But, as citizens of the United States, governed by the U.S. Constitution, when our Supreme Court makes a decision regarding the constitutionality or non-constitutionality of something, I think we have to adhere to it.
“As many of you might recall, when the Brown v. Board of Education decision came down, segregation did not end overnight. Many states – Louisiana being one of them – fought to remain segregated. When Loving v. Virginia happened – which is pertinent to this case – it happened in the 60s – until the 1974 constitution, interracial marriage was still illegal in the state of Louisiana.
“Now, I’ll tell you — the people that argued to keep segregation in place, to keep interracial marriage banned, made the same argument Mr. Gene Mills is making right now. ‘Let’s take a position, and because the Supreme Court has spoken, we’re going to hold out and keep that law on the books, hoping they change their mind.’
“There are children in the state of Louisiana who have two moms or two dads. But by keeping our law separate from the rest of the United States, you’re saying that in the state of Louisiana it’s okay for people like Mr. Mills to tell people that regardless of what that pesky Supreme Court says, those people should not enjoy the same rights as everyone else.
“For people who say, like Mr. Mills, ‘Well, the Supreme Court has reversed itself 200 times’ – for people who believe in anti-miscegenation laws, people who believe we should still be segregated, I guarantee you since Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia, they’re still holding out hope that the Supreme Court will come to its senses. I don’t want to join the ranks of those people.
“This is the law of the land, whether you like it or not.”
Sen. Luneau moved to advance the bill favorably, with Sen. John Milkovich (D-Stonewall) objecting. The vote was 4-1 to kill the bill.
During the course of the debate, it was noted that the Law Institute maintains a list of unconstitutional Louisiana laws that need to be repealed. It is currently 77 pages long. In light of that, Sen. Morrell should not have been surprised at the opposition or the reasoning behind it.
Two years ago, Sen. Dan Claitor (R-Baton Rouge) attempted repeal of the “Balanced Treatment Act”, a 1982 law requiring equal public school instructional time be given to evolution and creationism. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Edwards v. Aguillard, that the law was unconstitutional.
During the committee debate on that repeal, Sen. Milkovich used the same argument offered by Rev. Mills this time.
“If we’re scrubbing the books of all statutes which are unconstitutional, I think we must recognize what the courts deem to be constitutional or unconstitutional is sometimes a moving target,” Milkovich said in 2016, after citing the 1893 ruling in Plessy v Ferguson, allowing “separate but equal” accommodations for blacks and whites, versus the 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared “separate but equal” unconstitutional.
“I also have to give you a heads-up that former Senator Keith is a personal friend of mine,” Milkovich added then, referring to the author of the Balanced Treatment Act.
And this year, Milkovich has filed a resolution to commend former state Senator Bill Keith for “his support and endorsement of teaching creationism in public schools”. It is awaiting a second reading on the Senate floor.
During the special session in February, state Rep. Ted James told the full House, “You guys can have different opinions, but you can’t have your own facts,” echoing the words of the late U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Apparently, Louisiana’s Senate Education Committee didn’t get the memo.
Thursday’s committee meeting began with its vice-chairman, Sen. John Milkovich, in charge, as Chairman Blade Morrish was presenting his bills in other committees. First up was a bill by Sen. Conrad Appel, to establish a certification program for teachers with expertise in dyslexia.
Appel introduced his expert witness, Dr. Laura Cassidy.
“And you’re with…?” Milkovich asked.
“The Dyslexia Resource Center,” she replied.
“She’s with the Senator,” Appel interjected, to appreciative chuckles from the panel and the audience. (Her husband is Louisiana’s senior U.S. Senator, Bill Cassidy).
“She’s created a school here in Baton Rouge that’s been very successful,” Appel continued.
Not quite.
Dr. Cassidy’s school almost lost its charter this winter. Louisiana Key Academy’s charter was up for renewal at the start of 2018, but as the school had received “F” grades under the state accountability system for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 school years, it was eligible for closure. Yet because dyslexia is a disability, in February, BESE agreed to change the rubric for measuring that school’s progress, and granted a 3-year charter renewal.
The bill for teacher certification was approved, without objection.
(And take note: we’ll be coming back to charter schools later.)
Next, the committee considered Sen. Milkovich’s SB 253. He explained it by saying, “This just allows school employees to participate in faith-based activities before and after school, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their duties.”
Ummm, no.
That is current law.
Actually, Milkovich’s bill would instead permit school employees “to participate in student-led prayer activities at any time during the day, provided such participation does not interfere with the employee’s prescribed work duties.”
That’s potentially problematic, as it treads very close to the many U.S. Supreme Court decisions circumscribing the conditions under which prayer in public schools is permissible. The initial ruling, in Engel v. Vitale in 1962, involved a New York state-required prayer developed during the mid 1950’s, at the height of the “Red Scare,” also known as McCarthyism. (More on that, too, as we move along.)
Still, Senate Education Committee members, accepting Milkovich’s description of his bill, advanced it without opposition.
They also okayed Sen. Regina Barrow’s SB 224. It requires “display of the national motto ‘In God We Trust’” in every public school building in the state. It also requires instruction on that motto’s “patriotic custom”.
“We have seen the moral decay in our world,” Barrow said of her bill. “This will improve our schools. We need to display this patriotic motto to prepare and help our children – to make sure that they have that introduction to morality, because we can’t be sure they’re getting it at home.”
To borrow a line from The Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” “Moral” is defined as “of or relating to principles of right or wrong behavior.” In other words, “treat others as you would want to be treated” is morality. “In God We Trust”? Not so much.
Perhaps the senator might have herself benefited from some instruction on the history of the motto. It was first used on coins during the Civil War. Years later, President Theodore Roosevelt issued an executive order that it not be used, because he regarded it as sacrilegious. But again, in the mid-1950’s, when many feared the global takeover by “God-hating communists from Russia,” Congress passed Public Law 140, designating it the national motto and mandating its appearance on U.S. Coins and currency.
(Not coincidentally, this is the same era that placed the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance – prompted by the same fears of Russian dominance.)
And while it’s true that Tennessee and Florida have this year passed laws essentially identical to Barrow’s SB 224, challenges to the constitutionality of those laws remain a very real possibility, under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While challenges over the motto’s use on U.S currency have been tried and failed, the Supreme Court has traditionally been stricter about separation of church and state when those issues influence schoolchildren.
Yet to resounding compliments of “great bill” by committee members, this measure passed, without objection.
Senator Barrow’s next bill did not go as smoothly, however.
SB 292 would require the Louisiana Legislative Auditor to conduct a performance audit on charter schools before their charters could be extended. Barrow was joined in her presentation by Rep. Joseph Bouie, who is a retired Southern University-New Orleans professor in social work.
“Under the ‘Charter School Demonstration Act’, these schools were supposed to find evidence-based practices by experimenting, and reports on their research were required. But instead, the Louisiana Department of Education has implemented benign neglect of that purpose. They allow charters do whatever they want, without providing empirical data,” Bouie told the committee. “It’s time to stop the benign neglect.”
Noting that school performance scores are what have been used as the main guide whether to renew a school’s authorization to operate, Bouie also pointed out that the Superintendent of Education has changed the method of calculating school performance scores year over year.
“That alters the data. When we keep changing what is considered failing, we don’t get a true picture. And we’re 51st in the nation in education.”
That got under Sen. Appel’s skin. Appel, a Republican real estate broker from suburban Jefferson Parish, was chairman of the Senate Education Committee during Gov. Bobby Jindal’s second term, and was heavily invested in making the 2012 business- and industry-backed education reforms happen. (Appel was also the author of an ill-fated 2011 bill to merge SUNO with the University of New Orleans.)
“I totally reject your implication that there is some conspiracy to change or hide data regarding student performance,” Appel said. “As the former chairman of this committee, I can assure you we worked very hard to require transparency and accountability for every public school – and charters are public schools!
“And for your information, according to the most recent U.S. News and World Report, we are 45th in education.”
“Yet it appears that the only place the benign neglect happens is where there’s a majority African-American district,” Bouie continued, pointing specifically to New Orleans, which now has only charter schools instead of traditional public schools.
“Here’s one example. Tulane University documented, because they were doing some of the early data collection, that we have 24,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are out of school and out of work. They’re youngsters who came through the experiment – the charter schools. Now as a social scientist – because we have a crime problem in New Orleans– I looked at that age group of youngsters, those who are both the victims and the perpetrators, Sen. Appel. The ages were the same: 16-24.”
Appel started unraveling.
“Sir, let me tell you something – you are so far off-base with your racial comments. It’s disgusting! This committee has spent year after year after year trying to help all the children of this state. There’s no discussion of race here. There’s no discussion of people pushing kids off on the schools. Those same rules apply in every school in this state. If there’s a bunch of kids out of work that are 24 years old in the city of New Orleans, it’s because the god-damn city doesn’t produce jobs for those children. That’s why they’re out of work!” Appel shouted.
“But it’s not why, and I’m not going to let you say that,” Bouie replied, calmly.
“Oh, B-S! “ Appel yelled over him. “B-S!”
“The truth of the matter is, in the schools in New Orleans, you’re talking about 90% of those schools being African-American students,” Bouie said, stoicly.
“I don’t care if they’re purple! There’s no jobs in New Orleans! There’s no jobs!!! Don’t you understand that?” Appel thundered, waving his arms wildly.
“We’re talking about education,” Bouie responded.
“No, we’re talking about kids that are out of school because they have no jobs!”
Chairman Blade Morrish admonished Appel to calm down, but he leaned back in his chair, folding his arms in disgust and remarked, “It’s ridiculous!”
“Don’t take it personally,” Bouie said with equanimity. “It’s the truth.”
Appel leaned forward aggressively, saying,”I am taking it personally! You accuse us of being racists!”
“I didn’t accuse you…” Bouie began.
“You DID! There’s a camera recording it right there!”
“I said that 90 percent…”
“Rewind it! You go back and watch!” Appel screamed.
“I said 90-percent of those students are African-American,” Bouie remarked. “That’s what I said, and that’s true, Senator Appel – whether you like it or not. That’s true. You can’t change the facts.”
(And, apparently, you should never let the facts get in the way of a good old-fashioned hissy fit.)
But Morrish attempted peacemaking again, saying, “Conrad, members – take a deep breath.”
And while calmer discussion on the bill continued for some time, ultimately Senator Barrow voluntarily deferred the measure.
It’s interesting/ironic to note how many of these issues have links back to the mid-1950s – including questions of racial segregation and education equality raised by the charter school discussion. The landmark decision requiring desegregation of schools, Brown v. Board of Education, was handed down in 1954.
Here we are today, again looking at putting prayer and God in schools, just as national questions of Russian influence on our country’s affairs are again part of the national conversation.
It’s only been a couple of weeks since we turned out clocks forward, but one state lawmaker wants Louisiana to turn the clock back. No, this isn’t anything like the bill Florida’s legislature passed earlier this month – to stay on Daylight Savings Time permanently. Rep. Sherman Mack (R-Albany) wants to turn the clock back on a portion of the criminal justice reinvestment package passed last year.
“I don’t want to call it a ‘clean-up bill’, exactly, but the purpose of HB 195 is to make the criminal reforms we enacted last year better,” Mack explained to the Administration of Criminal Justice Committee he chairs.
Basically, the bill adds a “compliance hearing” to the probation process, and gives judges the discretion to increase probation from 3 years back to the 5 years that was the law before the changes were enacted.
Bob Morrisson with the Louisiana District Judges Association – a group that fought reducing probation times last year – said, “Because of the time it takes to go through the rehabilitation programs, three years probation ends up being – effectively – 18 months.”
Calcasieu Parish District Attorney John DeRosier also spoke in support, saying, “When we drop from five years down to three, then apply the ‘earned compliance credits’, probation time ends up being 18 months, rather than 36 months. That takes away the incentive to complete specialty treatment programs through the drug courts, alcohol courts and mental health courts we have established.
“Specialty courts make you do a lot. But now, if you’re a hardened criminal, all you have to do is lay low for 18 months and stay under the radar, get your compliance credits automatically, and you’re clear — rather than having to do what is required by the specialty courts.”
“Specialty courts and probation are alternatives to prison, right?” asked Rep. Ted James (D-Baton Rouge), who is a criminal defense attorney. “I don’t understand how you ‘fly under the radar’ on probation. You have to report to regularly to a probation officer.
“I have concerns for adding another hearing. An individual will have to take more time off from work – when the point of probation is often that they have a job and need to keep it. And on top of the probation fees that they’re already paying, they’ll have to hire a lawyer. This seems like a solution in search of a problem.”
“It’s an alternative to incarceration – you’re right,” Judge Morrisson responded. “But this is not necessarily adding another hearing at 18 months. It just gives the judges discretion to decide if the compliance credits actually are ‘earned’.”
Rep. Joe Marino (I-Gretna), who authored last year’s bill dealing with this part of the criminal code, objected to the entirety of Mack’s measure.
“This is not a clean up bill. One of the goals of criminal justice reform was to reduce probation time from five to three years, and let probation officers focus their attention on the time when an individual is most likely to fail. Most who are going to fail will do so within the first 12 months — that’s when most who are revoked get revoked.
“As for the concerns about this impacting the specialty courts – the reality is few jurisdictions actually have specialty courts. Statewide, only 1800 individuals are doing those programs, as compared to 70-thousand statewide who are on probation and parole.
“This is going backwards,” Marino insisted.
Sarah Omojola with the Southern Poverty Law Center agreed.
“Louisiana made the choice to enact the criminal justice reinvestment package last year – a package designed with input from victims, district attorneys, judges, sheriffs, and the Department of Corrections. This rolls back that progress. And make no mistake – the true intent of this bill is to undercut and render ineffective the package of criminal justice reforms that were passed last year.
“The legislation only took effect five months ago. We need to allow enough time for the law to fully take hold to be able to measure its success. If you do this, caseloads of already overburdened probation officers will spike, which contributes to high failure rates on community supervision, which in turn increases the prison population, and will increase costs.
“The savings Louisiana is counting on will disappear. We can’t afford this bill, “ she said.
Rep. John Stefanski (R-Crowley) jumped in, trying to counter some of the opposition to his chairman’s bill.
“This doesn’t change the earned compliance credits, does it? It simply gives judges the discretion to decide if it has been earned in a timely fashion, right?
“Right,” Mack responded.
But Rep. Barbara Norton (D-Shreveport) wasn’t about to let the SPLC representative’s argument about affordability be swept aside so quickly. She requested Corrections Secretary Jimmy LeBlanc to come to the witness table.
“Do you have any figures on savings since the Justice Reinvestment Act was implemented?” Norton asked.
“We’ve saved $16.3 million, as of the end of February,” LeBlanc stated. “That’s ten million dollars above what was projected – about two-and-a half times what was expected.”
Then Norton asked Mack, “Mr. Chairman, do you have numbers to show us it’s not working?”
“There are no numbers,” Mack said with a sigh. “This isn’t about money or savings. This is a bill to help people, keep them from going to jail and allowing them to do what was intended. It’s creating options.”
Rep. Tony Bacala (R-Prairieville) voiced his support, saying, “This is about probation, not parole. It’s not about the essence of our reforms, since probation is ordered in lieu of going to prison. So I’d like to move the bill favorably.”
But Rep. Denise Marcelle (D-Baton Rouge) objected, which required a roll call vote. It narrowly passed, 8-7, along party lines.
Afterward Marcelle said, “Isn’t it interesting – everybody was at the table last year, and now some want to go back?”
And Rep. Mack has two more bills to “tweak” the criminal justice reforms – both to be heard in his committee Thursday morning.
Just remember what Rep. Barry Ivey (R-Baton Rouge) said on the House floor during the special session, when he revealed the GOP House leadership strategy: “We don’t want the Democratic governor re-elected, and we don’t want to give him any kind of win.”
“You have to remove that button. It’s a display of protest and against the rules,” a Senate security guard told progressive activist Jennifer Harding as she entered the state Capitol Tuesday. He was objecting to the button, pinned to her purse, which declared “This is what a feminist looks like.”
She refused – loudly — and was ultimately allowed inside.
This came one day after Rep, Kenny Havard (R-St. Francisville) had again illustrated his sexism, by telling Angola’s warden, “You don’t need a bunch of ladies guarding men.” And it wasn’t Tuesday’s only incident of attempting to quell women into submission at the statehouse.
In a Senate Judiciary hearing, committee chairman Gary Smith of Norco went parental on Sen. Karen Carter Peterson, literally telling her, “That’s enough, Karen.”
At issue was a bill brought by Sen. Ronnie Johns of Sulphur, seeking to alter the rules governing riverboat casino. It would permit the facilities to move their gaming floors on land, and adjust upward the amount of gaming space allowed, in order to better accommodate newer, larger video slot machines. Johns maintains the purpose is, first-and foremost, modernization.
“Anyone who says this bill expands gaming needs to go back and read it,” he advised the committee.
“I disagree,” Sen. Greg Tarver of Shreveport replied. And since it is expansion, we also need to expand the current requirements for contracting with minority and women-owned businesses.”
Since the early 1990s, when the laws governing riverboat gaming were enacted, licensees have been required to establish voluntary goals for procuring goods and services from women-owned and minority-owned businesses. Most have set goals of 20 percent or less. Yet as recently as this week, management of three of the boats in the Shreveport-Bossier area were called to account by the Gaming Control Board for persistent failure to reach those goals.
“Didn’t three of the facilities admit they were falling behind on their minority and women-owned contract procurements?” Sen. Karen Carter Peterson asked the bill’s author. “Since this is changing a statewide policy, it’s an opportune time to address that problem, as well. We may need to defer this bill for a week.”
Peterson had some incisive questions for Louisiana Casino Association director Wade Duty.
“How diverse is your association? For example, what percentage of ownership are women and minorities?”
“I’m not sure,” Duty replied. “These casinos are owned by publicly traded corporations.”
“Then what about management?”
“Two casinos in the state have women managers,” he replied.
“And minorities?” Peterson pressed.
“I’m not certain,” Duty said, then added, “No wait. Mr. Woods, the assistant GM at Evangeline Downs is African-American.”
“So, minimal management,” Peterson retorted. “As I’ve often said, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”
Duty protested, saying, “Look, these goals were set in 1992. Everything has undergone upheaval since then – technology, for example. We didn’t even have cell phones back then.
“It’s a constant struggle. We need a statewide database of minority vendors,” he urged. “Hook us up with vendor lists for the goods and services we consume.”
“I hear this all the time, and it’s the biggest joke,” Peterson fired back. “Whether its tech or toilet tissue, I know too many vendors off the top of my head that qualify. Every urban community has a thriving minority Chamber of Commerce, so to say it’s a struggle? Maybe those who are ‘struggling’ need to be replaced!”
Sen. Tarver re-entered the conversation, clearly as incensed as Peterson at this point.
“I know minority-owned businesses that solicit and solicit and solicit your casinos and get turned away,” Tarver admonished. “They all have gotten the message: ‘they don’t want us.’ You have 200% more minority owned businesses than in ’92. And you still can’t find them?”
That’s when committee chairman Gary Smith interjected, “Let’s get back on track, and discuss riverboat gaming itself.”
“We’re on message, and for the last 30 minutes have been on message,” Peterson responded angrily.
“Karen, that’s enough,” Smith said, paternally.
Infuriated at being treated like a wayward child, Peterson stormed out of the committee room, leaving Sen. J.P. Morrell to pick up the pieces.
“At this time, I believe it’s appropriate that we defer this bill for a week,” Morrell suggested.
Johns, the bill’s author, was somewhat nonplussed by the animus that had just been on display, and said “I’d be glad to defer for a week, and in the meantime we can meet and discuss the concerns. I hear them clearly, and I think it’s a legitimate issue.
“I bring this bill, with an eye toward our budget issues. Gaming is an important business for our state revenues, and I brought this in good faith.”
Tarver, at this point chastened by the overt efforts at peacemaking, replied, “If you wish to defer, okay. But I take you at your word, that we’ll discuss these issues before the bill is brought up on the floor.”
“In that case,” Morrell said, “I withdraw my motion.”
Discussion on the bill continued politely then – at least until it was time for the public to speak in opposition. No one commented on the concerns raised in the earlier controversy – instead, two Baptist pastors spoke on the evils of gambling.
“It destroys lives,” thundered Dr. David Cranford of First Baptist Church in Ponchatoula. “You don’t deal with the effects, as we do, on a daily basis, but this creates pathological gambling addicts – an estimated 90-thousand in Louisiana, according to your own Department of Health.”
Despite those objections, the bill was approved, without objection, as Sen. Peterson had not returned to the room.
In another Senate Judiciary committee, a bill seeking more gender equity in criminal punishment did advance. SB 335 increases the penalties for those soliciting prostitutes to be equivalent with the ones enacted for engaging in prostitution. Currently, a customer can be fined up to $500, no matter whether it’s a first, second or subsequent offense. The prostitute faces a jail term, and increasing fines – going up to $4000 and 4 years in prison for a third or subsequent offense.
The bill’s author, Sen. Beth Mizell (R-Franklinton), promoted it as an anti-human-trafficking measure, saying “Incarceration for the johns has not been a consideration.”
Sen. Regina Barrow (D-Baton Rouge) responded, “You say incarceration – I say castration.”
And as for the Senate security guard who took issue with the feminist button? An investigation has been launched into his behavior. Apparently, it wasn’t his first incident of excess officiousness.
At Louisiana’s Capitol, where six goddess statues stand sentinel duty above the main bronze doors – where the “Goddess of Agriculture” reigns above the entrance to the Senate chambers and the “Goddess of Time and Knowledge” dominates the entrance to the House – and only 15-percent of the elected lawmakers are women, the day’s events should serve as a reminder of the words of Sojourner Truth, on September 7, 1853:
“You may hiss as much as you please, but women will get their rights anyway. You can’t stop us, neither!”
It’s safe to say the special session was a dumpster fire, but rather than taking precautions against a repeat conflagration during this regular session, it appears some lawmakers are not averse to tossing flammable materials on the smoldering embers.
Monday’s activities at the Capitol began innocuously enough, with the House Democratic Caucus announcing it had elected Marksville Rep. Robert Johnson as caucus chair, replacing Minden Rep. Gene Reynolds, who announced his resignation the final day of the special session.
Johnson issued a statement, saying, “Despite years of notice about the looming fiscal cliff, and billions of dollars’ worth of ideas to fix the problem – backed by a bi-partisan tax group – those leading the House Republicans have focused solely on setting up a Republican run for Governor in 2019. Our caucus is focused on solutions for families.”
Not to be outdone, a small group of House Republicans launched a Youtube video. Arrayed like kids in an awkwardly composed panoramic class photo, 21 of the House’s 60 GOP members appear in it. Modeling his delivery and gestures on every car dealer ad shown during the evening news, Caucus chair Lance Harris makes his pitch.
“We have a message for the citizens of this state: we’re fighting for you and we will continue to fight for you. Despite what you may hear or read, we do not have a billion dollar budget deficit. That’s fact. We’re looking to reduce spending and find every bit of savings we can, before we look at any portion of a tax renewal. Despite what some may say, you can’t spend your way out of debt.”
That’s obviously a direct contradiction to Gov. John Bel Edwards’ oft-repeated admonition that, “We can’t cut our way to prosperity.”
The House Appropriations Committee continued its examination of the budget proposal, calling in statewide elected officials and department heads to testify.
During the morning hearings, Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon appeared, as did Agriculture Commissioner Mike Strain. And though the Attorney General’s Department of Justice was quizzed closely about its spending growth from last fiscal year to the current fiscal year ($56.2 mil in FY 2017 to $75.6 mil in FY 2018), with a proposal to reduce the FY 2019 budget by 9% (to $68.8 mil ), Landry himself did not attend.
The afternoon Appropriations hearing brought the Department of Corrections to the table. At one point during the budget discussion, Angola Warden Darrel Vannoy spoke of his problems with retaining corrections officers, noting that a majority of those employed as guards are now women (598 female guards, 470 male guards).
Rep. Kenny Havard (R-St. Francisville) said he finds that concerning.
“I’m not the most politically correct guy in the room for sure — but you don’t need a bunch of ladies guarding men,” Havard said. “I mean, if a fight breaks out, do you want four ladies running down there to save you? Or do you want four guys?”
(Havard, if you remember, was the author of the infamous “stripper amendment” in 2016, urging weight limitations for exotic dancers, as long as the state was going to establish a minimum age.)
Over on the Senate side of the Capitol, the Finance Committee was revisiting a hot topic from the special session: to require a “fiscal transparency” website. SB 363 by Sen. Rick Ward (R-Port Allen) would facilitate the already ongoing process of converting all state agencies to a uniform operating system, and set a timeline for improvements and additions of information to the current state fiscal web portal LaTrac.
There’s a $30-million fiscal note attached to the bill however, and representatives from the state Supreme Court testified it would cost them another $20-25 million to bring the state’s judicial system into compliance.
Sen. Jim Fannin (R-Jonesboro) urged that the bill be set aside – for now.
“We’re looking at a budget that cuts higher ed and health care, but we’re looking at passing a bill that has a significant cost,” Fannin said. “I think taxpayers would like to have this info and have it readily available, but I don’t think many would say they would rather have this over TOPS and higher ed.
“I also don’t think, come July 1st, government’s going to shut down if we don’t pass this bill.”
As the committee had already agreed not to advance any bill with a cost attached, the bill was set aside.
In Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs, Sen J.P. Morrell’s proposed constitutional amendment to make local governing bodies’ approval for the granting of industrial tax exemptions (ITEPs) permanent, advanced to the Senate floor without any committee member’s objections. There was opposition to it, though, from business and industry groups.
“We suggest that the current setup within the constitution is adequate,” LABI’s Jim Patterson said. “Currently, the law allows the governor and the Board of Commerce and Industry to determine this. Leave it alone and let a future governor have the freedom to decide how to approach the issue.”
Morrell responded, “It’s interesting that whenever the previous governor tried to put his policies into statute, no problem. But whenever this governor’s policies are offered as law, it’s objectionable.”
When the full House convened in late afternoon, they got down to the business of advancing bills to the Senate, beginning with HB 90, by Rep. Kirk Talbot (R-River Ridge).
Presented as a “reform” of the capital outlay process, the bill requires that non-state entities seeking lines of credit through the Bond Commission will have to get House Ways & Means and Senate Revenue & Fiscal Affairs committee approval first. Currently, the Commissioner of Administration evaluates and presents those requests to the Bond Commission.
Democrats in the House immediately lined up to speak in opposition, pointing out the real intentions behind the bill.
“This is adding an additional step to capital outlay,” Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe) protested. “Ways & Means and Revenue & Fisc could usurp the will of this body! And what I’ve seen come out of Way & Means lately does not reflect the will of my district.”
“This is taking power away from the governor to decide what goes to Bond Commission, and giving it all to the Speaker, since he decides who’s on Ways & Means,” Rep Robby Carter (D-Amite) complained. “This is taking all the power from the governor and giving it to the Speaker and the majority party!”
“How will Ways & Means have time to this extra work?” Rep. Dorothy Sue Hill (D-Dry Creek) asked. “It seems they can’t do what they’re supposed to do now.”
“This is obstruction, and adding more bureaucracy,” state Rep. Sam Jones (D-Franklin). “This House is dysfunctional – we can’t even pass gas!”
But they narrowly passed this bill, 53-42.
Several more “reforms” to the capitol outlay process passed as well – each with amendments added to ensure Ways & Means and Revenue & Fisc would have the ultimate say.
Rep. Ted James then brought his bill to establish a rebate program for taxpayers willing to donate money to help fund GO Grants – a chronically underfunded state program to assist financially needy college students.
Numerous members of the Legislative Black Caucus spoke in support of the bill, but several of the hardline Republicans expressed reservations.
Rep. Rick Edmonds (R- Baton Rouge) worried that the money wouldn’t show up for inclusion in the Appropriations committee’s oversight of the budget. Rep. Tony Bacala (R-Prairieville) worried aloud that this might become a “boondoggle like the solar tax credit program.”
James advised that the rebates are capped at $5-million annually, and Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe) reminded the opposition that the concept continues the spirit of school vouchers and a tax rebate program that allows donations to support those.
Rep. Mark Abraham (R-Lake Charles) was adamant that donors should not be eligible for the rebate unless they had a tax liability to offset it, and said, essentially, that Jackson had her facts wrong.
That fanned some of the smoldering coals from the special session back into flames, with Jackson demanding an apology from Abraham. He replied, “I can’t apologize for being right,” which prompted a hubbub of complaints on the House floor.
James jumped in, saying, “Members, can we all calm down? There a lot of tension here. It’s a new session, and we have a lot of work to do.”
James’ HB 175 was approved, 68-23.
But there’s still smoke rising.
